These Things AREN'T true

It is a fact that the Department of Finance expects the population trajectory of California to stay almost flat out until 2060. 

The shortage California has now is only for people who can’t pay market rate rent. The “All Level” planning requires about 40% of the new housing to be created for the luxury market. This focus takes away from the real deficit: affordability. 

California is not a uniform terrain. But all communities are expected to grow by about 15% by 2031. Cities with no major employers, limited infrastructure, geographical hazards, and fire danger are expected to grow at the same rate as major cities!  

Using this divisive term to describe those who favor housing policy implies that those who challenge it on its flaws are “anti housing.” This is also untrue. 

This is another divisive term. It stands for  “Not in My Back Yard” and implies that any community, city, or individual that challenges current housing policy for any reason, no matter how valid, is merely protecting their own self interests. In a clever marketing move, the proponents of the radical changes refer to themselves as YIMBYs — “Yes in my Backyard”

Buildings aren’t racist. This refers to the history of some neighborhoods of “redlining” — excluding non-whites from a planned residential development.  This odious has been completely illegal since the 1960s, Home ownership remains the tool for families to accumulate generational wealth, and historically populations were denied that ability. Instead of denigrating single family homes, wouldn’t it be better to welcome people of color into home ownership  — while strictly enforcing the laws against racist practices? 

The term actually describes the character — the looks — of the built environment, not the people who live there,  Many communities, especially in small cities, have created areas of visual harmony by having rules about the aesthetics of new structures. These longtime trends are now being aggressively attacked as being “anti housing” and “racist.” 

The term actually describes the character — the looks — of the built environment, not the people who live there,  Many communities, especially in small cities, have created areas of visual harmony by having rules about the aesthetics of new structures. These longtime trends are now being aggressively attacked as being “anti housing” and “racist.”