Published March 25, 2013
BY DAVE PRICE
Daily Post Editor
One of the things we expect our government to do is combat racial prejudice, not promote it.
So I was taken aback when I read the draft of the One Bay Area plan released Friday by two powerful regional agencies, the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
This is a 156-page document that maps out the future of the nine-county Bay Area, predicting that the population will jump by 29% to 9.3 million in 2040, and that we need to build apartment complexes for all of those new arrivals. Much of it will go on the Peninsula near the Caltrain tracks.
More about that in a moment. But what caused my jaw to hit the floor was the discussion on page 8 of the report about racial changes in the Bay Area and how that applies to housing.
‘Historic preference’
The report notes that the percentage of Latino and Asian residents will increase in the years ahead. OK, that’s not news.
Then the report opines: “Both population groups have demonstrated an historic preference for multifamily housing, and they form multigenerational households at a higher rate than the general population.”
Think about that for a minute. A more accurate statement would be that these groups, because of widespread and pervasive housing discrimination, have been forced to crowd into apartment houses in low income areas. Asians and Latinos didn’t “demonstrate an historic preference” for such housing. It was their only choice because they were excluded in the past in all white areas.
If you read the real estate transactions printed in the Post, you’ll see that the expensive homes in our area are being purchased by people with Chinese names. When Asians have a choice and the means, they buy single family homes in nice areas just like whites did in the past. I think the same could be said of Latinos.
Desiring to live in a crowded apartment building isn’t a tendency based on race. This kind of prejudice is startling and sad to see in 2013. We should be promoting a color-blind society, not basing our research on racial stereotypes.
Reaction
The Post called Metropolitan Transportation Commission spokesman John Goodwin to ask him about this statement, and he said he wasn’t quite sure where it came from.
Palo Alto Mayor Greg Scharff told the Post on Friday that he was “flabbergasted” by the statement.
“In my experience, most everyone has a preference for single-family housing,” Scharff said.
This makes me wonder how many other flawed assumptions are made in this report.
Reading through this draft plan, other things caught my eye: One of the plan’s goals is to “Increase the average daily time walking or biking for transportation by 70% (for an average of 15 minutes per person per day).”
They’re planning big changes in all of our personal lives.
Another goal is to “reduce by 50% the number of injuries and fatalities from all collisions (including bike and pedestrian).” I’m all for safety, but how will this be accomplished when we pack more people into small spaces?
The plan says ABAG and MTC are sticking by their much-disputed estimate that the Bay Area will have 9.3 million people by 2040. The state Department of Finance says the number will be much lower because growth began to level off about 10 years ago. The population estimate matters because it’s used by ABAG to compute the housing quotas for each city.
“Substantial housing production is expected on the Peninsula and in the South Bay, where eight of the top 15 cities expected to experience the most housing growth are located,” the report said. “Two-thirds of the region’s overall housing production is directed to these 15 cities, leaving the more than 90 remaining jurisdictions in the region to absorb only limited growth.” In other words, they’re sticking it to us.
On page 80, the authors of this report come as close as I’ve ever seen the transportation bureaucracy get to admitting that carpool lanes are a failure.
The plan talks about adding “express lanes” to freeways throughout the Bay Area. Solo-drivers would pay to use these lanes though carpoolers would be admitted for free.
“Express lanes make better use of carpool lanes that often sit empty while solo drivers are stuck in traffic.” The map on page 81 shows that we’re moving to toll “express lanes” in most parts of the Bay Area.
This is being done without any kind of vote of the people. These unelected boards (ABAG and MTC) will push it on us, whether we want it or not. My term for these “express lanes” is “1% lanes” because they cater to the richest in our society, when in fact all of us have paid to build these roads.
On page 82, the report shows that one day you’ll have to pay a toll to enter the northeast quarter of San Francisco (everything east of Laguna Street and north of 18th Street). The area behind this toll wall will include North Beach, the Financial District, South of Market, Nob Hill and Russian Hill.
Your chance to speak out MTC and ABAG will hold a hearing on this plan for Santa Clara County residents at 7 p.m. on May 1 at the Hilton Hotel, 300 Almaden Boulevard, San Jose.
The hearing for San Mateo County residents is set for 7 p.m. on April 29 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 1221 Chess Drive, Foster City.
The two agencies say they expect to approve the plan in July.
Editor Dave Price’s column appears every Monday.
From what I’ve been told by people living in multigenerational families in a crowded apartment (volunteering at a church food pantry), it’s socioeconomic and a cultural thing. We have to ask the number of people in a household, and whether you believe them or you think they’re saying there are more in the household to get more free food depends on your mindset. I listen to their stories, and some people really enjoy their multigenerational lifestyle. Who are we to judge or assume? Only they know the truth, and they’re entitled to their privacy.
What’s wrong with you? Nobody wants to live in a ghetto. Whites live in the nice neighborhoods and immigrants have their place. That’s segregation.