Comments on: Special Council meeting on climate change tonight

By: David

David — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 04:42:00 +0000

But they’re not interested in doing something useful; they’re interested in kowtowing to the fools who bought into this shamanistic new religion, distracting the locals with this Hopium of the quasi-Marxist Oakland masses so that they don’t bother to ask why the city is on course to bankruptcy.

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:50:24 +0000

Actually, it does matter.

Under the new California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines for analyzing and mitigating GHG impacts caused by new development projects that emit GHG (which, among others, includes any project that attracts car trips), a local agency can make a finding that the GHG impacts of such a project are less than significant if the project is consistent with a local climate action plan. Such a finding can mean the difference between having to prepare an extremely expensive and time consuming environmental impact report or a much less expensive negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration.

By: Max Allstadt

Max Allstadt — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:48:16 +0000

Ordinarily I’d explain this idiotic waste of the Council’s time by saying that they all think that appearing to have a strong ecological conscience is good for them politically.

But that’s not how the citizens are thinking right now. We’re not worried about 2020. We’re worried about whether or not total bedlam and mayhem will break out in Oakland in 2011 or even before that.

I have half a mind to go down to that meeting, sign up to speak, and cede all my time to Sanjiv just to punish the council for wasting our time.

This is unbelievable. This should be one item in a meeting. Staff report. Questions. Vote. Done. Instead they’re going to take an entire night up on it, when they ought to be dealing with dozens of more immediate issues.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:19:39 +0000

oakie, those are things that would encourage good behavior instead of punishing undesirable behavior, so they can’t be considered, of course.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:12:27 +0000

KenO, because small towns have lower costs of living than the central bay area, exporting poverty beyond the suburbs would also help raise the standard of living for the poor.

By: oakie

oakie — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:00:27 +0000

As usual, a lot of hot air. If they REALLY wanted to do something, how about exempting all electric vehicles from parking fees. And for carbon neutral vehicles that run on recycled vegetable oil (well, I have a dog in that fight). But, of course, the usual MO in the Bay Area is to talk alot, pose as if you’re morally superior, and actually do nothing.

By: Ken O

Ken O — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:00:04 +0000

robert, mva sounds good for studying ghgs.

definitely northern cities have higher heating needs, while lower climes have greater cooling needs. cooling seems easier to me than heating: just add greenery.
(uhi effect, etc)

there’s also energy intensity of fresh drinking water to consider, in which case SF/Oakland probably rate higher than Los Angeles, San Diego or Long Beach.

then, importation of fresh water via fresh fruit from Mexico or Chile which you can find ample quantities of at Oakland’s Whole Foods store, or frozen broccoli from China at Trader Joe’s.

LA proper has high bus use. Vancouver has higher bus use than Portland has train use.

ralph, i’m not a fan of enforced affordable housing either. i’m all for affordability, just not by government fiat. if OHA sold its properties Chicago style you’d see more people of means moving to Oakland but that only exports poverty to suburbs so not sure that is wonderful either.

US has plenty of social engineering under its belt i’m not surprised to see more of it and more extreme versions in the future

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:56:22 +0000

Steve, I would have preferred the ballpark option for Uptown, but we didn’t get that either. Would have done wonders for business in dto.

By: Ralph

Ralph — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:52:01 +0000

Uptown Apts – is a prime example of evils of affordable housing. But I am glad that it is beginning to fatten up.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:46:19 +0000

Steve, HSR is going to SF, which from a transportation perspective makes the most sense (although it doesn’t help Oakland).

Nothing is wrong with adding more housing to dto, but there also needs to be the addition of jobs and shopping.