Oh, Berkeley
From the San Francisco Chronicle, regarding the Downtown Planning Advisory Committee's recommendations on what Berkeley should do next:
----
Another potential problem with the plan is that no one knows if it's economically feasible. Developers might not be able to make a profit with the proposed height limits and green construction requirements, ultimately leaving downtown in the long-term slump it's in now.
"We're very much concerned. We want to see some real economic measurement," said Deborah Badhia, executive director of the Downtown Berkeley Association, which represents business owners. "There's a lot we agree with, but we very much want to see the business sector remain healthy."
The committee didn't look at economic factors it ran out of time, and "the majority (of members) felt they couldn't trust economists," Travis said. "We felt it was our job to come up with a Christmas wish list for the city. It's up to the parents to decide what we actually get."
----
When I think about how beautiful the town could be, and how it's run, I feel sad. I suppose two points pop out to me: 1) the committee didn't finish its work completely, but instead decided to turn in a speculative report, and 2) the committee does not appear to have wanted to economically vet the plan anyway ("the majority felt they couldn't trust economists").
I think the last point should have gotten that majority of the committee fired, but I don't think that will happen in Berkeley. My current bet: no one can economically develop given the constraints imposed by the plan, downtown continues to deteriorate as investements by UC, others are wasted.
Counterhypothetical: would downtown improvement proceed more smoothly without a planning advisory committee, but with a constant police presence instead?
----
Another potential problem with the plan is that no one knows if it's economically feasible. Developers might not be able to make a profit with the proposed height limits and green construction requirements, ultimately leaving downtown in the long-term slump it's in now.
"We're very much concerned. We want to see some real economic measurement," said Deborah Badhia, executive director of the Downtown Berkeley Association, which represents business owners. "There's a lot we agree with, but we very much want to see the business sector remain healthy."
The committee didn't look at economic factors it ran out of time, and "the majority (of members) felt they couldn't trust economists," Travis said. "We felt it was our job to come up with a Christmas wish list for the city. It's up to the parents to decide what we actually get."
----
When I think about how beautiful the town could be, and how it's run, I feel sad. I suppose two points pop out to me: 1) the committee didn't finish its work completely, but instead decided to turn in a speculative report, and 2) the committee does not appear to have wanted to economically vet the plan anyway ("the majority felt they couldn't trust economists").
I think the last point should have gotten that majority of the committee fired, but I don't think that will happen in Berkeley. My current bet: no one can economically develop given the constraints imposed by the plan, downtown continues to deteriorate as investements by UC, others are wasted.
Counterhypothetical: would downtown improvement proceed more smoothly without a planning advisory committee, but with a constant police presence instead?
Labels: Only In Berkeley, Rabid Liberals
posted by Tom Fletcher at 7:18 AM
7 Comments:
Agreed, ignoring the economics means this plan is just a list of unrealistic dreams. It saddens me too to see the downward spiral of downtown, let alone telegraph and southside. I don't trust the city government to make this happen - too many nimbyists to overcome even the slightest collective action problems. They're the ones who have let people's park become an outdoor homeless encampment and drug center, in the name of historic preservation.
first thing we do, let's kill all the bums
I realize that this would never work in Berkeley, but we COULD tell bums they can't sleep in doorways during business hours. Or sleep in people's lawns.
What's amazing is that this deterioration has happened while the rest of the Bay Area has enjoyed probably the longest-running, most-sustained economic book since the Gold Rush. And every other downtown seems to have been able to figure it out: look at SOMA, look at San Jose, look at Palo Alto, look at Mountain View, hell, even look at what Jerry Brown did in parts of Oakland.
And the result, of course, is higher city revenues that can be fed into shelters, health clinics, community centers, food banks, and the like to ensure prosperity s broadly shared.
They say politicians shouldn't claim all the credit when the economy is booming. But when things are going well everywhere else and the politicians managed to drive the city in the opposite direction, shouldn't every last one be fired immediately?
On a different topic . . . . The the next MPRE is Saturday, March 8th.
I'm considering giving review lectures at Boalt. Would one week in advance of the test be about right? Or more like two weeks?
And is it the case that almost all Boalties already have access to review lectures, so that my lectures would be redundant?
Thanks in advance for any replies, which can be posted here or sent to steele dot john at gmail dot com.
Beats getting robbed. Or shot. Or both.
On the subject of vandalism and shootings, which Bay Area law school is located in a less desirable location. Berkeley or Hastings? I don't find the tenderloin to be that awful, but I seem to be in the minority.
Post a Comment
<< Home