> A mid-rise next door is not going to hurt you anything like a 2-hour commute or turning down a dream job hurts someone else.

If it's displacing your access to transit, it may hurt you exactly like a 2 hour commute hurts someone else.

High density creates the critical mass to support better, faster, and more frequent transit.

> High density creates the critical mass to support better, faster, and more frequent transit.

High density that, as some have suggested in this thread, displaces parking access to the transit, prevents people not in the new high-density development who previously used the mass transit from accessing it; it might (or might not) induce, with the long lead time that major capital improvements have, projects which provide new infrastructure and access to replace what is lost, but that's likely a decade or longer delay after the negative impact to, maybe, get back to status quo ante for those adversely affected.

Of course, that optimisticallty, assumes that there isn't an active political move to prevent transit access to those not in high-density developments, an agenda which some in this thread supporting the new bill have endorsed.

In our society where we generally use pricing to distribute limited goods, your desire to drive to and park at a train station, at no or low cost, is irrelevant next to the market price of that land when that price is about 6-10 million dollars per acre.

What you're asking for is a massive external regulatory subsidy in order to prevent the market from functioning, just because you like your car.

As a former BART station parking user: it’s not about liking your car, but your time. When you get used to a 10 minute drive, no one wants to switch to a 30 minute walk or 40 minute bus ride.

Point still stands, if you paid for the true cost of parking no one would bat an eye, but the current regime subsidized car use to an insane extent through inefficient land use policies. A true “market rate” bart parking spot would likely be many multiples above the current price when all costs, alternative uses, and competition are factored in.

AFAIK the private lot at West Oakland is still under $15. Well worth it. But yeah, the $3 BART charges is comically low. If it’s full by 7am, it’s too cheap!

You need to widen the universe of competition when you price parking. The universe of competition for an empty parking space is not just "everyone who would want to park here for a day" it is also "all alternative land uses to parking, including housing". A more profitable, and thus more efficient, use of the land would convert likely 99% of all BART parking land to apartments, retail and office space.

Mid-rise subsidized-affordable housing (what will realistically make it through the community's discretion, if anything at all) isn't that efficient.

Communities whose voters highly value parking should feel free to acquire sites and provide it at public expense. I’m very glad that Berkeley does downtown, for example.

When you choose to move somewhere, you're not just moving into an isolated square on the map. You're moving into a lifestyle and a neighborhood with attributes you desire. Those desirable attributes can include "no mid-rise apartments next door".

Apartments springing up next door hurt, if one of the primary reasons you move somewhere is that there are no apartments next door.

Sure, and now we’re asking the state to consider whether maintaining what you like about your neighborhood is sufficient justification to write public policy that denies opportunity to others.

Lots of things hurt. It's not the government's job to make all of those things illegal.

Where I live, the government's job is to support the will of the people electing them, within constitutional limits.

The government's job is to balance the will of the people with the rights of minorities.

If 51% of people voted to outlaw single family houses would that be acceptable? Of course not. People should be able to build the type of housing that they want to on their own property.

Until very recently laws against gay marriage were Constitutional. Was the government doing it's job well when it passed these laws?

No, it was not. There are underlying principles of good government that should constrain citizens and politicians further than what is strictly defined in the constitution.

That is the case being made here: NIMBY zoning laws, while constitutional, are not ethically or philosophically sound so we shouldn't have them.

And the will of the people of California appears to include affording its cities, and not to include an unlimited tolerance for single family neighborhoods dumping externalities on everyone else.