San Diego has all the time built new housing, and can proceed to do so. We’ve all the time been a city that welcomes these eager to stay here. Presently there’s have to focus elevated power on house constructing, both as a result of demand, but in addition as a result of the state has mandated we achieve this. That doesn’t imply we should always disregard good planning and strong group involvement in the course of. Nice cities attempt to satisfy the needs of adjusting occasions with the aspiration of great design. Good urban planning and housing are related, it’s not one or the other.
Nevertheless, we’ve entered a needlessly polarized surroundings with inaccurate and unsatisfying acronyms: NIMBY and YIMBY, leading us down a rabbit-hole of improvement tradition wars. Are YIMBYs actually suggesting we should always permit builders to build anything anyplace they want? Are NIMBYs preventing every new challenge proposed in their neighborhood? In hopes of lower housing costs and profit to the setting, do millennials not care about good design or defending the quality of life in San Diego? Are boomers preventing to keep new improvement out of their neighborhoods to selfishly improve the value of their houses?
Related: Why San Diego neighborhoods should embrace denser future
I don’t consider that’s the reality of the place we’re, however I steadily expertise that polemic. I encounter youthful density warriors in Next Door dialogs and planning meetings. While I welcome their participation within the improvement dialog, I’m typically annoyed that their complete position is that our city ought to approve tasks with none group input (except theirs). I read about communities preventing quite a lot of housing tasks, not out of greed, but out of affection of their group, and justified worry of change.
What I worry is that the simplistic device of making good guys and dangerous guys, is a self-serving tactic of these whose agenda shouldn’t be useful to the group’s higher good. Builders, responsible to their backside line and international buyers, benefit drastically by excluding the group from the process. Our legislators, who sadly appear to have too-cozy relationships with builders, discover their political ambitions enhanced. Lobbyists and never-for-income, finding developers straightforward sources of funding for their (unrelated) agendas, cynically provide gasoline for this harmful hearth.
Bankers Hill’s ongoing battle at 6th Ave and Olive Road illustrates what’s incorrect with the best way this civic state of affairs is at present being negotiated. There is a giant listing of players: an enormous international developer, a beautiful website, formidable politicians, a money-hungry land owner, a civically-lively group, metropolis-related lobbyists, not-for-income shifting beyond their applicable mandate into constructing design, and properly-intentioned youthful activists getting into land use debates for the first time. At present, this kitchen-sink of individuals creates a dynamic that has no room for good city planning. Notably…