SB827: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
||
Line 17:
== Concerns ==
=== Concerns and involvement of local resident stakeholders could be overridden ===
Line 30 ⟶ 28:
@MarketUrbanism [https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/949747494371643394 6 Jan 2018]. <br/> "As for stopping cities from cutting bus routes, I would say do it based on current service *or* service that existed on Jan. 1, 2018."
=== Could lead to demolition and displacement in low-income areas ===
Line 38 ⟶ 37:
*blog post: "[http://www.crenshawsubway.org/sb_827_must_be_stopped_to_protect_south_la SB 827 Is a Declaration of War on South LA]." ''Crenshaw Subway Coalition ''blog, 5 Jan 2018.
=== new multi-story housing could negatively impact neighbors ===
Line 43:
=== Upzoing could create pressure for less well-off homeowners to sell and relocate. ===
Line 54 ⟶ 55:
@MarketUrbanism [https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/949747033795153921 6 Jan 2018]. <br/> "Setbacks and lot coverage rules that make the height limits weak. I would recommend forcing cities to accommodate FAR 2 within 45' zones, FAR 2.5 in 55' zones, and FAR 4 in 85' zones.
=== transit frequency needs to be better defined ===
@MarketUrbanism [https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/949747331099918338 6 Jan 2018]:<br/> "15-min headways needs to be defined more specifically. I would recommend defining it as total service along a route (so interlining is okay), and define it as, say, four buses within the 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. hours."
Line 76 ⟶ 77:
=== Does, could, or would this lead to wanted mixed-use development
Liquefaction and earthquake risk since the transit areas tend to be closer to the Bay
Kim-Mai Cutler @kimmaicutler<br/>
=== Pending nuclear holocaust makes planning exercises like this pointless ===
|