Protecting Single Family Home Neighborhoods from Negligent Developers. Good fight of faith continues...
.png)
Council Meeting 08-18-26
By Tom Wilson
The City’s proposed up-zoning helps the City, helps corporations, and helps billionaires, but, this predatory proposal is at the expense of all working-class neighborhoods.
Yes, up-zoning raises desperately needed property-tax revenue for the City and County. And, it helps the tech bros by building housing for their employees. But, this is all at the expense of “we the people,” THE MAJORITY, who you are supposed to be representing! Working-class residents bought modest, single-family homes in San Jose to escape the “packed-like-sardines” density of apartment living. Now, you want to bring apartment-living-density to them?
Based on the 1,100 pages of letters written to the City regarding up-zoning, the public is approximately more than 95% opposed. This is your worst solution to the housing crisis yet, so, I urge you to vote against it!
Among the unintended
consequences of up-zoning is a dramatic decrease to the quality-of-life for
working-class neighborhoods. With no accommodations for parking, no
infrastructure improvements, and with reduced set-backs and landscaping, you
are degrading living conditions for all. And, once up-zoning increases density,
then what? Housing will still be unaffordable, while issues resulting from
overcrowding will erupt into widespread discontent!
There are better
solutions to the housing crisis than sticking it to the middle class! The City
should survey people from single-family-home neighborhoods to explore them. The
vast majority of the public’s emails to the City strongly oppose the subject
zoning changes. So, regardless of any supporting interests, you must represent
“we-the-people,” the working class, THE MAJORITY, and vote NO on the
destruction of our single-family-home neighborhoods.
Robert
Mickanen
Down with
the Up Zone
The city’s
plan to Up Zone high density housing in single-family neighborhoods is just
bad. Do not kill the American Dream. Working class families that worked hard
all their lives, to achieve the American Dream of owning a single-family home,
should not have that striped away. This
entire proposal only benefits rich developers, rich companies, and politicians
who get rich from campaign contributions and kickbacks. We need our city
representatives to fight for us and not the special interest groups. Protect
our rights to a decent standard of living and the pursuit of happiness. San
Jose is already facing an infrastructure crisis with the need for electrical
power, water, road repair, and parking. Adding more people to a neighborhood
that was never designed or intended to accommodate that amount of a mass
population is just plain crazy.
Sandra Mickanen
This housing
crisis,
is nothing,
compared to the number of new crises you will create
if you
indiscriminately start packing and stacking people in neighborhoods currently
zoned for single family homes
Do not pack
and stack people without full realization that each dwelling and each
individual
Require
water resources -which san jose is
already working to conserve
- require
energy, power resources,
- require
and impact garbage, sewer systems,
Each person deserves to count on San Jose’s first responders -Police, Fire, Ambulance, Hospitals.. all of which are already over-taxed and functioning below optimal staff levels.
Traffic is
impacted significantly; There is a much
longer list.
It is
negligent to pack and stack people in San Jose’s single family home
neighborhoods. You will only be
creating a variety of new crises. [60 second cut off]
I would
argue, the direction to go, is more single family homes for attracting
families. Let San Jose lead the way in
the return of the American Dream: owning
your own home.
Shift your
attention and problem solving skills to building more single family home
neighborhoods and make those homes more affordable.
Solving that
problem is what prevents the other problems from turning into new crises.
Elva
Wilson
We know it will be a fresh tool for predatory landlords to exploit vulnerable tenants by cramming even more renters into tiny cramped spaces to house people like cattle.
Accepting this proposal is bad for ALL of San Jose, but it is SYSTEMIC OPPRESSION for lower income neighborhoods.
Please consider the negative unintended consequences.
it appears developers (and the politicians who back them); their greedy ambition is carte blanche access to single family home neighborhoods. -while there are ample places.. downtown san jose.. nearer mass transit... in unused vacant business areas, where infrastructure is already designed for higher populations; much more appropriate.
some of the psychological & spiritual warfare involved:
as always.. pitting people against each other
-people living in apartments/multi-plexes sharing "i'm not the boogeyman" "does it mean i'm a terrible person because i live next to a single family home, but i'm in a condo?"
-don't fall for it.
Not one of us, is suggesting that anyone living in a multiplex, apartment, condo, townhome is a boogeyman or terrible person; none of this is about the character of individuals or families living in high density housing.
it is a fight against negligent developers and protection of the american dream; it is about being responsible with limited resources, like water, electricity, sewer system, first responders, streets, parks, -it is very much about infrastructure. it is about the opportunity to own a house; to turn that house into your own home, to enjoy a front yard, back yard, a driveway, a garage; to be a part of a neighborhood and community where there is a healthy balance between the number of people, space, and the amount of resources; it is about that culture and quality of life remaining available for people seeking that culture and quality of life for themselves and their families.
those of us in this good fight of faith,
we don't view anyone living in high density housing as bad; period.
those of us in this good fight of faith -what we do see,
is developers (and the politicians who back them) who stand to financially gain, who don't care about other people's quality of life, -who are comfortable lying, deceiving, manipulating to achieve a goal which profits them; and burdens others; who make short-sighted, selfish decisions, and are never held accountable.
they are more than happy to replace every single, single family home [unless it is their own].
... they are more than happy to turn every single family lot, into a high density housing multi-level multiplex. more than happy, to eliminate front yards, eliminate back yards, take away garages, parking..
sidewalks.
to place the front of their multi-level multiplex as close to a curb as possible; remove landscaping..
with no care, or accountability for the resources required by each individual in each dwelling.
they are more than happy to destroy the single family home, single family home neighborhoods, to overdevelop, take the money and run.
so, LIE/TACTIC number one: pit us against each other:
people living in high density housing vs. people in single family homes and neighborhoods.
that takes our eyes off their greedy ambitions.
LIE/TACTIC number two:
developers shift the blame/shame: make it so that people in single family homes are viewed as the privileged greedy ones; not the developers or politicians who back them -how selfish for anyone to live in a single family home when we can potentially squeeze 5 or 7 or 9 families on your lot instead. /reap the property tax values and let you fight it out for resources, space and services.
it is, has been, and should remain one of 'the american dreams' -this opportunity to own your own home.
many people have sacrificed much, worked long, hard hours, over decades, -for the majority of single family home owners, it is their work ethic and discipline over many years that allowed them to purchase a house they turned into their home; paying mortgages and property taxes decade after decade
what single family home owners see happening in real time: the opportunity to be a home owner being stolen all together; -stolen. where, if developers get their way. our children and grandchildren will only have multi-level multiplexes to choose from.
THAT IS THE REAL FIGHT HERE. Protecting the opportunity to own a single family home in a single family home neighborhood.
LIE/TACTIC number 3: replacing single family homes with multi-level multiplexes solves the 'affordability' problem.
The effort should be to make single family homes in single family home neighborhoods more affordable. The multi-level, multiplexes on the market today are still not 'affordable'
The affordability issue has much more to do with the ratio of workers/professionals to employment opportunities; and earning potential -inflation; cost of living
-supply & demand of course.
how many people are demanding to raise their family in an over-crowded, resource-taxed, yardless, multi-level, multiplex with zero parking? how many people are demanding to have their infrastructure strained; their fundamental resources, -severely taxed and restricted
[* note here: effort by current administration, Pres Trump, to stretch out home loans over 40 or more years vs. current 20+. /this worked with car loans.. gave access to cars to many more people
also: effort by current administration to address the issue of corporations buying up single family homes and multi-plexes, so no young people or young families can ever own their own home; only rent indefinitely]
there are so many real life monopolies taking place
LIE/TACTIC number 4: replacing single family home lots with multi-level multiplexes solves the 'housing crisis'
see above.
you can use your imagination to see what san jose looks like, without any single family home neighborhoods, -all replaced with multi-level, multiplexes, -envision 10 years, 20+ years ahead..
you can use your imagination to see what san jose looks like, if we continue to preserve and protect our current single family home neighborhoods.
and envision, what it might look like, if we invest in even more single family homes and single family home neighborhoods; and make them 'achievable' make them 'affordable'
make them, 'own~able' where people are not forced to rent indefinitely.
there are in fact, in the real world, not our imaginations, great examples of both scenarios that already exist for you to look at and assess..
i trust you will also come to the conclusion that single family homes and neighborhoods are very much worth fighting for.
/i think.. how much time, money, expense.. trying to 'end car culture'
but there is, naturally, a much better balance.. regarding traffic in general..
and resources.. and services... and space...
when you are not packing and stacking people
-in progress..
posted by SANDRA MICKANEN @ 3:49 PM
0 comments
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
