Comment Log Display

The final plan should have a much higher target for reductions
achieved by more compact urban growth, coupled with assistance to
local governments for planning and possibly even infrastructure
costs associated with density (like increases in sewer capacity in
areas going more dense than planned). Not only will this reduce GHG
 to a level closer to the necessary targets, but it also preserves
more agricultural and open space land. 

As a former San Jose Councilmember, I know that densification is
difficult, but doable. It might help them to address community
opposition if the added power of the state's GHG land use policies
can be cited as part of the reason to increase densities. Too many
cities have not, or are not, meeting the need to provide housing
for a growing population, which also pushes growth into new areas.
A tougher GHG policy will have the added benefit of encouraging
cities to meet their housing goals. 

I know you are receiving opposition from some builders of
single-family housing. San Jose has shifted substantially from s-f
to a much higher proportion of m-f and even high rise housing.
There is no shortage of builders wanting to do the work -- and some
s-f builders are moving into the mid-density range to meet demands.
As the market changes, so do they!