By Lynne Miller
As a local Obcean I have watched in ignorance and silence as a slow virus spread in our cottage community. This virus is carried in the minds of humans. The ideas that create and propagate the virus can begin anywhere. ‘This’ mind virus is a designer virus. Its origins are not easily identified. The symptoms are not easy to connect. John Denver’s line, ‘more people, more scars upon the land’ defines a symptom.
Hey, it is inevitable, it is just progress. Come on OBceans, accept the new ideas packed into SB9 and SB10. What kind of people are you?
The state wants more people, more high density, affordable housing. The City created, by executive decree, new laws, that trump Coastal Commission and Environmental law. Are you trying to protect your community?
Should we protest the mandated virus, mandated through elected officials’ executive orders? Mandates that ignore the laws that govern coastal and historic communities.
Do remember when any time of the day you could leave OB and get to the freeway in under 3 minutes. There was a day long ago when I could get into my old Studebaker, leave my home on Santa Cruz Ave and arrive at the San Diego State parking lot in 12 minutes. It took longer to find a place and get to class than it did to drive to State.
Leaving OB in today’s world includes a stream of traffic, and after sunset you can count on a 20 minute drive just to get to the freeway. What happened? We didn’t notice what was in plain site, at least I didn’t.
The concept ‘slow growth’ was removed from our thinking. Replaced by design was a seed of this new virus of the mind. The seeds with mantras of more housing, dense housing on less land, affordable housing. Laws were passed after the seeds in our mind embraced high-density housing. Look around at the results.
Oh, and for those of you whose seeds of environmental efficacy have sprouted in your mind, you probably embrace building UP as a strategy for protecting our land. It is not your fault, it is part of the mind virus.
Did you know when you pave paradise, and ‘build’ that you contribute to climate change? Yep. More buildings create an urban island heat affect. Having more and more buildings and less and less nature in our communities we change the earth’s albedo. Huh? That is the ratio of incoming solar radiation to reflected outgoing. Day to day use of buildings (like a 20 unit apartment on small space with no landscaping) account for 28% of global emissions.
Our virus, seeded and nurtured by government ideas and Big Corporation Construction, have sprouted, much like the McMansions, ADUs, and Apartments in OB. Somehow, OB needs to reboot its history, remember its protests and the power of community.
[Lynne asks readers to email her to be added to a mailing list, but we don’t publish individual email addresses, so if you do wish to get on her list, email us at obragblog@gmail.com ]
Trying to define this here. Entrenched anti-big business elitist nimby’s with property values on prime land who just woke up? Of course the state wants more people. More taxes to spend on the designer lifestyle being pedaled/manipulated as climate change (not a dispute of climate change). Walk able communities, mass transit, the green policies being manipulated by the state in bed with the utilities to take the solar you produce. Don’t worry, rising minimum wages are forcing big business out, see Rubio’s for the most recent casualty. Do you think the little business will afford this also if big business can’t? The protests and power of community have been neutered by vacation rentals. There’s a lot of moles to whack here, LOL.
Love to compare new homes in a community, with new opportunities for folks’ kids and grandkids to stay in SD, to a VIRUS! Very welcoming mindset!
Also, Lynn, I simply have to correct your comments on the idea that building infill housing increases climate change. Just a categorically untrue statement.
From the Environmental Center of San Diego – “Urban infill development isn’t just good for the communities; it’s good for the environment. This type of development can reduce the impact of sprawl development by revitalizing urban centers and make every inch of land use as effective as possible.
Since residents of urban infill centers don’t need to travel as far or as long, urban infill can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions while also improving local air quality.
Urban infill centers are also prime candidates for sustainable city design, such as green storm water systems and eco-friendly public transit. This helps reduce the storm water runoff that can flood and pollute surrounding waterways.
By utilizing every inch of land wisely, urban infill development decreases the impact of habitat fragmentation that threatens our vulnerable wildlife populations. This helps local critters access the areas they need to feed, grow, and repopulate. “
We are OB! If the new sewage spills into the ocean, oh well. Think of all the people with a place to live! If you live in a documented historic building and do not want 3 stories plus those rooftop decks next door, oh well! The wildlife will love it. Seagulls can nest there. Rats can leap from roof to roof! If that is fun for you, there is always Little Italy. Drive through there, and look at the remaining Historic Buildings. Drive through again. Did you find any?
OB Ted – Wouldn’t it make more sense from a climate perspective to build high rise housing downtown, near plentiful mass transit options, rather than 3-story buildings in OB with no parking and no transit on weekends (923 bus)?
The argument for more infill development is well documented but difficult to move forward on because only private developers can primarily take advantage of the changes in code which allows for this new development. I agree with some of the outrage against some of the abuse of these new rules because they do ruin the character of our communities. However people who want to make improvements to their properties and add some more units should have some rules (code) to go by. The OB Rag needs to lead a thoughtful discussion about this. Sometimes their reporting does this. Sometimes it seems like they want to get out front and lead the outrage machine for the rest of us. That doesn’t work because then they can’t be trusted as a neutral party trying to develop consensus.
News organizations have bias in their reporting. That comes with the territory. Complaining a left progressive organization needs to be neutral in discussion, as a moderator, is the same argument for Brietbart to be neutral. There’s a constant eval in what is reporting and what is opinion with every piece. IMO.