California’s war on cars

Last year the very confused Guv Brown took $350 million from gas taxes and other tax dollars meant to fix our streets and freeways to build bike lanes, walking and horse trails. Now we are going into a Special Session of the legislature to raise taxes, to pay for the fixing of streets and freeways. If he hadn’t misused the money in the first place, this would not even be considered. Then we have cities using street maintenance money to build and/or expand bike lanes—to assure gridlock and more accidents on our streets.

Let us not forget the $200 billion in tax money he is wants to use to build a choo-choo to nowhere, for nobody, while stealing private property and running a train that will be bankrupt within moments of its opening—not enough riders to pay for the salaries of the Board of Directors of this boondoggle.

“In the California State Legislature, the newest salvo in the war on cars can be seen in Assembly Bill 744 (AB 744) which, if enacted into law, would bar cities and counties from requiring that there be more than one parking space for every two bedrooms in a housing project.

Thus, a California city or county, under the proposed legislation, could not impose a regulation requiring a developer to have 50 or more parking spaces for a 100-bedroom building.

The goal is to force you to walk or ride a bike to work. We already know that in LA and other large cities government transit could easily take 90 minutes, one way, to get to work.

carpool-lane

California’s war on cars

by Richard Colman, Contra Costa Bee, 6/25/15

Without much public awareness, California is waging war on cars and places to park them.

AB 744 is the newest salvo in California’s War on Cars

In the California State Legislature,the newest salvo in the war on cars can be seen in Assembly Bill 744 (AB 744) which, if enacted into law, would bar cities and counties from requiring that there be more than one parking space for every two bedrooms in a housing project.

Thus, a California city or county, under the proposed legislation, could not impose a regulation requiring a developer to have 50 or more parking spaces for a 100-bedroom building.

Critics of the legislation claim that allowing fewer parking spaces might result in more cars being parked in nearby neighborhoods, leading to community resistance to future development.

Critics also say the real goal of AB 744 is to reduce car ownership.

California’s War on Cars

The AB 744 legislation is not the first assault in the war on cars and the use of motor vehicles. In the Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) ruled that certain employers, beginning September 30, 2014, would have to compensate employees who used public transportation. MTC and BAAQMD told these employers that they would have to hire a Commuter Benefits Coordinator to keep track of the expenses of those employees who used public transportation.

In July 2013, MTC and another regional governmental agency, ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments), voted for Plan Bay Area, a scheme to allow Bay Area communities to contract high-rise, high-density housing near transit hubs such as BART stations.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is now requiring the state’s cities to have a Housing Element, a plan to add extra homes in cities that may already be full. A certain portion of houses constructed under the Housing Element have to be set aside of low-income individuals.

In Orinda, California, the city council voted several years ago to permit construction, in the heart of downtown Orinda, of the Monteverde housing project. The 67-unit structure, now complete, has room for 30 vehicles.

The war on cars and AB 744 in Orinda means that, at a future time, mandate that a new housing project have at least one parking space for each two bedrooms associated with a particular project.

In 2010, State Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) attacked free parking. On January 29, 2010, The Los Angeles Times reported that: “State lawmakers are taking aim at what some of them see as a menace to California’s environment: free parking.”

The article continued: “All that motoring is contributing to traffic jams and pollution, according to state Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), and on Thursday he won Senate approval of a proposal he hopes will prompt cities and businesses to reduce the availability of free parking.”

Mr. Lowenthal is now a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The fate of AB 744 is uncertain.

 

About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.

Comments

  1. Nothing new here. Portland Oregon has been doing this since the late 1980’s. Result? Congested two lane roads in and around condos and apartments. The “anti’s” are clear about what they are about. It is regressive and detrimental to the nation as a whole, and to Capitalist Economies.

    That statement is not a long reach. The intent of the Socialist Left is to re-create Ghetto’s of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. They were a direct result of the inability of workers and families to have personally owned and operated transportation. They had to live in less than optimal conditions just to get to work or have options of destinations on a daily basis.

    The other aspect of this is government owned and operated transportation. Think of huge expanded and inefficient transportation run by masses of government employees. Think of the benefit packages and retirement that the taxpayers will be responsible for.

    Stupid is as Stupid does.

    Any of your representatives voting for AB 744?

    Time to vote them out of office.

  2. askeptic says

    We need to take away their (legislator’s) government paid cars, credit cards, and travel allowances:
    Make them walk, or take public transportation to get everywhere.

  3. sandra genis says

    Not addressing the merits of AB 744, but the article above misrepresents what the bill would do. It does not apply to all development, but would apply to “a development that includes the maximum percentage of low or very low income units, as specified, and is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined, and there is unobstructed access to the transit stop from the development. The bill would also prohibit, at the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county from imposing a vehicular parking ratio in excess of specified amounts per unit on a development that consists solely of units with an affordable housing cost to lower income households, as specified, if the development is within one-half mile of a major transit stop and there is unobstructed access to the transit stop from the development, is a for-rent housing development for individuals that are 62 years of age or older,begin insert that complies with specified existing laws regarding senior housing,end insert or is a special needs housing development, as those terms are defined.” In other words, housing for poor people and seniors living near transit.

Trackbacks

  1. […] DMV is raising vehicle registration fees: This is a minor blip in California’s war on cars, but it’s a frustrating one, because, really, this is the only thing that could make the DMV […]

  2. […] DMV is raising vehicle registration fees: This is a minor blip in California’s war on cars, but it’s a frustrating one, because, really, this is the only thing that could make the DMV […]

  3. […] DMV is raising vehicle registration fees: This is a minor blip in California’s war on cars, but it’s a frustrating one, because, really, this is the only thing that could make the DMV […]

Speak Your Mind

*