Green Gammon

The other day when I visited the visited the East Bay Express website to read Rin Kelly’s article for the fourth or fifth time I didn’t realize that EBX had already updated its website and had posted the July 1 edition early.   I ran across this headline: “You’re Not an Environmentalist If You’re Also a NIMBY” courtesy of Robert Gammon and I was intrigued.  I totally expected this to be a screed on how NIMBYs actually are environmentalists in that EBX model of being contrary about practically everything.    What I read completely surprised me in a OMFG way.   So OMFG, I read it twice in one sitting because I couldn’t believe what I was reading.

Gammon’s piece revolved mostly around the Greenbelt Alliance report “Grow Smart Bay Area” that I referenced about a week ago.   Highlights:

…For years, city dwellers who consider themselves to be eco-conscious have used environmental laws and arcane zoning rules to block new home construction, especially apartments and condominiums. In the inner East Bay, liberals have justified their actions by railing against gentrification and portraying developers as profiteers. But the lack of urban growth in Berkeley and in parts of Oakland during the past few decades also has contributed to suburban sprawl and long commutes. And all those freeways choked with cars are now the single biggest cause of greenhouse gas emissions in the region.

Environmentalists who think globally say suburban sprawl and the destruction of rural farmland must stop…

…for the inner East Bay to grow the way it should, it will have to overcome the region’s well-developed not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) sensibilities. In Berkeley and North Oakland, in particular, liberals who view themselves as environmentalists have been blocking dense housing developments for decades. They have complained about traffic, overcrowding, and the potential destruction of neighborhood character. But among those who are paying attention to the causes of global warming, there is a growing realization that no-growth activists have to step back and look at the bigger picture. Climate change has forced a paradigm shift in the environmental movement. If you live in an urban area, you can’t call yourself an “environmentalist” and continue to act like a NIMBY by blocking new housing.

…the people who have lived for years along the East Bay’s major transit corridors and consider themselves to be liberal environmentalists also need to finally start thinking globally and acting locally. The coming global warming crisis demands that they do more than just eat organic, install solar panels, or buy a Prius.

They also need to realize that dense development will make their neighborhoods and their cities better — not worse. More people means more shops, cafes, and restaurants — and more tax revenues. And when you think about it, who doesn’t want to be able to walk to the local store for a bag of groceries or grab a cup of coffee at the corner cafe — and save help save the planet at the same time?

There’s a whole section devoted to Berkeley and Oakland’s land use woes, but their debate over the height of the buildings has little to do with Alameda Point since the tallest proposed building in the project would only be five stories which is shorter than the shortest building quibbled over by Berkeley residents.   It is however, nice to see the “Mahattanization of X-city” is commonly used all over the Bay Area and not just confined to Alameda.

It’s an interesting read from Robert Gammon, I’m still unable to shake why I am still taken aback by it.  I guess it was unexpected by a publication that is so anti-transit.    I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop.