Blogging Bayport Alameda

July 21, 2021

Old college try

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:01 am

NIMBYs rejoice, Alameda’s application opposing its RHNA has been duly filed with ABAG and its now in their hands to determine the fate of Alameda’s RHNA. But no fear, Alameda is in good company with all the other high resource communities in the Bay Area who believe themselves to be so special that they deserve special dispensation.

Alameda’s own Zac Bowling put together this handy cheat sheet of which communities in the Bay Area have filed appeals and even though Alameda asked for a 50% reduction (aka Tony Daysog’s splitting the difference) we’re not the worst culprit asking for the highest percentage reduction. That honor goes to the City of Sausalito which is asking for an 83% reduction. Danville runs second asking for a 73% reduction.

Our first listed constraint is — what else — A/26. From the letter:


The City has literally put in every argument that has been offered by anti development/ pro A/26 forces over the past few decades as to why Alameda should not be doing its fair share in making from for more housing. I mean, the only one it didn’t explicitly bullet point was “But we’re an ISLAND” but it definitely tried.

Will this be enough to move the needle in light of 28 other jurisdictions appealing? Will it be enough to move the needle considering that these are all largely high resource communities appealing and if all of these appeals (or even some of the appeals) are granted it would push the responsibility, once again, on low resource communities that either didn’t see the utility or didn’t have the resources to file appeals.


  1. Technically it’s 27 jurisdictions, not 28. Sonoma filed twice. The second one, really tiny one, is actually probably the most legitimate appeal of them all, where an unincorporated town was annexed by bigger city but the county still has the RHNA and not the city.

    Comment by Zac Bowling — July 21, 2021 @ 7:02 am

  2. It’s mind-boggling how so many Alamedans think we can’t absorb more housing, but we can allow sprawl to continue in areas where we must grow our food, create buffers to wild fires and other things than make us resilient to climate change, not to mention the now emerging threat from a loss of workers due to high housing costs, the same people we need to jump to our every service demand and, hopefully, for a cheap price (low wages). Must have our cake and eat it too!

    Comment by Laura Thomas — July 21, 2021 @ 10:01 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at