It reminds me of what my mother used to say when I was a little kid: If all the NIMBYs said you should not jump off a cliff, would you jump off the cliff just to spite them?

I am also well aware that the Chamber of Commerce, which supports all development whether it is good or bad, paid for the mailing telling people not to sign the initiative. (One of my first political activities in Berkeley, decades ago, was to stop those same downtown business interests from building a new parking structure downtown).

The Chamber of Commerce certainly didn’t sponsor this mailing out of love for the environment.

Unfortunately, the debate over the downtown plan has been defined by NIMBYs who are blindly anti-development, and business interests who are blindly pro-development. Environmentalists have largely been left out of the debate. Note, for example, that there has been virtually no mention of the fact that the DAPAC plan would have allowed car-free housing downtown while the plan the Council passed reinstated parking requirements for housing.

That is what happens when extremists take over the debate.

True, it would have been nice if the “Green” building standards had been retained. But let’s face it, the “Leed” certification is so full of holes that parking garages and McMansions qualify these days.

Is this why there are never any 60′ 45 buses? I can’t believe they won this. I guess that just goes to show where Alioto-Pier stands on transit.

The Planning Commission’s version of the plan increased the parking requirement for new housing, reduced support for public transportation, and weakened green building requirements in addition to allowing more high-rises. It was much less green than the DAPAC plan.

I am sure that, if the Planning Commission and City Council had simply passed the DAPAC Plan, rather than rewriting this compromise plan that was hammered out during 4 years of public meetings, there would not be a referrendum now.