I wonder if this could backfire by having neighborhoods in urban areas being opposed to transit improvements to avoid being labeled a 'transit rich' area.<p>SF does not have nearly the subway line coverage it needs to adequately serve the city (e.g. takes 40 minutes to take the bus to downtown from the marina).
As the article says, the bill, as is, is too radical to pass. But I'd wager that's intentional. Knowing that negotiation will have to happen in order to get the bill passed, he proposed something extreme, so it would still be close to what he actually wanted when all was said and done.<p>Or maybe I'm reading into it too much.
I live in LA and we desperately need more dense housing and better mass transit. You can't have one without the other, so it makes sense to build new dense housing near transit. But the article links to a counterpoint [1] making the very valid point that this bill would allow a lot of predatory development in working-class neighborhoods of LA. I am conflicted. Hopefully there is some middle ground. The population of LA is too big to live in single-family homes, it is impossible to make it work.
So, it sounds like their would be no visual or noise restrictions or barriers? Haven't studies shown those are real problems (or at least, we need X hours of sleep)