After a pleasant evening of bike maintenance I found myself in this predicament, much too late to run to the store for soap.
On a vague hunch that it would be slightly abrasive, I tried washing my hands with toothpaste.
I can report that they are thoroughly degreased, and minty fresh!
The top story in the Palo Alto Daily News was the organization of a new NIMBY group to fight for reduced housing in the to-be-redeveloped Alma Plaza shopping center. This comes after the P.A. city council has already convinced the developers to put in fewer housing units and more parking (you would think it was cars that vote in elections, not people).
I've seen NIMBY's in action, and it's not pretty. At a Mountain View council meeting I spoke at a few years ago on redevelopment of Mayfield/HP site at San Antonio CalTrain, they came out in force carrying signs with EIR in the universal circle-and-slash symbol for "no"--meaning that the city should refuse to do an environmental impact report, to prevent even consideration of the project--essentially, because didn't want it, no other arguments needed.
| It's the same story up and down the Peninsula. Last year Redwood City voters stopped a new bayfront development that would have "sacrificed the character of the community" (the site is currently filled by a junkyard). As the no-on-Q graphic to the left makes clear--there is a breed of suburbanite NIMBY that loathes anything urban, and insists that residency gives them absolute veto rights over any development in their vicinity that does not meet their vision of suburban idyll. |
And pretty much, our political system gives it to them. Zoning laws give a city's current residents control over what gets built, and no voice whatever to those who might want to live there, even if they work there, perhaps commuting long distances. And lest I bash the burbs too much, residents of cities like San Francisco and Berkeley have been just have adamant, and just as successful, in opposing development that would make them any more urban or denser.
It's important to remember that the high price of housing here is entirely artificial. Land, of course, is limited, and it's reasonable to expect that amenities such as large houses or yards should be expensive. But the scarcity of housing units--even ones that take up less land, like rowhouses, condos, or apartments, is simply due to cities refusal to allow more to be built.
The result is a distorted marketplace where the price of any unit is inflated. Recently, two houses on my street sold in the $700-800k range. Strangely, one was nearly twice as big as the other, and on twice as big a lot, but this didn't make that big a difference in the price--because the it's not land per se, or square footage of house that's in scarce supply--it's legally sanctioned housing units. Thus a shack on half-size lot has almost as much value as a big house on a double-sized one, even though, zoning aside, the latter could be split up into two of the former.
For a more methodical study with the same conclusions as my two-house anecdote, read here.
But shelter is widely recognized as a basic human right, for example in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Laws that create artifical shortages of the basic necessities of life are a grave injustice. But is this an injustice that our legal system offers any remedy for?
There is at least one precedent. In New Jersey, the state supreme court has declared exlusionary zoning illegal. The original case overturned the zoning ordinances of the city of Mount Laurel Township, a suburban community which had previously allowed only suburban-style, detatched housing to be built. At the same time, the city did all it could to encourage commercial development, but made no effort to ensure sufficient housing for employees of the new businesses it attracted. The court ruled this violated the New Jersey state constitution, which gives municipalities power to control land use "for the general welfare". Exclusionary zoning violates this principle both in that is denies people their basic right to housing, and because it means a city is shirking a responsibility to the greater region to take on its fair share of population.
I can't really comment on what the long term effects of this have been on the availability of housing in New Jersey. It appears that the state's reaction to this ruling has been to create processes that allow cities to avoid lawsuits by providing nominal affordable units, but probably slow down the pace of development enough to ensure a continual shortage. (See this Wikipedia Article for discussion). The original ruling is worth a read, though, especially the opinion of Judge J. Pashman, who urged the court to go farther:
With this decision, the Court begins to cope with the dark side of municipal land use regulation -- the use of the zoning power to advance the parochial interests of the municipality at the expense of the surrounding region and to establish and perpetuate social and economic segregation...Turning back to california, state law (search here for "housing") actually puts a very specific requirement on cities' land-use planning:(These practices) are inconsistent with the fundamental premise of the New Jersey zoning legislation that zoning is concerned with the physical condition of the municipality not its social condition. In a deeper sense, they are repugnant to the ideals of the pluralistic democracy which America has become...
A homogeneous community, one exhibiting almost total similarities of taste, habit, custom and behavior is culturally dead, aside from being downright boring. New and different life styles, habits and customs are the lifeblood of America.
Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.a requirement which most California cities are in blatant violation of. Most make no pretense of trying to comply. The city of Laguna Niguel, which I'm only picking on because they put their zoning objectives on the web, lists as goals that they will "secure social and economic benefits for residents", "ensure adequate offstreet parking", and "protect and enhance real property values", but nothing about providing adquate housting. To the contrary, Laguna Niguel strives "to prevent undue intensity of land use or development," and "to avoid population overcrowding", or put more plainly, to keep any more people from moving there.
As someone who's knowledge of the law comes mostly from high school civics and TV (and I don't think Law & Order has done an episode about zoning yet), how cities get away with what seems to be such obvious diregard for state law is a mystery to me. No doubt, other legislation sets up a process by which a few token "affordable" units are considered satisfactory; but the spirit of the law is clear enough, as is the fact that it's being broken.
Most groups and individuals advocating for affordable housing seem to share this view, at least implicitly, and favor the approach of charity, proposing that the government or non-profits should provide below-market housing to the most needy. Few seem interested in addressing the underlying causes of the problem, and there are almost no proponents of a radical anti-NIMBY, or TWAYBYB (The World Ain't Your Back Yard, Bitch!) position. Here's a few good guys I've managed to find:
Our basic objective was the California Academy of Sciences, where my mother is a volunteer docent. The academy, while it's usual digs in Golden Gate Park are being rebuilt from the ground up, has set up shop South of Market. The temporary location is actually quite a bit easier to get to by transit, being a quick walk from Powell & Market, or a slightly longer one from 4th & King. We set out from Millbrae BART (I advise parking on the 4th floor of the garage, since that puts you on the same level as the station mezzanine).
Meanwhile, more of our family were over in Berkely, visiting the Cal campus. The night before I worked out an itinerary for them, starting at Daily City, where they could catch a Richmond line train directly. They could have started at Millbrae, but would have needed to change trains twice--and those timed transfers at 12th St. Oakland are not something you should send BART newbies through without supervision! After the tour, we all met up downtown in the City.
We started our trip home on the J Church, stopping at Mitchell's Ice Cream (see "Where to Eat", below), and transferring back to BART at Balboa Park.
Overall, things went surprisingly smoothly. Here's some more specific observations:
Riding the J Church
I've gotten off the train enough times in Palo Alto to know how about the "secret" bike bridge over San Francisquito creek, a back door connection between Menlo Park and Palo Alto. This gets you as far as the Stanford Shopping center, which you can skirt by without too much traffic, and get to fairly good bikeways through Stanford campus.
From there to Mountain View, I tried to plan a route with the VTA's online bike route map, which showed me what I had already noticed, that there's a decent bike path parallel to the CalTrain tracks (on the SW side) starting at the Palo Alto station. This connects to Park Blvd, which also Parallels the tracks, and gets you through almost, but not quite to California Street in Mountain View.
Alas, there seemed to be a disconnect where I'd have to jog over several blocks and ride on El Camino (ick). Google Maps to the rescue--on the satellite view, I could just work out that there would be some way to get through the gap, maybe by going through a parking lot.
In fact, there's a creek there, named Adobe Creek. But unmarked on any of the maps I'd seen, including the VTA's bike map there's a nice ped/bike bridge over it, connecting the gap between "Wilkie Way" and "Miller Ave".
In no time at all I was at San Antonio road, only blocks from work, but on a sudden impulse stopped at Dittmer's, a German Sandwich Shop/Deli/"Wurst-Haus" where I used to go for lunch in less health-conscious days. The aroma of tasty sandwiches was a temptation (I recommend the BLTA; "A" being for avocado), but I stuck to my mission and got a couple of cans of pickled herring. I don't know why, but a craving for pickled fish has been overtaking me lately, and this is the only place I can think of to get it. Anyway they're safely stashed in my desk for future lunches (my wife thanked me for indulging this craving at work instead of at home where she'd have to smell it...).
So here's my updated bike ride map, with my third route in red:
As an aside--I knew Palo Alto was posh, and I thought I knew how much, but I was wrong... this route takes you through the really nice parts, which has the advantage for biking that it's not really on the driving route to anywhere, and pretty much traffic free.
It also goes right by Fry's and Know Knew Books on Cal Ave... something to keep in mind for next time!
I decided to try another RWC→MV bike ride, but taking a little bit less scenic route.
I originally planned to go straight down Middlefield, but found a better route through back streets along the "inland" side of the 101.
Today's route is in purple
These are kind of interesting neighborhoods that actually still feel a little more rural than suburban; part of the way is along a creek.
Eventually I ended up in Mountain View, came over Central Expwy and the CalTrain tracks on the Shoreline Overpass (if you approach the overpass the right way, aiming to go on the East/South side of the roadway, the side facing downtown, you can find a "secret" bike path that goes through trees and tunnels and avoids the whole Shoreline/Central half cloverleaf).
