Comment Log Display

The text of SB 375 requires a "jobs-housing balance". The RTAC
seems to have modified that requirement to a phrase that they coin
as a "jobs housing fit". This is not the same.
We in the Central Valley have been waiting three plus decades for
the (SF)Bay Area to take responsibility for the housing of their
population. The commuter has brought many negative effects to the
Valley in the form of increased crime rates, gang violence, housing
prices that the Valley worker cannot afford, as well as a
significnat amount of the GHG attributal to the Valley - if not
attributable to the commuter themselves then by the domino effect
of the commuter of forcing further commutes by local workers.
I recomend that in the process of setting targets for the
reduction of GHG that the phenomina of the Bay Area commuter rest
on the shoulders of the source of those emissions - the counties
that refuse to provide necessary housing. A 50/50 split is not the
answer. If any county does not meet the necessary "jobs-housing
balance" they should receive penalties in the same character as the
counties that have made prior GHG improvements receive credits. 
This recommendation should be shared with the HCD, who have for
years also ignored the jobs-housing imbalance caused not only by
the commuter, but by their own methods of setting the RHNA based on
prior housing rather than balance.