By Dick Spotswood : marinij – excerpt
Marin-bashing is a popular state Capitol pastime. Look at criticism Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-Greenbrae, endured when he passed legislation defining Marin as — are you ready for this — “suburban” instead of “urban.”
It’s a politically risk-free avocation for glib legislators of both parties whose constituents resent prosperous coastal suburbs in general, and Marin in particular.
An IJ reader suggested a 2016 article by journalist Scott Lucas in the real estate industry news site Curbed-San Francisco. It explained that much of the “housing crisis” lies with planning policies pursued by San Francisco and metro San Jose. Those booming areas successfully lured tax-producing industries without matching them with housing for new workers.
Lucas repeats that “regional planners ought to manage growth to achieve an appropriate ratio (between) housing units and jobs.”
This jobs-housing balance is held out as a planning ideal based on the notion that “cities where the jobs are ought to have housing too.”
The term refers to the ratio of employment opportunities and population in specific places. It illuminates what generates commuter traffic congestion.
It’s a difficult-to-achieve goal. Due to economics and lifestyle choices many humans ignore planners’ command to live close to jobs.
It emerges that at the bottom of the pile of jurisdictions with far more jobs than housing is San Francisco, go-go growth San Jose and San Mateo County.
Which counties are doing the best balancing housing and jobs?