Anne Paulson
@annepaulson.bsky.social
YIMBY, cyclist
was Krampus Snail on the old site, still a snail when I ride my Krampus
was Krampus Snail on the old site, still a snail when I ride my Krampus
They are charging new residents for existing costs, like depreciation and replacement of existing fire engines, which would be done whether or not there was any new housing. This seems to be to be exactly what the Lemoore case prohibits. caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-cou...
November 21, 2025 at 5:18 PM
They are charging new residents for existing costs, like depreciation and replacement of existing fire engines, which would be done whether or not there was any new housing. This seems to be to be exactly what the Lemoore case prohibits. caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-cou...
They're bad at writing, too. (From The Argument article linked above)
November 19, 2025 at 9:45 PM
They're bad at writing, too. (From The Argument article linked above)
Whiny NIMBYs say they don't like big box buildings because they're yucky, so the buildings have to pretend to be smaller buildings by throwing in different shapes, materials and colors. Which leads to this mess:
November 6, 2025 at 7:14 PM
Whiny NIMBYs say they don't like big box buildings because they're yucky, so the buildings have to pretend to be smaller buildings by throwing in different shapes, materials and colors. Which leads to this mess:
NIMBY Bingo in one letter: Parking, traffic, neighborhood character, height, shadows, privacy. Quite an achievement!
This project apparently satisfies our objective standards. I expect it to be approved easily.
This project apparently satisfies our objective standards. I expect it to be approved easily.
November 4, 2025 at 5:49 PM
NIMBY Bingo in one letter: Parking, traffic, neighborhood character, height, shadows, privacy. Quite an achievement!
This project apparently satisfies our objective standards. I expect it to be approved easily.
This project apparently satisfies our objective standards. I expect it to be approved easily.
NIMBY objecting to a three story 12-plex because it's too tall. I on the other hand am sad that it's only three stories when we allow five. It's a small lot; there could be parking issues for a five story building. But still, a loss.
![Dear Mr. Sean Gallegos, [the planner]
My working schedule won't allow me to attend the community meeting. I am writing this letter for my absence.
My home is next to this project. I believe the height of this 3-story building will ruthlessly deprive me of many benefits and take off the rights that I have been having for living there. It will also badly impact my health condition directly for uncontrollable severe high blood pressure due to lack of adequate warm natural sunlight, especially in winters.
Please consider all the following negative facts that will bring from this 3-story building
1) The morning sun shines throughout entire my property's east side wall as well as all my kitchen and bathroom windows on that side will be totally blocked.
2) My bedroom is facing southeast next to your proposed 3-story building. Winter daily warm sunlight can reach the entire room. I mainly rely on this natural warm power to keep the room and myself warm to control my severe blood pressure issue. But your project could block most of such natural resource. Can't you see that your building's future profits has my share? It is because your gain is built on top of my loss. Is that fair?
[I slightly edited for typos; the writer is not a native speaker of English]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:t7ayphiew2kysdunfu6xm2at/bafkreifc45i747hpaqtzatbkkjsh4ejqw2zx3n63pzwat2awcdhqlpp4wm@jpeg)
November 4, 2025 at 2:08 AM
NIMBY objecting to a three story 12-plex because it's too tall. I on the other hand am sad that it's only three stories when we allow five. It's a small lot; there could be parking issues for a five story building. But still, a loss.
Trying to get my mind around this article. One thing I noticed is the crowding out. This is a lot of crowding out!
October 29, 2025 at 7:05 PM
Trying to get my mind around this article. One thing I noticed is the crowding out. This is a lot of crowding out!
Here's Menlo Park's parking lot housing RFP:
345 units of housing for people 80% of AMI or lower including some at much lower AMI,
556 public parking spaces plus parking for residents,
more in alt text
345 units of housing for people 80% of AMI or lower including some at much lower AMI,
556 public parking spaces plus parking for residents,
more in alt text
October 29, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Here's Menlo Park's parking lot housing RFP:
345 units of housing for people 80% of AMI or lower including some at much lower AMI,
556 public parking spaces plus parking for residents,
more in alt text
345 units of housing for people 80% of AMI or lower including some at much lower AMI,
556 public parking spaces plus parking for residents,
more in alt text
@nextdoorsv.bsky.social "For ten years I rented an apartment without parking. It was inconvenient and I frequently broke the law. No one else should be allowed to rent an apartment without parking."
October 29, 2025 at 4:26 PM
@nextdoorsv.bsky.social "For ten years I rented an apartment without parking. It was inconvenient and I frequently broke the law. No one else should be allowed to rent an apartment without parking."
No, really, it just makes no sense. Here is the entire justification for the arts fee.
October 16, 2025 at 9:54 PM
No, really, it just makes no sense. Here is the entire justification for the arts fee.
Los Altos Hills will demand 60 foot setbacks front, side and rear. SIXTY feet. 5/7
October 15, 2025 at 2:13 AM
Los Altos Hills will demand 60 foot setbacks front, side and rear. SIXTY feet. 5/7
Los Altos Hills of course has no existing multifamily to compare. But next door, in also expensive Los Altos, even the all-affordable project being constructed has 1071 sq ft per unit, much bigger than the 750 sq ft LAH will allow. 4/7
October 15, 2025 at 2:13 AM
Los Altos Hills of course has no existing multifamily to compare. But next door, in also expensive Los Altos, even the all-affordable project being constructed has 1071 sq ft per unit, much bigger than the 750 sq ft LAH will allow. 4/7
To make extra sure nothing gets built, the multifamily homes can only average 750 sq ft each, including corridors and lobbies, which is about 600 sq ft net. No developer would build teeny homes like that in a town of enormous mansions. 3/7
October 15, 2025 at 2:13 AM
To make extra sure nothing gets built, the multifamily homes can only average 750 sq ft each, including corridors and lobbies, which is about 600 sq ft net. No developer would build teeny homes like that in a town of enormous mansions. 3/7
In the one area where there’s a possibility that builders would build, they promised the state to zone for 450 homes. But now they plan to zone for only about 86 homes. 2/7
October 15, 2025 at 2:13 AM
In the one area where there’s a possibility that builders would build, they promised the state to zone for 450 homes. But now they plan to zone for only about 86 homes. 2/7
Los Altos Hills CA is up to their old tricks, to get out of allowing homes for the people who can’t afford the $5.7M houses there. The rich exclusionary town has to zone for multifamily housing, but they don’t want to, so they’re weaseling. 🧵1/7
October 15, 2025 at 2:13 AM
Los Altos Hills CA is up to their old tricks, to get out of allowing homes for the people who can’t afford the $5.7M houses there. The rich exclusionary town has to zone for multifamily housing, but they don’t want to, so they’re weaseling. 🧵1/7
It's Burlingame. 75 foot buildings (120 dwelling units per acre) allowed inside the green circle. And parcels right next to Caltrain can be 95 feet tall.
October 12, 2025 at 3:39 AM
It's Burlingame. 75 foot buildings (120 dwelling units per acre) allowed inside the green circle. And parcels right next to Caltrain can be 95 feet tall.
This is awful, why would anyone want their city to be like this:
October 11, 2025 at 9:58 PM
This is awful, why would anyone want their city to be like this:
There isn't enough room for a truck and a bike.
October 9, 2025 at 10:13 PM
There isn't enough room for a truck and a bike.
@governor.ca.gov Please sign SB 79! We need homes near transit, not homes in sprawly high fire areas! @cayimby.bsky.social
September 30, 2025 at 5:23 PM
@governor.ca.gov Please sign SB 79! We need homes near transit, not homes in sprawly high fire areas! @cayimby.bsky.social
Ugh, he had a confederate, a woman who procured the victims for the rape dungeon.
September 29, 2025 at 3:49 PM
Ugh, he had a confederate, a woman who procured the victims for the rape dungeon.
I finally concluded I had to lay the bike along the shark’s body. But then this large rack only fits four bikes. 3/3
September 26, 2025 at 4:14 PM
I finally concluded I had to lay the bike along the shark’s body. But then this large rack only fits four bikes. 3/3
At first I thought I was supposed to lay my bike against one of the yellow ribs. No! Neither the handlebars nor the saddle of my smallish bike fit under the orange backbone. 2/3
September 26, 2025 at 4:14 PM
At first I thought I was supposed to lay my bike against one of the yellow ribs. No! Neither the handlebars nor the saddle of my smallish bike fit under the orange backbone. 2/3
This sculpture of a shark, stuck in the middle of a park, is supposed to be a bike rack. Once you realize you’re supposed to secure your bike there, you have to figure out how. 1/3
September 26, 2025 at 4:14 PM
This sculpture of a shark, stuck in the middle of a park, is supposed to be a bike rack. Once you realize you’re supposed to secure your bike there, you have to figure out how. 1/3
Not messing around:
September 25, 2025 at 7:06 PM
Not messing around: