socialist local politician with a historian streak??? i feel so seen

what a respectful conversation. this really isn’t twitter!

oops started another thread

which these protections allow for. bottom line, evictions of any kind make people vulnerable to homelessness and housing insecurity. we (pro density advocates) have been accurately arguing that increased density (thru ADUs) benefits tenants. not proactively defending them would be a slap in the face

against this goal! condoization for affordable homeownership is also great, but i don’t think we should be throwing the tenants who are benefiting from this housing production under the bus when we get the chance. the goal of this policy should be to encourage the dev’t of new ADUs for homeownership

the fundamental issue here is around how we treat tenants in ADUs.
the goal so far in building ADU’s (which i wholeheartedly support) has been to provide a variety of more affordable rental options, especially for families. i think allowing (or encouraging) those tenants to be evicted goes directly…

oh jk i just saw you said this at the beginning

thanks for this. happy to talk about this some more, but jsyk we won’t be voting on this item tonight. it was pushed back due to a packed agenda.

🫂

it is our responsibility to build a city that keeps all of our street users safe. i’m so, so sorry we failed you. let this be a reminder of the urgency and importance of safe street infrastructure.

This photo of Bancroft Way shows how street space is now used:
1/4 for buses
1/4 for cars
1/4 for loading and parking
1/4 for bikes

Previous it was 1/2 cars, 1/2 parking, even though most people using the street used the bus, bike, or walking.
berkeleyca.gov/community-re...

apologies 😅

Epicenter currently put at this interesting little traffic island, where Piedmont meets Dwight from the NW, with now-blocked-off slip lane.

What did Alpha Sigma Pi do?

right???

@bart.gov @renzaro.com