Jordan Grimes

Reforming CEQA to make it easier to build infill housingin our existing cities (which we successfully did last year!) is Good.

Gutting CEQA to make it super easy to build large greenfield sprawl subdivisions is Bad.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

East Bay for Everyone Opposes Cal Chamber "BACA" CEQA Ballot Measure Streamlining sprawl development is not "Pro-Housing!"

Thanks to the important CEQA reform passed last year, the @calchamber.bsky.social BACA measure does nothing for the infill housing we need.

What it does do is streamline everything from sprawl detached housing to highways to data centers.

Read more: eastbayforeveryone.org/2026/03/05/s...

California gubernatorial candidates polling below 10% reading Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks' letter urging them to drop out to prevent Republicans from locking Democrats out of the general election

Amazing

I think they must have sent them to every public official in the bay area. All the councilmembers in San Mateo got copies too.

At the Capitol Weekly housing conference on Tuesday all the chamber people could talk about is how badly we need more greenfield, and that that's what the measure would bring. It's starting to happen out in the open now.

Basically impossible politically in California, unfortunately

Yep. There are also a lot of people pushing the chamber's CEQA reform initiative, which would explode greenfield development and the infrastructure needed to facilitate them.

I know I'm mostly preaching to the choir here, but it really is disturbing how many YIMBYs I've seen start to get suckered in by this stuff.

There are significant forces in the legislative world in California trying to make greenfield sprawl a major thing again. We can't let them.

California needs to be reducing its VMT and GHG footprint significantly. 40%+ of our emissions come from transportation as it is. More sprawl means we'll see those numbers rise at a time when we need them to come down faster than ever.

And of course, too, you have the car dependency aspect. All of those people need to drive to get to where they need to go, which means more roads, more highways, and more money spent on expansion and maintenance of those things instead of public transit operations and infrastructure.

The big one: fundamentally, sprawl is a wealth transfer from dense, productive urban cores to sparse fringe developments. It costs exponentially more to provide fire, police, and trash services to 50 homes spread over 10 miles than 50 homes on one city block.

Sprawl is subsidized. It has to be.

I've seen some argue recently that we don't need to choose between a future that encourages both dense urban development and suburban sprawl, that the two aren't in conflict. That's fundamentally wrong, for a number of reasons.

There is an emerging and worrying trend I've witnessed recently in YIMBY spaces where people are starting to show a willingness to embrace greenfield sprawl as a solution to our housing and affordability crises.

As a reminder: sprawl is a distraction and a ponzi scheme. Nothing more.

if you live in New York Fucking City i think you should be legally prohibited from complaining about "private investors buying all the housing" bro that is the only possible way that cities function

American homeowner brain is a civilizational cancer

YouTube video by antzilla525 The Academic Debate re: Zoning Reform in High-Cost Regions

By popular demand, I have posted the "The Academic Debate re: Zoning Reform in High-Cost Regions" Ace Attorney spoof video that @dereksagehorn.bsky.social and I made years ago.

Enjoy!

youtu.be/rflVw8SGj8Y

Yes! Noting that there are a lot more unions than the trades that make a lot less money and need housing was imo very good.

Thanks Diego, I agree

Another (big) Porter moment: when asked about what powerful interest they’d take on to get more housing built, Porter called out labor, specifically the building trades.

Huge deal given how much power they hold in Sacramento

One other thing to note is that Thurmond was actually the first to endorse 79. He sent a support letter in April. Porter came on in support over the summer. I do want to give credit to him for that.

That’s right, totally forgot about that. Mea culpa. Mahan also mentioned CEQA, but not the reforms last year, more that we need to reform CEQA. But we already did that, so ???

Not at the forum. To my knowledge, the ones who supported SB79 were Steyer, Becerra, Porter, and Thurmond. Yee opposed. The others were silent.

Tony Thurmond didn't really distinguish himself, other than through repeating his line that he wants to build 2,000,000 units by 2030, and will do it all on publicly owned land. I wish that were possible, but to say I'm extremely skeptical would be an understand.

Steyer was somehow the only person to mention SB79 and last year's CEQA reform, both of which he supported and congratulated CA YIMBY on. He also reiterated calls for Prop 13 reform (split roll), which was great, though gave more deference to cities than I would have liked.

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Matt Mahan, but he did have good answers on building code reform and construction defect liability reform.

Eric Swalwell's performance today was mostly slogans (some good, some corny), I loved that he talked about the power of the many powerful boards and commissions to which the governor makes appointments.

He said would ensure pro-housing people were sitting on them going forward. A big deal!

I thought Betty Yee's performance was pretty lackluster, and her refusal to support SB79 means she won't be getting my vote.

But I did appreciate her answers on consolidating state financing agencies for affordable housing, which no one else touched on.

Porter also mentioned that she would speak to Attorney General Rob Bonta whenever he was suing Huntington Beach for violating state housing laws. This, she said, meant they were in contact on a weekly basis.

Again, lots of laughter and applause.

Where some were willing to give more deference to cities, Katie Porter came right out and said that many cities are just run by NIMBYs who are unwilling to build. She knows that well, having represented Huntington Beach. Lots of laughter and applause for that one.

Some personal highlights from me:

1) When asked how he would hold cities accountable, Xavier Becerra noted that when he was Attorney General, he sued the city of San Mateo (my hometown) when we violated the HAA by illegally denying a housing project. It was a precedent-setting case.