Recently the UC Berkeley student newspaper, the Daily Californian, had an excellent editorial pointing out that “Berkeley should take steps to mitigate the urban heat island effect.”
Sarah Siegel, writing for the paper’s editorial board, noted that:
“People of color are more likely to live in urban heat islands — one of the underlying causes could be Berkeley’s past discriminatory housing policies. In the 1930s and 1940s, the federal government redlined specific neighborhoods, denying mortgages and the possibility for homeownership to Black residents — these communities continue to be marginalized today. Efforts to map the trees in Berkeley reveal that tree density throughout the city is eerily reminiscent of redlining maps. The formerly redlined communities of South and West Berkeley have sparse trees and foliage compared to wealthier areas of the city.”
The piece does a great job of pointing out the twin causes of urban heat islands: too much concrete, too little greenery. It suggests that the City of Berkeley budget, originally scheduled to be finalized on June 15, should fund measures to correct these problems.
As well it should. But there’s another even more pressing equity issue which the Berkeley City Council should
also take have taken a stand on at their June 15 meeting. The council’s consent agenda contained a resolution to condemn SB 9, the latest salvo in Senators Scott Wiener, Toni Atkins and Nancy Skinner’s ongoing campaign to ultra-densify already hyper-urban heat island zones like South and West Berkeley. If SB 9 passes into state law, this measure would allow six units with no yard on
every single-family lot in California.
This proposal, and numerous others in a similar vein, would effectively paint a bull-eye on Berkeley’s diminishing stock of relatively inexpensive small homes with yards, most of which are in the South and West flatlands. Developers would be strongly motivated to cut down trees in order to cover now single-home lots with buildings, dramatically impacting the quality of life of current residents, both owners and renters, many of whom in Berkeley are, yes, people of color descended from families who moved there when they couldn’t find homes in other neighborhoods because of discrimination and red-lining. Urban heat would be only one of the problems up-zoning these Berkeley neighborhoods would cause.
Opposition to the Wiener/Skinner/Atkins proposals is already strong in Southern California’s historically Black and Brown neighborhoods.
Madalyn Barber, who lives in a single family home in Altadena, explains how this would happen in
a good op-ed in Cal Matters.
She says,
“I am a Black grandparent, homeowner and member of the Altadena Town Council. I grew up in a single-family home, and my husband and I have lived in our house in Altadena for more than two decades. Homeownership helped my family build wealth and provide stable, quality housing, and gave us our piece of the American Dream. But state and local politicians are threatening homeownership among the Black community by damaging single-family zoning laws. “ Altadena was a thriving integrated community when my own family moved to the area in 1953, and it still is. If speculators are enabled by the Wienerite measures, this could change.
The negative effects of the laws proposed by SB9 and SB10 are also discussed here by Los Angeles area residents:
-more-
