Bureaucracy is creating a ghetto of the future

No government bureaucracy has the right under the U.S. Constitution to tell me I have to use mass transit or where and how I can live. I have no desire to live in a high-density sustainable community.

These planned living areas are not livable, nor do they make provisions for families or Christian churches. They are the ghettos of tomorrow under an increasingly totalitarian government.

If we were truly a representative government, there would be no huge, unelected regional government bureaucracies like ABAG or MTC taking our federal tax dollars and churning out masses of studies supporting their agenda for the rest of us.

The worst part of Plan Bay Area is the ephemeral social equity agenda that has the goal of moving people of all income levels into every part of the Bay Area. This is socialism pure and simple, the same thing that happened to Soviet Russia after the communist revolution.

Jim Mellander

El Sobrante

Plan will help area progress sensibly

This plan supported by ABAG and MTC requires 78 percent of new housing and 62 percent of new jobs be built into a confined transit area to meet clean-air standards.

Reducing sprawl so beloved by developers and their cheap farmland has created the traffic snarls and dirty air we have been dealing with and paying for these past four to five decades. It is time we undertook smart growth. Our population is not dwindling.

However, the conservative, libertarian Pacific Legal Foundation would have you believe this is a scheme driven by insiders who are not providing citizens with important information. Information such as that auto standard improvements will reduce carbon emissions without resorting to enforced planned development.

They also believe improved bus ridership will go a long way to achieving clean air standards. Sound familiar? Freedom to choose?

Libertarian ideals would have the marketplace be the sole arbiter of worthwhile progress. If we've learned anything over the past few decades it should be that laissez-faire capitalism benefits the uber wealthy and not the powerless.

By all means have citizen input, but let's not go back in time.

Anne Spanier

Alameda

Process ignored input of the people

The ABAG and MTC officials totally ignored the public input through the entire process. Many great suggestions were submitted by the public during their public input process and they were totally ignored by the planners.

There was overwhelming support by the public to put the matter to a vote of the people after the public realized they were not having their valid input considered. This flies in the face of our representative form of governance. This plan will create far more severe consequences to the environment than the plan hopes to resolve.

While having devastating effects on local control of planning issues and drastically affecting private property rights.

Glenn Gelineau

San Carlos

Effort sounds like a socialist utopian idea

As a former resident of the Soviet Union, I am very familiar with a concept of the One Bay Area plan.

It sounds so efficient for all of us to live close to the public transportation and happily commute to work by an easy public route. It does sound great except it is a socialist utopia that does not work, never did work, and never will work.

Instead of wasting billions of taxpayers' dollars for the socialist experiment of One Bay Area, our eager planners should take lessons from history and learn from the victims of the centrally planned economies that inevitably failed around the world.

I myself lived in one of those densely populated engineered neighborhoods and do not wish it on anyone. With the fall of the socialist system, our Soviet version of "stack and pack" housings were quickly abandoned in favor of suburban neighborhoods with private houses on one's own land with one's own yard.

I wish the unelected bureaucrats who are behind this One Bay Area plan abandon the idea before it is too late.

Maria Rutenburg

Redwood City

Plan is really about control and money

Plan Bay Area is a top-down, social-engineering experiment cooked up by unelected regional agencies and a handful of well-funded, special-interest groups that will transform all counties and cities within the Bay Area into high-density, stack-and-pack human settlements.

The unelected bureaucrats love it because they will control almost $300 billion in transportation funding and can dictate to local municipalities. Big developers love it because they will receive taxpayer subsidies, environmental waivers and bonuses for higher densities and as an added bonus can choose to ignore local ordinances like setbacks, height limitations and parking minimums.

The planners claim stack and pack housing is necessary to reduce GHGs, and increase affordability and choice, but the final draft contradicts that claim. In reality, we end up with more traffic, more congestion, higher priced housing, displacement of current affordable tenants, more GHGs.

So you have to ask: Why are we doing this? The only people who will benefit are the unelected planners and big developers. This plan is about control and money.

Heather Gass

Danville

People are ultimate losers in the plan

The voice of the public was ignored by the bureaucratic boards that made the final decision. It was not put to a vote of the people it will affect.

The disenfranchised and underrepresented groups in this whole process are the taxpayer and the property owner. Every other group wanting stuff and services was represented.

The plan is a giant pig in a poke. It will incur huge amounts of funding from unnamed sources, which ultimately turn out to taxpayer. There will also be major loss of personal property rights. No winners here except developers, consultants and bureaucrats.

Colleen Britton

Vacaville

It will limit freedoms to choose a home

I do not want the Plan Bay Area to be implemented as it will limit the freedom of the kind of community I want to live in.

You really think people will give up driving or want to live in high-density housing like what we see in Dublin, and you think it will improve air quality? No, no, no.

Let Livermore be in charge of Livermore.

Betty Ellis

Livermore

Interference in our lives is not needed

I am opposed to Plan Bay Area for the following reasons:

First: It is the product of faceless bureaucrats who were not elected by the residents of the counties included in this plan.

Second: Property owners and elected county officials are ignored.

Finally: Property owners and taxpayers are asked to trust the ill-defined process that was put together without their input.

We do not need Plan Bay Area with its higher taxes and more government interference in our lives.

Mike Davenport

Vacaville