Knowing the pain of writing huge rent checks each month to live in the Bay Area during a housing crunch, Victoria Fierce is out to make communities opposing building new homes experience a similar financial burden.

“I speak truth to power. I get in front of the dais and say ‘I will come after you, and it will hurt.’ And then they shrug it off. Then it hurts,” said Fierce, who helps operate the California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund.

Fierce, who has sued Bay Area cities such as Lafayette and Berkeley over housing opposition, is preparing to bring her organization’s fight to San Mateo following the City Council rejecting a proposal to build a 10-unit condominium building off El Camino Real.

The Oakland software professional turned legal housing expert is part of a energized group fed up with the local housing market refining that is refining its tactics and formalizing strategies to promote residential development.

“We have political power and we are not afraid to use it to seek our goal,” said Fierce, who considers herself a YIMBY — an acronym representing Yes In My Backyard, or an alternative answer to the traditional call of “not in my backyard,” from property owners often fighting housing development in their neighborhood due to concerns over threats to their quality of life. Development critics have historically been recognized as NIMBYs.

Leora Tanjuatco Ross, organizing director with the San Mateo County Housing Leadership Council, said she has recently witnessed the advocacy group’s enrollment, savvy and influence increase significantly.

A few years ago, Tanjuatco Ross said it could be expected that only a handful of housing advocates would appear at a local city council meeting to speak in favor of a project. Now it is common to see dozens of YIMBYs publicly attempting to persuade officials.

With their growth comes greater sophistication as well, she said, as YIMBYs have turned from bluntly calling for more housing to addressing land use policies such as zoning definitions, height limits, density requirements and more detailed matters.

“We’ve definitely gotten nerdier in the past few years, that’s for sure,” said Tanjuatco Ross.

The progression has been noticeable for local legislators working to enact some of their favored policies as well, according to Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco.

“I’ve seen the evolution in their advocacy from simply showing up to being much more strategic, tactical and being more sophisticated in what they advocate for,” he said.

Momentum building

Their polished tack aligns with growing awareness and appreciation of their efforts at the state Capitol, as lawmakers and YIMBYs are working in tandem to fight the state’s housing crisis.

Meanwhile, exorbitant rents and real estate prices persist across the Bay Area and much of the state, raising questions regarding the effectiveness of the movement. And not all of the group’s legal efforts pay dividends either, as East Bay courts last year rejected an effort to sue for development of 315 units in Lafayette.

Proponents though will point toward approval of large developments locally in Millbrae and San Mateo as partial testaments to their organizing. Tanjuatco Ross considers the uptick in strategic planning a sign of success as well.

“People are starting to connect the dots about long-term policy and the implication that has. It’s not a project-by-project strategy that we have and that is contributing to our efficacy.”

Last year’s slate of new state housing laws also gives the advocacy group more leeway to push for development, which San Mateo City Attorney Shawn Mason said should be recognized by local officials.

“The city councils and planning commissions are on the front lines and they are having to meet the interest of the community while also complying with these new legal requirements which make it more difficult to deny projects,” he said.

For his part, Mason said he believes San Mateo’s recent decision regarding the project near El Camino Real and West Santa Inez Avenue is defensible, claiming it objectively violates a policy designed to smooth height differences transitioning between properties. While Fierce has not officially filed the lawsuit, she claims councilmembers’ decision was subjective and illegal under the state’s Housing Accountability Act.

Vague interpretation of city policies is a key tool used by local officials seeking to block development and appease residents concerned that new housing would corrupt their standard of living, YIMBYs claim.

As a result, a focus of their latest push toward easing construction regulations is sapping control from local officials, who these housing advocates point to as a primary source of the state’s housing shortage.

The most notable recent affront to local control is Senate Bill 827, proposed by state. Sen. Scott Weiner, D-San Francisco, designed to remove height limitations and density controls on housing developments proposed within a reasonable distance from public transit stops.

The legislation, co-signed by YIMBYs, sent shock waves through communities which have long valued their ability to manage growth according to the will of residents.

David Canepa, San Mateo County supervisor representing District 5, was critical of the proposal and the support for it offered by YIMBYs.

He noted he was pleased to see the advocates begin sharing their concerns as part of the public dialogue, but believes their push on efforts limiting the perspective of others is hypocritical.

“Just because you don’t like something, that doesn’t mean you limit peoples’ voices or say ‘we are going to put a mandate on you.’ That’s not right,” he said.

Rich Garbarino, South San Francisco councilman and the Peninsula’s chief representative to the League of California Cities, agreed.

“I’m supportive of more housing, but there has got to be a process,” said Garbarino, who similarly opposes efforts to sap local officials’ authority due to fears over unregulated development.

He suggested fast-tracked building could significantly harm the local quality of life down the road.

“If that’s what these individuals advocate for, they may rue the day five or 10 years when developers build willy-nilly,” he said.

Tanjuatco Ross offered an alternative perspective though, suggesting development requirements are in order as a counterbalance to the years of restrictions on housing development in the name of local control.

“Municipalities in San Mateo County have had the last few decades to make their own decisions, and I want them to look at the state of things,” she said. “Traffic is awful — everyone can agree with that. And we are in a housing crisis. We have tried the decisions we have made. And it’s time to do something new.”

Political awakening

That something new will likely be advocated for by political neophytes who are called to action due to dissatisfaction with the constrained and expensive Bay Area housing market.

While the group broadens it horizons by exploring new political channels such as lawsuits and legislation advocacy, an eye is kept to grassroots organizing methods as well.

It is common for YIMBYs to pack a City Hall anywhere along the Peninsula where housing is being discussed with signs, petitions and raw passion directed as those opposing their cause.

Chiu said he is heartened to watch the group of frustrated residents across the Bay Area and state coordinate and begin to stand up for their interest in a sort of political awakening.

“Many YIMBYs are young, millennials who understand that our failure in our cities and state to build housing is having an incredibly negative consequence on their ability to live in our communities,” he said. “And their organization and advocacy has really made a difference in Sacramento, and has been a positive for us.”

Not everyone is enamored with the group’s efforts though, as critics commonly allege that YIMBYs are merely stooges for developers pushing in favor of housing construction at the behest of those standing to gain from the real estate market.

Fierce scoffed at such as suggestion though.

“If I was financed by a developer, I wouldn’t be paying half my monthly income to rent,” she said.

Instead, she said her passion is driven by a desire to share the opportunities enjoyed by those who purchased property before home values skyrocketed.

“I rent. That is my material interest. I want to pay less. I want to own a home,” she said.

To a larger point though, Fierce said she believes housing advocacy is in order to restore the progressive principles which once made the Golden State a national treasure.

“It’s not California’s values, and we are pushing back,” said Fierce, regarding housing opposition. “We want to get back to the promise that previous generations had.”

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105

Recommended for you

(41) comments


Great story! We used to build a lot of housing, which kept prices low and meant young people didn't need to be politically active. We've stopped building a lot of housing, and rents and home prices have gone crazy.

It's great seeing young people become more politically active, and trying to ensure a better and more equitable future for themselves and their kids.


We used to build a lot of housing because there was plenty of land, roads, and schools to support it. Now, there's little buildable land, and the roads and schools are already way overcrowded. Adding more local housing will take cars off the highways, but add them to city streets as new residents drive around to do what they can't do with public transportation. Jobs should be added where housing and other infrastructure can support it.

Archibald Bunker

There are plenty of places you can go with local transit Ray. Have you ever actually ridden on SamTrans? You might not use or want to use public transit but many others happily do so.


I guess you should discuss this with City Councils up and down the Peninsula whih have been happy to add new jobs without adding much new housing at all.

There are plenty of places to add housing; buy a single family home near a transit line for $1.5 million, tear it down, build ten condos, sell them each for $800,000. Or turn a surface parking lot or laundromat into housing, or turn one-story retail into mixed use apartments with housing on the ground floor... there are plenty of sites that meet this criteria.

vincent wei

Love how the Yimby's magically think that building what is basically MARKET rate housing is going to solve the affordability crisis that we have in housing..... The developers are laughing as they build micro units that rent for $3000 or more a month and sell for over a million...and their profits swell....

And Kevin check your history, it's not nimby's who caused this affordability problem but rather environmental groups, the Loma Prieta chapter of the Sierra Club and the Committee for Green Foothills, the Greenbelt Alliance etc., starting in the 70's who locked up roughly 75 percent of all the land in the Bay Area as either permanently protected in parks or open space ...The Bay Area... has more parks, farmland, beaches and other open spaces than any other major urban area in the United States........(BUT there's a cost for this open space that was never mentioned at that time and was not the issue it is today, the fact that we now have only 25% (obviously less) of the Bay Area to build any kind of housing on)'s were never that organized....

John Morris

People are talking about supply and demand, not magic, Vincent. You cannot add tens of thousands of jobs to an area and build almost no housing as we have done without it causing a crisis. To your point about open space, show me one urban planner who recommends more sprawl instead of density in the suburbs. The last thing we should be doing is sprawling out into open space. We need to build up, not out.

vincent wei

So how many millions of market rate units do you have to build to make them affordable in the Bay Area, John? Give me a number that will bring the prices down to the $300-$400k-$500k range?....And in terms of the mismatch of jobs/housing maybe you should blame those same urban planners influenced by the like of developer run planning groups like the Urban Land Institute and our pro business/union city councils.... the open space was cut out of the 9 Bay Area counties...75%..not outside of can ignore that fact but that's what has led to this imbalance as much as anything....San Mateo County is nearly 50% open space...using the pejorative term urban sprawl doesn't apply, in my estimation, to that fact...

John Morris

Tens of thousands, not millions. We need to start making a dent in evening out the balance between jobs added and units added. We are also talking about rental prices, not home prices. To your second point: urban sprawl is not a pejorative, it is an actual, tangible thing that exists, and it absolutely applies here. Spreading out into open space is an insufficient form of planning for many reasons.

Mr Eddy

The housing crisis got worse because of gentrification, SM used to have Bay Meadows, it was demolished for big housing projects and office building for tech companies. We warned our town to stop putting more office buildings. And the development said there would be affordable housing, but they said it wasn't enough, and then Delaware St. got more housing projects, which were reluctant to build several hundred units unless they provide enough affordable units, Station Park Green just close to completion. Our traffic has gotten worse and worse, I'm near Sunnybrae, parking near our house is worse because of the significant increase in traffic. We have no more room for growth in our neighborhood, I'm not against more affordable housing, but our neighborhood is already done with these housing projects, and there's other areas that are closer to offices and has more parking, like Fashion Island or Bridgepoint, they have more room for housing.Delaware and Concar is already oversaturated, we need reasonable growth, because the peninsula should stop bringing overpopulation.


If you want less traffic, support the construction of more parking-light apartments near ECR, and Hayward Park / Hillsdale Caltrain, and fewer single family homes in places like Brentwood, Rio Vista, Pleasanton, and Gilroy. We've added not very much of the former and a lot of the latter. The result is a lot of people getting in their solo occupant cars at 6:30am and driving 90 minutes to get to work.

Contact your City Council and ask them for lower parking minimums and "unbundled" parking, so people have to pay extra for additional parking spaces. At the margin, you want new residents to choose a bike, the train, or a bus over a single occupant vehicle.

Mr Eddy

That doesn't work that way, you don't live in our neighborhood in SM. There's too much units being added which means more need for vehicles, since visitors don't want to take the bike nor public transit. My neighborhood don't want anymore people moving here, I'm near Hayward Park station, and I can't really go to my work by train, because not all jobs are near the train, high schools and even colleges aren't all near the station. Stop putting more traffic in one area, other cities should get more jobs, don't add more buildings here, go add them closer to Brentwood and Gilroy.


Theory versus practice? Seems that way as the thread throughout your messages is the same and that doesn't mean its the solution. Turning the ECR into a canyon land of high rises will not abate the crowding issue. Riding bikes, taking the train or whatever isn't for everyone or fills every need. Oh how PC and Green you are Kevin, but practical and pragmatic...not necessarily. So instead of attempting to put everyone in the follow me, Kevin Burke knows best crowd, I have these facts, see them!--its not that simple. What is simple is to understand that you want to pay less rent and buy something. Well, that may or may not be possible.

SMC citizen

When did San Mateo become the backyard of Oakland? We can't afford to buy a house, we will file a lawsuit. Incredible thought process. We want it we can't have it , we'll sue the City for not providing to our needs. I'm curious if New York , and Los Angeles are experiencing the same crisis, or is it just the Bay Area, one of the most if not the most priciest locations in the world to live. Yimbys doing their best to depreciate the region. Build more apartments/ soon to be projects


More like, the City zoned for ten units, it denied our application for ten units that complied with the zoning code after an arduous two year long planning process, and we want our ten units.

San Mateo used to build a lot of housing. This meant that homes were cheap enough for people to buy. Then neighbors who bought the cheap homes decided they didn't want any more neighbors, and voted for things like height limits and long, arbitrary application processes for new housing. Now San Mateo doesn't build enough housing.

Replacing a $1.5 million home with ten $800,000 condos is one good way to get back to affordability. Not to mention, if the suit is successful it will generate $10,000 per unit - $100,000 total - in funds for affordable housing.

Los Angeles is also experiencing the same crisis - including 57,000 residents who lack a permanent place to sleep. New York uses "by-right" approval to build new housing, which means it's generally built more housing to keep up with demand from residents.


What this person, who just moved here from Ohio three years ago, is doing is wanting a home in an excellent, high-scaled neighborhood on a silver platter. I would love to live in Hillsborough, but I can't just because I whine about it.

I worked hard for my home by scrimping and saving and doing without. I didn't make the salary this generation is earning. My neighborhood was considered low- to medium/low income until Silicon Valley exploded this area -- supply and demand.

Those of us who were fortunate to do without (like devices, cars, etc. that parents bought for them) did not have the gall to demand things like this generation because our parents would tell us what it was like to live through the Great Depression, WWII, the Korean War and Viet Nam.

We keep allowing people to move here, supplying them with affordable housing, yet we are a "drought State" and have been in an over five-year drought. Everyone suffers with the influx of people who think they are owed a home.

So, we are not against development, we are for smart development, meaning do not build in an already congested area - build on the East side where there is ample land usage.

So, don't stand on your soapbox and decry "I want housing" when you compromised yourself for a good paying job, but didn't factor in expenses to live in "Rome" and don't come here and try to destroy what little quality of life we have in this area.


Person who jumped over a 3 foot high bar complains that people who need to jump over a 7 foot high bar are just asking for a handout, story at 9.

The problem is that today people who are working exactly as hard as you worked are not getting anywhere close to being able to buy a home. Incomes have doubled since 1990. Home values have increased 5x.

This is because people who benefitted from a boom in home construction in the 80’s and 90’s and bought homes when they were cheap have been making it difficult to continue building homes to keep up with population growth, through height limits and zoning rules. It’s not asking for a handout to observe that that’s not fair; it’s asking for exactly the same playing field you benefited from when you bought a home decades ago.


More local housing will take traffic off highways, and add it to already clogged local streets and parking areas as new residents will not be willing and able to take public transit everywhere they need or want to go.


You're missing that commuters are already clogging local streets as they drive from their homes in Pleasanton to their jobs in San Mateo, and divert to ECR/the Hillsdale bypass because 101 is too crowded.

If you're replacing a 20 mile commute with a 1 mile commute you'd need to add at least 20 new trips to get back to the *same* traffic level you had before. Not to mention that 1 mile commuter is much more likely to walk, bike, take the bus, etc. to get where they are going.


The traffic is already bad. It's bad because we keep adding new jobs and we keep putting new homes away from transit. Caltrain electrification is supposed to add 6 trains an hour during peak hours. That being said I will 100% support any transportation infrastructure bill or bond, but that doesn't mean I have to be against new housing.


For those that would like to say just save up and sacrifice. When prices were even at around 500,00, it was relatively reasonable to say you can put a little bit away each month and in about 5 years, you'd have enough for a down payment. Let's do the math. Now, for my household, for example, if we would want to save up for a down payment for a house in 5 years, it would mean the following:
-Only paying for rent, rest of the income would have to go to savings. Meaning no money for food, emergencies, to buy clothes and necessities for our 2 growing children, gas, electricity, etc. I say this knowing that we are in a higher salary bracket than a lot of other people (but still far from being well off), so I can't imagine how difficult it must be for others. No one is expecting a handout. There seems to be this false narrative that young people are getting paid a lot more than what in reality they are truly getting.


I always find it interesting when NIMBYs trot out the "lazy kids looking for a handout" argument when younger folks advocate that the city approve more housing. It makes me wonder, did you use the same rhetoric with your children when they were looking for somewhere to live? "Sorry kids, if you really wanted to live in the place where you grew up you should've worked harder. Maybe try living in an RV or a tent for a while, it'll build some character."


I didn't read anyone use the words "lazy kids" except for you. People wrote about their experiences of find a place to live -

Christopher Conway

Live in an area that you can afford. Did that ever cross your mind?


Oddly, that 10 unit building had no affordable units in it, but evidently every single development is now a target to get pushed through by the YIMBY/HAACS (Housing at ALL Costs).
Victoria and crew - none of us homeowners were given a home. My own story of sacrifice is likely no different than anyone else: Before my husband and I were married (at almost 30 years of age), we scrimped and saved while we lived in a dank, moldy apartment. (Before that, we each lived with three other room mates.) But all our saving still wasn't enough, and in the end, we decided to take the money we would have spent to have a wedding to put toward a home down payment. No wedding, but we did eek our way into a townhouse, as a single family home was still out of reach. Final thought: Sacrifice, save, then buy what and where you can. It's a no-brainer.


In 1990 the median San Mateo home was 7x the median income. That's now about 14x. The families that are "scrimping and saving" and forgoing weddings, today, are doing so to keep making rent - a third of California renters pay half their salary in rent - and to keep their kids in the same school district. Homes - the current median San Mateo home is $1.4 million - are a pipe dream.

Exorbitant home prices are largely a result of not building any new housing. You say "housing at all costs" - more like "housing at the same quantities that California built in 1980, and the same quantities that other states build at."

The site was zoned for 10 units and the City Council should allow 10 units to be built there. They were required to build 22 below-ground parking spaces If you want more affordable units, do as I did, and ask the City Council to waive the height limits or minimum parking requirement in exchange for more BMR units in the project.


I'll go ahead and add - No one should be worried enough about saving to afford a home that they have to forgo a proper wedding. People in other states don't have routine stories about doing this, because other states build enough housing for everyone that wants to move there.

The way to end everyone having a horrific story about saving for a home is to end the artificial shortage in new home construction, which will lower prices and allow folks to buy condos without losing their shirt.

Actions like replacing a $1.5 million home with ten $800,000 condos are a great start.


To compare your situation decades ago to ours is just out of touch with reality. This sentiment is exactly why YIMBYs exist. You guys have been pushing this narrative that we're just lazy and looking for handouts, when we're statistically working longer hours on average than your generation. You have to completely ignore literally every metric that shows home prices sky rocketing and wages staying stagnate. You made us accept housing at all costs because you guys have been blocking developments because of "neighborhood character". It's frustrating to listen to people say we want handouts when they're sitting in a prop 13 house, a handout that makes it impossible for this state to make any serious infrastructure improvements. Final thought: empathy, compromise, and sell your home to move where there are less millennials. We aren't going anywhere.


Skipping a wedding, fancy rings, and a honeymoon would not be enough money today to get you into a townhouse in the area, and probably not even a condo. And that's even considering that the cost of a wedding is likely much more today.


Also, the concept of having roommates in your 20s and even 30s is not something revolutionary you came up with in your day that people have not considered in recent years, Lisa, but thanks for the tip.


Most of San Mateo is not against developments for the sake of being against it. All we want is common sense planning and the infrastructure to support it. Developers and some city officials seems to think that development is going to magically change people’s behaviors and it’s just not reality.

The person in this article pines for the “promise that previous generations had.” Which is a great sentiment, but not unlike the situation with the job market, this too, is not dealing with reality.

The economy, the job market, and the housing market have changed and developers and communities must work in the present to create meaningful solutions.

In my opinion, developers in our community have shown many times over that they have no real investment or care for our community, they are only concerned with making money and capitalizing on the rising housing prices. Until this perception changes by the actions of developers, expect much more opposition from communities.


San Mateo has grown its population about 14% since 1990. That's about a third as slowly as a state as a whole.

Home prices have increased 5x in that time frame. Rents have tripled. Despite this, 780,000 square feet - about 5000 workers - worth of new office space were approved for Bay Meadows, homeowners are pushing to extend caps on building height throughout the city, and many people oppose 935 units of housing at Concar Passage, where those Bay Meadows workers could live.

Who exactly is capitalizing on rising housing prices? Because to me it looks a lot like long time homeowners.


“We have political power and we are not afraid to use it to seek our goal,” is frighteningly reminiscent of American manifest destiny. Corporate CEO’s want to live in the bay area because of its natural beauty and low-rise, open skies ambiance. Yet the tens of thousands of employees needed to manufacture their CEO wealth despoil the very qualities that draw them to the area. They will create Manhattan west, then relocate to the next desirable region to repeat the process, just as settlers pushed out the native Americans, spoiled the land, and then continued west. Asking the natives to subsidize those who arrive to spoil their land is the crowning irony.


Cool take. This ignores that your own local governments are the ones pushing for a ton of new office space and zero new housing. Let's go up and down the Peninsula:

- SF, Central SOMA Plan, 40,000 new office workers, 7,000 housing units.

- Brisbane, proposed ballot measure, 26,000 office workers, 2,200 housing units.

- South San Francisco, Oyster Point, 11,000 new office workers, zero housing

- San Mateo, Bay Meadows, 5000 office workers, 1,100 housing units.

- Cupertino, Apple Park, 18,000 office workers, zero new housing

That's not on the companies - that's on local governments stacked with homeowners pursuing the revenue from new office space without building the housing to match it. Coincidentally (or not), this also helps the home values for these homeowners and their homeowner constituents. “We have political power and we are not afraid to use it to seek our goal,” well, we are seeing the results of this policy.


Regarding your comment “We want to get back to the promise that previous generations had," most previous generations that we remember were families that worked hard, saved their money, bought small homes, with many people living in the same house so they could all save money (my family partitioned off bedrooms with hanging sheets for privacy), wouldn't think of showing up at City Council/Hall to complain and expect handouts or rent subsidies, etc. They eventually bought bigger homes, investing their hard earned money, still working 2 or 3 jobs. Many of these people did suffer (including living on the streets in RV's until they could save money to buy a home), more than the now younger generation realize. But they had/have ethics. There is a limit to what the land will support. We are over-populated now. Our resources and finances are taxed to the max. Jobs must be created elsewhere. Suggest you spend your time in a positive direction, rather than trying to make people suffer more.


Lou it has gotten way, way, way more difficult to afford a home even for people who are working hard.

In 1990 you could rent a two bedroom apartment in San Mateo for $900 a month. That's now about $3300 a month. In 1990 you could buy the average home for $328,000. That's now $1.4 million. Incomes have only doubled in that time frame.

We used to build a lot of housing in 1980 and 1990, that was the reason that homes were more affordable at that time. 180,000 homes a year was not unrealistic. We have a larger population and have largely stopped building housing.

Speaking of asking for a handout, longtime homeowners are a huge drain on a city's tax base, because of Prop 13. You can't give teachers a 3% raise if your tax base is increasing by 1% a year. One reason to approve new housing is because it pays impact fees and property taxes with a 2018 tax basis, that can be used to pay for better infrastructure.


Not everyone can live in the bay area. We are stuffing it to death! Our traffic is becoming more and more congested; Our water supply is limited; our air quality is being challenged; our infrastructure needs replacing (hereby more taxes coming) and our schools are being impacted!
Silicon Valley needs to find a new places to create jobs other than the Bay Area.

I don't know who the YIMBYS are but some of their tactics in San Francisco and San Mateo have been unacceptable.

One needs to wonder where they come from and who is supporting them both financially and politically. Do these people have a job or is this their main job?


Coralin traffic is bad because your city, and cities to the north and the south, are approving a ton of new office space without approving any new housing. This means a ton of commuters have to drive in from over the San Mateo Bridge, or from places like Gilroy. Solo drivers in cars are not good for air quality either.

More housing in our towns on the Peninsula would mean more commutes by walk, bike, bus, or train, and shorter commutes overall.

I have a job but I go to these meetings because my brother, sister, and best man have all left the Bay Area due to high housing costs and I don't want to join them.


Seriously! This is your argument? You need to join your brother and sister. It's not the cities fault or anyone else. You are in the back pocket of developers with this angle.


Can you blame the NIMBYs for not wanting even more traffic on already very crowded local streets? It's not like all these new people won't drive a car


Traffic is bad because your city, and cities to the north and the south, are approving a ton of new office space without approving any new housing. This means a ton of commuters have to drive in from over the San Mateo Bridge, or from places like Gilroy.


Give me a guarantee that all this new housing will help with traffic. It will never happen. And what about on weekends when people want to go to the store or their kid's little league games? Regardless of office space or housing, traffic will only get worse. It's developers who want this to happen so they can keep making $$$$ on our backs. Live and work in a place you can afford!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for reading the Daily Journal.

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.