Do Californians really want to add new homes?

Dear Neal, my intent was not to dismiss the risk of wildfires, my intent was to clarify that you can't use a strawman argument against the bill and dismiss its merits through fearmongering with wildfires. Also, the housing that is needed is for the people already living on top of each other, in cars, on someone's couch, or in a tent on the street AND for growth. People born 20+ years ago are going to need housing once they leave the nest. Stating that we're adding the population of an entire city is simply false. -Rudy Espinoza Murray

If the theory is that in wild fire areas we shouldn't build then in areas that burned in a wild fire shouldn't be allowed to rebuild. Yet, the AIA changes up in the Tubbs fire area have been substantial and they are making markedly better design choices for more resilient structures. If Los Altos Hills is in danger of such a wild fire, perhaps there should be a moratorium on ALL building permits there. The entire town should engage in a managed retreat from the fire risk and updates, additions, or modernizations to homes there should be disallowed. Such statements are as preposterous as the premise of the letter writers suppositions.

Thank you for your letter, Mr. Mielke. Many letters are printed with pie-in-the-sky ideas, but when it comes down to details and implementation, there aren’t any. Thanks for pointing out several details that haven’t been addressed.

Well those 7 million you quote are stuck in their cars trying to get to the Peninsula to their jobs and to service Peninsula residents. And my guess is that the writer was against housing before the wildfire concerns grew.