The Daily Journal has published a number of anti-housing opinion pieces, such the letter Aug. 19 “Political cowardice on SB 9 and 10” and Aug. 13’s guest perspective “The stink of SB 9 and 10.” Both of these provide arguments in favor of ignoring the housing and affordability crisis in our region.

The Bay Area has a tendency to tout its diversity while quietly pushing to make every neighborhood impossible to afford for lower-income families. We have a chance to chip away at our region’s historical redlining and exclusionary policies.

The letters published do not take an academic or fact-based approach — for example, looking at the studies that show increased development does in fact decrease housing costs, or the fact that multifamily houses use less water per capita than their single family counterparts. Instead they stoke fear that duplexes and fourplexes will turn our city into Manhattan or use up all our water.

Although bills like SB 9 and 10 are far from perfect, the proposed solutions in these previous letters are to do everything in our power to continue to have skyrocketing real estate and make the area unaffordable for nonmillionaires. Rather than nix all new housing, let’s work together to find a way to build housing that works for everybody.

Zack Zlotoff


Recommended for you

(3) comments

Tommy Tee

Stack and Pack? No, thanks.

Dirk van Ulden

Mr. Zlotoff is probably not aware of the real reason for these housing bills. Why were they sponsored by ultra left legislators who live in densely populated cities? The same cities that are liberal in nature and look with envy at those of us who moved out to get away from these liberal lunacies. This is their way to bring their liberal mismanagement to the suburbs as most of the newer residents will likely vote for the liberal tickets. Thanks to our conniving politicians; they may get their way and transform our communities into the cesspools that these legislators had created in their home turf.

Terence Y

Mr. Zlotoff – I don’t believe people are against more housing or even stack and pack housing – they’re just against those types of buildings ruining their single-family neighborhoods. After all, there’s still plenty of land that is open, or inefficiently used, and these areas can easily be developed. What reason is there to destroy existing single-family neighborhoods, whose current owner’s bought for that reason, or that future owner’s desire?

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 visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase an Enhanced Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!