Central planners don’t have a good record historically. Try as they might, they just lack the information the rest of us have collectively and lack understanding of the “invisible hands” and trade-offs working silently in the background that inform our personal decisions. But political power is addictive, so we need to push back, hard.
This is why I am writing about what I believe will be the disastrous consequences of SB79 (officially titled “Housing development: transit-oriented development” but commonly known as the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, passed in 2025) and SB330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019, passed in 2019) on Rockridge. Both laws, which take effect this year, were passed when no one was paying attention and are based on assertions that are questionable at best, in my opinion, and outdated today.
If one condenses the “whereas” statements in SB330, the need for action is based upon the following assumptions:
- California has some of the expensive real estate markets in the nation, and therefore, we need more affordable homes at prices below market rates (when have builders sold homes at below market prices?).
- Rents are high and becoming unaffordable. (Remember this was in 2019, before California started losing population.)
- Construction costs of new housing are increasing, exacerbated by lengthy permitting processes and approval times, fees and costs for parking, etc. (The Fed target of 2 to 3% annual price inflation will always be with us.)
- Homes, lots, and structures near good jobs, schools, and transportation remain underutilized and could be rapidly remodeled or developed to add affordable homes. (Should we instead focus on more good jobs and better education?)
Nothing new here. To cut to the chase, despite these assertions, we live on an incredibly desirable piece of real estate with ocean breezes, natural beauty, and a mild climate. People the world over would like to move here and join us. Therefore, everything will always cost more than in locations lacking these attributes. That is how the market works, and it can’t be otherwise, no matter how much central planners wish it were.
SB79 and SB330 were crafted with specific loopholes for senior housing, but without provisions that mandate that these buildings, designed as such, will remain as such. Who thinks Rockridge, or North Oakland, needs or can fill over 600 expensive senior housing units? If this demand existed, businesses like Merrill Gardens on Broadway would have been built all over the area, but they haven’t been. Why not?
The answer is that SB79 and SB330 don’t provide solutions to these complicated “problems.” What will be achieved in a macro sense by overriding local control over development and jamming as much construction as possible into a 0.5-mile radius circle centered on the Rockridge BART Station, upturning what made the place desirable in the first place and running counter to the resident-developed RCPC Community Vision Plan? Nothing really. Only central planners, who work in government offices in central business districts, think this way.
By the way, why pick a 0.5-mile radius? I live exactly one half mile from the Rockridge BART, and it takes me ten minutes to walk there. It could just as easily be a one-mile radius, or any other reasonable number. We could all benefit from walking a few miles every day.
Members of the RCPC Board have long been infatuated with the idea of creating more affordable housing locally. To me, this is just virtue signaling. The RCPC doesn’t have the tools to solve the problems they claim to see and should instead focus on issues where they can be effective. Adding infill housing here and there in Rockridge won’t change the local, regional, or state real estate market one iota.
The RCPC Board has yet to take a stand on the proposed 6230 Claremont Avenue project, but perhaps now that the Trader Joe’s Twin Towers project has landed square in their lap, they appear to have finally awoken as to what is really now brewing in the heart of Rockridge.
A few obvious negatives come to mind for both projects. First, senior housing doesn’t generate much in the way of local economic benefit. I have read that despite providing kitchens in the individual residential units, most senior housing residents don’t cook for themselves, but rather eat in the dining room of the complex. If this were true, the food sales would go to a corporate food service company and not our local shops and restaurants.
Second, the streets are too narrow to handle the volume of additional traffic, and the buildings of this size will create massive shadows. Is this fair to the locals? Regarding Trader Joe’s removal, there would be a dead economic zone stretching from Keith/Shafter to Oak Grove. Three easy ones.
But here is the real kicker that should get everyone’s attention. The Twin Towers developer, Align Real Estate, states on page two of their application letter, that “The Project also reserves the right to apply for a tentative map for condominium purposes.”
The senior housing exemption, the density bonuses, the height, and CEQA waivers, etc. are, in my opinion, just a means for permitting construction of tall buildings using the senior housing exemption that will later turn into luxury housing because of negative market conditions that “only recently developed.”
This will drive local real estate prices up, not down. Talk about unintended consequences! Or was this intended by the central planners all along? If you don’t believe me, look at the architect Align Real Estate hired (SCB) and the proposed design features. Beautiful, expensive buildings, not ho-hum senior housing.
Rockridge is an important part of Oakland’s economy, and as the local golden goose, we can’t afford to mess it up. We need to be careful as to what we allow to be done locally, and push back against the central planners, who don’t have a dog in the fight, don’t have to live with the consequences of their actions, and will be out of office long before the proverbial “s” hits the fan.
Time to stand up and fight!
— John A. Dal Pino, Guest Author
