Home > Resource Center > In the News Home > Greenbelt Alliance in the News

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

November 1, 2005

Why longtime rivals join to oppose Cupertino measures

But in Cupertino, we're united. Both our national and local organizations agree that Measures A, B and C are terrible public policy.

These extreme measures would restrict densities in Cupertino, impose inflexible ceilings on building heights and mandate buildings be set back from the street a certain distance regardless of their location. Even the slightest variations would require a public vote, which means they will not happen.

The measures are totally contrary to principles of SMART growth, which promote development within existing cities rather than in open space. This practice, known as infill, leads to a more efficient use of land, including the reuse of outdated industrial and commercial buildings, of which Cupertino has too many. It turns blight into attractive office space and much-needed affordable housing for teachers, firefighters and public safety officers.

Environmental groups support infill to preserve rural land. In areas where open land is plentiful, home builders sometimes believe development there is desirable. But in the South Bay, given the enormous public resistance to building in the hills and mountains, builders realize infill is the best option to provide housing that everyone agrees is essential to our economy.

In addition, many home buyers now are attracted to more livable, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, where people can walk or bike rather than drive to shops and parks. In these areas, higher-density, taller buildings lining the sidewalks can add to the ambience of a city rather than detract.

By severely limiting density, Measure A would make it impossible to build affordable housing for teachers, nurses, police and firefighters.

Every community needs these workers, and it's healthier for everyone to have them living close to their work and feeling a connection to the city they serve.

Measure B's height constraints would limit new retail in Cupertino to ugly, big box, warehouse-style buildings that are traffic magnets. It would constrain companies like Apple Computer, which hints that passage of these measures would lead it to plan future growth outside of Cupertino.

And Measure C's setback requirement would require builders to consume more, rather than less, precious land on any given project.

Is it any wonder these measures have drawn opposition, not only from builders and environmentalists, including the Greenbelt Alliance and League of Conservation Voters, but also from good-government advocates, the League of Women Voters and from every responsible leader and entity in Cupertino?

Having just celebrated its 50th anniversary, Cupertino faces a crossroads.

Will it become a model of responsible growth or a dying city filled with big-box stores, strip malls and ranch homes on the hillsides? Will it drive away major employers, condemning future residents to a city with no tax base and less money for schools?

When the home builders and the Sierra Club can agree on the devastating impacts of these measures, it should be clear that they're not in our community's best interest. Reason must prevail. Vote No on A, B and C.

BEVERLEY BRYANT is executive director of the Southern Division, Home Builders Association of Northern California.
TIM FRANK is senior policy adviser to the Sierra Club's National Campaign to Build Healthy Communities. They wrote this article for the Mercury News.

###