If you live in a sea level community like the Bay Area, you need to be concerned with polar ice melt and rising sea levels.

Even if you don’t live at sea level, you still need to worry about a world where billions of people will be displaced by rising oceans and other impacts from weather in upheaval.

In response to the need, California has taken a leading role through SB 375 as it has in the past, and is pursuing hard targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Since 40% of our emissions are vehicle related, getting past the suburban commuter mentality must be part of the equation, as the urban planner and author of Vision California, Peter Calthorpe, points out in a recent Bay Citizen article.

Calthorpe’s reference, or perhaps it was the reporter’s take, is that Alamedans seem to want to be ‘suburban’ even though we’re right here in the heart of it all. And the evidence is supposed to be our recent rejection of Measure B.

What they’re missing here, however, is simply that we didn’t like the unique special exception to Measure A.  People like the Calthorpe/Suncal plan for Alameda Point and its potential to help alleviate traffic and provide jobs, as well as its positive impact on our carbon footprint.  What we didn’t like was the backward way we’d be brought into it under Measure B.

Give us smart, traffic reducing redevelopment that complies with existing laws and you can still have higher density, mixed use infill.

In addition to reducing our overall ‘car’-bon foot print by 17% from transportation, new urbanist redevelopment also means sustainability focused buildings – both new and renovated historic structures.  Since structures are the other major source of emissions after cars, our footprint going forward with projects like Suncal’s plan for Alameda Point will be that much smaller still.

If we don’t move in this direction and do it soon, beachfront property will ultimately begin at the base of the Oakland Hills.