Im just baffled by this nimby matra that downtown has been destroyed. Its got more foot traffic than i can ever remember.

Landmarking should be approached as a census. Every 10 years we check the sites over.

No. I like my Maybecks

I look at successful downtowns like Santa Cruz and Redwood City and cant really come to any other conclusion than not having a loud roadway strip in the middle of your central business district but on its edges enhances walkability and commercial vibrancy.

Oh right, yeah. I guess so.

I dont agree that people who live near a landmark have a greater say on its importance, honestly.

Sure I agree, and thats what the 200 limit is for. But it's not hard to get 200 people to sign something either, BAHA and LPC folks are just going to have to put in a bit more effort.

This is a much better version than the currently proposed landmark reform which would mandate getting 400 signatures if a property owner doesnt want a landmarking. Thats unnecessarily complicated and doesnt get at the heart of the issue.

I'm strongly pro-preservation and history, so I'm not inclined to attack BAHA or landmarking even if I've found many attempts by certain applicants to be NIMBYism in disguise. But the issue has already been settled by the state, so codifying it locally saves everyone time. 2/2

I'm hearing down the grapevine that several of the stalled downtown Berkeley high-rises are starting to churn for next year.

Harder, obv. But if a property owner doesnt want the designation you're imposing costs onto them. Like working on landmarked properties can be very expensive for maintenance