As it's also failing in California.

Actually, some of us do. Thinking like that is why Berkeley voters have elected several council members who either don't know very much or haven't the capacity (or interest) to analyze, ask questions, and notice (and bother to care) when they're being played by staff and aggressive commissioners.

I sat in on her campaign update zoom. Somebody asked about her approach to hiring staff. She admitted she doesn't know much about Berkeley city government & would rely on staff to tell her what's what. Boundless & brazen ambition in an empty suit. Get out your popcorn & watch for developer PACs.

Eariboyz

There's an optical illusion at play there because of the way the windows are framed. Every time we drive by going north on Oxford, husband remarks it looks like it's tilting, but back corner aligns vertically to building behind it.

Didn't know that, tks for info!

I specifically mentioned middle and below median income residents. They are not designated “low income.” They are the bulk of the missing middle. Many are SFH renters. The real missing middle cannot afford market rate homes that will replace tear downs.

There are a fair number of below median & moderate income SFH renters, and long time home owners who don't fall into "low income." Those homes won't be protected by the demolition ordinance unfortunately. Gentrification is likely to move forward destroying those homes, because they aren't fancified.

Not a betting woman, but your predicted outcome would be fine with me! It'd be possible to pro-actively legislate that aim, and protect housing on smaller lots by the way. Why not do it? More likely will be an overbroad hills/fire carve out.

By the way, I see your grandmother lived on my street, 2.5 blocks away. I am also a grandma and I support much larger infill apartments in the hills than the flats, specifically on Grizzly, Euclid and Spruce. Larger lots & bus service exist there. Safe escape from those streets not a problem imo.