When Assemblyman David Chiu gazes at a moat of asphalt encircling a suburban BART station, he sees a solution to the region’s housing crisis.

Many BART parking lots fill with cars during the day and turn into empty moonscapes at night, wasting prime land that could be lined with apartments and shops, with compact parking structures for riders, said Chiu, D-San Francisco. Though others share this vision, development of BART parking lots is a contentious issue: Bickering over height limits, aesthetics and parking spaces has long hobbled the transit agency’s ability to get it done.

Chiu is pressing a bill that aims to fix the problem by requiring BART to zone its vacant property for housing and retail, and limiting cities’ ability to obstruct or delay that development.

He and his co-sponsor, Concord Democratic Assemblyman Timothy Grayson, call it a moderate intervention. But the idea hit resistance from a broad swath of the East Bay, where many of these parking lots are located. Fierce opposition from mayors, city councils and neighborhood groups has cast the future of Assembly Bill 2923 in doubt as it faces a live-or-die vote in a state Senate fiscal committee Thursday.

“Why does BART suddenly need this greater power?” asked Lafayette Mayor Don Tatzin, who, like other critics, said he has no problem with development next to a BART station — he just doesn’t want BART to control the process.

Orinda Mayor Amy Worth also bristled at the idea that a transit agency could reshape neighborhoods.

“I think everybody agrees that we need to have more housing in the Bay Area,” she said. “Our issue is with BART having land-use authority over cities.”

Throughout Alameda and Contra Costa counties, the arguments are similar. Nearly everyone seems to agree on the virtues of transit-oriented development, which would add vital housing stock and ease pressure on jammed freeways. Yet many cities want to fill this land on their own time and their own terms, without BART or state legislators calling the shots.

“It would be incorrect to interpret our position as a lack of support for transit-oriented development on or near BART stations,” said Hayward city spokesman Chuck Finnie. Nonetheless, he said, the city opposes Assembly Bill 2923, because “we would lose total zoning control over properties that surround the two BART stations (Hayward and South Hayward) in our community.”

These objections illustrate a broader cultural rift that’s complicated efforts to build housing near transit, said state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who sponsored a more aggressive housing-transit bill earlier this year.

“In general, human beings resist change,” Wiener said. His bill would have allowed four- to eight-story apartment or condo buildings near major bus and rail stops statewide. It incited an impassioned debate and ultimately died in committee in April.

AB2923 provides what its authors say is a milder alternative, since it applies only to BART property — about 200 acres around 46 stations — and gives decision-making power to locally elected BART officials, rather than setting a statewide standard.

BART recently committed to build out its lots by 2040, producing 20,000 units of housing and 4.5 million square feet of commercial space, including child care and educational facilities. Chiu and Grayson’s bill limits building heights to one story higher than structures in the surrounding area. At least one-third of the housing would be affordable to low- and moderate-income families.

The bill has caused dissension among BART’s Board of Directors. Nick Josefowitz, who represents San Francisco, helped craft the bill and remains a vocal supporter. Three other board directors — Debora Allen, John McPartland and Thomas Blalock — wrote a letter in dissent, saying BART’s job is “transit, not housing.” Officially, the board’s position is neutral.

The idea of building dense villages near transit nodes isn’t new, and BART stations, in particular, have long been fertile ground for development. Over the last three decades, apartments and shops have sprouted up at stations in Pleasant Hill and Oakland’s Fruitvale district; a sleek 24-story high-rise is under construction at MacArthur Station; and a plan to checker the Millbrae Station with offices, pedestrian walkways and apartments was approved in April.

Supporters of these projects complain about the time it takes to build them. The Fruitvale plan gestated for nearly a decade before its 47-unit first phase opened in 2004, and the Millbrae project barely passed by a 3-2 City Council vote, after 10 years of discussion.

Plans for transit-oriented development often go through several revisions, with officials sometimes cutting the number of housing units to preserve parking spaces. Those negotiations cause delays and ramp up project costs.

“In recent years, we’ve seen local intransigence prevent us from addressing the most important issues of the day: housing and congestion,” Chiu said.

Yet every legislative attempt to speed up the process becomes a knockdown fight.

“People are very protective of their neighborhoods, and I respect that,” Wiener said. “But if you’re not allowing enough housing, then home prices will go up, and the family next door will eventually get pushed out, and you’ll see more homeless people.”

In Berkeley, two BART stations are ripe for development — one in North Berkeley, the other at Ashby. The City Council passed a resolution opposing Chiu and Grayson’s bill in May, but the lots have spurred vigorous debate.

Residents of North Berkeley appear divided, said district Councilwoman Linda Maio. She and a group of volunteers went door-to-door several months ago to warn constituents that development of the station’s tree-lined parking lot might be up for discussion.

“I just wanted people to be informed, so there would be less opportunity for speculation and horror stories,” Maio said.

Her district represents the wider ideological split in Bay Area land-use debates. On one side are pro-density activists and on the other are those who want to keep things as they are. Most people are in the middle — they want modest development that blends into an area of single-family homes, parks and basketball courts.

At Ashby, the notion of development is more polarizing. The station hosts a flea market every weekend in its parking lot, and some residents worry that dozens of vendors would lose business if the market were pushed somewhere else. An online “Save the Berkeley Flea Market” petition had gathered nearly 39,000 signatures by Wednesday.

To Chiu, these feuds show the complexity of adding a few hundred acres of development on a couple of dozen lots.

“This is a very narrowly tailored bill,” he said. “But simply having the conversation causes people to panic.”

Rachel Swan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: rswan@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @rachelswan