Zelda Bronstein’s recent post on 48 Hills contains inaccuracies, misleading allegations, and distortions. But the biggest problem with her claims is a complete mischaracterization of the Sierra Club’s policy on housing. The Sierra Club supports transit-oriented infill development in order to lower greenhouse gas emissions, limit sprawl, and create equitable, sustainable communities where everyone can thrive. This is longstanding and settled policy that applies at all levels of the Club, from the national down to the local.

Ms. Bronstein’s post complains that supporting transit-oriented development “violates the club’s commitments to affordable housing, neighborhood integrity, and democratic government.” On the contrary, these principles are essential to our policy. Neighborhood integrity certainly can’t be maintained if residents are priced out and pushed out. Affordability can’t be achieved if we don’t create new units and protect existing residents’ right to stay in their homes.

The 48 Hills post says: “There’s little doubt that ‘smart growth’ advocates are trying to shift the influential Sierra Club in their direction, locally and nationally.” The problem there is that the Club is already a strong proponent of smart growth — and has been for decades. We will continue to fight for compact urban areas that encourage walking, biking, and transit use.

Here are some specific corrections to the post:

False statement: “a pro-development agenda [...] violates the club’s commitments to affordable housing, neighborhood integrity, and democratic governance.” Correction: Long-standing Sierra Club policy supports transit-oriented development, and this policy is consistent with these principles.

False statement: “In the Bay Area, where the club claims nearly 60,000 members… Nine-county area under the jurisdiction of the Bay Chapter…” Correction: There are around 35,000 members in the SF Bay Chapter, which covers four counties (Marin, SF, Alameda, and Contra Costa).

False statement: The Northern Alameda County Group gave “peremptory treatment” to the proposed development of the North Berkeley BART parking lot. Correction: The October 2018 letter issued on the proposed development went through a standard Club process: drafted by staff, vetted by the member-elected Northern Alameda County Group Executive Committee, and consistent with Sierra Club policy. The letter did not support or call for any specific development or proposal, but provided general thoughts on the direction of an incredibly important process and issued a request to be included as a stakeholder. Here is a link to our October 2018 letter.

Correction: When falsely accused of a conflict of interest, Sierra Club volunteer Tim Frank responded in writing: “I have no economic tie whatsoever to the developer of 1388 Bancroft in San Leandro.” This clear statement should have settled the issue. Yet the author suggests that he owes her another response when she subsequently re-iterates the question.

False statement: The author suggests that her concerns about parking were unjustly set aside by the Northern Alameda County Group Executive Committee. Correction: This response was in line with Sierra Club transportation policy, which recommends: “Eliminate parking subsidies and minimum requirements to encourage shifts to biking, walking, scooting, carpooling and transit.”

Misleading statement: “Club members should ask that the national Club’s draft ‘Urban Infill Policy’ be placed on the agendas of local group and the Bay Chapter Executive Committee…” Correction: Chapters and groups do not determine national Sierra Club policy, although input from local entities helped shape the policy.

False statement: The post states: "Ex Com members... went on to pass a motion to send a letter to the San Leandro City Council that supported aspects of the project that were consistent with Sierra Club policies." Correction: Though a letter in support of the project would have been consistent with Club policy, that’s not what the letter said, nor did it reflect what the Executive Committee voted on. What they voted on was to send a letter that communicated the Northern Alameda County Group’s density guidelines, which are consistent with today’s applicable National and State Sierra Club density policy and guidelines. Nowhere in the letter, nor implicit in the vote, was there a statement that the NAC ExCom supported the project. Affordability was the primary sticking point, and the main issue based on which they couldn’t support the project outright.

Learn More:

We urge Club members to take a look at our policy on housing and development. A recent Sierra Club California housing report does a great job of explaining why the housing crisis is an environmental crisis, and lays out policy recommendations to help solve the crisis.