There has been some bad news around the bay recently for advocates of transit-oriented and mixed-use development (not to mention New Urbanism and smart growth)…

• Several residents of San Carlos (on the peninsula) criticized plans for a mixed-use transit village (not unlike Hercules Bayfront), largely complaining of a lack of planned parking spaces. (via Streetsblog)
• And on the island of Alameda, “voters said no Tuesday to a measure that would allow high-density development at the former naval air station. [...] It would have allowed a one-time exemption to Measure A, a 1973 ordinance that bans anything larger than a duplex on the island. If it had passed, Measure B would have allowed a development at Alameda Point with 4,500 units of apartments, condominiums and single-family homes, as well as offices, parks, a ferry terminal and other amenities.“

It is clear that there are at least two distinct avenues of thought on development, and that is not necessarily prohibitive of positive results being achieved. Although some do not, I value density and sustainability (and walkable neighborhoods), however antithetical to the suburban “comfort” that many have grown accustomed to (i.e., a contorted intepretation of the American dream). I appreciate the true cost of redevelopment, that investment isn’t returned if densities are significantly reduced. At the same time, I treasure open spaces, which is why in-fill development and redevelopment/reuse are so attractive (especially in Hercules).

Not everyone agrees with me (yet I can sleep at night). If these forces persist however, NIMBYism and anti-TOD and anti-mixed-use sentiment will have the opportunity to reappear or gain momentum in Hercules, and upend the extensive progress that has been made in the city. Preventing it requires paying close attention to both the private and public sectors. It is an omnipresent concern, a potential that may emerge at the whim of a public official, a bankrupt developer, a ballot box. (Actually, sometimes I cannot sleep at night thinking about this.)

It is worth pointing out the unique scenario we currently have in Hercules: a city staff, developers and residents all on the same page (or mostly) when it comes to the issues surrounding future development. It is a set of documented agreements (Central Hercules Plan, Waterfront Now, etc.), however it is not a permanent fixture. The scenario may change; an impasse may loom. It is critical we stay on the same path — which at present is largely ideal — as long as we can, and achieve as much as we can with as much as we can afford.

It is an exciting time in Hercules. (It is difficult to imagine another city spending so much per capita on development, most of which is in-fill or reuse, anywhere else on the west coast.) We cannot rest on past success or the promise, however real, of a picture-perfect future. There is a lot of work to do. We should applaud positive moves by the City, and prevent negatives one from happening (or from even being considered). There is an unmistakable give-and-take between a government and its residents. Its constitution is active citizenship and an informed citizenry. Its function is known; its strength is predominantly unexercised.

More free parking, please.