"The ABAG process, linking housing targets to open land, is outdated. There is too little land (or money) for that kind of development anymore, if indeed there ever was. The approach to shelter must be more sophisticated and nuanced. Housing now must rely on reconfiguring the interior of too-large houses to accommodate multi units. And there are thousands of single-family houses which could be sensitively added onto to provide income for the original owner, as well as new, relatively small rental or condominium housing created from the add ons. Counter-intuitively, this will create a greater volume of new, affordable housing near to work than any alternatives, and will therefore generate greater taxes for cities. It will also greatly limit ecological and environmental destruction, when compared to building on open land."

https://www.planetizen.com/node/94583/whites-communities-bay-area-dont-plan-much-low-income-housing-their-neighbors-do


"Many planners contend that impervious surface itself is the problem. The more of it there is, the less absorption takes place and the more runoff has to be managed. Reducing development, then, is one of the best ways to manage urban flooding. The problem is, urban development hasn’t slowed in the last half-century. "

Reducing flooding through preserving open space has nothing to do with reducing development. Almost any US city could double the size of its housing capacity through infill and add-on development, creating just as many jobs and generating just as much taxes. This approach could keep economically stressed homeowners in place too. It just requires a little thought, something clearly lacking in city leaders everywhere.

https://www.planetizen.com/node/94567/houstons-drainage-problem