Senator Markey (D-MA) and Representative Ocasio-Cortez(D-NY) released a Green New Deal proposal (Senate Resolution 59, House Resolution 109) on February 7, 2019. The goal of their plan included several measures to make the United States a zero-emission country within 10 years. Included in the proposal is a call for investing in electric vehicles and high-speed rail systems. The only mention of housing includes a requirement that all people have ‘affordable, safe, and adequate housing’.  A simple and efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as produced by driving cars is to increase the density of housing. This method has several benefits. When I lived in San Francisco, I walked to work. This daily walk kept me fit and kept the air cleaner as I was not driving to work. Having spent several years with a 2-hour (each way) commute, I can certainly vouch for the walking to work option.

     House Resolution 109 is silent on the issue of increasing density in housing in city centers and near transit centers as a simple cost-effective method to combat climate change and make the Earth a ‘greener’ place. Why is the Green New Deal silent on the issue of increasing the density of housing where jobs are located?  It is a low-hanging fruit in achieving the goals of the Green New Deal. Representative Ocasio is, to my understanding, very bright, so I am questioning the Green New Deal’s silence on this issue. The idea is not new. The Bay Area Rapid Transit system has a policy called ‘transit-oriented development’ which includes as many as seven East Bay cities.  Why just the East Bay? Why is San Francisco silent on developing the density of the Noe Valley and Castro districts?  These districts are adjacent to San Francisco downtown and should be extremely high density in a Green New Deal world.

          The Castrocreepers are among the most ardent supporters of the Green New Deal when it means more jobs and money for themselves through investment in electric cars and new forms of energy but their support apparently dwindles when it involves any sacrifice on their part. As long as the Green New Deal involves putting people who are involved in the petroleum industry out of work, the Castrocreepers are the biggest cheerleaders. But they are quite opposed to any change that would close down their Victorian mansions, even though this approach would not put anyone  out of work and would in fact, create jobs by demolishing the Victorians and building new apartment buildings.

          I think we need to ask Representative Ocasio why she did not include increasing the density of downtowns, such as in San Francisco, in her proposal. Was the omission out of deference to Madam Speaker and the Castrocreepers? House Resolution goes on for 14 pages and includes many more expensive proposals so I do not see that Representative Ocasio was trying to be brief in her proposal. I am looking at this glaring omission as the work of Madam Speaker and her Castrocreepers. The Castrocreepers are, on the face of it, big supporters of measures that combat ‘climate change’ but are not calling for the increase in the density of housing in the Castro and Noe Valley.  Why not? I think we need to review their code of ethics: there is no compunction against lying in their code of ethics and there is no regard for Mother Earth in their ethics. Remember the first commandment for Castrocreepers is to love honor and obey the housing commissioner of San Francisco. Their ethics, or lack of what we would call traditional ethics, explains very well the behavior of the Castrocreepers.