Opinion: How an accessory dwelling could turn into a 20-story tower in Berkeley. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language

Use of value-laden or judgmental wording that implicitly praises one side and disparages the other.

Examples include: - "When built, the 20-story structure will undoubtedly make some Berkeley residents uncomfortable. But after decades of restricting growth, the city has little standing to object." - "Berkeley’s political culture has shifted, slowly but decisively, from resistance to responsibility." - "a move consistent with its pattern of targeting sites slated for new housing." - "outdated fears about growth." - "a community that, after years of hesitation, is building with urgency." These phrases frame opposition as irresponsible, fearful, or obstructionist, and frame the author’s preferred policies as responsible, urgent, and correct.

4 suggestions

Replace judgmental phrases with neutral descriptions. For example: change "after decades of restricting growth, the city has little standing to object" to "after decades of policies that limited growth, some residents now oppose taller buildings despite the city’s housing shortage."

Change "political culture has shifted, slowly but decisively, from resistance to responsibility" to a more neutral formulation such as "political culture has shifted from strong resistance to new development toward greater acceptance of additional housing."

Replace "outdated fears about growth" with "longstanding concerns about growth" or "concerns about growth that some argue are no longer justified."

Avoid verbs like "targeting" for opponents; instead of "pattern of targeting sites slated for new housing," use "pattern of seeking landmark status for sites where new housing is proposed."

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one side’s arguments and framing extensively while giving little or no space to the other side’s reasoning or evidence.

The article repeatedly characterizes opposition but does not present opponents’ stated reasons: - "For years, progress was stymied by neighborhood opposition and a city council wary of change." - "the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association tried to make the existing property at the site a landmark, a move consistent with its pattern of targeting sites slated for new housing." - "local resistance continues to stall housing projects." Opponents are described mainly as "resistance," "neighborhood opposition," or "local resistance" without explaining their concerns (e.g., historic preservation, infrastructure, shadows, displacement, traffic, or environmental impacts). Meanwhile, the pro-housing side’s goals and rationale (housing shortage, student crisis, affordability) are described in detail.

4 suggestions

Add at least one paragraph summarizing the main arguments of neighborhood groups and preservationists in their own terms (e.g., concerns about historic character, infrastructure, livability, or environmental impacts), ideally with specific examples or quotes.

When mentioning the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, briefly explain its stated mission and the reasons it gave for seeking landmark status at this site, rather than only describing it as "targeting" housing sites.

When referencing "local resistance" to SB 79 in Los Angeles, include a sentence summarizing the reasons LA city leaders have given for their position (e.g., local control, infrastructure capacity, or planning concerns).

Explicitly acknowledge that there are trade-offs and that some residents may reasonably prioritize different values (e.g., preservation vs. density), even if the author disagrees.

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged framing or narratives to persuade, rather than primarily relying on neutral evidence and reasoning.

Several passages are framed to evoke concern or urgency: - "It’s a student housing crisis within a citywide housing crisis." - "residents tired of watching their friends and neighbors priced out." - "after years of hesitation, is building with urgency." - "outdated fears about growth." These emphasize crisis, fear, and moral urgency, which can be persuasive but also tilt the tone away from neutral analysis.

3 suggestions

Pair emotional language with concrete data (e.g., vacancy rates, rent increases, number of students without housing) to ground the emotional framing in verifiable facts.

Rephrase "It’s a student housing crisis within a citywide housing crisis" to something like "Student housing shortages have compounded the broader citywide housing shortage, contributing to higher rents."

Replace "residents tired of watching their friends and neighbors priced out" with a more neutral description such as "residents concerned about friends and neighbors being priced out of the city."

Oversimplification

Reducing complex policy and political dynamics to simple narratives that may omit important nuances or causal factors.

Examples include: - "For years, progress was stymied by neighborhood opposition and a city council wary of change." This suggests that opposition alone explains the lack of development, omitting other factors like financing, university decisions, environmental review, or market cycles. - "Berkeley’s experience shows that change is possible when local and state reforms align, and when communities are willing to let go of outdated fears about growth." This implies that the main barrier is "fears" rather than a mix of legitimate concerns and competing priorities. - "The result is a city that has become one of California’s most surprising housing reform success stories" without providing comparative data or acknowledging ongoing challenges (e.g., affordability outcomes, displacement risks).

3 suggestions

Acknowledge additional factors that influence housing production (financing, construction costs, university policies, environmental regulations, etc.) alongside neighborhood opposition.

Qualify broad claims. For example, change "progress was stymied by neighborhood opposition" to "progress was often slowed by neighborhood opposition and a city council wary of change, among other factors such as regulatory complexity and market conditions."

When calling Berkeley a "success story," add specific metrics (e.g., number of units approved or built since upzoning, changes in student housing availability) and note remaining problems (e.g., rents still high, affordability gaps).

Hasty generalization

Drawing broad conclusions about groups or trends from limited or selectively presented examples.

Passages that generalize from a few cases: - "Across the state, local resistance continues to stall housing projects. Perhaps it’s best exemplified by the resistance of Los Angeles’ city leaders to the recently signed Senate Bill 79..." This uses one example (LA’s response to SB 79) to stand in for "across the state" without evidence that it is representative. - "a move consistent with its pattern of targeting sites slated for new housing" about the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, without providing data or multiple examples to substantiate a "pattern."

3 suggestions

Qualify generalizations with language like "in many cities" or "in several cases" unless comprehensive evidence is provided.

For the statewide claim, add references or examples from multiple jurisdictions, or rephrase to: "In several California cities, local resistance has stalled housing projects. For example, Los Angeles city leaders have opposed..."

For the "pattern" claim about the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, either provide specific examples (dates, projects) or soften the language to "a move similar to other instances where the group has sought landmark status at sites proposed for new housing."

Cherry-picking / Selective use of sources

Highlighting facts and examples that support one side while omitting relevant counterexamples or data that might complicate the narrative.

The article cites: - Upzoning in 2023, density bonus law changes, specific projects like Anchor House and People’s Park, and the 169-unit tower as evidence of successful reform. It does not mention: - Any negative impacts or controversies around these projects (e.g., People’s Park litigation, concerns about displacement, environmental or community impacts), - Any data on whether increased supply has affected rents or student housing conditions, - Any examples where local input improved project design or mitigated harms. This selection supports the thesis that pro-housing reforms are straightforwardly positive and that opposition is mainly obstructionist.

3 suggestions

Include at least one example where community concerns led to project modifications (e.g., design changes, mitigations) to show that opposition is not purely negative.

Mention ongoing controversies or lawsuits (e.g., around People’s Park) and briefly summarize the concerns, even if the author ultimately disagrees with them.

Add data or studies on the impact of new housing on rents or student housing conditions, and acknowledge where evidence is mixed or still emerging.

Confirmation bias / Narrative fallacy

Fitting events into a pre-existing narrative (pro-housing reforms as moral and effective; opposition as fearful and obstructive) and interpreting facts primarily through that lens.

The article constructs a clear story arc: decades of "resistance" and "hesitation" → pro-housing candidates win → reforms pass → tall buildings and more units → "success story." Opponents are consistently framed as obstacles, and supportive actors (pro-housing majority, chancellor, state lawmakers) are framed as responsible reformers. Little space is given to evidence that might complicate this narrative (e.g., unintended consequences, mixed outcomes, or legitimate trade-offs).

3 suggestions

Explicitly acknowledge that the article is an opinion piece and that other reasonable perspectives exist on how best to address the housing crisis.

Include at least one paragraph discussing potential downsides or risks of rapid upzoning and density (e.g., infrastructure strain, shadows, construction impacts, displacement) and how proponents propose to address them.

Cite or reference any evidence that challenges the author’s preferred approach, and explain why the author still favors it, rather than omitting such evidence.

Misleading framing / Implicit false dilemma

Presenting the situation as a choice between two simplified options (e.g., resistance vs. responsibility) and implying that one side is clearly right and the other clearly wrong, without acknowledging intermediate positions.

Key phrases: - "from resistance to responsibility" implies that being skeptical of tall towers or rapid upzoning is inherently irresponsible. - "when communities are willing to let go of outdated fears about growth" suggests that opposition is primarily fear-based and outdated, rather than possibly grounded in competing values or priorities. This framing can create an implicit false dilemma: either you support tall, dense housing or you are fearful and irresponsible.

3 suggestions

Reframe the contrast to acknowledge legitimate trade-offs. For example: "from strong resistance to new development toward a greater willingness to accept more housing despite concerns about neighborhood change."

Note that some residents may support more housing but prefer different forms (e.g., mid-rise buildings, distributed density, or stronger affordability requirements), rather than implying a binary for/against growth.

Avoid equating opposition with "irresponsibility" or "outdated fears"; instead, describe specific disagreements over policy tools, locations, or building forms.