Saturday, November 16, 2013

Driverless Personal Transportation at London's Heathrow Airport

U.K. town to deploy driverless pods to replace busses

Nov 05, 2013 by Bob Yirka report
( —Milton Keynes, a town north of London, has announced that it will be deploying 100 driverless pods (officially known as ULTra PRT transport pods) as a public transportation system. A similar system has been running for two years at Heathrow airport. The plan is to have the system up and running by 2015, with a full rollout by 2017. The move marks the first time that self-driving vehicles will be allowed to run on public roads in that country.

Read more at:

Florida County votes OUT of Seven50 Regional Plan (Like Plan Bay Area)

I realize that this is a long video but it has some amazing testimony by the "little people"  like us who are facing the destruction of their community from a regional plan like "Plan Bay Area".  It is worth a quick scan.  See their home page HERE

Why are special interest groups so powerful?

An economist explains why special interest groups have so much power in our democracy. This is not a pro-gun lobby video.  It applies equally to the Sierra Club, AARP and Business Groups too.

Friday, November 15, 2013

Thursday, November 14, 2013

The problems with High Density Living-A perspective from Berkeley Planet

The Marinwood Village Project will cram as many people as possible in 3 acres. It might be the most profitable solution for developers, but is it the quality of life we want for our community?

BRT, Activism, Densification, and Quality of Life

By Joseph Stubbs
Monday May 17, 2010 - 10:05:00 PM

Bookmark and Share

The relationship between the recently defeated Bus Rapid Transit proposal (in Berkeley) and densification of our neighborhoods has ramifications which will continue to come up again and again, and it is vitally important that we look at these issues.

Everybody knows that the more people you can deposit into a given space, the more revenue stream can be generated from that space. That revenue goes to three places. First it goes to the owner of the property, who is often also the developer. Second it goes to the bank which gave the developer or owner a loan to build/buy the property and is also collecting interest on that loan. Third it goes to the city which hosts the property, in the form of property taxes, permit fees, etc. So if a city is fiscally distressed, then encouraging new and higher density development is one thing they can do to try and help their situation. [Editor note :although Marinwood Village will provide virtually no tax revenue for 55 years, creating a huge tax drain on Marinwood CSD]

The problem comes in when we start to consider how higher density living situations affect the quality of life for people living in them.

Although Smart Growth models focus on how to make such things work as efficiently as they can, they cannot ameliorate the fact that with people’s earning ability (or self-sufficiency quotient) held as an unchanging variable, increasing density in an already dense urban environment decreases quality of life proportionately.

The specific reasons for this can be found within common wisdom, but also in specific studies. Some references would include: Quality of Life in a City: The Effect of Population Density, a Netherland study by Victoria Cramer et al, and In Growth We Trust: Sprawl, Smart Growth and Rapid Population Growth by Edwin Stennett.

One example of an impact, explored by french sociologist Emile Durkheim, is an inverse relationship between population density and personal freedom. This applies most to those living directly in high density buildings and can bee seen consistently in regulations which reduce one’s freedoms in the commons to the lowest common denominator of what is acceptable to all.

There are numerous other factors as well which kick in for all as our personal spaces close in on each other. These are opposing motivators (revenue stream issues and quality of life issues) and they set up the likelihood of a conflict of incentivization between communities of people living in neighborhoods and the city governments who are supposed to be looking out for their interests.

If a community is particularly atomized, then little can be done to resist densification from going forward. But if a neighborhood has some cohesiveness in the form of neighborhood associations or other groups, then it will tend to resist densification, sometimes effectively.
It is important to realize that regional planning associations, such as ABAG, formulate their recommendations on how much we should expect to grow on population and growth predictions which are regional in nature. Such recommendations do not always take into account the particular local conditions which define the nature of a particular community, and likewise do not necessarily take into account specific factors which have different impacts on different localities.

In Berkeley, for example, much public notice has gone into the fact that although regional population has increased in the last decades, Berkeley’s population has remained relatively constant. Comparison with a commuter city on the Bay Area margin, such as Antioch, would reveal an entirely different situation, based on different factors which exist there. This is not to say that Berkeley government today employs a policy that resists densification, but it should suggest that the density growth in a particular locality can be regulated according to what a city deems its reasonable carrying capacity to be.

Another potential problem introduces itself when higher powers recommend that we increase our density based on regional projections. Since development interest, which includes the University of California Berkeley, is largely based on principles of expansion, it is easy to conceal responsibility for a motivation to increase density on recommendations or so called “mandates” which come to us from regional planning bodies. This can conceal the degree to which an actual “need” for densification may be based more on the desires of local stakeholders as distinct from needs which really do reflect the public interest as a whole. This potential confusion is just complicated enough to rightly baffle average people who live in affected neighborhoods when it comes to establishing policy. But when a specific project threatens to intrude on their way of life, people will generally get the message.

In addition to serving as intentional or unintended fronts for these stakeholders, the problem with Smart Growth ideologues is that they just can't wait to impose their new high density models on communities, even before such a thing may be actually needed. This then causes the problem that densification occurs faster than it otherwise would have under the principle that 'if you build it, they will come.' You create the infrastructural receptacle for increased density, and end up creating the density you are claiming to mitigate.

The recent struggle around Bus Rapid Transit in Berkeley is an example of this principle in action. The principle is well illustrated in the fact that the “need” for such a BRT system in Berkeley has been promoted, not based on current demand for bus service, but on projected future demand for bus service. This is one important reason that BRT with dedicated lanes on Telegraph was able to be defeated at this point in time, even though it was quite a battle.
But it is extremely important to realize that all the people who have fought so hard against this, and under a shadow of ideological rhetoric and elite consensus which was driving this project, have been fighting for more than issues revolving around bus service and traffic congestion. These people, knowing or not, have been defending our very quality of life based on the stone cold reality of what densification means for us.

The BRT full build proposal carried within itself triggers for allowing new developmental incentives which were more enormous than most people realize.[ The SMART Train is being built to unlock incentives for development in Marin, too] Suffice it to say here that the demeanor of Telegraph would have been incentivized towards dramatic changes in the coming decades: much taller, denser and with less protection for historic resources. The umbrella term under which all of these changes are officially founded is the Major Transportation Corridor, an important planning phrase to know, and one which carries with it many regulatory meanings.

Since an increase in density is highly impactful to people living in an already dense urban community, it is an important duty of local governments to protect their populations from these impacts to an extent which is reasonable. When city governments do not do that, then communities are left to fend for themselves. Berkeley just had a success in this regard, but
Berkeley is not alone in being in this position. The distressing conflict in incentivization between local governments and the people living on their streets exists everywhere, and continues to exist in Berkeley, too. If an area is desirable, one party benefits from densification, while others suffer.

But when communities do regulate their quality of life through successfully regulating their density, then haven't they simply acted selfishly by deferring the larger regional population problems to somewhere else? Actually, the answer is no. To grossly simplify, think of a community of life in a petri dish. The dish may be finite, but their desire to grow is not. At some critical point, as elbow room starts to disappear, individuals begin to realize that there is problem. This is very important because it creates "resistance" to continued growth, and that resistance is a bottom-up force which can percolate upward and actually have an ultimate effect on the growth itself.

Without this resistance, things would just continue to get worse and worse. A projection that our regional population will continue to grow and grow and that we must somehow accommodate that promotes the illusion that infinite growth is sustainable, and it's just not.

Creating resistance to that is actually a necessary feedback that keeps us from ultimately becoming the frog which explodes in the warming water.

So, defending this aspect of quality of life becomes a meaningful real world example of "thinking globally, and acting locally."
In the end it is the ultimate green answer.

Why young kids are struggling with Common Core math

Why young kids are struggling with Common Core math

Common Core critics argue that some of the standards are not developmentally appropriate for young students. Earlier this year I published this post by Edward Miller and Nancy Carlsson-Paige about how the standards smack in the face of what we know about how young children learn. Here’s is a new post with concerns about the developmental appropriateness of some Core math standards. This was written by Carol Burris and John Murphy.

Burris is the award-winning principal of  South Side High School in New York who most recently wrote about a ridiculous Common Core first-grade math test for students, which you can read here. Burris has been chronicling on this blog the many problems with the test-driven reform initiative in New York (here, and here and here and here, for example), which was one of the first states to implement Common Core and give students Core-aligned standardized tests. She was named New York’s 2013 High School Principal of the Year by the School Administrators Association of New York and the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and in 2010,  tapped as the 2010 New York State Outstanding Educator by the School Administrators Association of New York State. She is the co-author of the New York Principals letter of concern regarding the evaluation of teachers by student test scores. It has been signed by more than 1,535 New York principals and more than 6,500 teachers, parents, professors, administrators and citizens. You can read the letter by clicking here. 

Murphy is an assistant principal at South Side High School. He was recognized by the Harvard Club and Phi Delta Kappa for his teaching and outstanding leadership. John is South Side’s International Baccalaureate coordinator.

By Carol Burris and John Murphy

Why are New York parents reporting that their elementary school students are having such a difficult time doing Common Core mathematics?  Burris’ last blog post presented an example of a first-grade test, created by Pearson, the author of New York’s 3-8 tests.  Some readers commented that perhaps the problem was not the Common Core standards, but rather their implementation at the school level. In the case of New York, rushed implementation is certainly a factor.

There are far too many reported problems, however, for us not to consider both. Are these only the result of rushed implementation, or, are the standards themselves problematic? What follows may provide insight into that very question.

A few days ago, our superintendent shared a Common Core assessment question from a PARCC website, which directed viewers to the Mathematics Common Core Toolbox.  This site “offers examples of the types of innovative assessment tasks that reflect the direction of the PARCC summative assessments.” He was interested in a question designed for fourth graders, who are typically 9 or 10 years of age. You can find the question that he shared here: under elementary tasks, fourth grade, “Number of Stadium Seats.”  Part A of the assessment task is a straightforward question that asks students to put three, 5 digit numbers in order.   Part B is a very different kind of question.
Part B provides students with the following information:
The San Francisco Giant’s Stadium has 41,915 seats, the Washington Nationals’ stadium has 41,888 seats and the San Diego Padres’ stadium has 42,445 seats.
It then asks the following question:
Compare these statements from two students.
Jeff said, “I get the same number when I round all three numbers of seats in these stadiums.”
Sara said, “When I round them, I get the same number for two of the stadiums but a different number for the other stadium.”
Can Jeff and Sara both be correct? Explain how you know.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

The Invisible Bicycle Helmet

The Invisible Bicycle Helmet | Fredrik Gertten from Focus Forward Films on Vimeo.

Check out this cool video about two women innovators.

Fighting Surveillance Tactics and Winning

Fighting Surveillance Tactics and Winning

Andrea Hernandez, a high school student in Texas, refused to wear an ID card embedded with a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip. (Photo Credit: Steve Hernandez)
Through increasingly sophisticated surveillance technologies, corporations and the government track our everyday activities, often in the name of protecting Americans from terrorist attacks. Heidi Boghosian, a civil rights lawyer, told Bill Moyers this week that these two powerful forces are “hand-in-hand working to gather information about Americans as well as people across the globe.” But Boghosian says some people are refusing these intrusions into their privacy and coming out on top. Here are some of their stories.
Andrea Hernandez: Don’t track me

At the age of 15, Andrea Hernandez refused to wear a badge embedded with a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip to her high school, a magnet school for science and engineering. The ID card, issued by the Northside Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas, was given to students as part of the district’s project designed to better track attendance, which is linked to state funding. Hernandez said the ID card policy violated her civil rights on religious grounds. The district told her she could wear the badge without a chip, but when Hernandez refused on the grounds that her participation would make it appear that she endorsed the program, they ordered her to be transferred to a different high school. She was suspended in January 2013 and sued to stay at her magnet school, backed by lawyers provided by the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization. In August 2013, Hernandez, now a 16-year-old high school junior, was re-admitted to her former high school, in exchange for dropping her federal lawsuit against the school district. Northside has abandoned the RFID-monitoring program, saying it was ineffective.
Nicholas Merrill: Gagged for six years but silent no more

In 2004, Nicholas Merrill received a knock on his door from an FBI agent who carried a national security letter (NSL). The FBI was demanding that Merrill, who owned a small Internet service provider at the time, turn over information on one of his clients. They prohibited him from telling anyone that he had been approached by the government. Instead of complying, Merrill contacted the American Civil Liberties Union and filed a constitutional challenge to the NSL statute of the Patriot Act. The statute was ruled unconstitutional and Congress amended the law, allowing recipients to challenge requests for records and the gag orders that accompany NSLs. Merrill has since founded the Calyx Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to developing privacy technology to promote free speech and privacy on the Internet and in the mobile telecommunications industry.
Mike Webb: Keep your scanners away from my child
When Mike Webb learned about a program at his son’s elementary school to scan children’s palms as part of their lunch program, he refused to allow his seven-year-old son to participate saying the system intruded on children’s rights. The biometric palm-reader program at Carroll County in Maryland had children expose their palms to vein-scanning identification devices in order to purchase food. Palm readers take infrared pictures of veins in the palm and match the image with stored information about children’s lunch accounts. Officials claim the scan program was intended to shorten cafeteria lunch lines, control inventory and create a more efficient accounting system. Webb reached out to The Rutherford Institute, who sent a letter objecting to biometric palm scanning. In late 2012, the Carroll County superintendent of schools announced that the district would cancel installation of the biometric equipment in schools that didn’t yet have it installed. It has since removed the biometric palm readers in all the schools.
Time’s Up: Guilty by association?

Time’s Up, a New York City-based environmental organization, learned in late 2013 that the New York Police Department (NYPD) had opened an investigation in 2008 on its executive director Bill DiPaola and two former members of the group. The NYPD wrote in a secret report that they had suspected an associate of theirs, Dennis Christopher Burke, of bombing a Times Square military recruiting station in 2008. As The New York Times reported, the NYPD evidence “stood on the frailest of reeds” — and the case remains unsolved. When DiPaola was contacted by Times about the report he said: “I’ve tried so hard to stay positive, to stress that we’re running an environmental organization,” he said. “But the honest answer is that we know the police have spied on us for years.” Authorities engaged in covert spying on and infiltration of Time’s Up starting in 2004 and for years after. In response to police infiltration, the group posted photos in their organizing space of known undercover officers. In addition, Boghosian says, the group has been holding open community meetings to educate others about infiltrators, distributing posters depicting undercover agitators. The group plans to meet with City Council members in New York’s new mayoral administration.

Karin Kamp is a multimedia journalist and producer. Before joining she helped launch The Story Exchange, a site dedicated to women's entrepreneurship. She previously produced for NOW on PBS and WNYC public radio and worked as a reporter for Swiss Radio International.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Marin IJ: Marinwood ousts incumbents; housing issues took center stage in election discourse

Marin IJ: Marinwood ousts incumbents; housing issues took center stage in election discourse

By Megan Hansen

Justin Kai, winner CSD Director
Concerns about housing drove Marinwood's election and some believe the ousting of all the incumbents highlights the community's growing fear of high-density, affordable development.

Tuesday's election came during a perfect storm of housing issues, when residents are fretting about the regional housing effort Plan Bay Area, priority development areas, the county's housing element and plans for the still-undeveloped Marinwood Village property near Highway 101. With tensions high, three vocal newcomers opposed to high-density, subsidized housing stepped forward and swept the polls.

Justin Kai, a 33-year-old real estate agent, garnered the most votes on Election Night. He said the No. 1 topic residents are talking about is affordable, high-density housing.

"Residents are concerned about large tax-exempt developments and how it will impact the community," Kai said. "Our community is very much in support of doing our part for providing affordable housing for the county, we just want to make sure it's done responsibly in a way it can sustain itself. Not in a way where it's fully dependent on the rest of the community having to pick up the slack."

Bill Shea, winner, CSD Director
Kai was followed in the polls by Bill Shea, a 62-year-old accountant, and Deana Dearborn, a 43-year-old facilities project manager and architect, who secured a two-year seat in a second race for a community services district position.

Shea said he believes the government shouldn't subsidize anything and doesn't want to see the "projects" he grew up seeing in San Francisco come to Marinwood. He said he's opposed to the proposed plan for Marinwood Village, which has most of the 82 units slated to be affordable, and doesn't want government agencies dictating where multifamily housing should go.

"The idea now that they want to put high-density, low-income housing in a rural area, I just think it's a horrible idea," Shea said.
He said people are looking at the apartment complex being built at the former WinCup site on Tamal Vista Boulevard in Corte Madera — which will be market-rate units — and fearing a massive development like it could be built in Marinwood.

Deana Dearborn, winner, CSD Director
Ousted incumbent Leah Kleinman-Green, 35, said people's fears of having affordable housing in Marinwood won the three aligned newcomers their seats. She said the community appears to be so afraid of change and different demographics that they'll let their emotions trump reason.

"Housing is completely outside the purview of the community services district," Kleinman-Green said. "The (newcomers) think they are going to be able to do things that they can't."

The district, which provides fire protection, park maintenance, recreation programs and street lighting for about 1,750 households, doesn't make housing decisions. The county Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors make those calls.

Supervisor Susan Adams
Campaigned on No Grow in 2002:
This is something county Supervisor Susan Adams said voters didn't understand about the race.
"Any campaign promises that were made that the community services district was somehow in a position to make a decision about the (Marinwood Village) project was misinforming the public," Adams said. "There's been a lot of misinformation provided that has created fear."
Adams winning campaign slogan was
"Cows not Condos" in 2002.
She created the Marinwood Priority Development Area
 in 2007 and voted for the Housing Element in 2013
 that gave us 71% of all affordable housing for
unincorporated Marin and may grow our community by 35%

She said everybody in the community will have an opportunity to weigh in on the plan for the project during community outreach sessions.

Bruce Anderson,
has been lobbying for housing
since 2004 as CSD Director now
claims housing is not
of interest to the CSD
See Bruce promote Marinwood Village
as CSD Director HERE
Bruce Anderson, a 66-year-old retiree who has served on the board for 10 years and lived in the district for 27, said it may have been his ties to Adams and support of affordable housing projects that lost him re-election.

He said the newcomers are anti-affordable housing and led voters to believe housing issues could be addressed by the district.

"Tying the whole community services district to the housing issue turned people off," said Anderson, who also cited low-voter turnout as an issue. "I don't yet think the (newcomers) understand what they're getting into."

Dearborn, who could not be reached for comment, states on her website that she knows housing developments are not within the district's jurisdiction. She also said the Marinwood Village project needs to be changed, according to the site.

"I fully expect the community services district to review any development proposals and to ask for impacts under their purview to be mitigated by either modifying building designs or through monetary means," Dearborn wrote.

Leah Kleinman-Green former CSD Director is disheartened that
her neighbors are unable to accept low income people.
In August 2013 she had plans to move to Ross but changed her mind.
See Leah submit her resignation in August 2013: HERE.
Kai agreed and said it's not that he and his fellow election winners are against affordable housing, it's that they're concerned tax-exempt builders will place a financial burden on the district and residents.

"A large portion of the district's budget comes from property tax," Kai said. "By bringing in hundreds of new residents without the proper funding to support them, who does the rest of that bill fall onto?"

Appointed incumbent Michael Dudasko, a 56-year-old environmental consultant, was ousted by Dearborn in the election. He couldn't be reached for comment.

Kleinman-Green said it's horrifying to her that people feel so entitled to live in Marinwood that they are unable to accept low-income people living in the community. She said the attitude seems to be: "I worked hard. I made it here. It has to stay this way."

"It's been disheartening," she said. "There's no acknowledgement of change and other people having that same dream of living here."

The Times they are a Changin'

Bob Dylan

"The Times They Are A-Changin'"
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.

Monday, November 11, 2013

VIDEO: Plain Talk about the impact of Marinwood Village on Dixie Schools

For the Full planning meeting: February 11th Planning Commission Meeting

Get Microsoft Silverlight

In this clip from the February 11, 2013 Planning Meeting discussing the Housing Element for unincorporated Marin,  Lele Thomas, Planner describes the taxes that Marinwood Village will pay.

The total tax burden of Marinwood Village is around $10,000 and they expect to apply for a tax rebate because they are a non profit.


The Dixie school district will receive a one time impact fee of $200,000 which must be used for construction only.  It cannot be applied to teachers.  A portable classroom is estimated to cost $150,000 each.  With at least 150 school children expected, an estimated 7 teachers, 5 portable classrooms, administrators, teaching materials, computers costing in the millions will be the sole responsibility of the local taxpayers.

For this reason alone,  Marinwood Village project should be rejected.  It is shocking that neither the planning department, politicians or neighborhood leaders have considered this fundamental problem.

Lele Thomas concludes her remarks with "The bottom line is whether or not there is funding for Dixie Schools, this is not a reason for the Marinwood Village project to be rejected."

We must not let our community be exploited like this.  Join us today. The next big planning meeting is March 11th. Please attend. 

For related post see: Marinwood Residents Testify at Feb 11 Planning meeting

Susan Adams "Bring HUD Housing to Marinwood Village" weeks before the Community Meeting on October 27, 2012

Get Microsoft Silverlight
See the full Board of Supervisors meeting for October 16, 2012  video:

 Days later on October 27, 2012 Susan Adams meet with Bridge Housing and the community at Mary Silvera School  to discuss the Marinwood Village plan with the community.  Supervisor Susan Adams makes no mention that Marinwood Village is the her solution for the HUD settlement to achieve diversity in all of Marin County.  In fact, 70% of all affordable housing for unincorporated Marin is located within the Marinwood-Lucas Valley and the Dixie School district. It appears that the Board of Supervisors are trying to achieve "diversity" by building some of the largest affordable housing complexes in the county and concentrating these warehouses of "diversity" in 5.78 square miles. 

It is a fast food solution to a complex problem.  Wouldn't it be better for integration goals if diversity was spread evenly county wide instead of "big box "developments?

Beware of strangers bearing gifts.

If you watch the video it explains the Westchester County case that is the basis of the HUD deal signed by the county of Marin. Arnold explains it a little, but basically it is the case that HUD won that requires that affordable housing be spread out geographically, not be concentrated in one area. Benign, on the surface, and probably a good idea really. BUT what that means is if one area (Santa Venetia) already has affordable housing or a lower income population, the County must place the units in another area that is less diverse (i.e., Lucas Valley), or face being sued by HUD and not receiving funds. This is an obligation the County took on by signing the HUD deal in 2011.

The HUD deal the county signed in 2011 requires that affordable housing be placed in areas that are less diverse and have good school districts, etc. Amazing that the HUD deal was signed without much, if any, disclosure and that it has not be brought up at all in the current land use debate. Anyway, it appears from this video that Susan Adam's advocates Marinwood Plaza as a site for affordable housing. This was at about the same time that Bridge announced a possible proposal. There had been NO community input at that point. the Bridge proposal was presented as a done deal. The 2007 County Wide Plan requires community input. It is arguable whether the Collaborative from 2008/2009 constitutes community input (Collaborative was County appointed members of the community that were supposed to come up with a plan for the plaza from community input), but even if you assume community input at that point, the development plan at that time was for a for profit developer to build townhouse/condo style units with only 20% affordable.

The current plan has not been vetted by the community and Susan Adams appears from the video to advocate for use of the Marinwood Plaza for affordable housing without community input and in compliance with HUD.

For those that do not have the documents, attached is the HUD deal the county signed and a one page snapshot of some pertinent language. This is a link to the web page where you can read the planning process for the Collaborative in 2008/early 2009. Notes and Ground Rules from the Collaborative reveal small in home meetings, restrictions on what can be disclosed to the public by members of the Collaborative, etc.

Here is a detail of a deal the County entered into with HUD in 2011

Sunday, November 10, 2013

How Environmentalists are Killing Rural Communities (important lessons for West Marin)

A presentation by Time Reporter, Elizabeth Nickson on the Rural Landowners vs. Eco-Fascists
00:13 OPENING SONG - Celeste Paradise
03:06 INTRODUCTION - Mimi Steel
05:59 PRESENTATION - Elizabeth Nickson
54:21 CASE STUDY - Mimi Steel

Orinda residents object to Housing Element

Here is how Orinda residents reacted to their Housing Element. In particular, I recommend you watch Chris Engl address the council at 0:02:31

Published on Sep 4, 2013
Video by Steve Kemp
0:00:00 Opening/Pledge of Allegiance
0:02:31 - Chris Engl
0:05:58 - Herb Brown
0:08:51 - Heidi Brown
0:10:53 - Chris Kniel
0:13:31 - Ann O'Connell-Nye
0:25:35 HOUSING ELEMENT DRAFT - Emmanuel Ursu
1:15:23 - Rusty Snow
1:19:09 - Jane Johnson
1:21:46 - Dick Curry
1:24:56 - Bruce London
1:27:08 - Chris Neil
1:30:40 - Dan DeBuscherre
1:35:22 - Kathleen Jenkins
1:38:48 - Heidi Brown
1:43:31 - Herb Brown
1:47:02 - Chris Engl
1:50:18 - Woodie Karp
1:53:51 - Maggie Reeves
2:00:39 - Eartha Newsong
2:03:04 - Rev Will McGarvey
2:05:27 - Rev Hubert Ivery
2:09:29 - Rev Scott Denman
2:11:04 - Carolyn Phinney
2:13:55 - Kathleen Kerr Shockett
2:18:31 - Richard Colman
2:22:08 - Clyde Vaughn
2:24:17 - Bill Legler
2:27:37 - Kat Schmidt
2:31:06 - Laurie Reich
2:34:23 - Grant Power
2:36:13 - Valerie Sloven
2:39:28 - James Bitter
2:41:30 - Father Robert Herbst
2:44:11 - Vince Maiorana
2:46:54 - William Abriel
2:49:56 - Betty Murphy
2:53:45 - Virginia Harrison
2:57:23 - Julian Schmidt