Saturday, May 3, 2014

Saturday Night Videos

Das Haus from David Buob on Vimeo.

AWAKENING | NEW ZEALAND 4K from Martin Heck | Timestorm Films on Vimeo.

SLOMO from Josh Izenberg on Vimeo.

VOLCANO from Julien Loth on Vimeo.

Gan-Gan from Gemma Green-Hope on Vimeo.

Petite Meller "Backpack" Marlin Remix from Natalie Neal on Vimeo.

Huayhuash from Joey Schusler on Vimeo.

CREATORS: Clark Little on Staring Down Shorebreak for The Perfect Shot from The Inertia on Vimeo.

Technicolour Alaska from Alexis Coram on Vimeo.

TUNE YARDS / Water Fountain from joel kefali on Vimeo.

Jungle - Busy Earning from Blink on Vimeo.

The Elevator Pitch from Simon Ryninks on Vimeo.

Shugo Tokumaru / Poker (Official Music Video) from MIRAI_MIZUE on Vimeo.

The Kinks-Muswell Hillbillies protest against Eminent Domain Abuse (1971)

"Muswell Hillbilly" is an album by the Kinks concerning a revolt against eminent domain. Some highlights:

"I was born in a welfare state
Ruled by bureaucracy
Controlled by civil servants...
And people dressed in grey
Got no privacy, got no liberty
Cause the twentieth century people
Took it all away from me.
Don't wanna get myself shot down
By some trigger happy policeman,
Gotta keep a hold on my sanity
I'm a twentieth century man but I don't wanna die here."

"I got a letter this morning with serious news that's gone and ruined my day,
The borough surveyor's used compulsory purchase to acquire my domaine,
They're gonna pull up the floors, they're gonna knock down the walls,
They're gonna dig up the drains.
Here come the people in grey they're gonna take me away...
I'm gonna live in a tent, we're gonna pay no more rent we're gonna pay no more rates,
We're gonna live in a field, we're gonna buy me gun, to keep the policemen away.
I'm gonna pass me a brand new resolution,
I'm gonna fight me a one man revolution, someway,
Gonna beat those people in grey."

"Unionists tell you when to strike,
Generals tell you when to fight,
Preachers tell you wrong from right,
They'll feed you when you're born,
And use you all your life."

"They're putting us in little boxes,
No character just uniformity,
They're trying to build a computerized community,
But they'll never make a zombie out of me.
They'll try and make me study elocution,
Because they say my accent isn't right,
They can clear the slums as part of their solution,
But they're never gonna kill my cockney pride."

See all the lyrics HERE

Vancouver's "To Build a Better City" Propaganda film for Redevelopment

This historic propaganda film tries to persuade the public to a massive urban renewal or as an African American friend of mine in Marin City calls it "Negro Removal".  These historic programs destroyed neighborhoods and forced the dislocation by the thousands leaving few lasting benefits to the community.

Now suburbs of Marin can be called "blight".  Currently, Governor Jerry Brown is considering bills that will allow the creation of Redevelopment Agencies with the power to tax and condemn property when they interfere with Transit Oriented Development(SB-1).

We will repel them.  We will Save Marin again.

Plan Bay Area is ready to declare the suburbs "blight" to build "transit oriented development"

Marinwoood Village Propaganda Photo by Bridge Housing

The Marin IJ has an annoying practice of publishing developers concept drawings in news stories.  It is a disservice to it's readers and objective journalism.  Take the above photo for example, created by Bridge Housing to sell their vision to the public.   Look at the Lexus SUV, the happy couples walking, riding bikes, milling about their "vibrant shopping area".  The majority of residents will be catagorized as extremely low or very low income, unlikely to drive a luxury car.

 Is the image incorrect on purpose?  The orientation of the buildings is all wrong and the  72 high density housing and the hundreds of cars that will be parked here are not seen in this Disneyland pictorial.  (I wonder why?) The housing units will tower 50% ABOVE Casa Marinwood.  

This housing development will be THREE TIMES the density as any apartment building in Marinwood. There is simply not enough parking. All of the surrounding side streets WILL BE CHOKED with cars as is seen in this quick drive through of the Canal district in San Rafael.

Get REAL Marinwood.  We cannot afford this Big Box Complex that pays almost no taxes and destroys our neighborhood. Let's go back to the drawing board with a development like Rotary Village that preserves community.

The Bridge Housing Concept drawing is  laughable as this ad for Camel cigarettes.

How you will be manipulated in Marin County Housing Element planning sessions.

Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus

How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation

The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle - the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur.

 In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous. In her book
Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is "community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out." The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. The point is that, when people are in groups that tend to share a particular knowledge base, they display certain identifiable characteristics, known as group dynamics, which allows the facilitator to apply the basic strategy.      

The facilitators or change agents encourage each person in a group to express concerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen attentively, elicit input from group members, form "task forces," urge participants to make lists, and in going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to identify the "leaders," the "loud mouths," the "weak or non-committal members," and those who are apt to change sides frequently during an argument. Suddenly, the amiable facilitators become professional agitators and "devil's advocates." Using the "divide and conquer" principle, they manipulate one opinion against another, making those who are out of step appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." They attempt to anger certain participants, thereby accelerating tensions. The facilitators are well trained in psychological manipulation. They are able to predict the reactions of each member in a group. Individuals in opposition to the desired policy or program will be shut out.  

The Delphi Technique works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and community groups. The "targets" rarely, if ever, realize that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect what is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The facilitator seeks to polarize the group in order to become an accepted member of the group and of the process. The desired idea is then placed on the table and individual opinions are sought during discussion. Soon, associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and they pressure the entire group to accept their proposition.

How the Delphi Technique Works Consistent use of this technique to control public participation in our political system is causing alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our Founding Fathers. Efforts in education and other areas have brought the emerging picture into focus.  

In the not-too-distant past, the city of Spokane, in Washington state, hired a consultant to the tune of $47,000 to facilitate the direction of city government. This development brought a hue and cry from the local population. The ensuing course of action holds an eerie similarity to what is happening in education reform. A newspaper editorial described how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to "discuss" what they felt needed to be changed at the local government level. A compilation of the outcomes of those "discussions" influenced the writing of the city/county charter.

That sounds innocuous. But what actually happened in Spokane is happening in Marin and communities and school districts all across the country. Let's review the process that occurs in these meetings. First, a facilitator is hired. While his job is supposedly neutral and non-judgmental, the opposite is actually true. The facilitator is there to direct the meeting to a preset conclusion. The facilitator begins by working the crowd to establish a good-guy-bad-guy scenario. Anyone disagreeing with the facilitator must be made to appear as the bad guy, with the facilitator appearing as the good guy. To accomplish this, the facilitator seeks out those who disagree and makes them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, which sends a clear message to the rest of the audience that, if they don't want the same treatment, they must keep quiet. 

When the opposition has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy - a friend - and the agenda and direction of the meeting are established without the audience ever realizing what has happened.

Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups of seven or eight people. Each group has its own facilitator. The group facilitators steer participants to discuss preset issues, employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator.

Participants are encouraged to put their ideas and disagreements on paper, with the results to be compiled later. Who does the compiling? If you ask participants, you typically hear: "Those running the meeting compiled the results." Oh-h! The next question is: "How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome?" The typical answer is: "Well, I've wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected. I guess my views were in the minority."  

That is the crux of the situation. If 50 people write down their ideas individually, to be compiled later into a final outcome, no one knows what anyone else has written. That the final outcome of such a meeting reflects anyone's input at all is highly questionable, and the same holds true when the facilitator records the group's comments on paper. But participants in these types of meetings usually don't question the process.  

Why hold such meetings at all if the outcomes are already established? The answer is because it is imperative for the acceptance of the School-to-Work agenda, or the environmental agenda, or whatever the agenda, that ordinary people assume ownership of the preset outcomes. If people believe an idea is theirs, they'll support it. If they believe an idea is being forced on them, they'll resist.  

The Delphi Technique is being used very effectively to change our government from a representative form in which elected individuals represent the people, to a "participatory democracy" in which citizens selected at large are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes. These citizens believe that their input is important to the result, whereas the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the participants.

How to Diffuse the Delphi Technique Three steps can diffuse the Delphi Technique as facilitators attempt to steer a meeting in a specific direction.
Always be charming, courteous, and pleasant. Smile. Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.

Stay focused. If possible, jot down your thoughts or questions. When facilitators are asked questions they don't want to answer, they often digress from the issue that was raised and try instead to put the questioner on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Courteously bring the facilitator back to your original question. If he rephrases it so that it becomes an accusatory statement (a popular tactic), simply say, "That is not what I asked. What I asked was . . ." and repeat your question.

Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often resort to long monologues that drag on for several minutes. During that time, the group usually forgets the question that was asked, which is the intent. Let the facilitator finish. Then with polite persistence state: "But you didn't answer my question. My question was . . ." and repeat your question.

Never become angry under any circumstances. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This defeats the purpose. The goal of facilitators is to make the majority of the group members like them, and to alienate anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. People with firm, fixed beliefs, who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in, are obvious threats. If a participant becomes a victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd.

This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, and why objections are written on paper rather than voiced aloud where they can be open to public discussion and debate. It's called crowd control. At a meeting, have two or three people who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd so that, when the facilitator digresses from a question, they can stand up and politely say: "But you didn't answer that lady/gentleman's question." Even if the facilitator suspects certain group members are working together, he will not want to alienate the crowd by making accusations.

Occasionally, it takes only one incident of this type for the crowd to figure out what's going on. Establish a plan of action before a meeting. Everyone on your team should know his part. Later, analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time. Never strategize during a meeting.  

A popular tactic of facilitators, if a session is meeting with resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his spotters (people who observe the crowd during the course of a meeting) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered resistance. If the resistors congregate in one place, a spotter will gravitate to that group and join in the conversation, reporting what was said to the facilitator.

When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer clear of the resistors. Do not congregate. Instead gravitate to where the facilitators or spotters are. Stay away from your team members. This strategy also works in a face-to-face, one-on-one meeting with anyone trained to use the Delphi Technique.  

Lynn Stuter is an education researcher in Washington state. Her web site address is

China's Ghost Cities- A warning for One Bay Area Plan?

All over China, massive cities are being developed without current market demand. They are speculating on future economic growth,  much like the One Bay Area Plan speculating the growth of the Bay Area market demand.
 The above video is a clip about China's ghost cities.   There are massive developments all over China which are being fueled by central government controlled "planners" who are ignoring fundamental laws of supply and demand.  The supply of housing is being created far in advance of actual demand and is unaffordable by the ordinary Chinese worker.   Because of the industrial economic growth,  Chinese are awash in capital.  Government central planners mandate real estate development so that they can claim growth for the country's GDP 
Like China,  the One Bay Area Plan is pure government speculation.  Big Box apartment developments over small shops near public transit are not in demand.  The only way these developments can guarantee occupancy is with government subsidized apartments.   Unfortunately, the only way they can be supported is with massive taxpayer support. 
Both the One Bay Area Plan and China's Ghost Cities are examples of central government trying to speculate on the future instead of allowing the laws of supply and demand determine growth. 
With history of sensitive land use policies and private investment,  Marin has become the very definition of a livable suburb that Smart Growth planners strive for.  How ironic that they now want to raze our Marin suburbs to build their "new and improved" Smart Growth cities of tomorrow.

Friday, May 2, 2014

Friday Night Music: Ella Fitzgerald Mix

Volvo self driving car takes on the public roads

In September 2001, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) planned to urbanize Marin BEFORE Plan Bay Area

Susan Adams and Judy Arnold have known about the plans to urbanize Marin since 2001. Both now claim that it was "poorly implemented" as they try to get re-elected.  But both of these ladies were aware of it since the early days after their election.
Susan Adams served as our ABAG representative for 10 years before resigning as it's Vice President in 2012.  She has known every detail of the plans for urbanizing the county since 2001. Her claims of ignorance about the Marinwood Priority Development Area is not credible given the hours she served. 
Now she says she want's to "revisit" the idea of establishing the Marinwood Priority Development Area in "the future" i.e. after the election.
Marin District One Voters must vote her out and elect DAMON CONNOLLY and TONI SHROYER who support a true public process when planning for growth in Marin.
See the original map HERE

Save Marin Again

The County of Marin is under attack from Politicians, Planners and Real Estate Developers who want to urbanize our human scale towns and villages to high density "Transit Oriented Development" .  From Sausalito to Novato, along the 101 corridor every neighborhood within a half mile of the freeway is called the 101 Priority Development Area.  

Single family homes may be taken by eminent domain and replaced with apartment buildings if Senate Bill SB-1 is signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown.  All over Marin, the county has identified sites for a massive expansion of subsidized housing  for the 2012 housing element. 

In the tiny middle class neighborhood of Marinwood (pop. 6000) the county wants to grow the community by over 25% in low income, non profit developments that pay almost no taxes. In Larkspur, officials are considering a scheme to add 920 apartment units, hotels, massive retail at one of the busiest intersections in the county.  

All over the county, the citizens are rising up and joining forces under Citizen Marin  to Save Marin Again!

Thursday, May 1, 2014

San Rafael Mayor Gary Phillips votes "No" to Civic Center PDA to save Dixie Schools

Mayor Phillips weighs the Pros and Cons of the Civic Center Station PDA

Mayor Gary Phillips listened to North San Rafael Citizens
who want sensible planning and responsible growth
and save Dixie Schools.

The Death of St Vincents Plans circa 2002

St. Vincent's Chapel in Marinwood/Lucas Valley

St. Vincents Plans Could Be On Hold

By Richard Halstead

Recent developments could spell double trouble for Shapell Industries' controversial plan to develop the 836-acre site owned by the St. Vincent's School for Boys between Highway 101 and San Pablo Bay.

At the request of San Rafael Mayor Al Boro, San Rafael is re-evaluating its support for annexation of the county land. Without the services that annexation to San Rafael would provide, the project cannot be built.

At the same time, representatives of four key environmental groups - the Marin Conservation League, the local chapter of the Sierra Club, the Marin Audubon Society, and Citizen Advocates for Preservation of St. Vincent's/Silveira - are meeting with county supervisors behind the scenes, urging them to take a more prominent role in determining the property's fate.

Shapell's proposal calls for construction of a 766-unit residential subdivision and 124,000 square feet of commercial and retail space. Critics worry that the project would aggravate the county's traffic woes, while proponents stress it would supply crucial housing.

Boro said recent developments, such as Susan Adams' upset election to the Board of Supervisors, have called into question whether or not the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission would approve annexation, even if San Rafael approves the project.

"I'm getting the very strong impression that it's not annexed to the city yet, and it may never be," Boro said. "I don't want to waste a lot of time and effort."

Acting with the support of the San Rafael City Council, Boro has directed San Rafael's city manager, community development director and city attorney to prepare a report outlining the city's options. City Manager Rod Gould said he expects to present the report sometime next month, perhaps in a special meeting.

Following Adams' dramatic upset victory, local environmentalists signaled they would make the future of the St. Vincent's property an issue in the elections of three San Rafael City Council members next year. The terms of Boro and Councilmen Paul Cohen and Gary Phillips expire next November. Boro said his decision to re-evaluate had nothing to do with politics.

The mayor's surprising move elicited a variety of reactions from local officials.

"I don't know what it means yet; I think he wanted to get something on the table so we could talk about it," said Cohen, who lost last month's run-off election to Adams. During the campaign Adams opposed the Shapell proposal while Cohen said he would wait for the completion of an environmental report before taking a position on the plan.

"I don't know if we'll change our position or whether we'll just simply accept the report," said San Rafael Councilwoman Barbara Heller. "But I think it is prudent to get all the information you can."

Supervisor Steve Kinsey, however, believes the development proposal is headed to the deep freeze for a long period of hibernation.

"I think San Rafael is coming to the realization that it will be expensive and ultimately unsuccessful in being able to meet the very legitimate goals it has for workforce housing, baylands protection and support for the School for Boys," Kinsey said, "and as such is on the verge of walking away from the project, which means it will probably lie dormant for as least as long as it takes to get free-flowing traffic on Highway 101."

"I'm very excited about this turn of events," said Adams, who begins her term next month. "I believe the planning of these properties reverting to the county jurisdiction would more fully represent what voters in the district would like to see happen."

Practically speaking, however, Kinsey said that if the project went to the county now it would face a "certain and swift demise," because the property's current zoning prohibits such development there.

Until now, San Rafael has taken the lead because the St. Vincent's land is within its sphere of influence. If the county assumes that role, it could place the on-going updating of the Countywide Plan at center stage.

"It will put us in the position of needing to pay a lot more attention to what the site could be," Kinsey said.

San Rafael's deliberations have resulted in yet another delay in approving a contract to perform a costly environmental impact report on Shapell's proposal. The council was scheduled to review the contract on Dec. 16 - after previous dates in October and November were postponed. No new date has been set for considering the contract, Gould said.

Shapell vice president Tom Koch said Friday that he had not been notified of the new developments. Koch said there has been no change in Shapell's desire to move ahead with the project.

"None at all," Koch said. "It has always been clear to us that dealing with the hyperbole and political rhetoric - that is easy to promulgate and difficult to counteract - would be a major challenge. But we're certainly prepared to move forward."

If San Rafael does reverse course on the development proposal, it could render academic the recent efforts of local environmental groups to lobby supervisors.

"I think in effect that San Rafael is on the verge of beating the environmentalists to the punch," Kinsey said. "Instead of them saying, 'County take it back' San Rafael is saying, 'County here it is.'"

"I don't really know what it means," said Marge Macris, who serves on the executive committee of the Sierra Club's Marin group. She was a member of a contingent that met with Supervisor Annette Rose last week.

"At this point, it is just a very general request," Macris said. "We would like for the board to look at what their options are regarding the St. Vincent's project."

She acknowledged the 1998 memorandum of understanding between the county and San Rafael, which designated San Rafael as the lead agency for processing development applications related to the site.

"Our position is the county ought to take another look at that," Macris said. "The land is of countywide importance and therefore the whole county should have an interest in doing the planning."

Rose said, "I honestly don't know if it is possible for the county to reconsider its position that San Rafael is the lead agency here. But we will investigate that."

See Related Stories: Does Supervisor Adams still care about Marinwood-Lucas Valley?

St Vincents Then and Now

Should Marinwood-Lucas Valley house 51,000 people to be a "Smart Growth" community?

Lakewood, OH: The Suburb Where Everyone Can Walk to School from STREETFILMS on Vimeo.
Here is a film about Lakewood, OH that Smart Growth advocates brag that everyone can walk to school.  It is roughly the same size as Marinwood-Lucas Valley, but has ten times the number of residents.  I don't know much about the community, but they are calling it a "suburb".  I call a community of 51.000 people a "city".

Do you think it is "smart" to turn Marinwood-Lucas Valley into an urban environment to claim that it is "green"?

Google's self-driving cars take on Mountain View city streets

Google's self-driving cars take on Mountain View city streets


MOUNTAIN VIEW -- Google's self-driving car has left the freeway fast lane for the much more complicated obstacle course of city traffic.
After driving thousands of miles on the streets of Mountain View, the company said Monday its cars can now navigate through everyday driving situations that include traffic signals, curbs, pedestrians, cyclists and other hazards typically seen on city streets but not freeways.

But it will be a long time before you're buying self-driving cars from your favorite dealer. There are a host of unresolved regulatory issues, as well as the need for more rigorous testing.
"It's going to be many, many years before people trust those kinds of vehicles," said Brian Blau, research director for consumer technologies at the Gartner research firm. "But without companies like Google investing in the research and science behind it, we'll never get there. You have to take baby steps before you can walk. And you have to learn to walk before you can run. They're still in the learning-to-walk phase."

Google said the cars are progressing rapidly.

"As it turns out, what looks chaotic and random on a city street to the human eye is actually fairly predictable to a computer," Chris Urmson, Google's self-driving car project director, wrote in a company blog post.

"We've built software models of what to expect, from the likely (a car stopping at a red light) to the unlikely (blowing through it). We still have lots of problems to solve, including teaching the car to drive more streets in Mountain View before we tackle another town, but thousands of situations on city streets that would have stumped us two years ago can now be navigated autonomously," he said.

Mountain View police said they could not immediately say whether any Google self-driving cars had been involved in any accidents or given traffic citations.

Silicon Valley forecaster Paul Saffo said the future of driverless cars has already arrived.
Large mining operations in Australia now use gigantic driverless trucks, he said. And affordable consumer cars in the United States already park themselves and come equipped with an arsenal of anti-collision systems that automatically brake a car faster than a human driver can react.

"But when can I buy my autonomous vehicle?" Saffo asked. "That's trickier."
Saffo believes the first consumer-grade driverless cars will be expensive and carry the aura of "the Tesla effect in which the superrich will be the early adopters who will pay way too much for a robotic car because it's cool and they can very flamboyantly read their iPads and sit in their driverless cars making phone calls and doing work while everyone else is stuck in traffic."

In response to a question from this newspaper about what comes next for Google's driverless cars, the company said in an email, "We haven't made firm decisions about when and how we would like to make our technology available to consumers."

The driverless car program, launched in 2009, had logged 300,000 miles on about a dozen vehicles by August 2012, the last time the company gave an update on the program. The cars now have logged 700,000 miles. 
Last month, the California Department of Motor Vehicles held a public hearing in Los Angeles aimed at developing regulations by the end of this year for driverless cars, which could set the tone for national policy. Three other states have rules governing driverless cars, according to The Associated Press, but those policies mostly focus on testing.
At the DMV's March hearing, some privacy experts chastised Google for pushing back against privacy guarantees when the Legislature passed a law in 2012 requiring rules on testing and public operation of driverless cars.

"How would Google monetize this?" Blau asked. "It's hard to see Google as a car company. But one of the main corporate missions of Google is to be the knowledge company. Imagine the amount of data Google could collect from driverless cars -- where they go and what they do."

But with the potential to efficiently move people in separate vehicles at high speeds, driverless cars could revolutionize the way people move around in large numbers, Saffo said.

"Anybody who hates traffic should like robotic cars," he said. "This is not about a robot driving your car. This is about a vast sweeping change in our transportation systems."

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

The Wednesday Addams Dance: Ship of Fools

Susan Adams is trying to prevent her Recall by the people of District One.  She is seeking loyalty oaths from unions, activists and political insiders to support her marketing efforts.  She has hired a campaign consultant and trying to raise tens of thousands of dollars. 

The people would rather she represent the people's interest over special interests.  She served on the Association of Bay Area Governments for nine years including 2 years as vice president.  She proposed the Marinwood Priority Development Area on August 7 , 2007 and denied it's existence until the release of the videotaped meeting.  Clearly, Supervisor Adams is serving other interests than the clear voice of the people in District One. 

Does the Free Market Punish Racism?

3 Policies More Racist Than Donald Sterling and Cliven Bundy

"I want gay people to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns."

"I want gay people to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns."

Tim Moen is a Canadian who is apparently the first federal Libertarian Party candidate to run for Parliament from the Fort McMurray-Athabasca area in Alberta.
Here he is talking to the site of Fort McMurray Today:
“To me, that meme [above] is the message of classical liberalism and the philosophy of liberty"...
“People should be allowed to marry whoever they want, put what they want into their bodies as long as no one is hurt, and protect themselves and their property.”...
“I was initially skeptical that political action could make any positive change in the world, but I was convinced by a number of people that I would be best at spreading the message of liberty across the region and Canada.”...
“I do believe if property rights for people and especially First Nations were enforced, there would be a slower, more sustainable and responsible pace of development."...
“The only say I should have, as a government representative, is with helping resolve disputes.”...
“Gun control is not about protection, so much as it is about control. We’ve seen what happens in countries that allow these liberties to be eroded and it’s not pretty.”
The platform of Canada's LP is summarized thusly:
The party believes in a commitment to free trade. It also supports the elimination of income tax and the GST [goods and services tax, a form of sales tax or VAT], opting instead for a system of fees.
It also supports the elimination of all subsidies, social and corporate welfare programs and gun control laws.

Editor's Note: Although this has nothing to do with politics in Marin,  I think it points to the emerging trend of classical liberalism and the philosophy of liberty.  It always amazes me that the Baby Boomer generation who practically reinvented  libertine society have ended up mired in political correctness, big government and now central planning with Smart Growth and Plan Bay Area.  It is absolutely antithetical to the spirit of "Do your own thing".

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Rail: The Transportation Cannibal

Rail: The Transportation Cannibal

The SMART train here in Marin and Sonoma are not the only areas to see the building of a billion dollar train line as the solution to the areas transit needs – Houston has it’s Metro, Portland has it’s MAX light rail, and Anaheim is spending $318m for a trolley that goes a mere 3.2 miles – trains seem to be the new obsession and solution to all of our transit woes. But an analysis of the actual impact rail has had in historic case studies exposes that rail is far from the solution – and the famous Einstein quote becomes apropo:
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Planning for Reality would like to thank Thomas Rubin for his expert insight – this article is based on his detailed analysis of rail case studies – and he is owed all credit.

Rail: The Transportation Cannibal

Rail Cannibalizes Transit
The problem with rail projects is that they have a disturbing history of causing transit agencies to eat their young – meaning that they cannibalize other far more cost effective projects capable of increasing ridership, decreasing emissions and not needlessly adding to sales or property taxes.

This is the story of Los Angeles, where the existing transportation system is in jeopardy as it is in the process of being replaced by rail.
This is in area where the author, Thomas Rubin, has considerable expertize as he was the former Chief Financial Officer of Southern California Rapid Transit District from 1989 to 1993, when it was absorbed into what is now the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. After he left MTA, he served as the chief transit expert in Labor/Community Strategy Center v MTA, a Federal Title VI (discrimination in the utilization of Federal funds) legal action that was settled by a Consent Decree that resulted in something very unusual in U.S. transit in recent decades: per capita transit ridership actually increased! So he is one of very few who can speak first hand to overseeing the finances of a truly successful transit district.
It’s important to consider that while Los Angeles is known for it’s freeways and cars– although somewhat mistakenly, because the Los Angeles Urbanized Area actually has vehicle miles traveled per capita far under the median for large urbanized areas, and is almost dead last among large urbanized areas (UZAs) in both centerline freeway miles and total road miles per capital – in terms of taxpayer support, there is virtually no place that has as much local money for transit.
- in 1971, the State of California passed the Transportation Development Act, a 1/4c sales tax almost exclusively for transit, collected in, and returned solely to, the county of collection
- in 1980, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission placed a half-cent sales tax, exclusively for transit, before the voters and the California Supreme Court decided that the Proposition 13 two-thirds majority requirement for new taxes did not apply, and the tax began to be collected in 1982
- in 1990 a further 1/2c local sales tax was passed
- in 2008 Los Angeles County voters passed Measure R, a third 1/2c local sales tax, but this had with a 30-year lifespan.
Today Los Angeles has a total of 1¾% local transportation sales tax which will generate just under $2.5 billion this fiscal year. Approximately 0.225% of that 1¾%  - about one-eighth –  is dedicated to road projects under total local control, with most of that (supposed) for transit-related road projects.

The Irresistible Itch to Build Rail

However, this has never been enough for the huge political pressure to build new guideway (train and trolley) transit systems and, unfortunately, the promises keep outdistancing the ability to fulfill them.  On several occasions, the building of new rail and trolley transit projects, has gotten so out of hand that projects have been delayed starting construction, stopped mid-construction, or cancelled.

The Financial Hemorrhaging Effect of Rail

Worse, the reflexive way to resolve the financial issues caused by building too much, too soon, has always been:
  1. Go for more taxing authority, or other government funding:  The original 1980 Proposition A rail plan called for eleven rail lines to be constructed; however, by 1989, it was obvious that the original planning had been so incomplete and/or incompetent, the costs of the existing projects had gotten so out of hand, and so many promises had been made to local politico’s that “your line will be next” that the sales tax had to be doubled, because that first half cent would only pay for approximately one light rail line (Long Beach-Los Angeles Blue Line), half of a subway (Red/Purple Lines), and half of another light rail line (Green Line) – which, of course, was the reason that the second local half cent sales tax was placed before the voters.  (Does this sound at all familiar to Marin and Sonoma residents… keep reading to hear what the future may have in store if history is any guide.)The “now we can get going again” ramp-up only lasted about three years until it became obvious that the economy had turned – and the rest of the planning had again proven incompetent.  The $100 billion in revenues to support building sixteen rail lines over the 20-years beginning in 1992 had, two-and-one-half years later, shrunk to $64 billion – which also proved to be an overestimation. This led, a few years later, to the shutdown of construction of the Pasadena Gold Line mid-project and the cancellation of two subway extensions.  Later, in the 2008 election, the Mayor of Los Angeles led the campaign to pass that third 1/2% sales tax, to finance his “30/10” plan – building three decades of new rail lines and other transportation projects over the next ten years.  However, that too, quickly collapsed, which led to a proposed extension of Measure R past its 30-year sunset – which, this time, the voters rejected.  However, the failed vote didn’t stop the construction, and Los Angeles is now witnessing the simultaneous construction of four different rail projects, with even more being teed up to begin construction – even though there is no funding to operate them.  Of course, not only were the revenues short of what had been projected, but the costs of many projects were far higher.  The first project, the Long Beach Blue Line, had original first estimated cost of $125 million; the actual total, under the statutory definition of cost that has always been ignored, was over $1 billion.  The Green Line was originally projected to cost $178 million; actual came in at about $825.  More recently, the Expo light rail line was going to cost under $800 million, it is now about three times that – and it’s a long way from completion of the final section.
  2. Increase transit fares:  This does bring in some additional revenue, allowing subsidies formerly allocated to operating pre-existing transit systems to be shifted to new railway construction. However, when the median household income of Los Angeles Metropolitan Area bus riders is under $15,000 a year, even a $10 increase in the cost of a monthly transit pass is a major financial issue for them.
  3. Decrease transit service:  The real reason for increasing fares is not so much the additional fare revenue, but to drive people away from transit because they cannot afford it, which allows LA Metro to reduce service.  The problem is, when you cut costs, you don’t save the average cost, you save the marginal cost (headquarters, for some reason, is never cut as much as the drivers and mechanics, and the driver who gets laid off is never the most senior, highest paid, but always the most junior – who have total employment costs of about half of that most senior drivers), so the result is, to make the desired savings, the cuts generally have to be very deep.

Adhering to the Purpose of Transit

Now, let us get to the bottom line:  What is the purpose of transit in metropolitan America?
Is it to extend transit infrastructure, to bring rail transit to more and more parts of the service area where it is closer to more and more residents?
This certainly appears to be the essence of the existence of transit agencies such as LA Metro – and Sonoma and Marin’s SMART train.
However, there is another school of thought about this – that the real objective is actually to move people – particularly to provide means of mobility for those that are transportation-disadvantaged for reasons of age, economic circumstance, or physical challenge.… and what has been the history in Los Angeles?

The Southern California Transit Roller-Coaster

The following charts show unlinked passenger trips since 1980 in the Southern California Rapid Transit District/Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (reorganization in 1993) , first broken down by mode, then with some interesting trend lines explained below:
Click for larger image
Click for larger image
Click for larger image
Click for larger image
The above charts show a roller-coaster of down-up-down-up-down, in five phases:
  • 1980-1982 – During the latter part of the 1970′s, due primarily to the oil crisis and high price of gasoline and the rapid influx of Hispanic immigrants who were transportation-disadvantaged, SCRTD transit ridership rose rapidly, funded primarily by the one-quarter cent sales tax authorized by the Transportation Development Act of 1971.  However, funding shortfalls led to an increase in fares from $.55 in 1980 to $.65 in 1981 and then $.85 in 1982 resulting in an 11% reduction in trips. (Restated when fares rise, people use transit less).
  • 1982-1985 – With the passing of a new 1/2c sales taxes primarily for transit, fares were reduced from $.85 to $.50, and other fares reduced proportionately, for the three year period, 1983-85.  Ridership increased by over 40%, with peak period ridership up over 36%, despite vehicle revenue miles only increasing 1.5%.  This increase in transit ridership was the second largest in post-WWII transit of any city in the United States.
  • 1985-1996 – During this period, funds were shifted from the fare reduction program to planning, design and construction of new rail transit.  Two light rail lines and part of the heavy rail system went into service during this period.  As the adult cash fares increased from 50¢ in 1985 to 85¢ in 1986 to $1.10 in 1988 and $1.35 in 1994,  during this period of fare increases ridership declined approximately 27%.
  • 1996-2007 - As a direct result of the 1994 fare increase and the elimination of monthly passes, approximately a doubling of average fares for regular riders – a major Federal Title VI (discrimination in the utilization of Federal funding) legal action was filed against Metro.  This produced a Consent Decree, which remained in force for approximately eleven years.  The Consent Decree (CD) required Metro to reintroduce the $42 monthly transit pass, institute a new $11 weekly pass, increase bus service to reduce extreme bus overcrowding, and add additional bus lines.  After eleven years of losing an average of 12 million trips a year, the Consent Decree requirements reintroducing discounted transit passes not only immediately stopped the loss, but turned it around, producing an average annual increase of twelve million trips annually – a 36% increase over this period.  While Metro rail ridership did increase significantly during the 1996-2007, period, 58% of the added riders were bus riders and approximately 70% of the new rail riders were former bus riders.Using the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) “new starts” methodology for annualizing costs, the average taxpayer subsidy per new passenger, expressed in FY07 dollars, was $1.40 for the bus riders added by the Consent Decree, vs. $25.82 for the added guideway transit (Blue, Gold, Green, Orange and Red Line), a taxpayer subsidy per new passenger ratio of 1:18.4 – that is, adding transit trips via bus only required a taxpayer subsidy of 5.4% of the cost of adding transit trips via rail or Bus Rapid Transit.The resulting increase in transit ridership was the third largest in post-WWII U.S. transit.
  • 2007-2013 – The Consent Decree ended and MTA returned to its prior practice of major spending on rail construction while reducing bus service and increasing fares. The result: ridership has fallen 8% to date and there is no end in sight yet to the end of this decline.

The Largest Transit Increase in the US Since WWII

In case anyone was wondering the largest transit increase was for MTA-New York City Transit, where there was a major effective fare decrease beginning in the early 1990’s. This played a major role in the 1.46 billion increase in ridership from the low point to the high.  Of course, there were many things going on in NYC transit over this period, including a major capital reinvestment, security improvement, and just plain clean-up that began in the early 1980’s and was finally beginning to have major impact by the early 1990’s, but one thing that was not going on was any new rail lines being constructed.
NYC Fare and Ridership Trends
NYC Transit Fares vs Ridership
Click to see larger image
The above chart demonstrates the causation. As fares rose on New York City transit (shown in red) ridership declined (shown in black). The reverse also is demonstrated – as fares dropped, ridership increased.
So of the three largest increases in transit usage in the U.S. since 1945, the largest had nothing at all to do with building new rail lines, neither did the second, and, for the third, it was a comparatively minor factor – it could be argued if the rail construction had not been going on, and even a small portion of the funds used for operations, the ridership increase would have been a lot larger.

The Story of Rail Since the 1980s in Los Angeles

Since construction of the first modern Los Angeles rail line began in the mid-1980’s. the regional transportation authority has spent $9.9 billion on construction for the lines that are now in operation, and has even more spending now going on for construction of additional lines.
… and what has been the result for transit users since then?
Total trips are down – and, since the shift from what was basically a “grid” system of E-W and N-S bus routes, which allows almost any point to be accessed via two buses, to a rail-backbone system, which requires that what were originally one-bus trips to become bus-rail, or bus-rail-bus, and former bus-bus trips to be bus-rail-bus, the total number of people who are moving via transit has gone down even more. Sounds a lot like SMART – which may cannibalize funding of  express buses that go from Sonoma and Marin directly to downtown San Francisco; instead expecting travelers to connect via the ferry in Larkspur considerably extending their travel time and adding inconvenience.
Right now, LA Metro is offering a choice – either  reduce bus service by about 15% or raise fares about the same amount immediately and much more over the next few years. Stopping building rail lines, or slowing down these rail lines to match actual available resources, was of course never under consideration.

What does this man for Marin and SMART?

We already know that SMART’s cost and revenue projections were admitted to be wrong before the ink dried on the 2008 election results. The Transportation Authority of Marin meeting notes on page 7 clearly state:
Commissioner Arnold noted that although the updated ridership projections don’t seem to match original projections, a joint review of the Dowling report between SMART, MTC and Dowling resulted in agreement that the earlier numbers were incorrect – she also indicated that the current estimates were revised down by SMART to ensure a conservative projection.”
We’re still waiting to see a ridership projection that makes sense, as we are waiting to see how the completion of the originally promised full rail line (and bike path/walkway) is going to be financed. While a lot of the details are still to be finalized, it will likely come at the expense of other, far more important, transportation improvement projects in the Bay Area, but mainly projects in Marin and Sonoma.
We also have a high degree of confidence that operating costs will be higher than projected and, because ridership is likely to be far lower, fare revenue will also come in under anticipated, meaning that the annual operating subsidies will be a lot higher than the voters – and governing board members – were told.
… and, of course, there is no provision for capital renewal and replacement, which is very expensive for rail transit – and begins surprisingly quickly after revenue service begins

But SMART is Being Built Whether We Like it Or Not

What we can expect is to hear is the excuse “the problem is that we will never reach the full potential of SMART until we build it out further”. We will also surely see is all kinds of things to try to improve SMART ridership – larger parking lots at stations, more bus service designed as feeders and distributors, more high density housing around stations, etc. – in other words, a line up of all the usual suspects.
The problem is, none of these really work all that well.  Transit oriented development at suburban stations rarely gets near 10% of total new trips from such developments.  For a variety of other reasons, SMART is just not going to be very attractive to the vast majority of people who will need to travel along the SMART corridor.
What will happen is that all of these SMART “improvements” will cost money, and that will come primarily from scarce transit funding – which will lead to service cutbacks and fare increases for the pre-existing, largely bus (and demand-responsive) riders, which will mean that those who need transit the most will not be getting it.
Think this is overly pessimistic? Then one might conduct ones own research on projected and actual costs and ridership for similar types of new suburban rail systems around the nation.
But ultimately history clearly defines the pattern - diverting money to rail projects reduces ridership. It is extremely expensive and cost-ineffective. It is also typically less convenient adding connections to otherwise direct trips. Significantly increased costs (versus cheaper preferable alternatives) in turn puts upwards pressure on fares and this reduces ridership.

The Solution? End the Fixation on Rail

If we want a better transportation future, which doesn’t needlessly increase taxes, impose high fares on low income residents and doesn’t create avoidable traffic congestion then we need to get beyond this fixation on rail and trolleys in Marin,  Just as Tamal Vista / Win Cup stands as a monument that there should be no more flawed high density projects in Marin, so SMART will likely become an equivalent monument to a failed transportation policy fixated on rail that will be a burden to all.
Acknowledgement: Planning for Reality would like to thank Thomas Rubin for his insight on this article. It asks that all planners and decision makers review the above history and step back and consider the impact of their actions.

"Hell NO!" says Berkeley Community against Urbanization.

Berkeley, birth place of the modern Free Speech Movement is rebelling against Plan Bay Area.

Community Rights Bulletin

¬A bulletin about the Community Rights Ordinance

One of the primary purposes of the Community Rights Ordinance (CRO) is to allow neighborhoods to defend themselves against the incursions and impunity of development corporations, and city agencies (such as Zoning or Planning). Indeed, it is the pressing need for such self-defense at the community and neighborhood level that is the prime impetus for proposing the CRO. There are other issues with respect to which it would provide some power, such as utility rates. But the transformation of our city through imposed development is a primary one.

In past bulletins, I have spoken about the rights of neighborhoods, and the power that people can generate democratically with each other. In this bulletin, I would like to expand on why neighborhood defense has become urgent.

This will involve speaking about the different levels at which "development" operates, which together threaten the character of our neighborhoods. We need to outline the political plans, the various actual designs, the different ordinances and city actions that facilitate these designs, and the dehumanizing effect that these designs will have on us socially and culturally, in order to fully grasp what we face.

I apologize for the length. This problem exists at many levels, which all interrelate. Each element takes on new meanings when seen in the context of all the others.

The big picture

There are four levels of planning:
1- ABAG and its requirement for urban densification;
2- Plan Bay Area, which has tragetted the East Bay for massive hi-rise developments (condos);
3- The berkeley demolition plan that will make it easier to tear down houses for the purposes of replacement;
4- The privatization of the Berkeley Housing Authority.

The master plan for all this comes from ABAG (Assoc. of Bay Area Governments). What it projects is a massive population shift from the suburbs to the cities, for which densely packed high-rise apartments and condo buildings will be necessary. Thus, it is also a population concentration project. The other three plans mentioned here are to facilitate that population shift and its concentration.

The Plan Bay Area is a mapping of proposed development areas for the whole region, created by a conjunction of ABAG and the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA). As a plan, it defines Primary Development Areas (PDAs) for each city, and requires each city to promote development in those areas in accord with ABAG projections. These PDAs are along the BART lines, and I-80, and along major avenues in the bay area cities.

Neither of these bodies (ABAG and MTC) are representative of the people. They are bodies that have power over the people and over city governments. They are essentially forms of political structure imposed on us by state and corporate interests.

Types of construction for Berkeley

There are four types of construction planned:
1- High-rise condos along major transit corridors, such as I-80, and the BART lines.
2- Large apartment buildings along major avenues, like Shattuck Ave, University Ave., San Pablo Ave., and Gilman St. Many buildings have been built over the last five years, and are still not fully occupied.
3- Stacks of micro-apartment – literally tiny prefabricated studios piled on one another by crane, each less than 300 sq. ft., yet projected to house two people.
4- Mini-dorms in the areas around the University, in which existing housing is revised to contain more bedrooms than originally intended by the building’s design.

Why is this happening?

The reason ABAG is promoting these developments is dual. As the Bay Area transformed itself from an industrial port to a communications and financial center for the Pacific Rim economy, corporate operations need their technicians and executives in closer proximity. And this implies a need to reverse the massive population shift that occurred during the 1950s and 1960s, when city dwellers fled to the suburbs (often called “white flight”). The suburbs provided easy property ownership for those with the better jobs. And the new expressways originally made the "commute" fairly easy. Now, those who commute can spend up to three hours a day on the highways.

So business wants to bring them back. And we who live in the cities will bear the brunt of this, watching densification decay our small friendly commercial areas, and lose our neighborhood sociality to constant traffic jams and chain stores. ABAG projects building millions of new housing units in the Bay Area, and it has defined allottments of this total to each county and each city. Alameda county’s allotment is to be 23% of the total, somewhere around 800,000 new units.

What is ABAG? It is a governmental structure imposed between the cities and counties on the one hand, and the state on the other. It claims to "represent" the cities, but its personel are not elected to it by the people. Instead, it represents the state. And it can impose its plans on the cities because it can cut off state funds to city services for those cities that do not comply with its "allotments."

The City of Berkeley’s involvement

The City of Berkeley has begun rezoning areas in West Berkeley, against the popular sentiment clearly expressed in rejection of Measure T in the last election. That rejection said, loud and clear, “no rezoning of West Berkeley.” But the Archstone building, which was proposed 4 years ago (at a 50 foot height), has been permitted against the Measure T defeat (and now has a height of 82 feet), and is nearing completion.

The city is gradually dissolving the Berkeley Housing Authority. It is in the process of selling 15 properties it has owned and used for low-income housing to a private business called Related California, an affiliate of Related Companies LP of New York, which is a cartel of real estate companies worth something like $22 billion in development capital. Related will take ownership of these buildings and renovate them (promising that no tenants will lose their residency). This deal will be signed this month (Dec. 2013).

Related’s webpage says “we are specialists in financing using government-sponsered programs.” That means they are private developers living off public funds. At the same time that the BHA is selling properties to Related, it is ending its Housing Assistance Payment program, which has in the past assisted a lot of people with their rents. It will still be the first step for Section 8 housing, but now, Section 8 people will have to go through a dual investigations, first by the BHA, and second by Related. What this amounts to is a process of privatization of what the BHA used to handle as an agency of city government.

Finally, the city is now considering a "demolition" bill, that will put more houses on the chopping block, and make it easier to clear space for new densifying buildings. This is just another way the city government is cooperating with ABAG and PBA.

The punchline

The punchline is the inhumanity of it all:
1- ABAG claims that shifting the suburban population back to the cities will eliminate much pollution by decreasing commuter traffic. But it will only further pollute the cities with the traffic jams created by densification.
2- The Archstone building, built against voter desires, will be right on the railroad line, and thus subject to the train horns at all times of day and night. It will also be subject to the diesel exhaust from the expressway. Leasing rules already require that tenants must keep their windows closed so that the air filtering system in the building can keep the air "fresh." In other words, it is an inhumane resolution to an invented problem. Mass transit would be a better solution, but that would favor us in the cities more than those to be shifted back from the suburbs.
3- The proposal for mini-apartments carries the inhumanity of what is happening to even higher levels. The 2700 block of Shattuck Ave. was the first area targetted (in the East Bay) for a pile of prefabricated "cells" mascarading as a building. For two people to try to live in such a cramped space would probably produce madness (and possibly violence). Fortunately, objections by neighbors and organized opposition by groups such as the Berkeley Neighborhoods Council, got the zoning commission to turn it down. But the idea hasn’t gone away.

A dehumanization of society, a densification of living space, and a destruction of neighborhoods is what we face from plans that are not just on the board but have been moved to implementation stage.

As things now stand, there is neither accessibility to these projects by the people who will be affected by them, nor accountability by those promulgating them (ABAG, city gov. and developers), and no transparency with respect to the unfolding of these population shift plans. That is, they are anti-democratic.

If we are to defend ourselves and our neighborhoods against this, we have to not only organize, but have a structure that gives us the right to say what will happen in our neighborhoods (a pro-democracy movement).

This is what the Community Rights Ordinance is for.

It is based on the following principles.

  • 1- Owing to the weakness of representation in councils, that the power to preserve (or change) the character of a neighborhood be given to the residents through direct democracy based on dialogue and mutual respect among the residents, expressed through neighborhood assemblies.
  • 2- The hearings (as a protocol) to which the city limits people’s input on proposals be replaced by these neighborhood assemblies as organizations of direct democracy.
  • 3- Hearings are essentially anti-democratic. A group that wishes to make an argument as a group to its representatives finds itself fragmented by the hearing protocol. It loses coherence insofar as each person has only a minute or two to speak. And it loses cohesion insofar as different points of view all line up in the same line. Essentially, the hearing paradigm is based on “You get to run your mouth, and we get to run the show.”
  • 4- Finally, direct democracy is based on the principle that those who will be affected by a policy should be involved in defining and articulating the policy, and not just in voting on what others define and articulate. That means that neighborhood assemblies must have the power to modify development proposals, or even veto them if no compromise can be reached with the developer.

In short

The Community Rights Ordinance will establish the need for any corporate development, whether from outside the city or at the hands of the city itself, to go through a process of discussion in the neighborhoods that will be affected by the development (whether constructive or destructive), and give those neighborhoods that will be affected the power to either modify the planned developments to fit in with their social sense of the neighborhood, or refuse it.

Community Rights Ordinance on line d/0ByHLbQK- ad1hTWJBcVRqRVNIZ0k/edit?usp= sharing loccna/dev/ communityrightsordinance.html

The Community Rights Committee
PO Box 11842
Berkeley, CA 94712