Saturday, May 31, 2014

Saturday Night Videos

Ladi6 - Hold Tight from Robert Wallace on Vimeo.

Motionpoems - 'Working Order' from Gentleman Scholar on Vimeo.

The American Dream from Sean Buckelew on Vimeo.

A Horse Throat from DavidBK on Vimeo.

SEINABO SEY "HARD TIME" from casper balslev on Vimeo.

Down to the lake from Alex Horner on Vimeo.

Moonfishing from David Michael Friend on Vimeo.

Somewhere in Vietnam // from Menassier Gabriel ///mg image on Vimeo.

Cole Haan "Maya Angelou (Director's Cut)" from Ben Hughes on Vimeo.

KING SOLOMON from Jared Rosenthal on Vimeo.

KING SOLOMON from Jared Rosenthal on Vimeo.

The Incredible Marrec (english) from L'Incroyable Marrec on Vimeo.

Bites - Sine from Bites on Vimeo.

PHOENIX University : Supply & Demand from Cyril Izarn on Vimeo.

"Time for me to get my "Mad Max" on"

"I show them I can fight.  I'll just point out  that all the endorsements went to my opponent.
Time for my WILD SIDE to come out"

Let's see.  She has sent three "emergency" emails in the last few weeks to District One.  

How many EMERGENCY emails did she send out about Plan Bay Area, the Marinwood Priority Development Area or
the Housing Element that places 71% of all affordable housing  for unincorporated Marin in Marinwood-Lucas Valley?


Vote Tuesday, June 3rd for Damon Connolly.
Polls are open 7 AM to 8 PM at the Marinwood Community Center
at 775 Miller Creek Avenue.

This is an important election.

Your vote counts!

My Letter to the Larkspur Planning Commission

Dear "Steward of Larkspur and Marin's future ":

The Larkspur Station Area Plan EIR must consider the cumulative impacts of increase traffic pollution and congestion throughout Marin and most especially along the 101 corridor who will be severely impacted.

As you know, Sonoma is planning for an additional 24,000 housing units in Plan Bay Area.  Marin is planning for at least 4400 units in it's latest RHNA allocations not including private development which could mean many more thousand housing units.

In short, Marin is targeted for urbanization with a suburban infrastructure.   If Larkspur is allowed to develop it's behemoth development, the 101 freeway must be expanded, infrastructure such as schools, water and sewer will need to be expanded and St Francis/101 freeway interchange must be redesigned. 

No plans should go forward until a complete  plan for infrastructure is considered and built.  To approve the Larkspur Station Area plan without proper planning, is not only irresponsible, it borders on the criminally negligent.  Future generations will have to pay for our folly.  Do not become the government official to destroy the legacy of Marin.

I wholly endorse many more points  made in the letters written by Edward Yates, attorney for Community Venture Partners and Bob Silvestri which you have received.

I respectful request that Larkspur "go back to the drawing board" and design a new plan with the principles of sustainability,  community values and limitation of infrastructure capacity are considered.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen Nestel

Peter Singleton on The Mass Urbanization of Redwood City (warning to Marin)

Peter Singleton, current resident of Larkspur, remarks on forced urbanization" with 50 million dollars of government subsidies for property developers.  These "public-private partnerships' are good old fashioned crony capitalism that exploits local taxpayers forced to pay additional taxes to enrich private interests.

This is exactly what we are fighting against in Marin.  Politicians are eager to shovel millions of dollars of subsidies to private development that will only leave Marin urbanized without a sustainable tax base.

Green House Gases don't go down in the City.

Friday, May 30, 2014

Friday Night Music: Gamelan mix

VW XL1 Turbo Diesel Hybrid -- The Most Efficient Car In The World

The Founding Fathers Would Have Protected Your Smartphone

The Founding Fathers Would Have Protected Your Smartphone

Privacy is a core American value. For 235 years, the Fourth Amendment has protected us from unwarranted searches of our personal belongings. All the while, technology has been changing where and how we keep those belongings. On April 29, the Supreme Court held oral arguments in two cases, Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie. At question is whether the police can search the contents of a phone without a warrant during an arrest. At stake is whether technological advancements have rendered one of our most treasured civil liberties obsolete.

Today, many Americans keep their entire lives on their phones: family photos, emails, calendar appointments, Internet searches and even location history. Considered separately, each of these categories can reveal very private information. Taken together, they can present a pretty good picture of who you are, what you do, where you go, what you read and what you write. What protection does the Constitution offer them from suspicionless search by the government?

The Fourth Amendment grants to the people the right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It did not find its way into the Constitution by accident. It was, rather, a specific response to a principal grievance of colonial Americans under British rule — namely, the use of the “general warrant” whereby the crown gave officials almost unfettered authority to search colonial homes, rifle through papers and scour personal belongings.
As the Constitutional Accountability Center explains in its friend-of-the-court brief in Riley and Wurie, “Stated simply, the Framers wanted to strip the government of the arbitrary power to rifle through a person’s belongings in the hope of finding something incriminating.”

There can be little doubt that the modern smartphone is today’s equivalent of our Founders’ “papers and effects.”

The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable, warrantless searches of these modern-day versions of “papers and effects.” Indeed, as the Cato Institute observes in its own friend-of-the-court brief, allowing for warrantless searches of cellphones “would throw open too-wide a door onto suspects’ personal and private information without judicial supervision. Cellphones are doorways into people’s lives as broad as the front doors of their homes.”

The government argued that public safety demands the police have unfettered liberty to search a person under arrest. This is a false tension between liberty and security; robust protection of our Fourth Amendment rights can coexist with the prerogatives of law enforcement. The Supreme Court already recognizes an exception when a search is necessary to protect officer safety or the destruction of evidence; that’s not at issue.

At issue is: What happens when a police officer has absolutely no reason to believe that a cellphone poses such a threat? In that case, the Fourth Amendment and the privacy values that it enshrines require that a police officer go to a judge and get a warrant, justified by probable cause, before conducting a search.

The evolution of technology and modern life creates challenges for a Constitution ratified 235 years ago. Riley and Wurie will not be the last time the Supreme Court will have to contend with the intersection of the Fourth Amendment, modern communications technology and our long-standing constitutional abhorrence of general warrants. How the Supreme Court addresses this challenge will set an important precedent as technology continues to present capabilities and threats never specifically considered by our Founders.

Technology will continue to evolve, but our Constitution endures. We took an oath to uphold the Constitution. So did every member of the U.S. Supreme Court. The government says that it has the authority to search phones without a warrant.

As a matter of text and history, however, the Fourth Amendment says that they do not. We hope the Supreme Court agrees.

Rand Paul represents Kentucky, and Chris Coons represents Delaware in the U.S. Senate.

Plan Bay Area Screws the Suburbs

What is wrong with ABAG's Demographics and Consultant Policy

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Larkspur Station Area Plan meeting on May 22, 2014

Maya Angelou wisdom

Charles Cagnon: Technology is solving our problems now. Car gets 300 mpg.

In San Francisco, you would think we would have greater faith in technology. Why are we looking at 19th century solutions to 21st century transportation problems? Even the 51 mpg Toyota Prius is far more efficient per person per mile than any bus or train.  This Volkswagon XL1 gets 300 mpg!

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Remember to Vote next Tuesday, June 3rd

Ten Little Fingers: Common Core Debated

Published on May 23, 2014
Video by Steve Kemp

CLICK on a link below to jump to a segment
00:00:38 Overview - SALLY WOOD
00:04:59 Pro-Common Core video
00:10:18 Some local CC facts - JEANNE WISNIEWSKI
00:11:45 Introduction - KEVIN SNIDER
00:12:10 Panelist Opening statements
00:13:21 - ZE'VE WURMAN
00:18:47 - ORLEAN KOEHLE
00:22:12 - BILL EVERS
00:25:44 - ANTHONY CODY
00:29:33 Who are the creators of the CC state standards? - BILL EVERS
00:30:35 Why have so many states signed on? - ANTHONY CODY
00:33:25 Is CC superior to most states standards? - ZE'VE WURMAN
00:35:11 Are states supplying the feds with student data? - ORLEAN KOEHLE
00:36:53 - BILL EVERS
00:38:27 Can states implement CCSS however they choose? - ANTHONY CODY
00:40:14 - ZE'VE WURMAN
00:41:11 Are CCSS tougher. What does that mean? - ZE'VE WURMAN
00:42:52 Were all states incentivized to build State Longitudinal Data Systems? ORLEAN KOEHLE
00:45:05 Permanent Data file. - BILL EVERS
00:46:09 - ZE'VE WURMAN
00:47:22 - ANTHONY CODY
00:49:05 - BILL EVERS
00:49:58 What are Grit, Tenacity and Perseverance? - BILL EVERS
00:52:01 - ZE'VE WURMAN
00:52:19 - ORLEAN KOEHLE
00:53:49 - BILL EVERS
00:55:02 What's the difference in data collected now and under CC? - ANTHONY CODY
00:56:48 To get money, you must play ball - BILL EVERS
00:58:22 - ANTHONY CODY
01:00:45 What is the cost to California? - ZE'VE WURMAN
01:04:38 Is it a good idea to opt your student out of tests? - ORLEAN KOEHLE
01:06:29 - BILL EVERS
01:07:27 Audience Questions
01:07:56 - Will tere be required texts for the kids?
01:11:17 - Health dangers of WiFI?
01:14:24 - How will students be penalized for not taking tests?
01:17:15 - Too rigorous for young, not enough for older students
01:21:04 - Will students be required to read "The Bluest Eyes"?
01:27:50 - Punishments for students and teachers; How do we deal with the unions?
01:29:06 - Home-schooled and the tests
01:30:47 - Will we be forced away from home schooling and private education?
01:32:49 - Where do bi-lingual children fall into this?
01:34:28 Closing Statements
01:34:47 - ANTHONY CODY
01:36:42 - BILL EVERS
01:39:37 - ORLEAN KOEHLE
01:41:43 - ZE'VE WURMAN
01:43:12 Do you think it's important to go to City Council meetings?
01:44:58 - ANTHONY CODY
01:45:32 - ORLEAN KOEHLE
01:45:59 Websites - BILL EVERS
01:47:49 Closing - SALLY WOOD

Capitalism and Socialism: Crash Course World History

The Association of Bay Area Governments created Plan Bay Area that will urbanize Marin and radically change property rights and local democracy. Citizens everywhere are rising up.

Monday, May 26, 2014

AB1537: A High Density Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing AB1537: A High Density Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

AB1537: A High Density Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

AB 1537 – a wolf in sheep’s clothing?
Susan Adams and Marc Levine are advocating Assembly Bill 1537 as the answer to Marin’s high density concerns and asking residents to put their support behind it. Supervisor Adams informs me that she is the primary author of this bill.
Supposedly, if enacted, AB 1537 will change the default density for Marin from 30 to 20 units per acre. Sounds great, right? But the more I dig the more I think the supervisors and Levine may be pulling a fast one on residents - by supporting AB 1537 we may actually increase densities and have little or no impact on reducing densities of new developments.

AB 1537: Upzoning Disguised as Downzoning Densities
There are existing apartment buildings and land areas zoned at under 20 units per acre.  AB 1537 effectively upzones these properties – but this is not being clearly disclosed to us. We are being given the impression that AB 1537 will result in an across the board reduction.

AB 1537 Doesn’t Affect Existing Sites Like St Vincents & Strawberry
While Supervisor Adams reassured me that once AB 1537 passes the default of 20 units per acre is restored, she confirmed that the sites identified in the current housing element with their higher densities would remain.

Supervisor Adams dismissed that this would be an issue as residents could simply work to ensure the next housing element reduces this number (which will only address a tiny 114 incremental units – the element that just passed was the mother of all housing elements at 1,000+ unts).

Supervisor Adams stated that any project in the interim would surely be denied due to ferocious community opposition – well we’ve seen just how broken that process is.

What this means is that now there is a wide open window while this Housing Element is in place, before the next one is ratified (surely years away) when a developer can sweep in, buy land and make a proposal. Remember for WinCup the gap between the Housing Element being approved and the purchase by developer MacFarlane was less than 3 weeks!

So even if AB 1537 goes through (and last time it was tried it failed, and now we’re becoming wise to it) this leaves the following locations vulnerable to WinCup like densities:
- Strawberry’s PDA and the seminary
- Marinwood
- Grady Ranch (although I understand this is highly unlikely to occur)
- St Vincent / Silveira

30 Units Per Acre is Just the Minimum for Strawberry & St Vincents

The next piece of spin we’re getting is that the densities in the housing element are 30 units per acre (remember WinCup is 40). BUT this is actually only the MINIMUM DENSITY! Developers can secure density bonuses of up to 40 units per acre by including affordable and low income housing, possibly more.

Someone asked me what if the initial developers proposal is a high number of affordable units to get the high densities, then after approval of the density they go bankrupt or something else happens and they drop the number of affordable units (but remain dense). We’ve already seen the bait and switch game played with WinCup that supposedly was allowed in order to meet much higher numbers of affordable units; but this descended into a negotiation and WinCup ended up with far fewer affordable units than that mandated by ABAG in it’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment Numbers.

Traffic Impact No Longer a Consideration

The supervisors have also continued their hypocrisy, driving cars like us and even accepting nearly $10,000/year in car allowances while disregarding that that’s how most of us get around Marin and taking public transit or biking is impractical. But the supervisor’s Housing Element states the following:

“For affordable housing projects, mixed-use projects that include affordable housing, second units, and projects developed in accordance with the Housing Overlay Designation, allow densities above the low end of the range in areas with Traffic Level of Service D, E, and F”

So while many communities are being told the only way they can get enough funding to address their current traffic problems it to be volunteered as a PDA (for paltry amounts of money compared to what’s actually needed) the Housing Element is setting them up to be saddled with much more housing – with utter disregard for the traffic impact.

To recap – Level of Service measures traffic delay at intersections. It’s like a school grade. “C” is a pass or a target. Anything below “D” and county or cities should normally be looking to invest money to remedy the traffic delays. But now high density housing near transit can be built in locations with existing traffic issues, with residents offered near meaningless funding amounts that barely address current traffic problems, and the new housing can take the congestion to record levels – and there’s no protection in the Housing Element or amendments.

We simply cannot trust the public review processes – input is either disregarded or not heard.  The public’s vision is not the supervisor’s vision, the supervisors think they know best.
Consequently we need the protection of documents like the Housing Element, and institutions that respect, uphold and enforce the law as written.

What Can You Do? Donate to Marin Community Alliance

The single most important way that you can help is to donate to the Marin Community Alliance who have filed suit against the county Housing Element. So if you don’t want to see a WinCup sprout up next to your property – a property you have no doubt invested hundreds of thousands in – then be sure to donate.

Donating is easy – you can send a check or 
even donate online via PayPal:

Help keep Marin the place you love!

Nanny of the Month