A blog about Marinwood-Lucas Valley and the Marin Housing Element, politics, economics and social policy. The MOST DANGEROUS BLOG in Marinwood-Lucas Valley.
Saturday, September 23, 2017
The Politician Behind California High Speed Rail Now Says It's 'Almost a Crime'
Quentin Kopp convinced voters to approve the bullet train. Now he's suing to kill it.
California Supreme Court expands taxpayers’ right to sue
California Supreme Court expands taxpayers’ right to sue
By Bob Egelko
Monday, June 5, 2017
The court unanimously overturned several decades of lower-court decisions that allowed only property taxpayers to sue for alleged waste of public funds.
The state Supreme Court broadened the right of California taxpayers Monday to file suits challenging local or state government policies that don’t affect them directly — harming the environment, for example, or conducting secret surveillance — ruling that such suits are not limited to property owners.
The court unanimously overturned several decades of lower-court decisions that allowed only property taxpayers to sue for alleged waste of public funds, and said anyone who pays taxes in a city or county has legal standing to sue. But the justices stopped short of saying which types of levies, such as sales taxes, are paid and collected locally. The court said the issue should be addressed first by lawmakers or lower courts.
“It’s a limited win, but it’s a win nevertheless for people who want to hold local governments accountable when they act in violation of law,” said Steven Mayer, a lawyer for advocacy groups supporting a renter’s attempt to sue the city of San Rafael and Marin County over police practices. Among the groups supporting the 2013 suit by Cherrity Weatherford were the American Civil Liberties Union and AARP.
Friday, September 22, 2017
Emperor Joshua Norton I: The Movie
Emperor Joshua Norton I: The Movie
Friday A/V Club: "An empire of voluntary subjects"
issued his own currency, which local businesses often honored; he wrote royal proclamations, which local newspapers printed; legend has it he once managed to stop an anti-Chinese riot by standing in front of the mob and reciting the Lord's Prayer. He allegedly inspired a character in Huckleberry Finn—the phony dauphin who travels with Huck and Jim for a spell—but he didn't need Mark Twain to be remembered; he generated plenty of memorable stories on his own.
While Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were leading a war between the American north and south, a rival emperor was conducting a much more peaceful reign out west. 158 years ago this week, on September 17, 1859, Joshua Norton of San Francisco proclaimed himself emperor of the United States. Once a prosperous rice trader, now living on the edge of vagrancy, he
A few of those tales appear in The Story of Norton I: Emperor of the United States, a short film made by Columbia Pictures in 1936. Let me warn you up front: This is a clumsily made movie with stilted acting and, in one scene, one of the most cringeworthy blackface performances you'll ever see. But there are moments when the acting is so far removed from natural behavior that it stops seeming bad and starts to feel like some strange David Lynch experiment. And surely there's something inspirational in the film's final line: "He was insane, but—strange as it seems—honesty and sympathy won him an empire of voluntary subjects."
Needless to say, that's a rather romanticized assessment. Emperor Norton I lived in poverty—more than a few businesses did not accept his scrip—and he had to withstand more than his share of mockery and cruelty. But he was loved too, and he managed to reign for two decades through sheer power of personality. I cannot think of a better American statesman, with the possible exception of President-in-Exile Dick Gregory.
Here is the film:
For some background on the motion picture, check out this post from the folks at the Emperor's Bridge Campaign, a commendable effort to name the San Francisco Bay Bridge for Emperor Norton.
Marinwood CSD ignores Urgent request to Repair Mudslide and Risks Lawsuit
Marinwood slide victims, agency vie over how to prevent another collapse
Barbara and Alan Miller sit in their backyard on Wednesday in Marinwood where a landslide poured into their backyard in January. They fear another slide could smash into their house if work is not done on the hillside.Robert Tong — Marin Independent Journal
By Keri Brenner, Marin Independent Journal
POSTED: 09/21/17, 6:18 PM PDT | UPDATED: 7 MINS AGO3 COMMENTS
B
Barbara and Alan Miller have been trying to get the Marinwood Community Services District to perform work to prevent another slide.Robert Tong — Marin Independent Journal
Alan and Barbara Miller dodged the proverbial bullet this past winter when heavy rains collapsed a section of the Idylberry Fire Road in the open space above their backyard, triggering a landslide of mud, water and debris up to — but not past — the sandbags stacked against their back door.
But now, with the rainy season on the horizon again, they fear they may not be so lucky.
“This has the potential to do a lot more damage than it’s done already, if not fixed,” said Alan Miller, nearly 90 and, with his wife, a resident of their home in the Marinwood section of San Rafael since 1965.
“I had a beautiful backyard,” said Barbara Miller, 87. “I hate to look at it now — it gives me a headache.”
Benjamin Pappas, a geotechnical engineer hired by the Miller family, agreed the slide could worsen with more rain. Pappas submitted an Aug. 11 report to the Millers in support of a so-far unsuccessful claim for damages to the Marinwood Community Services District, which owns the open space area and fire road where the slide is thought to have originated.
“If left in its current condition, there is moderate to significant risk the existing landslide will grow in size and completely ‘wash out’ the existing fire road,” Pappas wrote in the report. Repairs are expected to cost up to $125,000, including legal costs and other expenses.
Despite the lack of any promised financing from the CSD, and because of the urgency of the rainy season approaching, the Millers’ daughter Wendy Miller said she hired grading contractors Lunny Grading and Paving to begin work Friday. They are expected to build a terraced wall to buttress the hillside that supports the fire road and prevent the whole trail from collapsing into her parents’ home.
“I can’t let my parents be subjected to this,” Wendy Miller said. “This landslide is threatening to inundate these elderly people. See Full Story HERE
Alan and Barbara Miller dodged the proverbial bullet this past winter when heavy rains collapsed a section of the Idylberry Fire Road in the open space above their backyard, triggering a landslide of mud, water and debris up to — but not past — the sandbags stacked against their back door.
But now, with the rainy season on the horizon again, they fear they may not be so lucky.
“This has the potential to do a lot more damage than it’s done already, if not fixed,” said Alan Miller, nearly 90 and, with his wife, a resident of their home in the Marinwood section of San Rafael since 1965.
“I had a beautiful backyard,” said Barbara Miller, 87. “I hate to look at it now — it gives me a headache.”
Benjamin Pappas, a geotechnical engineer hired by the Miller family, agreed the slide could worsen with more rain. Pappas submitted an Aug. 11 report to the Millers in support of a so-far unsuccessful claim for damages to the Marinwood Community Services District, which owns the open space area and fire road where the slide is thought to have originated.
“If left in its current condition, there is moderate to significant risk the existing landslide will grow in size and completely ‘wash out’ the existing fire road,” Pappas wrote in the report. Repairs are expected to cost up to $125,000, including legal costs and other expenses.
URGENCY GROWS
Despite the lack of any promised financing from the CSD, and because of the urgency of the rainy season approaching, the Millers’ daughter Wendy Miller said she hired grading contractors Lunny Grading and Paving to begin work Friday. They are expected to build a terraced wall to buttress the hillside that supports the fire road and prevent the whole trail from collapsing into her parents’ home.
“I can’t let my parents be subjected to this,” Wendy Miller said. “This landslide is threatening to inundate these elderly people. See Full Story HERE
Getting Rich Off Low-Income Housing
Getting Rich Off Low-Income Housing
Oakland nearly lost 126 affordable apartments due to a nonprofit's mismanagement. And behind that nonprofit is a wealthy Southern California resident who owns a $19 million mansion.By Darwin BondGrahamPhoto of E.C. Reems by Darwin BondGraham Photo of 108 The Strand from Zillow.com
While E.C. Reems has been in disrepair, Charles Brumbaugh has lived in luxury.
When it was originally built in 1948, E.C. Reems Gardens was a modern, middle-class apartment complex nestled in a forested valley on the north side of MacArthur Boulevard in East Oakland. But according to a city report, by the 1990s, "the then privately held property had earned a reputation in the community as a site for drug traffic and violence."
In the late 1990s, the Southern California nonprofit Corporation for Better Housing and Oakland's Center of Hope Community Church purchased E.C. Reems. The nonprofit, which owned 99 percent of the property and was responsible for managing it, used city, state, and federal housing subsidies to repair 15 of the original E.C. Reems buildings that included 126 apartments. Things were improving.
But several years ago, the same nonprofit virtually abandoned E.C. Reems' residents and stopped paying back city and federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) loans that financed the repairs and maintained rents at affordable prices, according to interviews with city officials and public records.
According to city inspection reports, the property became plagued with raw sewage leaks, broken windows, chipping paint, and other health hazards. A large number of units became vacant, and squatters moved in. The property failed a recent HUD inspection, registering one of the lowest scores in California. Robberies and assaults increased, as did burglaries and vehicle thefts. For a time, an on-site manager reportedly walked door-to-door with a gun strapped to his hip to collect rent.
"It's like New Jack City back there," said Oakland city Councilmember Larry Reid, referring to E.C. Reems Gardens. "There were abandoned cars and raw sewage leaking into the creek. They weren't doing anything to invest in these facilities, and it was not fit for anyone to live in."
Pastor Maria Reems, daughter of Ernestine Reems, whose church was involved in the takeover of the complex in the 1990s and from whom the apartment complex got its name, said some of the buildings had mold and broken stairs, and lights were out in hallways making them dark and dangerous. "The problem is there wasn't proper management on site," she said.
"There was a hole in the ceiling, holes in the floor in my bedroom," said Betty Brown, a former tenant. "Water ran in from the ceiling. And on the stairs, I slipped and fell often."
Behind this mess is the apartment complex's owner and manager, the nonprofit Sherman Oaks-based Corporation for Better Housing (CBH). The nonprofit describes its mission as the development of low-income housing throughout the state, but government records, inspections, court documents, and interviews paint another picture of the organization and its leadership. Although CBH has built thousands of units of affordable housing, it has served another purpose, too: enriching one of its former executives, Charles Brumbaugh.
Brumbaugh has earned millions from California's quirky system of building affordable housing. According to state records, his privately owned, for-profit construction firm, BLH Construction, has built most of CBH's affordable rental housing projects, financed with state and federal tax credits.
While CBH isn't keeping any profits from these affordable projects, Brumbaugh's construction companies are. And the profits have been considerable.
Brumbaugh has lived a life of conspicuous consumption, purchasing expensive art, luxury cars, and multimillion-dollar homes in ritzy neighborhoods like Los Angeles' Bel Air and on The Strand in Manhattan Beach — all while affordable housing he's built and renovated is jeopardized and tenants complain of substandard conditions and large rent increases.
The problems at E.C. Reems Gardens got so bad that earlier this year, HUD threatened to foreclose on the property's already defaulted loan and auction off the buildings. Doing so would have eliminated affordability protections on all 126 units at E.C. Reems — at a time when the region is suffering from an affordable housing crisis.
The predominantly Black renter households living there could have been displaced. And the city of Oakland would have lost the $4.1 million that it had invested in the project because its loan was subordinate to HUD's. "They could sell it on the open market, and Oakland would be wiped out," said Michelle Byrd, Oakland's director of housing and community development, about a HUD foreclosure.
In June, the Oakland City Council responded with a costly solution. The council decided to spend another $4 million to purchase HUD's loan. This bailout succeeded, but now the city is scrambling to find a new manager who could buy the building from CBH and bring stability back to the neglected property.
CBH Executive Director Lori Koester also didn't answer multiple phone calls and emails, and didn't return multiple voice mail messages seeking comment for this report. Brumbaugh didn't answer more than a dozen phone calls to his Los Angeles office during the past month, and his three voice mailboxes have been full and unable to record messages. He also didn't respond to several emails requesting an interview. Jake Lingo, a vice president for Integrated Community Development, another for-profit company owned by Brumbaugh that appears to be closely linked to the nonprofit CBH (they share the same phone number and office address), answered a call two weeks ago and said he would pass a message to Brumbaugh. But Brumbaugh never called back.
Oakland city officials told the Express that the Corporation for Better Housing hasn't communicated well with them either.
But public records tell some of CBH and Brumbaugh's intertwined story. Brumbaugh began his career in affordable housing in 1993 as the in-house attorney for the Corporation for Better Living, a precursor to CBH, according to a biography on the website of a foundation where he's a board member. In the early 2000s, he was the executive director and president of CBH, drawing no salary, according to its tax returns.
By 2004, Brumbaugh no longer appeared to have had an official role with CBH, but that year the nonprofit paid $450,000 to a for-profit company controlled by Brumbaugh — Lynx Realty & Management. The payment was for construction and consulting services.
In subsequent years, Brumbaugh's other companies, BLH Construction and Integrated Community Development, were paid millions by CBH to build apartments in low-income urban areas, farmworker housing in rural California, and low-income homes for purchase in the Central Valley. CBH obtained millions in tax credits to finance this.
One project was the The Commons at Oak Grove, a large apartment complex in the East Bay city of Oakley that has received millions in state low-income housing tax credits. In 2013, CBH requested approval from Oakley to expand the development from 404 units to 509. Brumbaugh's companies would be paid to do the construction. But at public hearings, tenants complained of numerous safety issues and said CBH wasn't addressing these problems.
In July, CBH and the management company it employs at another Oakley low-income housing development increased rents on seniors by as much as 20 percent, sparking complaints. The East Bay Times' Aaron Davis reported that he attempted to interview Koester and the management company, but "multiple calls to both companies were not returned."
Last year, a half-dozen tenants were threatened with eviction from a CBH apartment complex in Calistoga due to what the renters said were management errors.
But of all the CBH properties, Oakland's E.C. Reems Gardens appears to have been the most poorly managed. In 2016, HUD inspectors reviewed 2,024 affordable housing properties in California that receive federal subsidies. On a scale of 0-100, E.C. Reems scored a 35, a failure. Only two other buildings in the state had lower scores. In 2014, it was actually worse. E.C. Reems scored a 25. "You need a score of 70 or more to pass," explained Byrd.
Oakland city inspectors also found numerous problems with CBH's performance and the condition of E.C. Reems. An April 2015 inspection revealed that only 95 of the 127 units were occupied, leaving about 25 percent of the complex empty. Paperwork was a mess, with many occupied units listed as empty. Information about the tenants actually living there was frequently incorrect. Some tenants were being charged more — or less — in rent than what their leases stated. Credit reports, criminal background checks, and rental histories were missing from all of the tenants' files.
Physical inspections of the units over the past several years have revealed water leaking through ceilings and walls in multiple units, resulting in outbreaks of black mold. Raw sewage was spilling from a broken pipe that was "causing a major health hazard" for an entire building, wrote city inspectors in 2014. In 2016, inspectors found again a "building sewer line is clogged causing kitchen sink and toilet to overflow. Kitchen and bathroom are flooded with sewage."
In one case of mold appearing throughout an apartment, CBH simply moved the tenant to a different unit rather than fix the problem, according to city records. Multiple other units in the complex were affected by mold over the past several years.
By contrast, the world Charles Brumbaugh inhabits couldn't be more different. His home is located on The Strand, a trendy slice of oceanfront property in Manhattan Beach. The three-story house is currently listed for sale at $18.5 million and described as a "trophy property."
"Dramatic 3-level floating glass staircase intertwines the lines of custom pocketing Fleetwood doors that command the entire beach-side of the home bringing the ocean into every room," a real estate agent wrote about Brumbaugh's home.
He previously owned a mansion in Los Angeles' Bel Air neighborhood but sold the house for $6.4 million last year, according to public records. Court filings from 2016 pertaining to Brumbaugh's ex-wife's bankruptcy include some hints as to how wealthy he's become by building and renovating affordable housing like E.C. Reems. Brumbaugh's attorneys described him as an "affluent man" who is "worth tens of millions of dollars." They disclosed that he earned over a million a year in 2012 and 2013 from BLH Construction.
Brumbaugh also owns an art collection worth at least $447,520, according to court records. This includes works by well-known painters and sculptors like Tony Bevan, Frederick Hammersley, Lorser Feitelson, and Don Suggs.
At E.C. Reems, there's not a lot of high-end art on the walls. There was a computer center in the complex, but thieves stole the electronics years ago.
Whether the city can turn around the apartment complex's fortunes and maintain affordable housing for more than 100 families remains to be seen. The city issued a request for bids last month for a new affordable housing developer to take over E.C. Reems Gardens and repair its numerous problems.
"They weren't doing anything to invest in these facilities," complained Reid. "It was not fit for anyone to live in."
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Pool employee guilty of embezzlement in Piedmont (Warning for Marinwood)
Man accused of embezzling from Piedmont Recreation Department
Peter HegartyPUBLISHED: September 19, 2017 at 12:55 pm | UPDATED: September 19, 2017 at 4:02 pm
Categories:Crime & Courts, Latest Headlines, News
A man has been arrested and charged with embezzling money while he worked at the Piedmont Recreation Department.
By PETER HEGARTY | phegarty@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: September 19, 2017 at 12:55 pm | UPDATED: September 19, 2017 at 8:48 pm
PIEDMONT — A 26-year-old Oakland man has been arrested and charged with embezzling money while he worked at the Piedmont Recreation Department.
Terrance May stole $15,830 between July 15 and Aug. 28 this year, according to investigators.
Police announced the arrest and charging of May on Tuesday.Like our Facebook page for more conversation and news coverage from the East Bay and beyond.
An employee of the city’s recreation center for the past four years, May used a point of sale application on his mobile device to take payments from the center’s customers, then transferred the funds into his bank account, Piedmont police Capt. Chris Monahan said.
Police began investigating May after other employees discovered unusual transactions while reviewing financial records, leading them to contact authorities, Monahan said.
May’s job title was “pool clerk” at the recreation department, which hosts swim classes, sports for youth and other programs.
The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office has charged May with one count of embezzlement and two counts of grand theft. He is currently out on bail.
Anyone with information about the case can call Detective Willie Wright at 510-420-3013.
Editor's Note: Marinwood CSD is vulnerable to embezzlement too. The board has REFUSED TO DISCUSS this issue. Check out this video from August 2017. The beer festival is estimated to gross at least $10,000 and was run with volunteer labor and donated beer. Why did it only make "About $400?". The advance ticket sales were $4750.00
Where to Start: How to Stop a Big Box
Where to Start: How to Stop a Big Box
| Written byStacy Mitchell |0 Comments | Updated onMar 28, 2007The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at https://ilsr.org/where-to-start-how-to-stop-a-big-box/
There are many reasons why communities seek to stop a big-box proposal — the effect on local economic development and small businesses, traffic congestion, environmental issues, community impacts, low-paying jobs. Whatever your concerns, however, the main way most communities succeed in preventing the development of a big-box store is through the local land use system.
Don’t worry if you know nothing about land use policy. Most citizens who succeed in stopping a big-box development started out with very little knowledge of or experience with planning and zoning. This guide and the other resources in the Big-Box Tool Kit will explain not only how to navigate your local land use policies, but also how to organize a citizen-based campaign to stop a big-box proposal and to make permanent changes to your local policies to put citizens in control of how the community grows and develops.
Citizens groups often succeed in blocking big-box proposals. According to a recent study published in the American Journal of Sociology, between 1998 and 2005, citizens organized to block Walmart proposals in 563 locations. In 366 of those sites, Walmart was either defeated or withdrew its proposal.
STEP ONE: Identify Opportunities to Say No
Your first task is to determine the status of the big-box proposal and what is required under your city’s comprehensive plan and zoning code for the development to proceed. You should determine what steps the developer will have to go through, what permits and reviews will be necessary, which government bodies will be making the decisions (e.g., planning board, board of zoning appeals, city council), and what the timeline is for those decisions.
Basics of Land Use Policy
In most communities, development is governed by two interrelated polices: the comprehensive plan and the zoning code.
The comprehensive plan outlines the community’s goals and policies with regard to land use and development. It provides city officials with guidance for making decisions about development projects and serves as the basis for the city’s zoning code.
The zoning code implements the comprehensive plan through specific regulations. It stipulates what types of uses (residential, office, industrial, etc.) are allowed in each area of town. It also regulates the scale and character of development through rules governing the height and size of buildings, densities (e.g., number of dwellings per acre), lot sizes, parking requirements, the ratio of landscaping to pavement, and so forth.
The two primary purposes of zoning are to prevent landowners from using their properties in ways that harm the community and to ensure a balanced and efficient pattern of land use that avoids the many public costs and harms of haphazard development.
Cities (and, in some cases, counties and regions) derive their planning and zoning authority from state law. Some states require cities to have comprehensive plans and zoning codes; some do not. States may also impose certain rules on how cities implement and exercise their zoning authority.
The Development Approval Process
Depending on the rules set forth in the zoning code, a developer may need any number of approvals and permits from the city in order to build. In some cases, a big-box project may also require permits from one or more state or federal agencies (if, for example, it adds traffic to a state road or involves wetlands or impaired waterways).
Each of these points in the process – each review, each permit – offers an opportunity for decision-makers to reject the development. Your task is to identify each of these opportunities (see “Questions to Ask” below) and then to persuade officials to say no.
Your city planner or other local official should be able to meet with you to explain what will be required under your zoning code. However, we encourage you not to rely solely on information provided by a local official, who may have unintentional biases or flawed interpretations of land use law. We strongly advise that you read and study the relevant sections of your comprehensive plan and zoning code yourself, that you consult with experts, and that you hire a land use attorney.
Having an attorney on your side will not only help you use your city’s land use policies to stop the project, but it sends a signal to city officials that you are serious and that they may face a lawsuit should they approve a big-box store that harms public welfare or violates the comprehensive plan. Although raising money to hire an attorney may seem daunting at first, keep in mind that asking for donations is part of building a grassroots coalition (more on this below). Many people and local businesses will want to donate and an attorney is one of the best uses of these funds. Not just any attorney will do. You’ll need to find one who specializes in land use and who ideally has experience with controversial retail projects.
Questions to Ask
Here are some key questions to ask as you assess the status of the proposal and your community’s requirements:
Has the developer formally approached the city?
In most cases, once a developer has submitted an application or other formal proposal to the city, then the project is subject only to the rules already contained in the zoning code. If the developer has not yet submitted an application, then you still have time to revise and strengthen your land use policies. It’s always best to get out in front of these proposals. One course of action would be to push the city to enact a development moratorium. This would suspend retail development for several months, giving the city time to study the potential impact of additional big-box stores and to adopt a store size cap, economic impact review requirement, or other measures to protect the community. Alternately, you might skip the moratorium and move quickly to enact a size cap or other ordinance to prevent or control big-box development. When citizens in Damariscotta, Maine, heard a rumor that Wal-Mart was eying a piece of property on the outskirts of town, they immediately gathered signatures for a voter referendum to ban large superstores, which ultimately passed. Had they not done this, the proposal would have been subject only to the town’s weak site plan review process.
In most cases, once a developer has submitted an application or other formal proposal to the city, then the project is subject only to the rules already contained in the zoning code. If the developer has not yet submitted an application, then you still have time to revise and strengthen your land use policies. It’s always best to get out in front of these proposals. One course of action would be to push the city to enact a development moratorium. This would suspend retail development for several months, giving the city time to study the potential impact of additional big-box stores and to adopt a store size cap, economic impact review requirement, or other measures to protect the community. Alternately, you might skip the moratorium and move quickly to enact a size cap or other ordinance to prevent or control big-box development. When citizens in Damariscotta, Maine, heard a rumor that Wal-Mart was eying a piece of property on the outskirts of town, they immediately gathered signatures for a voter referendum to ban large superstores, which ultimately passed. Had they not done this, the proposal would have been subject only to the town’s weak site plan review process.
Does the project conform to your city’s comprehensive plan?
You should carefully review your city’s comprehensive plan and highlight any aspects of the plan the proposed big-box store would violate or conflict with. The plan may state, for example, that it is the city’s intention to maintain the downtown as the center of commercial activity, ensure new development is compatible with its surroundings, or minimize automobile use. In the past, comprehensive plans were treated merely as advisory documents. But many states have passed laws that give these plans greater legal weight and require that local officials use them as a basis for deciding whether to approve development. In most states, the failure of a development proposal to fit the comprehensive plan obligates, or at least provides a legal basis, for the city to reject the project. In some states, comprehensive plans have now attained a status akin to a local constitution: decisions that do not conform to the goals contained in the plan can be overturned by the courts. Your land use attorney can tell you how seriously your state treats comprehensive plans (or, depending on the state, we may be able to provide basic advice).
You should carefully review your city’s comprehensive plan and highlight any aspects of the plan the proposed big-box store would violate or conflict with. The plan may state, for example, that it is the city’s intention to maintain the downtown as the center of commercial activity, ensure new development is compatible with its surroundings, or minimize automobile use. In the past, comprehensive plans were treated merely as advisory documents. But many states have passed laws that give these plans greater legal weight and require that local officials use them as a basis for deciding whether to approve development. In most states, the failure of a development proposal to fit the comprehensive plan obligates, or at least provides a legal basis, for the city to reject the project. In some states, comprehensive plans have now attained a status akin to a local constitution: decisions that do not conform to the goals contained in the plan can be overturned by the courts. Your land use attorney can tell you how seriously your state treats comprehensive plans (or, depending on the state, we may be able to provide basic advice).
Will the developer need the city to rezone the land?
If the land is zoned for something other than retail (e.g., residential or office), then the developer must petition the city to rezone the parcel, a process that usually involves a public hearing and a vote by the planning board and/or city council. Your task will be to build a case that rezoning the site to allow the development would negatively affect the community and/or be at odds with the city’s comprehensive plan. Remember that city officials are under no obligation to change established zoning policies to accommodate a developer. Indeed, doing so may be considered arbitrary “spot zoning” – the rezoning of a single parcel to benefit a property owner rather than carry out an objective of the comprehensive plan – which courts have deemed illegal.
If the land is zoned for something other than retail (e.g., residential or office), then the developer must petition the city to rezone the parcel, a process that usually involves a public hearing and a vote by the planning board and/or city council. Your task will be to build a case that rezoning the site to allow the development would negatively affect the community and/or be at odds with the city’s comprehensive plan. Remember that city officials are under no obligation to change established zoning policies to accommodate a developer. Indeed, doing so may be considered arbitrary “spot zoning” – the rezoning of a single parcel to benefit a property owner rather than carry out an objective of the comprehensive plan – which courts have deemed illegal.
Will the developer need a special use (or conditional use) permit?
Zoning rules for the site may define retail as a “special use,” meaning that it is not normally allowed but can be under special circumstances. To proceed with a big-box project, the developer must apply for a special use permit, which usually involves a public hearing and a vote by the planning board, city council, or other government body. Officials may grant the permit only after concluding that the development will not harm the community, is consistent with the city’s general land use policies for that area, and meets specific conditions described in the zoning code. Your task will be to assemble evidence that the proposal does not meet these criteria and that the special use permit should therefore not be granted.
Zoning rules for the site may define retail as a “special use,” meaning that it is not normally allowed but can be under special circumstances. To proceed with a big-box project, the developer must apply for a special use permit, which usually involves a public hearing and a vote by the planning board, city council, or other government body. Officials may grant the permit only after concluding that the development will not harm the community, is consistent with the city’s general land use policies for that area, and meets specific conditions described in the zoning code. Your task will be to assemble evidence that the proposal does not meet these criteria and that the special use permit should therefore not be granted.
Will the developer need a variance?
A variance is an exception to a zoning rule that may be granted by city officials. Due to the constraints of a particular property, a developer may request a variance from having to, for example, create a certain number of parking spaces or set the building back so many feet from the road. Variances may be granted only if the city determines that conditions particular to that parcel (topography, soil problems, etc.) make it impossible to comply with the rule, that allowing the exception will not harm the community, and that it will not result in the grant of a special privilege to a particular property owner. The zoning code may contain additional criteria for granting variances.
A variance is an exception to a zoning rule that may be granted by city officials. Due to the constraints of a particular property, a developer may request a variance from having to, for example, create a certain number of parking spaces or set the building back so many feet from the road. Variances may be granted only if the city determines that conditions particular to that parcel (topography, soil problems, etc.) make it impossible to comply with the rule, that allowing the exception will not harm the community, and that it will not result in the grant of a special privilege to a particular property owner. The zoning code may contain additional criteria for granting variances.
In general, the legal basis for allowing variances is to prevent a situation in which strictly applying a particular zoning rule would deny a property owner all reasonable use of the property. Big-box stores are never the only reasonable use of property in a commercial zone and therefore variances requested by big-box developers should be presumed to be unwarranted exceptions to rules that all other property owners must follow.
Will the developer need the city to annex the land?
If the proposed big-box store is situated just beyond a town’s borders, the developer may need the town to annex the land and run water and sewer lines out to the site. The conditions under which a town may annex land are stipulated by state law, but local elected officials often fail to heed these requirements. You should determine what state law mandates and insist that the city comply. Minnesota law, for example, allows cities to annex land only after conducting an “analysis of the fiscal impact on the annexing municipality, the subject area, and adjacent units of local government, including net tax capacity and the present bonded indebtedness. . .” Such an analysis may reveal, as some studies have, that the stores will cost the municipality more in infrastructure and services than they generate in tax revenue – a compelling reason for officials to deny the annexation and prevent the development.
If the proposed big-box store is situated just beyond a town’s borders, the developer may need the town to annex the land and run water and sewer lines out to the site. The conditions under which a town may annex land are stipulated by state law, but local elected officials often fail to heed these requirements. You should determine what state law mandates and insist that the city comply. Minnesota law, for example, allows cities to annex land only after conducting an “analysis of the fiscal impact on the annexing municipality, the subject area, and adjacent units of local government, including net tax capacity and the present bonded indebtedness. . .” Such an analysis may reveal, as some studies have, that the stores will cost the municipality more in infrastructure and services than they generate in tax revenue – a compelling reason for officials to deny the annexation and prevent the development.
Will the development be required to undergo a traffic impact study?
Many big-box projects have been rejected because of their impact on traffic. A single big-box store can generate more than 10,000 car trips a day (see our fact sheets), subjecting residents to traffic congestion, safety hazards, and high tax costs for road maintenance and police services. Many communities require developers to submit a professional traffic analysis of the impact their projects will have on road capacity and level-of-service. Ideally you should hire your own traffic engineer to review the developer’s traffic study.
Many big-box projects have been rejected because of their impact on traffic. A single big-box store can generate more than 10,000 car trips a day (see our fact sheets), subjecting residents to traffic congestion, safety hazards, and high tax costs for road maintenance and police services. Many communities require developers to submit a professional traffic analysis of the impact their projects will have on road capacity and level-of-service. Ideally you should hire your own traffic engineer to review the developer’s traffic study.
Will the development be required to undergo an economic impact study?
Your city’s zoning code may mandate that a proposed big-box store undergo an economic or fiscal (i.e., tax) impact analysis – or your city council may be able to require one on a case-by-case basis. A thorough study should reveal many of the hidden costs of a proposed big-box store in terms of job losses, local business closures and vacancies, and the impact on public services – giving city officials cause to reject the development. You should insist that the study be conducted by a qualified independent consultant selected by the city, not the developer. (See our recommendations.) You should review the study to ensure that its data and methods are sound. Contact us for help.
Your city’s zoning code may mandate that a proposed big-box store undergo an economic or fiscal (i.e., tax) impact analysis – or your city council may be able to require one on a case-by-case basis. A thorough study should reveal many of the hidden costs of a proposed big-box store in terms of job losses, local business closures and vacancies, and the impact on public services – giving city officials cause to reject the development. You should insist that the study be conducted by a qualified independent consultant selected by the city, not the developer. (See our recommendations.) You should review the study to ensure that its data and methods are sound. Contact us for help.
Will the project be required to undergo an environmental impact review?
In some states, including California and New York, major development projects must submit to an environmental impact study. If the findings indicate that the development will have significant environmental impacts, officials may reject the project or demand substantial changes to it. The range of impacts evaluated varies, but are fairly broad in some states. California courts, for example, have ruled that urban blight is an environmental impact and therefore cities must evaluate the potential of a big-box store “to indirectly cause urban/suburban decay by precipitating a downward spiral of store closures and long-term vacancies in existing shopping centers.”
In some states, including California and New York, major development projects must submit to an environmental impact study. If the findings indicate that the development will have significant environmental impacts, officials may reject the project or demand substantial changes to it. The range of impacts evaluated varies, but are fairly broad in some states. California courts, for example, have ruled that urban blight is an environmental impact and therefore cities must evaluate the potential of a big-box store “to indirectly cause urban/suburban decay by precipitating a downward spiral of store closures and long-term vacancies in existing shopping centers.”
Will the development be required to undergo site plan review?
Even when the land is zoned for commercial retail and no special use permit is required, most big-box projects still need to undergo “site plan review” to ensure that the development meets land use, transportation, environmental, and public safety standards. Your city’s zoning code will indicate whether the review will be carried out by city staff or by the planning board or other body, and whether there will be a public hearing and opportunity for citizen input. Site plan review standards vary in their strength and scope, but they may provide the city with the power to demand substantial changes to the project or to reject it altogether.
Even when the land is zoned for commercial retail and no special use permit is required, most big-box projects still need to undergo “site plan review” to ensure that the development meets land use, transportation, environmental, and public safety standards. Your city’s zoning code will indicate whether the review will be carried out by city staff or by the planning board or other body, and whether there will be a public hearing and opportunity for citizen input. Site plan review standards vary in their strength and scope, but they may provide the city with the power to demand substantial changes to the project or to reject it altogether.
Will the project need a permit from a state or federal agency?
In some cases, a big-box store must obtain a permit from one or more state or federal agencies. If it is situated on a state highway, for example, it will likely need approval from the state’s department of transportation. If it involves sensitive habitat or other important environmental assets, it may need to be reviewed by the state’s department of environmental protection. If the developer intends to fill wetlands, then he or she may need a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Often these agencies will do no more than require changes to the project to mitigate the worst effects on traffic or the environment, but in some cases they have concluded that the impacts are severe enough to reject the development.
In some cases, a big-box store must obtain a permit from one or more state or federal agencies. If it is situated on a state highway, for example, it will likely need approval from the state’s department of transportation. If it involves sensitive habitat or other important environmental assets, it may need to be reviewed by the state’s department of environmental protection. If the developer intends to fill wetlands, then he or she may need a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Often these agencies will do no more than require changes to the project to mitigate the worst effects on traffic or the environment, but in some cases they have concluded that the impacts are severe enough to reject the development.
STEP TWO: Persuade Decision-Makers to Say No
After you have mapped out the process that the proposal must go through – what approvals will be needed, who will make those decisions, and when they will be made – the next step is to persuade decision-makers to deny one or more of those necessary permits or approvals.
In order to vote against a big-box proposal, local officials need to know:
- how the store would harm the community, economy, and/or environment (and thereby violate the goals and policies contained in your comprehensive plan and zoning code); and
- that many people in the community support a “no” vote.
The best way to accomplish this is through a grassroots campaign that gets the message out about the hidden costs of big-box stores and makes citizen opposition to the store highly visible.
What follows is a brief guide for launching such a campaign. We recommend that you consult other resources as well, particularly Al Norman’s book, Slam-Dunking Wal-Mart: How You Can Stop Superstore Sprawl in Your Hometown and Norman’s consulting services (contact him through his Sprawl-Busters web site).
Create a Citizens Coalition
You need a core group of people to lead the campaign and a larger group of volunteers to carry out discreet tasks, such as writing letters to the editor or distributing lawn signs. Ideally the group should include a broad cross-section of the community: business owners, labor union members, religious leaders, environmental activists, and lots of ordinary citizens.
Many people in the community undoubtedly share your concerns about the proposed store. Here are a few ideas for finding them and getting them involved:
- Use the grapevine. Talk to people you know and ask them to spread the word.
- Hold a community meeting. Post notices around town inviting anyone concerned about the proposed store to attend and ask local newspapers to list the meeting.
- Reach out to local organizations, such as environmental or neighborhood groups, or churches. Ask if you could have a few minutes to talk about the big-box proposal at their next meeting.
- Meet with business owners who are likely to be affected by the superstore. This is a broader list of businesses than you might think at first. Home Depot, for example, will impact not only hardware stores and lumber dealers, but also appliance stores, remodeling contractors (the chain has its own installers for windows, flooring, etc.), banks (the chain finances construction loans), and many others. Ask business owners to become involved in the campaign, talk to their employees about the proposed big-box, and contribute money.
Develop a Campaign Plan
- Start by naming your group. A good name should be positive and evoke the community controlling its own future, such as “Our Town Damariscotta” or “Gresham First.”
- Map out a plan and a basic campaign schedule.
- Set up committees to carry out various tasks, such as letters to the editor, fundraising, developing campaign materials, research, press releases/media, and so on.
- Find experts, such as a traffic engineer, and especially a land use attorney.
Make the Case
Develop a list of the negative effects the proposed project will have on your community and repeat these concerns at every opportunity: public hearings, in your campaign materials, letters to the editor, and so on.
You’ll want to emphasize those issues that are likely to have the most influence on decision-makers. For example, if your zoning code says that businesses in that part of town should serve the needs of the local neighborhood, then talk about how the proposed supercenter is designed to serve a much larger region, pulling traffic from a wide radius. If rising property tax bills are a big issue in your town, talk about the added cost of providing road maintenance and police services for the store.
This web site contains information and tools you will need to educate your neighbors and elected officials about the hidden costs of big-box development. In particular, you’ll want to review Key Studies on Walmart and Big Box Retail and our Fact Sheets.
Be Visible
Take advantage of every opportunity to get your message out: lawn signs, posters in storefronts, tee-shirts/buttons/hats, letters to the editor (the most-read section of the newspaper), tabling at events, flyers, direct mail, radio advertisements, guest speakers, a web site, and so on. Get in the news often; get your group quoted in every article about the proposed development.
Make sure that decision-makers hear from lots of people. Set up one-on-one meetings with members of the planning board and/or city council, and ask people to call or write them. Turn out as many people as you can to public hearings on the project, preferably all wearing stickers or another item that identifies them as opponents of the project.
Your message will be especially powerful if decision-makers hear it from a broad range of people. Don’t let supporters of the big-box peg you as nothing more than a narrow special interest (e.g., just a bunch of small business owners out to protect their profits or labor unions angry with Wal-Mart). To avoid this, make sure a diversity of people representing different parts of the community are visible in the campaign.
Ease Concerns about a Lawsuit
Cities are understandably nervous about being sued by a big-box retailer or developer if they turn down a project. But, while developers may threaten legal action, they are less likely to take it because such lawsuits usually fail. On land use matters, the courts generally defer to city officials, presuming their decisions are legal if they followed reasonable logic and the process was fair. Decisions to reject big-box development should pass legal muster if local officials make findings stating how the store would harm the community and reference language from the comprehensive plan and/or zoning code.
What to do with a Bad Decision
If the project is approved, you still have options:
- Appeal. Local zoning regulations may provide a mechanism for appealing a decision on a big-box project. A decision by the planning board, for example, might be appealed to the city council. You can also appeal the decision through the courts. In both cases, the key to winning is demonstrating that the decision-making body did not adhere to the policies set forth in your comprehensive plan and zoning code.
- Initiate a referendum. In some places, you can gather signatures for a ballot referendum that would allow voters to overturn the decision.
STEP THREE: Don’t Stop!
Whether you win or lose, don’t disband your group and lose all of your momentum once the fight is over. Working to stop a bad development should be the first phase of a larger campaign to change your community’s approach to land use policy and economic development.
One thing is certain: win or lose, the big boxes will be back. More proposals are undoubtedly just around the corner. You can save yourself from having to take them on one at a time by changing your community’s land use and development policies. Please visit our Rules section to see model policies.
Keeping out what you don’t want is half the battle. Growing the kind of economy you do want is the other half. People are much more vulnerable to the lure of big-box retail if their local economies fail to provide sufficient shopping options and jobs. Communities need to develop a concrete plan for rebuilding their local economies. ILSR has written about many innovative approaches, which you can find in our Independent Business initiative.
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
California exodus? Poll finds voters consider moving due to sky-high housing costs
California exodus? Poll finds voters consider moving due to sky-high housing costs
BY ANGELA HART
ahart@sacbee.com
SEPTEMBER 18, 2017 8:00 PM
More than half of California voters say the state’s housing affordability crisis is so bad that they’ve considered moving, and 60 percent of the electorate supports rent control, according to a new statewide poll.
The findings from UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies reflect broad concerns Californians have over the soaring cost of living. Amid an unprecedented housing shortage, rents have skyrocketed and tenants have faced mass evictions, especially in desirable areas.
“It’s an extremely serious problem,” said poll director Mark DiCamillo. “People are being forced to consider moving because of the rising cost of housing – that’s pretty prevalent all over the state.”
Of the 56 percent of voters who said they’ve considered moving, 1 in 4 said they’d relocate out of state if they did.
About half of the state’s voters – 48 percent – said they consider the problem of housing affordability “extremely serious.” Concerns are more prevalent in areas seen as ground zero for the crisis, including the Bay Area, where 65 percent of voters described the problem that way.
Lawmakers Approve Package Of Bills To Address California's Housing Crunch
CBS Sacramento
The issue has led to an intensifying debate over rent control in California. In Los Angeles County, 68 percent of voters said they support stronger limits on rent increases, while 63 percent in the Bay Area said so.
The majority of support for rent control is among renters, who have seen prices grow nearly 4 percent since last year, according to data compiled by the real estate listing service Apartment List. California’s median rent for a one-bedroom is now at $1,750, while a two-bedroom is $2,110, Apartment List found. Among the most expensive cities are San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento.
Of the voters who have considered moving, most are renters and fall in the 30 to 39 age group, followed by voters age 18 to 29.
The poll comes as the state Legislature last week sent to Gov. Jerry Brown a broad package of bills aimed at shoring up funding for affordable housing and spurring construction, especially of low-income units.
Leaders of the state Senate and Assembly touted the housing package as the greatest move in a generation to address California’s skyrocketing rents and the historically low production of new homes.
“The Assembly and Senate have made real progress in solving a crisis that has been a shadow on California for years,” said Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon in a statement.
'We know that this is just a start,' Assembly speaker says of housing bills
Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon discussed passing a package of housing funding and regulation bills late Thursday night.Alexei Koseff The Sacramento Bee
Missing from the package is a bill from Assemblyman Richard Bloom, D-Santa Monica, that sought to rescind a state law that for two decades has blocked cities from adopting stronger rent control measures. Bloom put the bill on hold earlier this year, citing political pressure from powerful real estate interests. Meanwhile, local rent control battles are erupting across the state.
AVE YOU CONSIDERED MOVING?
Majorities of registered voters in all parts of California say they have considered moving due to the high cost of housing in the state.
Have considering moving
Have not considered
Total statewide
56%
44%
BY REGION
Central Valley
52%
48%
S.F. Bay Area
51%
49%
Other Northern Calif.*
56%
44%
Los Angeles County
59%
41%
South Coast
57%
43%
Other Southern Calif.
60%
40%
BY AGE
18-29
65%
35%
30-39
69%
31%
40-49
64%
36%
50-64
53%
47%
65 or older
38%
62%
BY OWNERSHIP
Homeowner
47%
53%
Renter
67%
33%
*Small sample size
WHERE WOULD YOU LIKELY RELOCATE?
Considered another state
25%
Considered another part of California
14%
Considered another place in same area
9%
Considered another country
2%
Have not considered moving
44%
Don’t know
6%
Note: The poll was conducted online Aug. 27-Sept. 5 in English and Spanish, among 1,200 California registered voters selected by a sampling method designed to resemble the state's demographic and regional profile. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Source: Berkeley-IGS Poll Get the data
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)