Bay Area Economic Council "We raise Taxes"

A rare moment of honesty from the Bay Area Council business lobby. 

The Corrupt "Public-Private" Partnership that wants to control BILLIONS in SF BAY Real Estate

MTC-ABAG- Committee for Housing the Bay Area (CASA)- Jun 28, 2017 - 375 Beale Street S.F.

AGENDA: Future Meeting Schedule & Biography of CASA Members

Bay Area group’s housing solution: Punish cities that don’t build

Bay Area group’s housing solution: Punish cities that don’t build

By David R. Baker

November 6, 2015 Updated: November 6, 2015 12:04am






Photo: Liz Hafalia, The Chronicle

About a hundred units of affordable housing might replace this parking lot on the southwest corner of San Jose and Geneva avenues in San Francisco, Calif., on Tuesday, October 27, 2015.

To keep the Bay Area economy strong, all nine counties and 101 cities must work as a unified entity — adding housing and coordinating mass transit and road projects — according to a report from an influential business group.

But many of the group’s recommendations are sure to face resistance.

The Bay Area Council report argues that the clogged roads, packed commuter trains and astronomical housing prices plaguing the region can be solved only by cities planning and working together. The “Roadmap for Economic Resilience” calls for creating “super agencies” that would prioritize, approve and fund projects throughout the area, whether in bustling downtown San Francisco or suburban Livermore.

HOUSING CRISIS


Berkeley Plaza housing needed, but meets with resistance


Propositions I and F rejected by voters throughout S.F.


Prop. A, affordable-housing measure, wins in S.F.


Neglected Balboa Park offers opportunities for affordable housing

“We believe religiously that the best approach to solving challenges on a regional scale is to act on a regional scale,” said Jim Wunderman, the council’s chief executive officer.

The need is perhaps most visible in the housing crisis that has become one of San Francisco’s most contentious issues.

For years, the region has not been building enough housing, Wunderman said. Some cities have actively encouraged new housing while others have tried to shut it out. Unaffordable prices are the result.

“The core issue is under-supply,” Wunderman said. “We’re in a crisis now, there’s no question about it. The cost of housing in the Bay Area could be a very serious downer for the future of our economy.”

But the report’s prescriptions for solving the crisis would be difficult to carry out, in part because they would require cities to give up some of their power.

For example, regional planners already set goals for the number of housing units each Bay Area city should build, goals that many cities routinely ignore. The report recommends punishing cities that don’t meet the targets, perhaps by stripping them of the ability to approve or reject development projects.




Photo: Jerry Telfer, The Chronicle

Jim Wunderman of the Bay Area Council

Or the state could expand “by right” approval for housing. If a proposed housing project complied with local zoning and building codes, no city would be able to block it.

The report also suggests capping impact fees on housing developments and exempting some home construction from state-mandated environmental reviews.

Some of those steps would need the approval of the Legislature, while most would require the agreement of the Bay Area’s cities. Such agreement would not come easily.

“We have, in the state of California and in the Bay Area, a real commitment to local control over land-use issues,” said Jeremy Madsen, CEO of the Greenbelt Alliance, which encourages environmentally responsible development. “That’s something cities hold onto with a very tight fist.”

Wunderman says the report’s recommendations aren’t set in stone.

“The mission of the report isn’t to say, ‘It must be done this way,’” he said. “It’s to start a region-wide conversation. ... We don’t, in any way, want to put local governments out of the business of deciding what goes in their neighborhoods.”

The report also calls for creating a regional authority with the ability to raise and spend money for infrastructure projects that benefit the entire Bay Area. That money could come from establishing a regional gasoline tax, sales tax or vehicle license fee.

In addition, the region’s 26 transit agencies should immediately start coordinating their operations and future plans. Eventually, a regional transit agency would set priorities and distribute money for expansion projects, such as building another transbay tube or increasing ferry services.

“It’s definitely time for them to start coordinating,” Wunderman said. “It should be routine that, from scheduling to payment systems, they should act as one.”


David R. Baker is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: dbaker@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @DavidBakerSF

PD Editorial: Ready for regional government?

PD Editorial: Ready for regional government?

TOM MEYER / meyertoons.com



Housing, its availability and affordability, is at or the near the top of the public agenda throughout the nine-county Bay Area.

So, too, are roads and transit.

Despite the region’s robust economic growth since the Great Recession, or perhaps because of that growth, the increasingly high cost and tight supply of housing is making it difficult for many families to make ends meet or even to live near their places of employment. And frustration with commute-hour congestion is often accompanied by the fury that is producing threats of a property tax strike in rural Sonoma County unless deteriorating roads are repaired.

Is surrendering local control the solution?

That might be the easiest answer, but we aren’t convinced it’s the best one, or even that it’s equitable, much less politically viable.

Indeed, regional government has been considered and rejected before. However, it may get a new look after being put forward again in “A Roadmap for Economic Resilience,” a report prepared by the Bay Area Council, an influential organization representing some of the region’s most prestigious employers, a list including Apple, Intel, Kaiser and Oracle.

“For all its strengths, the Bay Area lacks any cohesive and comprehensive regional economic strategy for sustaining economic growth, weathering business cycles and supporting shared prosperity across the region,” the report says. “Given the regional nature of the economy, its labor pool, housing sheds, job centers and commute flows, viable solutions must reflect a regional perspective.”

That, the Bay Area Council report said, could include punishing cities that fail to meet housing targets set by regional planners. The report also suggests a cap on development impact fees (which, in theory, are supposed to offset costs of schools, parks and other infrastructure to serve new development), waiving environmental reviews for housing projects and taking away local discretion over plans that are consistent with local zoning and building codes.

To upgrade the transportation network, the report recommends allowing a regional agency to impose bridge tolls, sales taxes, fuel taxes and/or a vehicle registration fee.

The Bay Area already has two large regional government agencies — the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments — though neither has the kind of teeth that the report envisions.

And while major regional efforts, such as Plan Bay Area, usually respect local priorities, larger cities and counties tend to have greater influence on the governing boards. That’s a reason for concern in North Bay counties should there be a serious effort to give these agencies greater authority.

In its report, the Bay Area Council points at regional governing schemes in Portland, Ore., where commissioners are elected, and the Twin Cities, where they are appointed by Minnesota’s governor. However, it isn’t clear that residents of Sonoma and other smaller counties would have any more influence under either of these approaches.

It is undeniably true that housing and transportation are regional concerns and that solutions have proven elusive, but it won’t be easy to persuade people that their interests would be better served by a board of super-supervisors further removed from its constituents
.

The attack on local zoning control

Posted on December 8, 2015 by Tim Redmond

A sweeping regional-government plan promotes growth at all costs, and seeks to cut community input out of the picture

By Zelda Bronstein

DECEMBER 8, 2015 — My last story about the continuing power struggle between the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ended with a question: do the executive directors of these two agencies endorse the recommendations to expand regional planning authority at the expense of local control that are put forth in the Bay Area Council Economic Institute’s recently publishedRoadmap for Economic Resilience: The Bay Area Regional Economic Strategy?

The story was posted around 2 p.m. on Thursday, November 12.

Twenty-four hours later, the answer was clear, at least with respect to ABAG Executive Director Ezra Rapport. Speaking in Oakland at the annual conference of the Bay Area Planning Directors Association, Rapport said that “in my opinion” the Roadmap was one of three documents that would be “foundational” in the forthcoming discussions about merging ABAG and MTC—the other two are the HUD-funded, SPUR-directed Economic Prosperity Strategy and the ABAG staff report, People, Places, and Prosperity.

If Rapport’s opinion presages reality, it’s not just local control of land use and transportation planning that’s going to take a big hit. The BACEI white paper targets publicly accountable governance and government at large. It denounces impact development fees, asserting that “[e]xisting landowners are not paying their fair share to solve the regional housing problem.” It praises Lfyt, Uber and Sidecar for “not…accommodat[ing] the strictures of decades-old government planning,” that is, for ignoring existing laws. It calls the California Environmental Quality Act “a threat to the
environment.”

These extreme positions should not be a surprise. They simply flesh out the market-guided, supply-side, privatizing, growth-to-the-max priorities that the BACEI and the Bay Area Council, the lobby for the region’s biggest businesses, have always embraced.

What’s a surprise—indeed, a shock—is that these priorities have been endorsed by the executive director of the Association of Bay Area Governments, an organization that was founded to protect municipal authority.

True, Rapport preceded his espousal of the “Roadmap” with a hymn to the power of the region’s city councils, calling them “the kernel of all regional planning.”

But it’s impossible to reconcile that tribute with the Roadmap’s list of penalties for cities that “[fail] to permit the required number of new housing units” specified by the Regional Housing Allocation [RHNA] Process:

loss of local approval authority, state-mandated “by right” approvals of housing projects (which removes some discretionary approvals from project review processes), the creation of more “by right” zoning districts, or the creation of a regional hearing body to approve housing developments.

For the record: state law does not require cities to permit a certain number of housing units. It requires the Housing Element in each city’s General Plan to zone for a certain number of units at a range of income levels in accordance with projected household growth. The RHNA numbers are determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

The recommendation to put “real teeth” in the RHNA process is not the Roadmap’s only assault on the local control of planning and on democratic government at large.

I’ve noted the swipe at development impact fees. Calling for “both existing and new residents” to share “the costs of promoting livable communities and affordable housing, the Roadmap opines that “[o]nly cities that agree to [a region-wide] fee cap, should be eligible for MTC discretionary funding.” The BACEI also wants to “creat[e] consistent business permitting guidelines across jurisdictions and [to] aggregat[e] zoning, tax incentive, and local developments.” It plugs Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts, whose financing plans can be adopted “by the act of a county or city legislative body, instead of requiring a vote by two-thirds of the electorate.” It contends that the way to lower housing prices is to eliminate or possibly to just disregard “local, regional, and state regulations”—call it the “no stinking badges” approach to development:

Build—not plan, or zone, or even permit—but build sufficient housing stock to meet the demands of a growing regional population and to fill historic deficits.

The Roadmap craves an “Economic Development Corporation” that would “provide a 

Read more on 48 Hills HERE

The Bay Area Council vs. Pat Eklund and the voice of reason

Here is a clip from the December 2. 2015 meeting of the ABAG Regional Planning Committee where the Bay Area Council presents a power point of their new report

Roadmap for Economic Resiliance

Among the more controversial elements in this plan is the suggestion for punishing cities and towns for failing to build enough housing and the creation of a regional planning board that supercedes local jurisdiction.

Of course they also want new levels of taxation to support their new bureaucracy too.

It seems Pat Eklund is the only voice of commonsense in the room. Marin County Supervisor Katie Rice and former Supervisor Susan Adams (serving as a member of the "public") sat silently objecting to not a single word.

"The Bay Area Council, a business group representing 300 Silicon Valley business puts out a plan to create a regional government, institute taxes and punish cities who do not conform to their demands for urbanization. Novato Mayor Pro--Tem, Pat Eklund,  is the sole voice in the room that questions this massive over reach into our local communities by an unelected regional body. If this plan is enacted, it will be the end of local independence and lead to the urbanization of Marin"



P.S.  A special thanks to www.regional-video.com where you can find the full meeting plus hundreds of other MTC and ABAG meetings.

Who needs Elections when you have the unelected Bay Area Council?

 Who needs Elections when you have the unelected Bay Area Council?

Who needs elections when you have the “Bay Area Council” an organization that consists of appointees of local and county government. This group, ALL unelected to the position, now want to raise taxes—and take the responsibility for housing and zoning from the local city council and community. The crony capitalists and unions want to close down YOUR city council, except to issue resolutions congratulating the local blood bank for meeting its quota.

“The report continues: “Given the nature of the economy, its labor pool, housing sheds, job centers, and commute flows, viable solutions must reflect a regional perspective.”
The Bay Area Council is a business-sponsored group that studies public policy.

The Bay Area Council Roadmap calls for strengthening a California-wide program called The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). RHNA “needs teeth,” the report says. The RHNA program demands that each Bay Area city build housing for low-income individuals.

The solution is simple—stop you city from participating or financing this totalitarian organization. Think about unelected people deciding the density of housing in your community—folks you never heard of, who hold meetings and make decisions without telling you. Angry yet?

Bay Area Council Roadmap calls for even more taxes, regional government

by Richard Colmana Costa Bee, 11/11/15

More taxes, bigger government, and loss of local control are just down the road according to proposals contained in the Bay Area Council Roadmap, a chilling document released by the think-tank that examines the local economy.

The Bay Area Council Roadmap document, “A Roadmap for Economic Resilience” states, ” . . . the Bay Area lacks any cohesive and comprehensive regional economic strategy for sustaining economic growth, weathering business cycles and supporting shared prosperity across the region.”

The Bay Area Council Roadmap was presented during a recent Bay Area Regional Economic Summit, held November 6 in Sacramento, California.

The report continues: “Given the nature of the economy, its labor pool, housing sheds, job centers, and commute flows, viable solutions must reflect a regional perspective.”
The Bay Area Council is a business-sponsored group that studies public policy.

The Bay Area Council Roadmap calls for strengthening a California-wide program called The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). RHNA “needs teeth,” the report says. The RHNA program demands that each Bay Area city build housing for low-income individuals.

Part of the California’s housing plan demands the creation of Secondary Units also called “in-law” units. Secondary Units allow a property owner to construct — on his property — a guest home for low-income people.

The report says, “Lack of investment in the region’s aging and overcrowded transportation systems is undermining the Bay Area’s future prosperity.”

The Bay Area Council Roadmap calls for higher taxes. The report says, “Funding tools such as expanded tolling on bridges, highway corridors, and express lanes can be leveraged and allocated to key projects.”

Is the answer to the Bay Area’s problems more government?

To answer this question, all one has to do is examine what the last several years have been like.

In 2000, stocks in Silicon Valley companies began a steep decline. In 2000, the NASDAQ stock market, on which many Silicon Valley companies are traded, reached 5048.62. By 2002, NASDAQ declined to 1114.11. On November 9, 2015, NASDAQ closed at 5,095.30, a number higher than that reached in the year 2000. However, when one corrects for inflation, NASDAQ has not returned to where it was in 2000.

During the financial crisis of 2008-2009, stocks on all American stock exchanges dropped. Housing values in the Bay Area plummeted. For example in Pittsburg, California, houses prices that were at $600,000 in 2007 dropped to $300,000 in 2009.

The Bay Area, like the rest of California, is pricing itself out of business. Today’s California has the nation’s highest sales tax, the nation’s highest gasoline tax, and the highest top bracket for any state’s personal income tax: 13.3%. The California State Legislature is the highest paid state legislature in the nation. California’s corporate income tax (8.84%) in the seventh highest among the 50 states.

California already has had experience with regional government. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), an organization that does transportation planning for the nine-county Bay Area, and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which is involved in housing matters, adopted Plan Bay Area in July 2013. The plan calls for high-rise, high-density housing in Bay Area cities. The members of the MTC and ABAG boards are not directly elected by voters. Why should Bay Area residents trust unelected — and, hence, unaccountable — people who might be in charge of regional government.

Plan Bay Area does not give local communities any choices about high-rise, high-density housing.

No one knows if there will be another crash in Silicon Valley or NASDAQ. No one knows if there will be another financial crisis like the one that occurred in 2008-2009.

Instead of big housing and transportation projects, Bay Area residents might want to do nothing at all. If people, jobs, and businesses start to leave the Bay Area for other states or other nations, there might not be any need for more infrastructure.

"We little people are sure happy to have the Bay Area Council to make the big decisions for us"

A Citizen strikes back at the Bay Area Council demand for a Regional Power

Bay Area needs powerful regional government to keep economy vibrant, study says

By Andrew McGall

amcgall@bayareanewsgroup.com

Posted:   11/06/2015 02:32:23 PM PST

Nowhere in this article is there any mention of climate change, green house gas emission reductions, carbon or the State legislation that addresses this issue (AB32, SB375). What does that tell you about how the "climate imperative" is being viewed by this organization? Climate change appears to be a means to an end, which apparently has nothing to do with the issues raised in this article.

Lack of inclusion of climate change looks like a duplicitous narrative on the topic of regionalism.

The use (or misuse) of language is the most significant aspect of the regionalism issue. Do not be deceived by language. Your ignorance and apathy are the keys to the success of this regionalism effort.

The Bay Area generates one of the brightest sparks in the nation's recovering economy, but feeding its vitality means residents will have to give up some local control, dig deeper into their wallets, and make room for tens of thousands of new neighbors, according to study released Friday.

Creating the artificial trade off to advance an agenda. Give up your freedom, your money and your lifestyle because we want control over you.  Corporate America will run things from now on.

Keeping on prosperity's path requires a regional government with power to overcome local obstacles, money from new taxes and tolls, and opening the doors to housing closed by local growth controls and state environmental red tape, according to "A Roadmap for Economic Resilience," an in-depth study done by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute.

The Bay Area Economic Institute is the Bay Area Council is the corporate control of our nine counties, our state, possibly our nation and one of many implementing sustainable development.

Without action, the Bay Area's highways choked with commuters, its fragmented transit systems, and anti-growth attitudes will choke the boom times, the report says.

More doomsday scenarios to use as the basis for taking control of our government and everything associated with it.

The Bay Area may have 101 cities, "but it is one economy with more than 7 million people," says Bay Area Council President Jim Wunderman.

Telling that he left out the nine counties which are the dependent political subdivisions of our State.

"No city can perceive itself as an island. It's time for policymakers and business leaders to think and act with a regional perspective ... to maximize our many assets and keep the economy growing," he says.

All general statements that have no actual meaning, yet are used to advance this agenda.

The Bay Area Council is a business-sponsored public policy advocacy group.

The name for such a group in history is called fascism, corporatism, crony capitalism. This is undue influence on our government.

A key concept is the creation of a powerful regional government -- "a regional planning, finance and management" agency -- funded by tolls on bridges, highways and express lanes and a regional sales tax, gas tax, or vehicle license fee.

A key concept is turning taxpayers into rate payers, pricing drivers off their roads, limiting the public's right of way in their right of way and imposing a top down, Soviet style planned economy on the people.  The toll money will likely be added to the transportation funding that is now supporting buying our land. It's about taking our land, our wealth, our freedom.

According to the study, the regional agency would develop "a stronger regional approach to addressing critical needs (of) infrastructure, housing, workforce training, and economic development."

This is a fundamental change in our form of government. There is no elected representative who can uphold their oath of office and participate in this regionalism.

(Late last month, an attempt to expand one regional agency's powers in this direction resulted in a pact to study merging the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments.)

MTC appears to have its roots in unconstitutional Congressional legislation from 1959 which consolidated all levels of government under the concept of "intergovernmental relations". The three levels of government (federal, state, county) were set up to operate independently from each other,  as are the three branches (legislative, executive, judicial) within each of those levels of government. This regional,  top down, one branch, specialty government is problematic in many ways. Government intervention into the operations of society needs to be reversed if we are to maintain anything but a totalitarian government.

Loss of local control, a new layer of government and more taxes are warning words for groups that monitor taxpayer burdens.

"Why do they need additional revenue?" asked Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation. "If some functions shift to a regional government, shouldn't the revenue stream follow?

Regional government is uncontrollable and no revenue should support such a government. This government needs to be absorbed into our State executive branch agency and Counties if we are to maintain a government that is accountable to we the people.

"California remains a very, very overtaxed state," he said. "It has the highest sales tax and highest gas tax ... and a great deal of mismanaged tax revenue."

Good point. Need to get some numbers to show this reality.

Tax increases might result in improvements, but much of the money will go to fund public employee pensions, he predicted.

Need to address pension crisis.

But he also sees a need to protect the area's economy. "Most of the major chip manufacturers have left California," he said. "A lot of high tech is moving to Denver and Salt Lake City, and a lot of biotech is moving to Salt Lake."

Companies move all the time. Others will take their place. There is nothing static about the economy. The problem is government policy that drives these companies out of our State. The government should not be put in the position of solving a problem it created.

Housing, a key to developing the workforce and easing commute strains, is in crisis: There's too little of it and it costs too much, the report finds. The Bay Area needs nearly 1.3 million housing units built by 2040 to meet demand, and there should be consequences when cities fail to meet state-mandated housing goals, such as loss of local authority to approve housing, the report advises.

This long term planning is used as justification that may or may not be correct or relevant. These generalities are also misleading. Developing the workforce is ominous use of technocratic language.  The State does not need to mandate housing which supports sustainable development, a social engineering plan that limits freedom and choice of we the people. No one I know voted for this plan nor supports this ill conceived plan.

The plan includes the long-sought goal of easing environmental protection laws that hinder speedy construction or block building entirely.

This is a half truth. CEQA "streamlines" development that supports sustainable development and makes it more difficult to get environmental clearance for new development outside of urban centers. CEQA is another law that has been incrementally changed to support implementation of sustainable development.  

"It shouldn't be read as the region vs. cities," said report co-author Micah Weinberg, a council senior policy adviser. "It should be 'How can we make it easier for cities to do the right thing by residents of the region?'"

What is the "right thing"? This is another generalized fallacy in that cities elect city council members who answer to we the people. The omission of Counties is very problematic in that Counties are part of our State. The idea seems to be to eliminate the States thereby eliminating the very reason our federal government exists so top down control can be expanded across our country and across the world.

Reducing construction costs would be packaged with quicker approvals for lower-cost construction and new building technologies, and capping fees throughout the region.

Coupal called the state's building permits and mandates absurd.

Well put.

The housing crisis is a "self-inflicted wound," he said. The report does not consider actions suggested by other factions in the Bay Area's growth debates, such as making businesses that rely on commuters help pay for their transportation and housing needs.

Well put.

That's a nonstarter for Weinberg and Wunderman.

"When you start to pick off individual businesses, it does not scale," Weinberg said. "You need the scale of a state or region to make the investment you need in transportation."

More general statements that have no meaning. We have a State transportation agency, we used to have a County transportation agency, now VTA.

Wunderman said the world economy is too dynamic to risk the Bay Area's momentum.

More general statements that have no meaning. Need to ask the who, what, where, when, why and how questions to get to the necessary specifics to advance the conversation.

"If you have jobs, you can solve problems. ... The last thing you want to do is put the brakes on the economy."

Yet more general statements that have no meaning.

Contact Andrew McGall at 925-945-4703. Follow him at twitter.com/AndrewMcGall

Economic resilience

"A Roadmap for Economic Resilience" sets six actions needed to sustain the Bay Area's economic growth and to prepare it for natural disasters.

Create a regional infrastructure financing authority with the power to play a stronger role in regional transportation finance and planning.

This gives authority for unlimited borrowing which obligates the public to pay debt that would then be supported by combining public money across all nine counties. The State has already passed many ill conceived bills that support borrowing that is not approved by the voters. Our elected representatives have a fiduciary duty to keep the taxpayers solvent whether they are driving or developing or anything else. This is irresponsible action that implements sustainable development.

Give the regional authority enhanced power to acquire funding.

Power, power, power, it's all about power.

Coordinate the building of large-scale water recycling, desalination, and storage infrastructure through a regional entity.

We have a State, we don't need regional agency to coordinate across counties.

Lower the voter threshold for county infrastructure taxes to 55 percent.

This is a way to take decision making out of the hands of voters. There is a reason for a high threshold for taking people's money. Need to explore other sources of money for support of public projects.

Establish a separate environmental review process for infrastructure.

Plan for resiliency in all infrastructure decisions (to prepare for and react to natural disasters)

The implementation of sustainable development appears to be included in every aspect of our society. This is a very dangerous situation.

The full report is online at www.bayareaeconomy.org

Bay Area needs powerful regional government to keep economy vibrant, study says

Bay Area needs powerful regional government to keep economy vibrant, study says

By Andrew McGallamcgall@bayareanewsgroup.com

The solution is more centralized government.  What possibly could  go wrong?

The Bay Area generates one of the brightest sparks in the nation's recovering economy, but feeding its vitality means residents will have to give up some local control, dig deeper into their wallets, and make room for tens of thousands of new neighbors, according to study released Friday.

Keeping on prosperity's path requires a regional government with power to overcome local obstacles, money from new taxes and tolls, and opening the doors to housing closed by local growth controls and state environmental red tape, according to "A Roadmap for Economic Resilience," an in-depth study done by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute.

Without action, the Bay Area's highways choked with commuters, its fragmented transit systems, and anti-growth attitudes will choke the boom times, the report says.

The Bay Area may have 101 cities, "but it is one economy with more than 7 million people," says Bay Area Council President Jim Wunderman.

"No city can perceive itself as an island. It's time for policymakers and business leaders to think and act with a regional perspective ... to maximize our many assets and keep the economy growing," he says.

The Bay Area Council is a business-sponsored public policy advocacy group.

Add caption

A key concept is the creation of a powerful regional government -- "a regional planning, finance and management" agency -- funded by tolls on bridges, highways and express lanes and a regional sales tax, gas tax, or vehicle license fee.

According to the study, the regional agency would develop "a stronger regional approach to addressing critical needs (of) infrastructure, housing, workforce training, and economic development."

(Late last month, an attempt to expand one regional agency's powers in this direction resulted in a pact to study merging the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments.)

Loss of local control, a new layer of government and more taxes are warning words for groups that monitor taxpayer burdens.

"Why do they need additional revenue?" asked Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation. "If some functions shift to a regional government, shouldn't the revenue stream follow?

"California remains a very, very overtaxed state," he said. "It has the highest sales tax and highest gas tax ... and a great deal of mismanaged tax revenue."

Tax increases might result in improvements, but much of the money will go to fund public employee pensions, he predicted.

But he also sees a need to protect the area's economy. "Most of the major chip manufacturers have left California," he said. "A lot of high tech is moving to Denver and Salt Lake City, and a lot of biotech is moving to Salt Lake." Housing, a key to developing the workforce and easing commute strains, is in crisis: There's too little of it and it costs too much, the report finds. The Bay Area needs nearly 1.3 million housing units built by 2040 to meet demand, and there should be consequences when cities fail to meet state-mandated housing goals, such as loss of local authority to approve housing, the report advises.

The plan includes the long-sought goal of easing environmental protection laws that hinder speedy construction or block building entirely.

"It shouldn't be read as the region vs. cities," said report co-author Micah Weinberg, a council senior policy adviser. "It should be 'How can we make it easier for cities to do the right thing by residents of the region?'"

Reducing construction costs would be packaged with quicker approvals for lower-cost construction and new building technologies, and capping fees throughout the region.

Coupal called the state's building permits and mandates absurd.

The housing crisis is a "self-inflicted wound," he said. The report does not consider actions suggested by other factions in the Bay Area's growth debates, such as making businesses that rely on commuters help pay for their transportation and housing needs.

That's a nonstarter for Weinberg and Wunderman.

"When you start to pick off individual businesses, it does not scale," Weinberg said. "You need the scale of a state or region to make the investment you need in transportation."

Wunderman said the world economy is too dynamic to risk the Bay Area's momentum.

"If you have jobs, you can solve problems. ... The last thing you want to do is put the brakes on the economy."

Contact Andrew McGall at 925-945-4703. Follow him at twitter.com/AndrewMcGall

Economic resilience
"A Roadmap for Economic Resilience" sets six actions needed to sustain the Bay Area's economic growth and to prepare it for natural disasters.

1. Create a regional infrastructure financing authority with the power to play a stronger role in regional transportation finance and planning.
2. Give the regional authority enhanced power to acquire funding.
3. Coordinate the building of large-scale water recycling, desalination, and storage infrastructure through a regional entity.
4. Lower the voter threshold for county infrastructure taxes to 55 percent.
5. Establish a separate environmental review process for infrastructure.
6. Plan for resiliency in all infrastructure decisions (to prepare for and react to natural disasters)

The full report is online at www.bayareaeconomy.org