Dick Spotswood: Planners keep pushing the bogus concept of transit-centered housing

Dick Spotswood: Planners keep pushing the bogus concept of transit-centered housing

By DICK SPOTSWOOD | spotswood@comcast.net |
January 8, 2019 at 10:00 am


Regional governments tout the benefits of so-called transit-centered housing. The concept is at the heart of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s CASA (Committee to House the Bay Area) compact and San Francisco Democrat Sen. Scott Wiener’s new Senate Bill 50.

Superficially, it appears logical that people living in high-density apartments adjacent to rail, bus or ferry transit stops won’t need an auto to commute to work. Instead, they’ll take transit because it’s more convenient.

The reality isn’t so simple.

With transit-centered housing, the image that pops to mind includes a Manhattan or at least a central San Francisco, Philadelphia or Chicago level of public transit. There, with a century’s worth of transit infrastructure, they’ve crafted their bus/rail network to a stage of development where virtually every origin and destination is connected.

That’s crucial, because the 2019 commute doesn’t resemble the days of old when Bay Area suburban commuters were mostly headed to one destination: downtown San Francisco. Today’s commute, often involving two-employed resident households, resembles the crisscrossed lines of an old telephone switchboard running all over the Bay Area.

No doubt our region would be better served by a comprehensive transit network similar to that in greater London. To get there is enormously expensive and will, with America’s endless environmental reviews and litigious culture, literally take a century.

Let’s see if transit-centered housing works as promised in Marin. Presume our typical commuter lives at Corte Madera’s Tam Ridge Apartments, aka WinCup. The four-story 180-unit high-density complex is exactly the housing envisioned in SB 50. When approved, WinCup was touted as transit-centered housing next to a Highway 101 trunk line bus stop.

The time selected for this exercise is the 8 a.m. morning weekday commute. The destinations are six Bay Area employment centers. It’s a fair time for a test, because traffic is heavy and transit frequencies (public transportation such as bus, train or ferry) at their maximum. Travel time from WinCup to each destination by auto and transit is estimated using the smartphone Google map app.

From WinCup to:

• Montgomery and Market streets: auto, 33 minutes; transit, 55 minutes.

• UC Mission Bay Medical Center: auto, 42 minutes; transit, 1 hour, 18 minutes.

• UC Berkeley: auto, 28 minutes; transit, 1 hour, 40 minutes, via San Francisco.

• Santa Rosa’s Old Courthouse Square: auto, 41 minutes; transit, 1 hour, 43 minutes.

• San Francisco State University: auto, 28 minutes; transit, 1 hour, 13 minutes.

• Oakland’s Alameda County Courthouse: auto, 27 minutes; transit, 1 hour, 17 minutes.

The transit commute from WinCup to downtown San Francisco and UC Mission Bay is competitive with driving. The ease of bus travel versus driving and parking makes it viable. Not so, trips from WinCup to San Francisco State, downtown Oakland, Santa Rosa or UC Berkeley. Ditto for jobs in San Mateo County. New Tam Ridge residents – much less those living farther afield – are necessarily going to drive to those jobs. SEE the Full Article HERE

Dick Spotswood: Kinsey’s new job a sign of the revolving door

Dick Spotswood, seen on Tuesday, Jan. 05, 2016, in San Rafael, Calif. (Frankie Frost/Marin Independent Journal) 

POSTED: 11/26/16, 2:09 PM PST |

20 COMMENTS

The revolving door is in full motion. Supervisor Steve Kinsey will retire from the Board of Supervisors in five weeks. His next job will be using contacts he’s made with county government, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and California’s Coastal Commission.

In Marin Magazine, Kinsey is quoted, “Eventually what I want to do is be involved as a consultant at the local or regional level in strengthening community, either in the field of transportation or working to achieve equity in various aspects of contemporary life.” Kinsey promptly pursued his goal by snagging a $50,000 contract with the city of San Rafael to help guide the city in joint efforts with SMART to relocate the C. Paul Bettini bus depot so it’s compatible with the city’s new rail station.

It’s not that Kinsey, 63, lacks private-sector skills. He was a successful San Geronimo Valley designer-builder when he was first elected to the board 20 years ago.

Kinsey was a good supervisor. There’s never been a whiff of financial scandal about him. Perhaps his contract with San Rafael will be a one-off arrangement.

In justification, Kinsey pointed out to me that his Mission City contract is consulting with a public agency, not working as a private-sector advocate.

It’s still a problem given Kinsey’s role as a reliable supporter of MTC’s management led by top honcho Steve Heminger.

Now that the five-term supervisor will be “interfacing” with MTC as a consultant, the issues of cronyism naturally will arise.

Ditto for the Coastal Commission where Kinsey, along with a few other commissioners, remains under a cloud. The Los Angeles Times reported that a handful of appointees, including Kinsey, had failed to publicly disclose ex-officio communications with entities coming before the coastal land use authority.

The revolving-door phenomenon, so prevalent in Washington, D.C., also encourages See Article HERE.

IJ Forums - SMART: When can we expect it to start and what can we expect once it's running

Did Marinwood get off the Target List for HUD (What about Marin Supervisors?)

Dick Spotswood: Trump’s election could take Marin off HUD’s target list

Dick Spotswood, seen on Tuesday, Jan. 05, 2016, in San Rafael, Calif. (Frankie Frost/Marin Independent Journal) 

POSTED: 11/15/16, 4:03 PM PST | UPDATED: 9 HRS AGO

8 COMMENTS

Donald Trump’s upset presidential victory coupled with a Republican majority Congress will have significant Marin implications.

A major change will come with the expected shake-up of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Marin has been under intense pressure from HUD, not only to develop more affordable housing, but to “affirmatively further fair housing.”

That’s HUD 2015 rule utilizing quotas by ZIP code to guarantee that sufficient affordable housing is provided in each city, town and village for “underserved” African-American and non-white Hispanic households.

HUD’s first test case was New York City’s prosperous suburb, Westchester County. That’s where HUD pursued litigation linked to a compact similar to the compliance agreement Marin’s Board of Supervisors signed under pressure with HUD in 2011. HUD’s goal was to bring the reluctant county into compliance with strict federal diversity guidelines.

Westchester is said to be New York’s Marin and Marin was widely expected to be HUD’s second test case in 2017.

Westchester was a reliably blue county until HUD pushed hard. The upshot was a voter revolt that elected a Republican county executive, Rob Astorino. The county’s elected combined mayor and chief executive, Astorino is a bantam-weight street fighter who consistently fought a rear guard action against the determined federal agency.

With Trump’s victory, the housing activist concept of “affirmatively furthering fair housing” is likely one of the new administration’s first casualties. Trump is expected to gut HUD’s headcount. That’s a strategy Republican administrations use to dispose of career bureaucrats perceived as being in their opponents’ ideological camp.

New York-area rumors are that Astorino, in other matters a moderate suburban Republican, is on Trump’s short list to be HUD secretary. Trump, who owns a golf course in Westchester, knows Astorino. The county’s top honcho supported Trump, despite the usual reservations.

With federal pressure likely trailing off in coming months, Marin’s commitment to provide a more diverse community will be tested. Many Marinites opposing HUD’s strong-arm tactics pleaded that the county was willing and able to move diversity forward on its own initiative.

Diversity is an overdue goal that can be achieved without blockbuster developments, but only if the political will is strong enough.

While local control is far superior to Uncle Sam calling the shots, the challenge now is for Marin to keep its promise absent threats of federal intervention. See Full Article HERE

Editor's Note:  Marinwood has been the target for the Board of Supervisor for massive HUD affordable housing projects for decades.  Susan Adams silently lobbied her fellow supervisors and the Association of Bay Area Governments to make Marinwood a "priority development area" which would mean massive subsidies for low income housing developers.  She beamed with pride in her skill at political manipulation of the local community to make Marinwood Plaza a shining example. Bridge Housing was lured with massive subsidies.  When her plans finally were revealed to the community,  she denied any knowledge.  One deception lead to another and finally led to her political defeat in 2014.  The affordable housing lobby only is profitable (and hugely so) when it has access to massive government subsidies.  This is very likely to change under a Trump administration.   Sensible development that takes community infrastructure, traffic and need for new schools will be welcomed.  Massive crony development that places great tax burden on our community will not have an easy path to development.   

Dick Spotswood and Sashi McEntee discuss Plan Bay Area effects on the November 5 elections

Dick Spotswood and Shashi McEntee talk Plan Bay Area

Dick Spotswood: Marin fares well when it comes to commuting by transit or working close to home

Dick Spotswood writes a twice-weekly column on local politics for the Marin Independent Journal. (IJ photo/Robert Tong) 

POSTED: 02/10/15, 10:46 AM PST |

25 COMMENTS

Let’s put two myths to rest. The first is the contention by high-density developers and housing activists that Marin County has the worst record in the Bay Area when it comes to importing workers from surrounding counties. If any counties merit the spotlight, it’s Contra Costa and San Francisco.

The second fable is the alphabet agencies’ optimistic promise that if we spend more on public transit commuters will get out of their cars.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has recently released an analysis of Bay Area transportation patterns. Called “Vital Signs,” the report uses 14 indicators to monitor the Bay Area’s transportation network.

We can dismiss the old slam that Marin has a particularly bad record when it comes to its jobs-housing balance.

The study reports, “Most commuters live and work in the same county, although the counties of Santa Clara and San Francisco do ‘import’ significant numbers of workers.”

MTC indicates that the 66 percent of Marin residents that work and reside in-county is average for the Bay Area. Its ratio is almost the same as Alameda and better than Solano, Contra Costa and San Mateo counties.

Marin enjoys one of the lowest percentages of any county regarding either importing or exporting workers.

Activists castigating Marin for a jobs-housing imbalance fail to compare it with neighboring Bay Area counties. If there’s a pressing gap between the import-export of jobs it’s between Contra Costa, with its relatively lower cost of housing, and booming San Francisco with its plethora of well-paid jobs.

Intra-county commuting is inevitable in a dynamic economy.

“Vital Signs” presents discouraging news for transit advocates. Despite spending big bucks to shift auto traffic to buses, trains and ferries, the percentage of Bay Area residents traveling to work by transit has, if anything, slightly decreased since 1990.

Currently, 77 percent of Bay Area commuters travel by auto and 10 percent by transit. Of the remaining balance, 4 percent walk to their jobs, 6 percent work at home and 3 percent are lumped into “other.”

While the percentage of auto commuting has also slightly declined since 1990, when it stood at 81 percent, transit use remains at 10 percent. The 4 percent decrease in auto trips is attributed to the doubling of those working at home. That category grew from 3 percent to 6 percent.

If there’s an environmentally sensitive travel sector that Marin dominates it’s telecommuting. Mill Valley, Ross, Belvedere, Tiburon, Sausalito and Fairfax find themselves among the top 10 when it comes to working at home electronically.

Bike commuting increased from 1 percent to 2 percent of the regional commute over the past 25 years. Among Bay Area incorporated cities, Fairfax and Sausalito find themselves in the top 10 with 4 percent of residents pedaling to work.

With 7.3 percent of its citizenry opting to walk to work, San Anselmo foot power ties with pedestrian-friendly San Francisco for numbers enjoying a healthful commute.

Marin’s transit ridership is respectable, with 9 percent commuting by buses or ferries. While 32.6 percent of San Franciscans use transit — down from 40 percent in 1990 — Marin’s transit patronage comes in fourth among MTC’s nine counties, just behind Alameda and Contra Costa and ahead of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma and Napa.

The Marin town with highest transit ridership is Sausalito, where 15.7 percent of its employed residents use buses or its convenient ferries to get to jobs in the city.

Dick Spotswood of Mill Valley writes on local politics twice weekly in the IJ on Wednesday and Sunday. Email him at spotswood@comcast.net.

Dick Spotswood: There should be room for compromise in Marin's housing debate

Marin Independent Journal

POSTED:   11/30/2014 12:38:48 AM PST11 COMMENTS

Even those who oppose overbuilding Marin acknowledge that there's a need for housing for those blue collar folks working in our expensive county.

Diversity in income, lifestyle and ethnicity is a hallmark of the ideal American small town. The quest is to provide reasonably priced housing while not simultaneously destroying the semi-rural suburban character that makes Marin desirable.

Forming community consensus requires compromise in which competing interests surrender firmly held notions.

Those complaining about demands from regional alphabet agencies for evermore development must accept some limited growth. That's despite its inevitable negative impact on traffic and scarce water resources.

To reach an accord, housing activists, including Marin's county supervisors and Marin Community Foundation-funded advocacy groups, must abandon their dream of high-density development built along Highway 101 and the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit train.

A compromise starts with more second units in existing residential neighborhoods. Attached "in-law apartments" are ideal to supply affordable integrated housing. They provide reasonable rents, diversity, income to homeowners and jobs for small-scale contractors, all without destroying cherished existing neighborhoods.

How to do it: abolish permit fees required for second units and then give property owners a break.

Regional agencies sometimes don't recognize second units as officially "affordable" when it comes to housing mandates. That's bureaucratic nonsense. Changing that absurd regulation should be job one for Mike McGuire, the North Bay's energetic new state senator.The county has a $5 million housing fund. Instead of subsidizing building blockbuster apartments, think outside the box and devote half to aiding second units. A $5,000 tax abatement per property alone could encourage 500 new "workforce" apartments.

In Novato, Habitat for Humanity's 10-unit Mount Burdell Place is a template for creating small-scale housing consistent with existing neighborhoods. It's a model of how well-designed and low-rent homes properly fit in.

West Marin is home to many mostly Hispanic agricultural workers. Many live in substandard housing. Marinites are justly proud of our sustainable agriculture industry. The county should devote more if its $5 million housing reserve toward providing decent homes for hard-working ag families.

Most Marin small towns will benefit by building affordable apartments above downtown retail shops.

Here's where compromise is facilitated by restraint.

The classic mistake was the consultant-driven Mill Valley Miller Avenue Precise Plan fiasco. The city went for developers' gold with three- and four-story buildings mimicking Concord. Big mistake. Overwhelming community opposition scuttled the scheme. The result would have been different if the city had retained the current two-story scale.

There's room for large-scale apartments in downtown San Rafael. Again, it's about appropriate scale. Unlike much of Marin, downtown San Rafael has a history of multi-unit development. Housing near SMART and 101 isn't inherently wrong. Just don't expect huge transit ridership as a result.

Add to these components expanded funding of Section 8 rent vouchers and the parameters of a properly-scaled housing pact emerges.

Like any compromise, this one has winners and losers.

Winners include homeowners whose neighborhood's character is preserved plus extra income for those who opt for second units. Not to be forgotten are new second-unit residents delighted to live and work in Marin.

Add to that small-time contractors who build second units and small-scale mixed use apartments, the entire farming community plus those who treasure small-town Marin.

Losers are big-time developers and allied unions whose business model depends on high-density development. Then there are bureaucrats who put their reputation behind high-density models and transportation utopians who detest small-scale mostly auto-dependent suburbs.

A broadly accepted compromise that provides benefits without political Armageddon is attainable. It all depends on one reality: remove any part and the compromise collapses.

Columnist Dick Spotswood of Mill Valley writes on local politics on Sundays and Wednesdays. Email him atspotswood@comcast.net.

Dick Spotswood: Housing 'density bonus' can make numbers misleading

Marin Independent Journal

Posted:   08/12/2014 12:29:56 PM PDT4 Comments

One source of the controversy surrounding Fairfax's just-repealed ordinance that would have facilitated construction of 124 new housing units in the Ross Valley community, is that when it comes to Bay Area planning, 124 doesn't mean 124.

Thanks to California laws mandating housing "density bonuses," when certain criteria are met, 124 can really mean something significantly higher than the number of residential units contained in any particular zoning ordinance's text.

The confusion associated with housing density bonuses inevitably fuels public distrust of government. The state Legislature and its regional minions, including the Association of Bay Area Governments, invented and then adopted upzoning bonuses that automatically increase density, effectively overriding local planning.

Once zoning is established or project approval is granted, there is a "bonus" of an extra 25 percent of units for developers who designate at least 20 percent of the projected units for lower-income residents. An additional 10 percent is granted for very-low-income apartments and 50 percent more for senior-allocated housing.

Incentives are fine, but the number of units assigned after bonuses are calculated are the numbers that need to be disclosed in black letters when zoning is set or specific plans considered. 
  
In their booklet "Density Through Affordability," the prominent law firm of Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann and Girard advises potential clients, "This ability to force the locality to modify its normal development standards is sometimes the most compelling reason for the developer to structure a project to qualify for the density bonus."
Real estate lawyers understand that developer profitability is all about density and that state-mandated bonuses equal increased density. They know going in what they can get. It's time the public is supplied the same information in an easy-to-understand fashion well before zoning regulations or housing developments are approved.

Editors Note:  It is even worse than this.  The Community development department counts under counts smaller units and studios as "less than a full unit.  Therefore the development that has 82 units like Marinwood Village may actually build up to 164 studio apartments PLUS a density bonus of 32 units for a total of 196 units!   Funny thing, these people have cars, need government services just like the rest of us but the non profit developer can AVOID the majority of taxes for 55 years!  

Dick Spotswood: Statistics clash over number of commuters working in Marin

Dick Spotswood: Statistics clash over number of commuters working in Marin  see it in the Marin IJ. Great comments too.

By Dick Spotswood
spotswood@comcast.net

Posted:   06/28/2014 08:02:13 PM PDT29 Comments


Statistics are powerful. One number that has driven the debate over so-called transit-centered housing is a figure published by Marin's League of Women Voters. In its white paper, "Dispelling the Myths Surrounding Affordable Housing," the league states, "59.5 percent of Marin workers commute from outside the county."

Its idea is that if Marin builds more housing, this environmental and social negative will dissipate.

The number may be a "myth." At the very least, it's seriously in dispute.
From my review, the most reliable and detailed information comes from the U.S. Census Bureau's report, "Residence county to work place county, 2006-2010." That exhaustive review indicated the actual percentage of workers who in-commute to Marin is 35.7 percent.

That's quite a difference from the league's claim.

According to census data, 120,586 Marinites travel to a job. Of those, 78,950 both live and work in Marin. The in-commute consists of 42,657 travelers who live in another county but work in Marin. It's no surprise that the largest influx is the 17,457 Sonoma residents traveling each day to work in Marin.

This makes sense. It's actually a big part of the justification for the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit train. The commuter train is essentially designed to move Sonoma residents to Marin jobs, a worthy goal.

About 41,600 Marinites, 34 percent of our workers, are outbound commuters with most headed to San Francisco and Contra Costa County.

The second-largest source of Marin's workers are San Franciscans. While San Francisco's housing prices are even greater than Marin's, some younger workers preferring the city's urban experience have landed well-paying Marin jobs. Contra Costa, Solano and Alameda counties, in declining order, are the other prime sources of Marin's in-commuting.
The league's numbers are based on a second database. That's the Census Bureau's "Longitudinal Employment and Household Dynamics" program.

The conflicting numbers are due to different sources of data.

"Residence-to-work place" statistics are based on surveys, which admittedly could have sampling errors.

The "longitudinal dynamics" figures are based on unemployment data that doesn't include the self-employed, informally employed and selected federal employment categories. Disregarding the substantial number of self-employed Marinites makes those numbers dubious.
The Census Bureau acknowledges the discrepancy. They're working on reconciliations, but since it's a national phenomena, don't expect a resolution anytime soon.

It's the nature of the polarized housing debate that Marin and similarly situated suburban counties face, that when conflicting statistics arise, proponents of various views adopt as gospel numbers that justify their preconceived position.

Marin's League of Women Voters in a laudable organization, but don't forget they play two roles.
The more obvious is as nonpartisan guardian of fair elections. Its second role is advocacy. Here, its members are not neutral arbiters but proponents, in this case, for affordable and high-density housing.

As such the origin and destination statistics touted in their "Myths" report must be judged accordingly.

The league frankly acknowledges both databases, but prefers to publish the numbers that support their position as housing advocates.

Use the league's numbers and Marin has the worst share of in-commuters of any Bay Area county. Follow the Census Bureau's Residence-to-Work Place data and Marin's in-commute is average with both San Francisco and San Mateo having more in-commuters than Marin.
Given the dynamics of America's free enterprise society with folks holding multiple jobs during their careers, decisions on job locations and residence are based on many factors.
A good job isn't often passed up simply because it involves a commute, and building more dense housing isn't inherently going to change that necessity.

None of this takes away the need for more affordable housing. The problem is that rational decision-making is derailed when important statistics are used selectively.


Dick Spotswood of Mill Valley writes a twice-weekly column on local politics for the Marin Independent Journal.

Larkspur's wise to jump off ABAG's bandwagon

Opinion

Story

See the Marin IJ story and comments HERE DICK SPOTSWOOD: Larkspur's wise to jump off ABAG's bandwagon The Larkspur Station Area Plan is dead. Thanks to unanimous action by Larkspur's City Council, the regional agency-financed effort to create a second downtown Larkspur died on the vine. The council's wise decision presents an opportunity, not just for Larkspur, but for all of Marin to demonstrate the correct way to facilitate truly affordable housing and diversity without urbanization. The aborted SMART Station Area Plan's rationale was always bogus. It had nothing to do with facilitating mobility at the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit's soon-to-be-built southern terminal. Even the plan's environmental report acknowledged that the Sonoma-Marin commuter train's small projected ridership would have almost no impact on traffic and circulation at Larkspur Landing. SMART was simply a weak excuse to satisfy regional planners' dream to urbanize what to them are the loathed single-family-home communities that make up much of Marin. The plan had little to do with serious efforts to create affordable or even workforce housing. It would do nothing to promote the Marin Board of Supervisors' endorsed effort by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to ethnically and racially diversify suburban America. The plan's housing component was projected to be mostly market-rate. Like Corte Madera's much criticized 180-unit apartment behemoth on the old WinCup site, only a handful of projected units would have been "affordable." Claims that affordable housing was the driving force behind the Station Area Plan were just spin designed to attract support from the gullible. Nor did it have much to do with the environment. The available evidence indicates that the plan's proposed high-density housing and retail development would generate only a relatively few additional transit trips but would generate more auto traffic on already-clogged Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. The scheme's projected benefits — especially for Larkspur residents — were so marginal that the City Council wasted little time scuttling the $600,000 effort. Development and construction interests surely would have benefited. While that's fine and well, it pales in comparison with the economic and environmental burdens that would have been borne by Central Marin residents and Richmond-San Rafael Bridge commuters. What it was designed to do was promote the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments' vision of "transit-centered" development. It's a tempting notion that high-density housing built along transit lines would entice new residents to use environmentally beneficial transit instead of pollution-belching autos. Only if it were so. While the concept makes sense in dense cities like New York, San Francisco or Boston, there's scant evidence that the hoped-for result has occurred to a meaningful degree in any suburban American community. Now Larkspur and Marin's other communities need to show that legitimate goals, including the creation of affordable housing, diversity and sustainability, can be accomplished without urbanizing Marin's small towns. In the next few months I'll be looking at practical ways to achieve these objectives without the high-density blockbuster methods favored by the regional alphabet agencies and a few Marin politicians. I'll include ideas from futurists eager to showcase their innovative ideas for a "new suburbanism." These concepts will protect Marin's small-town lifestyle while creating an even more inclusive community.

Dick Spotwood: Dissecting Marin's latest last-minute hit piece

Marin Independent Journal

Posted:   06/03/2014 04:09:53 PM PDT

Dick Spotswood writes a weekly column on local politics for the Marin Independent... (Robert Tong)

• «
• 1
• »

• 
  

In politics, a "Saturday night special" is a negative advertising blitz that's mailed immediately before Election Day. It's typically a hit piece loaded with half-truths designed to put the targeted candidate in an unfavorable light.

The timing is precise, since an ad distributed so close to an election doesn't give the victim time to respond.

This year a target was San Rafael Councilman Damon Connolly, who was running to oust Marin Supervisor Susan Adams. The slam, received in voters' mailboxes this past Saturday, was directly funded by Adams' campaign. It was aimed at those less-involved and easy-to-confuse voters who don't closely follow local politics.

To say that Adams' broadside was audacious is an understatement. The Yiddish word "chutzpah" is more accurate. The piece leads off with, "Damon Connolly: ready to approve massive developments for campaign donors."

It goes on to list "Damon's Donor's" including "CEO Melissa Bradley" and a slate of real estate-related contributors, including "Lobbyist Gary Giacomini."

While the piece is accurate about Connolly's donations and his support from former supervisor Giacomini, it wasn't true that Connolly supports "massive projects (that) would decimate our open space." It also ignores that Adams, like all incumbents, received substantial contributions from development interests.

The incongruity is that the three-term supervisor earlier survived a recall attempt based on her support for development at Marinwood Plaza that was perceived by some as massive. She was also criticized by opponents for her tenure on the board of the Association of Bay Area Governments, a regional agency strongly promoting high-density housing.

That's not to say that Adams is an across-the-board supporter of big-time construction. Her actions regarding San Rafael's St. Vincent's-Silveira Ranch site were critical in preventing overdevelopment on those open lands.

It is to say that opponents of urbanizing the eastern corridor of Marin lined up against Adams' re-election bid. That includes Bradley, the hard-charging real estate executive who's an outspoken adversary of dense housing adjacent to single-family neighborhoods. Connolly has been knocked by housing advocates for his criticism of regional alphabet agencies' efforts to promote so-called "transit-centered development" outside of established downtowns.

This last-minute stunt tells you as much about Marin public opinion as it does about a candidate's tactics.

The fact that Adams would label an opponent as favoring "massive developments" represents a perceptive understanding that Marin votes are adamantly opposed to such efforts. Adams perceived that high-density development, symbolized by the blockbuster apartment complex going up on the WinCup property in Corte Madera, is widely unpopular across the Marin political spectrum.
The broadside was effectively a compliment to high-density opponents. They've generated such passions that even Adams thought she need to blast "massive development" to politically survive. Of course, one person's "massive development" is another person's "transit-centered housing."

Read More at the Marin IJ