What if there were no prices?

The Ant and the Grasshopper

Once there lived an ant and a grasshopper in a grassy meadow. All day long the ant would work hard, collecting grains of wheat from the farmer's field far away. She would hurry to the field every morning, as soon as it was light enough to see by, and toil back with a heavygrain of wheat balanced on her head. She would put the grain of wheat carefully away in her larder, and then hurry back to the field for another one. All day long she would work, without stop or rest, scurrying back and forth from the field, collecting the grains of wheat and storing them carefully in her larder.

The grasshopper would look at her and laugh. 'Why do you work so hard, dear ant?' he would say. 'Come, rest awhile, listen to my song. Summer is here, the days are long and bright. Why waste the sunshine in labour and toil?' The ant would ignore him, and head bent, would just hurry to the field a little faster. This would make the grasshopper laugh even louder. 'What a silly little ant you are!' he would call after her. 'Come, come and dance with me! Forget about work! Enjoy the summer! Live a little!' And the grasshopper would hop away across the meadow, singing and dancing merrily.

Summer faded into autumn, and autumn turned into winter. The sun was hardly seen, and the days were short and grey, the nights long and dark.

It became freezing cold, and snow began to fall. The grasshopper didn't feel like singing any more. He was cold and hungry. He had nowhere to shelter from the snow, and nothing to eat. The meadow and the farmer's field were covered in snow, and there was no food to be had. 'Oh what shall I do? Where shall I go?' wailed the grasshopper.

Suddenly he remembered the ant. 'Ah - I shall go to the ant and ask her for food and shelter!' declared the grasshopper, perking up. So off he went to the ant's house and knocked at her door. 'Hello ant!' he cried cheerfully. 'Here I am, to sing for you, as I warm myself by your fire, while you get me some food from that larder of yours!' The ant looked at the grasshopper and said, 'All summer long I worked hard while you made fun of me, and sang and danced. You should have thought of winter then!

Find somewhere else to sing, grasshopper! There is no warmth or food for you here!' And the ant shut the door in the grasshopper's face.

It is wise to worry about tomorrow today.

Editor's perspective: The politicians will be wise to consider the jobs, water and schools people will before building thousands units of high density housing in Marin.

How the "Magic Formula" for housing growth projections for Marin was achieved by ABAG.

This emergency meeting of ABAG was held on April 2, 2013 to discuss the differences in the demographic forecasts by the California Department of Finance (DOF), California  Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

The California Department of  Finance(DOF) has long been considered the gold standard for business and government economic forecasters since it is based upon detailed analysis of census statistics and does not pretend to know the future business trends, political developments and tax policy that can affect future growth.  It is a fact based methodology.  It is the core statistic for California.

The Calfornia Housing and Community Development  (HCD) projects housing growth in part using DOF forecasts but also include political policy initiatives into account.

The Asssociation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) guided by chief forecaster, Stephen Levy using the data from DOF, HCD plus a "special sauce" of projections of US economic growth,  estimates of the Bay Area growth, etc and projects forty years into the future.  His forecasts are the basis for the Regional Needs Analysis (RHNA) that projects the need for affordable housing.

His results are highly controversial since they deviate from all other responsible forecasts of the above agencies and private business forecasts.  For example, Marin population has been decreasing for the last decade but ABAG is projecting wild growth not seen in decades.

Unfair pay for monkeys!- lessons from the animal kingdom

From Marxism to Capitalism

Google coming to Novato?

Unconfirmed reports are flying that Google has rented the Fireman's Fund Campus in Novato.

If this is true, it probably has something to do with Googles partnership with the Buck Institute on Aging as reported in the Marin IJ in April 2015 HERE.

This is good news for the North Bay after seeing another major employer leave Marin.  It means that more bio tech firms are bound to follow.  It also may mean that satellite operations of Bay Area companies may locate here.  It makes sense with the ridiculously high home prices in San Francisco and Silicon Valley that Marin has suddenly become "affordable housing".

As we have long stated, Marinwood-Lucas Valley is one of the few "affordable" neighborhoods in the San Francisco for middle class families.

What will this mean to our plans to build MIDDLE CLASS homes?  Will there only be two classes of people, the RICH and the people pushed to live in tax subsidized housing?

We need a sane policy for housing growth.  We must Save Marin Again!

=======================================================================

Editors Note: Received this note concerning Google from a friend:

1)  The growth of jobs in the south bay has been large and it is projected to continue

to be large, growing faster than the rest of the economy.

2)  Even in the south bay, housing hasn't kept pace.   No one says no to Google.  

But many communities (yes in the south bay too)  say no to housing

Google workers.

3) The imbalances in the south bay are growing now affecting more northern communities.

(e.g, San Francisco).    But like billiard balls, the reverberations are now being

felt in Marin's rental market.  (I'm doing some research on this.)

4)  Stepping into the process are the regional planners.    Well, the workers

have to live somewhere.     And  housing "requirements" must be

distributed "fairly."     [the nature of JPAs is to get along.]

5)  We love our open spaces.    And we're not the only ones.  Western San Mateo County and the

hills of the east bay, are being preserved too.   So is Napa and lands in Contra Costa.   (See the workers

living in Tracy and commuting to Santa Clara County jobs.)    

6)  So, the simple math:   we're going to have to put more housing units on less land.    Well, if we're

going to do that, shouldn't we  put the high density housing next to transit nodes?

Note:  I'm not in favor of TODs in Marin.

7)   The point:  We ought to be prepared.  This is going to be a strategic ongoing struggle for

Marin because of our proximity to SF.   If the south bay continues to grow (and I expect it will)

and the communities there continue down the path of taking in jobs without building housing

for the workers,  their problem is going to worsen and so is ours.

8)  The sooner we have some politicians that recognize this is going to be an ongoing

issue for Marin and that we do have a choice, but it comes with consequences:

it'll drive up the price of land (and, therefore housing).   And it'll involve pushing back

within the JPAs set up for everyone to get along.  

Yes, Google is great.   But, given what's coming, it'll be a double edged sword.

Suburban Sprawl Myths

Suburban Garden in unregulated Houston,TX "sprawl"

 

Urban Growth Means Lower Taxes -- and Other Myths

by Donella H. Meadows

We need to bring in business to bring down taxes. This development will give us jobs. Environmental protection will hurt the economy. Growth is good for us.

If we've heard those arguments once, we've heard them a thousand times, stated with utmost certainty and without the slightest evidence. That's because there is no evidence. Or rather, there is plenty of evidence, most of which disproves these deeply held pro-growth beliefs.

Here is a short summary of some of the evidence. For more, see Eben Fodor's new book "Better, Not Bigger," which lists and debunks the following "Twelve Big Myths of Growth."

Myth 1: Growth provides needed tax revenues. Check out the tax rates of cities larger than yours. There are a few exceptions but the general rule is: the larger the city, the higher the taxes. That's because development requires water, sewage treatment, road maintenance, police and fire protection, garbage pickup -- a host of public services. Almost never do the new taxes cover the new costs. Fodor says, "the bottom line on urban growth is that it rarely pays its own way."

Myth 2: We have to grow to provide jobs. But there's no guarantee that new jobs will go to local folks. In fact they rarely do. If you compare the 25 fastest growing cities in the U.S. to the 25 slowest growing, you find no significant difference in unemployment rates. Says Fodor: "Creating more local jobs ends up attracting more people, who require more jobs."

Myth 3: We must stimulate and subsidize business growth to have good jobs. A "good business climate" is one with little regulation, low business taxes, and various public subsidies to business. A study of areas with good and bad business climates (as ranked by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the business press) showed that states with the best business ratings actually have lower growth in per capita incomes than those with the worst. Fodor: "This surprising outcome may be due to the emphasis placed by good-business-climate states on investing resources in businesses rather  rather than directly in people."  [ Editor's note: I disagree with this statement. Obviously, creating more opportunity will create greater income for the local economy]

Myth 4: If we try to limit growth, housing prices will shoot up. Sounds logical, but it isn't so. A 1992 study of 14 California cities, half with strong growth controls, half with none, showed no difference in average housing prices. Some of the cities with strong growth controls had the most affordable housing, because they had active low-cost housing programs. Fodor says the important factor in housing affordability is not so much house cost as income level, so development that provides mainly low-paying retail jobs makes housing unaffordable.

Myth 5: Environmental protection hurts the economy. According to a Bank of America study the economies of states with high environmental standards grew consistently faster than those with weak regulations. The Institute of Southern Studies ranked all states according to 20 indicators of economic prosperity (gold) and environmental health (green) and found that they rise and fall together. Vermont ranked 3rd on the gold scale and first on the green, while Louisiana ranked 50th on both.

Myth 6: Growth is inevitable. There are constitutional limits to the ability of any community to put walls around itself. But dozens of municipalities have capped their population size or rate of growth by legal regulations based on real environmental limits and the real costs of growth to the community.

Myth 7: If you don't like growth, you're a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) or an ANTI (against everything) or a gangplank-puller (right after you get aboard). These accusations are meant more to shut people up than to examine their real motives. Says Fodor, "A NIMBY is more likely to be someone who cares enough about the future of his or her community to get out and protect it."

Myth 8: Most people don't support environmental protection. Polls and surveys have disproved this belief for decades; Fodor cites examples from Oregon, Los Angeles, Colorado, and the U.S. as a whole. The fraction of respondents who say environmental quality is more important than further economic growth almost always tops 70 percent.

Myth 9: We have to grow or die. This statement is tossed around lightly and often, but if you hold it still and look at it, you wonder what it means. Fodor points out, quoting several economic studies, that many kinds of growth cost more than the benefits they bring. So the more growth, the poorer we get. That kind of growth will kill us.

Myth 10: Vacant land is just going to waste. Studies from all over show that open land pays far more -- often twice as much -- in property taxes than it costs in services. Cows don't put their kids in school; trees don't put potholes in the roads. Open land absorbs floods, recharges aquifers, cleans the air, harbors wildlife, and measurably increases the value of property nearby. We should pay it for to be there.

Myth 11: Beauty is no basis for policy. One of the saddest things about municipal meetings is their tendency to trivialize people who complain that a proposed development will be ugly. Dollars are not necessarily more real or important than beauty. In fact beauty can translate directly into dollars. For starters, undeveloped surroundings can add $100,000 to the price of a home.

Myth 12: Environmentalists are just another special interest. A developer who will directly profit from a project is a special interest. A citizen with no financial stake is fighting for the public interest, the long term, the good of the whole community.

Maybe one reason these myths are proclaimed so often and loudly is that they are so obviously doubtful. The only reason to keep repeating something over and over is to keep others from thinking about it. You don't have to keep telling people that the sun rises in the east.

There are reasons why some of us want others of us to believe the myths of urban growth.

Donella H. Meadows is director of the Sustainability Institute and an adjunct professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College.

[Editor's Note:  I'll add another myth:  Suburbs are wasteful and unsustainable.  Many suburban homes, especially in Marin, maintain organic gardens, harvest rainwater, have low-water plantings and come with their very own greenscape  buffer to recapture carbon for the atmosphere.  The illusion that Smart Growth developers, planners and politicians want you to believe is that stacking people together is better for the environment.  This is actually opposite of the truth.  High density housing creates high density urban problems, and pollution.]

Steve Kinsey on Growing Marin's Economy

Who would have guessed that 

Steve Kinsey 

is an expert on 

Economic Growth and Jobs?

A future for all of us in Marinwood-Lucas Valley

Marinwood-Lucas Valley has one of the worst walk-bike scores of any neighborhood in Marin.  We live close to nature but it is also one of it's drawbacks, too.  Every time we need to go shopping, we need to get into a car.  Although Marinwood Market has helped keep shopping local, once its rent concessions evaporate, it's future is anything but secure. It is under no obligation to stay and lose money.

The Marinwood Village project threatens the success of Marinwood Market by reducing the available parking and visibility behind a 14 foot sound wall.  The occupants of the 85 units of affordable housing that will require at least 170 of the parking spaces. Other commercial tenants will also need their share of parking.  That leaves precious few parking spaces for Marinwood Market's customers. 

No wonder why Marinwood Plaza failed to lease out.   The dated structure sits atop of a toxic waste spill at the Prosperity cleaner site.   Suburban shopping trends have change too.  When the center was built more mothers stayed at home and shopped locally.  Now with a mobile workforce, both adults working, retail shopping trends have changed.  Easy access, visibility and abundant parking are essential for today's retail success.   It is more common to see a Marinwood neighbor in the easy access of the Hamilton Safeway than at the dated Terra Linda Safeway.

The center is poorly configured for a big box grocery store.  It is ideally configured and located for a market with a regional appeal.  A gourmet vendor like Marinwood Market or another Farm to Table specialty market along the lines of (www.oxbowmarket.com) can reap big profits from the location.  It is within minutes of all of Marin and it is the "gateway to West Marin" tourism.  Over 8 million tourists travel up the 101 freeway to wine country. 

Why not have the Marinwood Market as the fresh, local, market of  Northern California?   It could feature fresh cheeses, organic meat, eggs, dairy, wines and other specialities. 

A successful regional business at Marinwood Plaza will insure it's longevity and service to the community. 

Companion businesses could be a bicycle shop,  fitness studio, restaurants, coffeeshop and wine bar.

Weekend cyclists can use it as a rest stop and ride out to west Marin or along the bike path.


A food market close to home is important for the whole community.

Each of us will become mobility impaired someday-either through age or infirmity.  If we cannot drive, we will be forced from our home.  Not only is a walk/bike friendly shopping center more environmentally friendly and healthy,  it is also more compassionate for the mobility impaired.

The toxic waste at the Prosperity Cleaners site can be responsibly cleaned up with proper oversight and effort.  We need to address it. It is not "mitigated" yet as some have claimed.  Once this is done we can build our community anew. The tax revenue can be used to pay for the tax funding gap from non-profit affordable housing elsewhere in the community.

The future is ours.  What do you want it to be? Speak out before it is too late!

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

All over China, massive cities are being developed without current market demand. They are speculating on future economic growth,  much like the One Bay Area Plan speculating the growth of the Bay Area market demand.

 The above video is a clip about China's ghost cities.   There are massive developments all over China which are being fueled by central government controlled "planners" who are ignoring fundamental laws of supply and demand.  The supply of housing is being created far in advance of actual demand and is unaffordable by the ordinary Chinese worker.   Because of the industrial economic growth,  Chinese are awash in capital.  Government central planners mandate real estate development so that they can claim growth for the country's GDP 

Like China,  the One Bay Area Plan is pure government speculation.  Big Box apartment developments over small shops near public transit are not in demand.  The only way these developments can guarantee occupancy is with government subsidized apartments.   Unfortunately, the only way they can be supported is with massive taxpayer support. 

Both the One Bay Area Plan and China's Ghost Cities are examples of central government trying to speculate on the future instead of allowing the laws of supply and demand determine growth. 

With history of sensitive land use policies and private investment,  Marin has become the very definition of a livable suburb that Smart Growth planners strive for.  How ironic that they now want to raze our Marin suburbs to build their "new and improved" Smart Growth cities of tomorrow.

A positive view of development at Marinwood Plaza.

Oxbow Public Market in Napa, CA could be a model for a "Farm to Table Market" at Marinwood Plaza.

Marinwood Plaza does not have to be a "down in the heels" strip mall hidden by trees and broken glass.  It also doesn't have to be a high density low income development that pays little taxes, burdens our schools, police and fire services.  

The location is Marinwood-Lucas valley's ONLY COMMERCIALLY VIABLE site for a successful retail market to serve the vital needs of our community.  It is located along the 101 freeway with easy access.  It is minutes by car from anywhere in Marin AND is on the main tourist artery to Sonoma and Napa County popular tourist spots.  Lucas Valley road is the best way to reach West Marin cheese road, Point Reyes, farms and wineries.  A market promoting local produce will stimulate West Marin and local tourism and serve all of Marin every day of the week..

With improvements to parking and freeway visability, Marinwood Plaza could come back to life as successful retail center bringing us quality food, jobs and a place to meet our neighbors.  Marinwood Market could serve as an anchor tenant other tenants may include wineries, local cheese makers, wineries, restaurants.  Associated  retail could include a regional bicycle shop, tourist information, cooking supply, etc. 

Here is how they describe the Oxbow Public Market in Napa:

Showcasing an impressive mix of aesthetics, functional layout, natural lighting and ventilation is the Oxbow Public Market - a locally-owned specialty food and wine store located in the heart of downtown Napa, California. In addition to offering many fine wines and cuisine, the market also hosts events featuring music and dancing.

See more at : Oxbow Public Market


We can have the community we want.  We can save our Marinwood-Lucas Valley future. Help us bring our community to life by endorsing positive retail development at Marinwood Plaza.

2000- 8500 Jobs in Lucas Valley according to Local Affordable Housing Advocates



The Driving Home Economic Recovery report will give us all a bad hair day.

Those darn housing advocates! They created the report Driving Home Economic Recovery
to claim 60% of all workers are forced to commute from other counties to work in Marin.  They massage statistics to create the illusion of "housing crisis" for thousands and it is our responsibility to build them for our workers.

No where do they ever cite how many citizens of Marin work in other counties. It might be embarassing. Over 80% of our citizens travel to other counties for work. Should San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo Counties build housing for OUR commuters?

Why do people who work in Marin live elsewhere?  Probably for the same reasons we live in Marin.  They may want to be close to their family and friends, a home with a backyard, better values elsewhere or other personal reasons.

If it wasn't worth the commute, why would workers want to work in Marin?

For a real laugh, look at the jobs map on page 4 of Driving Home Economic Recovery.  It claims that there are 400-1700 jobs per mile in Marinwood-Lucas Valley.  That means that they are estimating 2000-8500 jobs  for our 5 square miles!  We only have 6000 residents in 2500 homes.

Unless their is a secret underground factory hidden in Big Rock , these housing advocates are lying with statistics to get funding  and political support for low income housing.

Of course we know better. We know that we are a bedroom community and have few jobs.  The housing advocates are selling the lies to the Board of Supervisors and ABAG to  justify the ridiculous housing allocation for Marinwood-Lucas Valley. The Board of Supervisors converted all land east of  Las Gallinas to 101 as Marinwood Priority Development Area for urban style development. Our population is expected to grow by at least 25%.  They have put 83% of all low income housing for all of unincorporated Marin in our backyards.

They hope you won't find out. They hope you won't complain or speak out. They hope to dazzle us with slick pictures, promises of gardens and fountains.  

They won't tell us that our new low income neighbors will be heavily subsidized by us.  We will have to build more schools, fire stations, hire more teachers, police and fire, have more pollution, crime, traffic and other urban problems. 

This is it.  This is your time to protect your home and community.  Get involved. Fight the lies. Stand up for our future.

Choosing the Future WE want May 9, 2013

Forum produced by leading advocates for the Urbanization of Marin of May 9, 2013

 

Many people want information about Plan Bay Area and the May 9 meeting at Dominican... so here it is, on YouTube. Here are some spots you may find interesting from the panelists when they are answering written Q and A from the audience: remember they are not scripted during Q and A, so you will find some interesting comments from them...


The Q and A written comments and panel answers begin at : 1:02:14

Here is what I found interesting in the written Q and A and panel answers:

At 1:11:00: There is no water for the plan; not enough water for projected growth- a major flaw in the plan ( Marge Macris : Co-Chair Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative)

At 1:12:06 : The question about Housing/PDAs/ School Funding is addressed by Fair Housing Analyst ( $1200/day consultant to the Marin Community Development Agency) Chantel Walker: Chantel states: "in many school districts... revenue from property taxes exceed what state contributions would be.... she then goes on to say, "there are significant reserves and no scarcity of public education." She also mentions the state and philanthropy make up much of the needed funds for public schools.
At 1:32:06: Michele Rodriguez, when commenting on the problematic public transportation issue, also comments on the reality of low income housing and how many families frequently live in one 2 bedroom unit: "...In the Canal, a $1600/month 2 bedroom apartment frequently has 3 full families living in it: one in each bedroom and one in the living room... so multiple children."

Also: Be sure to watch the public speeches at the microphone starting at 1:32:06 . They are very good...



Plan Bay Area's Wild Population, Housing and Economic Growth Projections!

Outrage at the One Bay Area Plan meeting in Walnut Creek on 4/24/2013

People across the Bay Area and every political philosophy are outraged at the huge power grab of local communities and property rights. 

This Monday,  please come to the One Bay Area meeting  on Monday, April 29th from 6- 9 pm.  Details in article "Important meetings"

In California don't Bash the 'Burbs

The suburbs ARE green and offer us a quality of life not afforded in bus stop apartments

by Joel Kotkin

see article at Don't Bash the 'Burbs

For the past century, California, particularly Southern California, nurtured and invented the suburban dream. The sun-drenched single-family house, often with a pool, on a tree-lined street was an image lovingly projected by television and the movies. Places like the San Fernando Valley – actual home to the "Brady Bunch" and scores of other TV family sitcoms – became, in author Kevin Roderick's phrase, "America's suburb."

This dream, even a modernized, multicultural version of it, now is passé to California's governing class. Even in his first administration, 1975-83, Gov. Jerry Brown disdained suburbs, promoting a city-first, pro-density policy. His feelings hardened during eight years (1999-2007) as mayor of Oakland, a city that, since he left, has fallen on hard times, although it has been treated with some love recently in the blue media.

As state attorney general (2007-11) Brown took advantage of the state's 2006 climate change legislation to move against suburban growth everywhere from Pleasanton to San Bernardino. Now back as governor, he can give full rein to his determination to limit access to the old California dream, curbing suburbia and forcing more of us and, even more so our successors, into small apartments nearby bus and rail stops. His successor as attorney general, former San Francisco D.A. Kamala Harris, is, if anything, more theologically committed to curbing suburban growth.

Sadly, much of the state's development "community" has enlisted itself into the densification jihad. An influential recent report from the Urban Land Institute, for example, sees a "new California dream," which predicts huge growth in high-density development based on underlying demographic trends – like shifts in housing tastes among millennials or empty-nesters rushing to downtown condos.

Yet it's not enough for the planners, and their developer allies, to watch the market shift and take advantage of it. That would be both logical and justified. But the planning clerisy are not content to leave suburbia die; it must, instead, be cauterized and prevented, like some plague, from spreading.

Ironically, it turns out that the "new California dream" is more widely shared by planners and rent-seeking developers than by the consuming public. During the past decade, when pro-density sentiment has supposedly building, some 80 percent of the new construction in the state was single-family, a rate slightly above the national average. Over time, Californians continue to buy single-family houses, mostly in the suburban and exurban periphery. They do it because they are like most Americans, roughly four of five of whom prefer single-family houses, preferably closer to work but, if that proves unaffordable, further out.

This includes both working-class and upper middle-class markets. The more-affluent, including many largely Asian immigrants, have been willing to buy high-priced homes closer to employment centers in places like Irvine or Cupertino, near San Jose. Meanwhile, the less-affluent of all ethnicities continue to move further out, to places like the Inland Empire or the further reaches of the Bay Area. These peripheral areas have continued to represent the vast majority of growth in both greater Los Angeles and around the Bay Area.

Meanwhile, some of the urban-centric residential construction now being put up will, as occurred in the housing bust, may be fashionable but, in some cases, not so profitable over time. Construction is being driven mostly by tax breaks, Uncle Ben's essentially ultralow-interest money for wealthy investors and, in some cases, subsidies. Overall, the Wall Street Journal notes, the rental market is beginning to "lose steam," as people again start looking into buying homes. This may suggest that new speculative building in places like downtown Los Angeles – where there's good evidence that rents and occupancy levels are, if anything, getting weaker – may end up in tears.

To date, the anti-suburb jihad has been somewhat constrained by the recession and the collapse of the housing bubble about five years ago. But now that there's an incipient housing recovery in parts of the state, including Orange County, the constraints could be problematical, particularly for younger buyers about to start a family or for people migrating into the state.

The impact may be felt first in Silicon Valley and its environs. The planners now dominating the Bay Area want only highly dense bus-stop- or train-oriented development in the valley. Yet, notes real estate consultant John Burns, this does not reflect market realities marked by what they describe "as a resilient and ongoing preference for single-family homes."

Even more fanciful, they are promoting high density in areas, far distant from current employment centers, in dreary locales like Newark, south of Oakland, claiming workers there will take public transit to jobs in the Valley. The belief among planners and some gullible developers that aging millennials will choose to live in high density, far from costly San Francisco or Palo Alto, and commute to work by transit is somewhat north of absurd; today, a bare 3 percent of workers in Silicon Valley get to work by car, and downtown San Jose, the logical terminus of any transit strategy, is home to barely 26,000 of the region's 860,000 workers.

Some tech workers may put up with a few years of high rents and shared apartments in San Francisco or Palo Alto, but not many will want to live in expensive towers far from both Silicon Valley's primary employers and the amenities of the big city. Apple's plans for a new headquarters in Cupertino has drawn criticism from green-minded urbanists precisely because they rest on the sensible presumption that Apple's workforce will remain largely suburban and car-oriented. One can also wonder the effect on the start-up culture when workers have been forced to live in places lacking the proverbial garage or extra bedroom that historically have nurtured new firms.

More important still, forced densification, by denying single-family alternatives, is likely, and in some places, already is, spiking prices, which are up $85,000 in Silicon Valley in a year. This, over time, will force millennials, as they age, to look for other locales to meet their longtime aspirations. Generational chroniclers Morley Winograd and Mike Hais, in their surveys, have found more than twice as many millennials prefer suburbs over dense cities as their "ideal place to live." The vast majority of 18-to-34-year-olds do not want to spend their lives as apartment renters; a study by TD Bank found that 84 percent of them hope to own a home.

Much the same can be said of Asian immigrants, who are now driving much of the new-home sales, particularly in desirable places like Orange County or Silicon Valley. Nationwide, over the past decade, the Asian population in suburbs grew by almost 2.8 million, or 53 percent, while the Asian population of core cities grew 770,000, 28 percent. In greater Los Angeles, there are now three times as many Asian suburbanites as their inner-city counterparts.

If California is not willing to meet the needs of its own emerging middle class, there's no doubt that other states, from Arizona and Texas to Tennessee – although not as fundamentally alluring – will be, and are already, more than happy to oblige.

Rather than seeking to destroy our suburbs, California leaders should expend their energy figuring out how to make them better. Rather than some retro-1900s urbanist vision, they need to embrace the multipolarity of our urban agglomerations. They could look to preserve open space nearby, when possible, or cultivate natural areas, parks, walking and biking trails that would appeal to families as well as to singles.

Instead of attempting to force employment into the center city, it would make more sense to expand home-based and dispersed work in order to cut down or eliminate commuting times. These moves would create both healthier suburbs and reduce carbon emissions without devastating the natural aspirations of most California families.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and a member of the editorial board of the Orange County Register. He is author of The City: A Global History and The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. His most recent study, The Rise of Postfamilialism, has been widely discussed and distributed internationally. He lives in Los Angeles, CA.

This piece originally appeared in the Orange County Register.

Lesson for SMART planners- The $1.5 Billion Milwaukie Light Rail Alternative-

Portland's failures should be Marin's lessons 

LEARN: And the Big Winner is Option #5!

ABAG is having a jolly good time assigning Housing Quotas to Marinwood/Lucas Valley with Option #5

Editor's Note: The One Bay Area Plan is a comprehensive attempt to increase affordable housing throughout the Bay Area Region. In July 2012, they decided that they would emphasize the growth of affordable housing over jobs and transportation needs.  Affordable housing pays little taxes and is a huge tax burden to the communities to subsidize their new neighbors.  Marinwood/Lucas valley has few jobs and mass transit, yet the Housing element calls for increasing our population by at least 25%. 

We must stop this government folly now...   Join us on Mondays 6:30-8:30 pm for discussions to save our community

 

from ABAG website: ABAG preferred Scenarios

Plan Bay Area Moves Forward with Vote on Five Alternative Strategies for Environmental Impact Report

July 20, 2012

At a joint meeting of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Executive Board, officials voted on Thursday, July 19 to approve five alternative transportation and land use strategies to be considered as part of the environmental review process for the region’s long-range transportation and land use plan.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires MTC and ABAG to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the long-range plan, known as Plan Bay Area. The report must identify the plan’s significant environmental impacts and ways to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. The agencies also are required to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the Plan. The five alternatives approved for analysis are:

1. The No Project alternative – This alternative begins with the 2010 land use pattern and transportation network and assumes the continuation of currently-adopted general plans through 2040. CEQA requires examination of a no project alternative.
2. The “Preferred Land Use and Transportation Investment Strategy” alternative – The preferred alternative assumes a land use development pattern in which 80 percent of the Bay Area’s household growth and 66 percent of its job growth are located in “Priority Development Areas” identified by local jurisdictions. It pairs this land development pattern with the Plan Bay Area Preferred Transportation Investment Strategy, which dedicates nearly 90 percent of future revenues to maintaining our existing road and transit system.
3. The Transit Priority Focus alternative – This alternative will evaluate the potential for more efficient land uses in Transit Priority Project areas, which are areas called out in Senate Bill 375 that could be developed at higher densities to support high quality transit.
4. The Enhanced Network of Communities alternative – This alternative was informed by input from the business community. It seeks to provide sufficient housing for all people employed in the San Francisco Bay Area and allows for more dispersed growth patterns.
5. The Environment, Equity and Jobs alternative – This alternative was developed by input from the equity and environmental community. It seeks to maximize affordable housing in opportunity areas in both urban and suburban areas through incentives and housing subsidies. The suburban growth is supported by increased transit service to historically disadvantaged communities through studying a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax and higher bridge tolls.

The next steps in the process are as follows:

• July - December, 2012 – The agencies will prepare the Draft EIR.
• December 14, 2012 – The agencies are scheduled to release the Draft EIR and Draft Plan Bay Area for 45- and 55-day public review periods by the Joint MTC Planning and ABAG Administrative committees.
• January 2013 – The agencies will hold public hearings on the Draft Plan and Draft EIR.
• February - March 2013 – The agencies will prepare a Final EIR (including Response to Comments).
• April 2013 – MTC and the ABAG Executive Board are scheduled to certify the Final EIR and adopt the Final Plan Bay Area.

Supervisors on LV Scenic Road " Build First, then We'll Save It"

On February 5, 2013.  the Board of Supervisors were presented with an opportunity to preserve Lucas Valley Road as a Scenic Highway for the benefit of the community, tourists and future generations. 

It would have no immediate impact on the development potential of affordable housing, yet the supervisors were sufficiently spooked to dismiss the effort outright.

Many community residents spoke up in support of the project  and had signatures from a petition from community members.  Despite the passionate love of the land, expressed by supporters, the supervisors unanimously opposed the simple designation.

It is clear, that all of the supervisors want to concentrate affordable housing throughout the valley.  In addition to the five massive affordable housing developments now identified, it is expected that they will also down zone our single family homes to allow multifamily homes for their "Transit Village" utopian ideal of Smart Growth. (We call it Disneylandia)

This Board of Supervisor is turning it's back on the values of preservation of Nature that make Marinwood-Lucas Valley such a wonderful place.  We believe that they are concentrating development here, to preserve the leafy neighborhood in their own backyards.  It is NIMBY by the political elite against the politically weak.

Lucas Valley has timeless beauty

It is your Community and your Future.  Speak up and be heard.

Please sign the Lucas Valley Road Scenic Highway Petition

We have a wonderful opportunity to preserve Lucas Valley Road as a California Scenic Highway.  It will protect our vistas and open space and protect the land.  On February 5th, the Board of Supervisors will hear the proposal. Please come voice your support.

Please sign the petition here: Lucas Valley Scenic Road Petition