Showing posts with label HCD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HCD. Show all posts

Friday, August 23, 2019

Housing Crisis? Not so fast…


Housing Crisis? Not so fast…

Posted on August 16, 2019


Here in California we are bombarded with news about our “housing crisis.” State politicians have used the housing crisis as justification for removing local control of zoning and handing carrots to developers. We are told that the Bay Area is the “epicenter” of the housing crisis.

Politicians and pundits who use this overblown language should review some of the reports available from state agencies and business sources. Those reports paint a far more nuanced picture.

The reports show:

1) San Francisco is not the epicenter of the affordable housing shortage. The opposite is true.

2) The state does not have a housing crisis. It does have a severe shortage of affordable housing for our lowest-income residents. This is due a combination of a physical housing shortage and simple poverty. There is not a shortage of market-rate housing.

3) 2018 population estimates show that population growth has slowed dramatically statewide, but the decline varies from county to county. Factors including fires, expensive housing, and the search at the urban boundaries for cheaper housing. Housing projections need to take these new figures into account.

4) Hundreds of thousands housing units have been proposed in California—more than enough to meet growth in housing demand statewide since 2010. While some projects are working their way through local government approval processes, most of them have been approved. For most of these projects, the construction phase is the bottleneck, not local government.

5) Growth is not an act of God. The jobs/housing ratio in the Bay Area is out of balance. The trend toward the “Manhattanization” of San Francisco has been fought sporadically for decades, and is now back on the agenda. There needs to be a serious, competent, open and democratic planning process for growth, both at the regional and state level.

This analysis is based on the following four widely available reports. However, the data has been combined to tease out some conclusions that are not well understood:

1) HCD report: California’s Housing Future: Challenges and Opportunities, Final Statewide Housing Assessment 2025. California Department of Housing and Community Development.

2) LAO report: The 2019-20 Budget: Considerations for the Governor’s Housing Plan. Legislative Analyst’s Office.

3) DOF report: E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark. State of California Department of Finance, Demographics Research Unit.

4) CIRB report: New Development in California 2018. California Homebuilding Foundation, Construction Industry Research Board.



San Francisco is not the epicenter of the housing crisis

Under the standard definition, any household that spends more than 30 percent of its gross income on rent is considered rent-burdened. The chart below displays the percentage of low-income households that are rent-burdened in California. The chart is taken from the LAO report, but the graph has been truncated to save space. The original chart on page 7 of the report lists several more highly cost-burdened California counties.

Source: LAO report, p. 7.

Note that the least burdened county is San Francisco (which is both a city and a county). Low-income San Francisco residents on average have a rent burden that is lower than any other California county, and lower than the rest of the United States. This is probably due to a combination of low-income residents hunkered down in rent-controlled apartments, while highly paid techies are paying market rates.

Sunday, January 27, 2019

FABLES: King Canute on the Seashore




by: James Baldwin, The Book of Virtues

Long ago, England was ruled by a king named Canute. Like many leaders and men of power, Canute was surrounded by people who were always praising him. 


Every time he walked into a room, the flattery began. "You are the greatest man that ever lived," one would say. "O king, there can never be another as mighty as you," another would insist. "Your highness, there is nothing you cannot do," someone would smile. "Great Canute, you are the monarch of all," another would sing. "Nothing in this world dares to disobey you." 

The king was a man of sense, and he grew tired of hearing such foolish speeches. One day he was walking by the seashore, and his officers and courtiers were with him, praising him as usual. Canute decided to teach them a lesson. 

"So you say I am the greatest man in the world?" he asked them. "O king," they cried, "there never has been anyone as mighty as you, and there never be anyone so great, ever again!" "And you say all things obey me?" Canute asked. "Absolutely!" they said. "The world bows before you, and gives you honor." "I see," the king answered. "In that case, bring me my chair, and we will go down to the water." "At once, your majesty!" They scrambled to carry his royal chair over the sands. 

"Bring it closer to the sea," Canute called. "Put it right here, right at the water's edge." He sat down and surveyed the ocean before him. "I notice the tide is coming in. Do you think it will stop if I give the command?" 

His officers were puzzled, but they did not dare say no. "Give the order, O great king, and it will obey," one of then assured him. "Very well. Sea," cried Canute, "I command you to come no further! Waves, stop your rolling!. Surf, stop your pounding! Do not dare touch my feet!" He waited a moment, quietly, and a tiny wave rushed up the sand and lapped at his feet. "How dare you!" Canute shouted. "Ocean, turn back now! I have ordered you to retreat before me, and now you must obey! Go back!" 

And in answer another wave swept forward and curled around the king's feet. The tide came in, just as it always did. The water rose higher and higher. It came up around the king's chair, and wet not only his feet, but also his robe. His officers stood before him, alarmed, and wondering whether he was not mad. 

"Well, my friends," Canute said, "it seems I do not have quite so much power as you would have me believe. Perhaps you have learned something today. Perhaps now you will remember there is only one King who is all-powerful, and it is he who rules the sea, and holds the ocean in the hollow of his hand. I suggest you reserve your praises for him." The royal officers and courtiers hung their heads and looked foolish. And some say Canute took off his crown soon afterward, and never wore it again.

Friday, January 11, 2019

The Suburbs: Planners, Smart Growth and the Manhattan Illusion


Excellent 6 minute video critique of Smart Growth in Southern California
 "If you really believe that suburbs are going to die, then let them die, and let the market address the situation" says Joel Kotkin, Chapman University professor and urban planning specialist.

But letting the market work is far from ideal for California's regional planners and local politicians, who want almost 70 percent of new housing over the next 25 years to be multi-unit apartment-style dwelliings, despite the facts that more than half of Southern California households reside in a single-family home and that more people are leaving California than are coming in.

"In a great nation like ours, you can't let people do what they want. It has to be coordinated," says Hasan Ikhrata, the executive director of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Ikhrata's group, which directs planning for the Southern California region via subsidies and contracting with big developers, foresees a future in which Southern California is dense, full of high-rise buildings, and connected by rail, much like New York City.

The problem is, LA isn't New York. No city but New York is New York, and attempts to force high-density, New York-style development onto areas that don't need it can result in terrible unintended consequences.

"Many people see a light rail and think the San Francisco trolley line," says Damien Goodmon, spokesman for the Crenshaw Subway Coalition. He lives in LA's historical black neighborhood Leimert Park and has seen the effects bad planning can have on established communities.

"You can have transit riders and still destroy a community," says Goodmon.

And the ultimate irony of the unending push for high-density planning in sprawling Southern California is that while, yes, Manhattan is denser than LA, if you zoom out a bit, LA-Long Beach-Anaheim is already the densest urban region in the United States. That happened without any sustained, conscious high-density housing development or state-of-the-art rail transit.

"One of the things that happens when you force this kind of high-density development is you destroy the very urban neighborhoods that retain the middle class," says Kotkin. "The neighborhoods have to fight this kind of guerilla-style."
Marin is greenwashing urban growth.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Was James Madison talking about the One Bay Area Plan?


James Madison
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement
of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent
encroachments of those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations."

— James Madison,
address to the
Virginia Convention, June 16, 1788.
Come to the Plan Bay Area meeting from 6-9 PM at the Marin Civic Center Veterans Auditorium and Exhibit Hall on Monday, April 29th.

Friday, November 10, 2017

Cooped up People and Free Range Chicken?-High Density Zoning in Marinwood Priority Development Area


Feel that your freedom to live peacefully among nature in Marinwood-Lucas Valley is being threatened?




Wait until our new low income neighbors get here.  Our population will increase by 25%.


Housing density will increase dramatically,  yet we will not have any more the essential services, water and land to support this growth...  It's all about "Big Box" apartments. More people per square acre makes more money for developers.  Some environmentalists think it is greener but the opposite is true.  More people in smaller places concentrates pollution and increases social problems.
Children need a place to play. People need clean air to breath. 


Just ask any Free Range Chicken.




The Principles of Responsible Chicken Raising

Chickens must be given ample room.

Plenty of sunlight. 

Clean living area.

No debeaking or other unnecessary trauma.

Must have the ability to scratch around in the dirt, spread their wings, and otherwise express their chickenness.


Should the Children in affordable housing receive less consideration than free range chicken?

Sunday, August 27, 2017

California declares War on Suburbia

California declares war on suburbia and the citizens fight back.

California Declares War on Suburbia


Planners want to herd millions into densely packed urban corridors. It won't save the planet but will make traffic even worse.

by Wendell Cox


It's no secret that California's regulatory and tax climate is driving business investment to other states. California's high cost of living also is driving people away. Since 2000 more than 1.6 million people have fled, and my own research as well as that of others points to high housing prices as the principal factor.

The exodus is likely to accelerate. California has declared war on the most popular housing choice, the single family, detached home—all in the name of saving the planet.

Metropolitan area governments are adopting plans that would require most new housing to be built at 20 or more to the acre, which is at least five times the traditional quarter acre per house. State and regional planners also seek to radically restructure urban areas, forcing much of the new hyperdensity development into narrowly confined corridors

For the full article in the Wall Street Journal : California declares War on the Suburbs


Find out more about what the 2012 Housing Element for Unincorporated Marin will mean for Marinwood-Lucas Valley. Talk with your neighbor.  Get active.

Sunday, January 8, 2017

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.


Friday, October 7, 2016

The Housing Element Law is a Scam (strong language)

Council person from Corte Madera, CA makes terse remarks on the Housing Element Law which burdens small communities with enormous costs of compliance and diverts needed resources from more pressing local needs.  The unrealistic housing growth demands placed on communities from California Housing Community Development agency in California  plus ABAG's "Plan Bay Area" exceed the RESOURCES available to small communities to provide supporting infrastructure.

"The Housing Element Law is a SCAM!"

At last politicians are not afraid to tell it like it is.  Community all across California are rebelling to the housing element law.

Most people in the community that growth can be achieved provided it is rational and acknowleges resource limitations.

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Did Marinwood-Lucas Valley lose a Con Game?

TAM's review of the latest scenario for the Plan Bay Area Sustainable Communities Scenario leads some to wonder whether it's math or a con.

 

Is ABAG Playing a Shell Game with Housing Numbers?



"This is not a shell game," declared Tiburon's Alice Fredericks, chairwoman of the Transportation Authority of Marin's Executive Committee during Monday's meeting. The committee was examining the Association of Bay Area Governments' Draft Preferred "Jobs-Housing Connection Scenario," and Fredericks was responding to a statement from an attendee that ABAG was playing a shell game with its allocation of required new housing development for Marin County by 2040.

A number of attendees said they were perplexed and appropriately skeptical, about the latest ABAG allocations, particularly because of the significant shift in the numbers from past iterations to the Preferred Scenario, which was released on March 9. For Mill Valley, that shift was represented by 740 housing units in the Preferred Scenario, a jump of 240 units from the previous iteration.

The committee members voted to send a letter to ABAG Director Ezra Rappaport expressing its dismay over the ABAG's projection of 17 percent job growth for Marin County in the next 30 years.
The letter reads in part: "Marin County lacks the type of developable land associated with traditional business growth, and has limited availability of water resources. It is unlikely that Marin can match the robust job growth of the 1980s."

ABAG originally released its 30-year projection that Marin County would see 19,000 more jobs by 2040, which would require 11,000 new homes. Some leaders choked on the numbers their towns and cities were being asked to bear. Novato complained loudly and Corte Madera announced it would leave ABAG.

The squeaky wheel got the grease — Corte Madera and Novato saw their numbers cut, but their neighbors could be forced to take on a heavier load as a result. [Marinwood-Lucas Valley had housing allocations increase weeks later.]

Fredericks suggested that if other communities have problems with the distribution of numbers, they might have to fight ABAG on their own.

City of Mill Valley officials are trying to come up with a plan to deal with this predicament, hoping to convene a joint session of the City Council and Planning Commission to decide how to respond to the latest numbers.

While Mill Valley saw its housing allocations spike in the Preferred Scenario, those of Corte Madera and Novato shrunk, apparently the result of successful local lobbying efforts with ABAG officials. The discussion is exacerbated in Mill Valley as local developer Phil Richardson has proposed building a 20-unit residential complex on East Blithedale Avenue near Camino Alto.

Some attendees of the TAM meeting wondered aloud if there was really any room for that many new housing units and that many more people in Marin.

TAM's explanation was that "ABAG is a region and the region has a pot that they stir around." Because Corte Madera's predicted increase in the number of housing units and households was decreased, the leftovers went back into the regional pot, were stirred around and landed on someone else's plate.

The explanation did not seem to entirely satisfy anyone, not even Corte Madera Vice-Mayor Diane Furst.

"It looks like there was a shifting of numbers," Furst said.

Be careful what you wish for, Furst was told in a lighthearted warning. You never know how the numbers will add up.

For more..
Is ABAG playing a shell game?

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Ten easy ways to save Marinwood-Lucas Valley in your spare time. Sign the PETITION before May 13th!

Getting the word out to your neighbors can be fun. 

 

Here are ten simple ways to Save Marinwood-Lucas Valley from reckless overdevelopment.


1.) Talk to your neighbors.  Become informed with the latest happenings in our neighborhood by following the 2012 Housing Element for Unincorporated Marin, http://www.marin.ca.gov/depts/CD/main/housing/docs/2012_Draft_Marin_County_Housing_Element.pdf
local news,  and this blog www.savemarinwood.org .  Person to person contact is by far the most effective way to communicate. Try to speak to one new person a day.

2.) Offer to speak at your next community event about the changes.  You don't have to be an expert.  Just relate what you know and advise others to learn about the pros and cons of growth in our community.

3.) Pass out flyers to your neighbors.  It doesn't have to be alot.  Ask everyone you meet to get involved. A few hours a week can make a difference.  Posters will be on this blog or you can make your own.

4.) Attend public meetings.  Don't be afraid to ask questions.  Ask officials to explain their plans in language you can understand.  If assumptions or data doesn't seem right, ask them for their source of  their data..  Be prepared to speak or write a letter to challenge unwise land use decisions.

5.) Attend workshops to become a better educated voter. Learn about the core beliefs,  economic and political realities driving this push to urbanize Marin. 

6.) Participate in social action.  While it is true that a relatively small group of people are driving the development, hundreds if not thousands more, will object to the trampling of our property rights, community values and democracy.  Social action informs the politicians and the media of our  determination to become a true "citizen powered democracy" responsive to local communities.  Your presence at these actions is a testament to others.

7.) Write to local media, politicians and friends.  Post a blog. Email friends and community lists. Start a conversation.   It is important to speak out.  There are more of us than they think.  Show them by your words.  You don't have to be a great writer.  Just write as you naturally speak.  Your passion will be clear.

8.) Post a sign on your lawn.  Let others know where you stand on the issue of growth in Marinwood Lucas Valley. 

9.) Post flyers where you work, eat and shop .

10.) Be determined.  The powerful politicians and crony "non profit" developers are working double time to build in Marinwood Lucas Valley while we sleep.  It will not be an easy task but like many grassroots efforts before us,  we can prevail.  We are the power. They are the politicians and the few developers.  Democracy was made for the people.

VIDEO : "Won't the massive developments affect Miller Creek Water Shed too?"

Get Microsoft Silverlight

At the May 13, 2013 Marin County Planning Commission meeting,  Lucas Valley Resident, Pamela McKnight comments the effect of development on the Miller Creek Watershed.  Specifically, she mentions the email sent by Kate Crecelius about the possible sale of the Idylberry School for housing and the effect it will have on run off.  In the staff report found at Planning meeting video, agenda and staff report,   you can view Commissionor Crecelius remarks.

We thank Pamela McKnight and other residents for speaking up for our community and demanding commonsense planning that respects the character of the community and its long standing community plan.

Miller Creek is a pristine watershed.

Saturday, May 16, 2015

California's Blue Utopia


  

The Progressive wing of the Democrat Party sits at the left end of their spectrum. JFK’s liberal positions would be regarded as moderate today. Progressives have a unique vision of what a blue state utopia would look like that begins with clean air, clean water, and green energy. Over the last twenty years, with the backing of the public employee unions that control the political process in California, the Progressives have managed to neuter the Republican Party and turn California Blue, owning every elective office in the state. They did not need much help according to Dan Walters, who stated, “Even the most anti-immigrant, anti-gay marriage, anti-tax, anti-abortion Republican activist must now recognize that with the party's wipeout in last month's elections, continuing down its recent path is a plunge into complete irrelevance”.

In 2012, the progressive Democrats captured a super majority in both houses so that with their Progressive governor, they no longer require a single Republican vote to pass any form of legislation, leaving conservatives an “irrelevant” minority. As an independent businessman, I have created many jobs and opportunities. But despite my contributions to society, and the taxes I have paid over the last thirty plus years, the Progressives believe I need to pay more so that I pay “my fair share.” Only when I pay my fair share can their blue vision of utopia be fulfilled.

What is my fair share? Under existing Federal and State income tax rates, I will pay 50% of my income in taxes. In California alone, my “fair share” on a million dollars of income is $133,000 each year. In exchange for my taxes, I receive little from the state. In addition, I pay gasoline taxes that pay for the upkeep of the highways. I pay airline taxes that maintain the airports I use. I pay among the highest in the nation sales tax on what I consume. I pay property taxes for the schools my grown children no longer use (they have already left California). I pay utility taxes for the upgrade of infrastructure. I pay higher health insurance rates. I already pay more than my own way.

I used to develop new homes in California and paid development fees, school fees, park fees, bridge & thoroughfare fees, endangered species fees, utility hook up fees, and processing fees to employ the city workers who reviewed my plans. Such fees totaled $40,000 to $75,000 for each new home built in California. I more than paid my own way. Such new homes are no longer feasible in California considering that home prices have fallen between 20-40% since 2008. And with the new regulations to be imposed in 2013 with the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, housing and energy will cost even more making new houses even less attractive than they are now.

A problem in Blue Utopia
The number 1 topic of conversation amongst the despised 1% in California today is when you are leaving California or whether you can leave. Property owners who cannot move their apartment building or office complexes can move their homes and change their residency. On a flight from Austin, Texas to Orange County last week, I sat next to the owner of a substantial manufacturing business whose plant is in the inland southern California community of Ontario. He lives in Austin, flies in on Monday and home on Thursday. He spends less than 180 days a year in California. His savings in state income taxes more than pays for his airfare, hotel and rental car expenses. His home and gas and energy all cost less in Texas. More significantly, he will not expand his plant in California and intends to move his plant and people to Texas over the next five years.

What do the progressives have to say about a successful businessman wanting to move out of the state? Some like Paul McCloskey who recently attempted to pass a ballot measure for a Wealth Tax imposed on those leaving the state, would like to follow the French. France imposed a 75% tax rate on anyone making more than one million Euros per year. France’s Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said about people leaving France for lower rates, “We cannot fight poverty if those with the most, and sometimes with a lot, do not show solidarity and a bit of generosity," McCloskey’s proposal would impose an additional 17.5% tax on those with incomes exceeding $150,000 ($250,000 joint) and 35% on incomes exceeding $350,000/year. He would use the extra income to purchase shares of California public companies to “influence their environmental policies and practices”. While his ballot measure did not succeed, it is sobering to think the Democrats do not need a single Republican vote to pass legislation such as this.

So many of the 1% are quietly leaving. The exodus has already begun. Spectrum Location Solutions reported that 254 companies left California in 2011. Despite claims of an upturn, a press release by the State Controller’s office last week revealed tax revenues from both personal income taxes and corporate taxes fell during the month of this November. Revenue from personal income dropped 19 percent below projections while corporate tax revenue was down a whopping 213.4 percent. Such declines will continue unabated for years to come as the California brain drain proceeds.

When a government becomes a one-party state, nothing can stop the utopians and zealots of either party. In California, there’s no brake on progressives imposing its vision of Blue Utopia on its people. California may have clean water, clean air and green energy but at the expense of its people, prosperity and fiscal health.

The problems in Blue Utopian society will be similar to the unintended consequence of protecting the Delta Smelt in the Central Valley. The Blues labeled this tiny fish, previously known as “bait,” as an endangered species. The Endangered Species Act was created to protect the American Bald Eagle but now extends protection for the Delta Smelt, forcing water to be diverted from the farms of the Central Valley to the Pacific Ocean. The Delta Stewardship Council shows the water cutoffs had no effect on the smelt population. But it did a devastating effect on another endangered species: the California family. When 300,000 acres went fallow, 37,000 jobs were lost. Unemployment has reached 40% in some areas of the Central Valley. Food lines have appeared in the world's most fertile agricultural valley. Farmworkers were forced to accept bags of carrots grown in China. Orchards that existed for decades died without water. The Central Valley now needs food stamps to feed its residents.

The Blues are excited to impose their vision of Utopia on California. I, for one, will not be here to see it. My home goes on the market next month. My company has already re-located to another state. My children have already moved away seeking a future more promising than anticipated here in California. It is ironic because that is why I left my parents in Cleveland, Ohio to come to California four decades ago. I will be sad to leave my home and friendships acquired over decades. But I realize our leaders will neither notice, and if they did, they would not care.
 
As the tax revenues continue to fall (as they always do when rates increase), the Blues will rail against the remaining 1%, claiming that if only “they” would pay their fair share, things would be perfect. They will raise rates, fees, costs, and penalties again on the business class, and will do so as long as they hold power.

But there is a problem in Blue Utopia. Short term, the state may be supported by the occasional Internet or Housing Bubble, but the money will finally run out. When it does, maybe they will ask us to come back to the Golden State. They will promise to lower rates and turn the water back on. But it is already too late for the dead orchards of the Central Valley. And it will soon be too late for all but a handful of entrepreneurs of California.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Robert J Cristiano PhD is the Real Estate Professional in Residence at Chapman University in Orange, CA, a Senior Fellow at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, CA and President of the international investment firm, L88 Companies LLC in Washington DC – Newport Beach – Denver - Prague. He has been a successful real estate developer in California for more than thirty years and now makes his home in Austin, Texas.

Friday, April 17, 2015

Marin Voice: More creativity needed to address local housing goals

Larkspur’s City Council recently approved a draft housing element for its citywide general plan.
The draft was approved by a vote of 4-1. I was the only council member who dissented, and I think it is important to explain the reasons why.
Like most, I support the goal of improving opportunities for affordable housing throughout Marin County. I worry that the lack of affordable options limits the ability of some — especially the growing number of seniors in Marin — to share the benefits of living in this unique community.
But I also am concerned about how the need for affordable housing can be used, sometimes cynically, to serve the private interests of private land developers and property owners.
In casting my vote on Larkspur’s draft housing plan, I focused on three issues: the role state agency officials in Sacramento play in directing local land use decisions; the importance of meaningful public input on the environmental consequences of those decisions; and the need for flexibility in meeting our housing goals.
On the role of Sacramento, there is a common perception that no housing plan can even be considered unless it conforms to the narrow expectations of staff employees at the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
That is not true.
Under the state government code, HCD guidelines are only “advisory” to local agencies in developing draft housing plans. Even if HCD disapproves a plan, the statute allows local government to adopt it anyway, so long as it makes a finding to explain why the plan meets the requirements of state law.
On the importance of public input, some argue that draft housing plans have no significant environmental impacts, so long as they do not change pre-existing zoning determinations — that way, local governments can avoid the public review and comment process that ordinarily is required under the California Environmental Quality Act. This approach ignores the fact that current conditions may be different from those existing at the time earlier zoning decisions were made.
Formal consideration of public views is essential to ensuring that current conditions and potential future consequences are fully addressed.Finally, on the need for flexibility, it is a mistake to assume that our housing needs can only be met through the development of large parcels that conveniently are adjacent to transportation corridors like Highway 101 or the looming SMART rail project.
In a low-growth county like Marin, there are other options, such as encouraging junior second units as an adjunct to the existing housing stock. Affordable junior second units can be particularly attractive to seniors needing less living space than growing families might want.
The promotion of junior second units is sometimes dismissed by planning consultants as not credible, since it doesn’t have a sustained track record showing past success in meeting regional housing goals.
Yet that kind of record will never be developed without a strong commitment to giving this strategy a priority over more traditional approaches.
There is no reason why local government officials cannot do more to foster creative strategies that meet the county’s affordable housing needs. Our constituents remind us repeatedly that they do not want new high-density development cluttering Marin County’s unique landscape.
By adopting innovative approaches to planning, we can meet our community’s expectations in all respects — and be proud of what we have accomplished in the process.
Kevin Haroff is a Larkspur City Council member. He also is the managing partner of Marten Law PLLC in San Francisco.


Tuesday, November 18, 2014

How to Stifle Dissent about Affordable Housing in Marin

True Democracy requires True Freedom of Speech.

By Mimi Steel

These days, if you look at most government meetings that require public input, they are billed as “visioning sessions to build consensus”.  To the untrained ear, this sounds like a noble goal but the goal of these sessions is anything but noble.  Visioning is a term of art that refers to the Delphi Technique.  The technique was designed to make sure that the public “chooses” the outcome desired by the organizers.  A good way to describe “ visioning” is that it is  the meeting equivalent of a multiple choice test, except that  the correct choice(s) or best answer(s) are probably not one of the options and there is no place for mark “none of the above.”

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) are in the middle of developing a 25 year soviet style top down plan that combines housing, transportation and land use.    This regional plan would force some drastic changes to communities throughout the region (7 million people in 9 counties and 109 cities).  Until a year ago, very few people were aware of the plan.  Those who were aware were generally stakeholders who stood to benefit from the policies and their uniformed/misinformed surrogates.    Then suddenly some Bay Area concerned citizens crashed the party and the game changed.  They quickly realized that the sessions, conducted using “visioning,” were manipulative and deceptive .

With average citizens showing up at these meetings and voicing their dissatisfaction with the plan and the disingenuous meeting format, MTC-ABAG realized they had a potential public relations disaster on their hands.  Board Member Ecklund expressed concerns that the process was not successful on July 19, 2012, listen here. The MTC-ABAG board discussed that the visioning sessions were “painful” on November 9, 2012, listen here . Both videos clearly acknowledge there were problems with the execution of the public outreach sessions.  So they changed the format for the new sessions coming up in January 2013 in a letter entitled  Plan Bay Area Public Engagement Letter dated December 7, 2012 . Different format, same objective of giving the appearance of public input while controlling the outcome of the debate.

It’s time for MTC-ABAG to come clean and develop a format that insures fair, honest and open dialog at the next round of public input sessions to discuss Plan Bay Area / One Bay Area.  Here are some suggestions:

  •  Public outreach meetings for One Bay Area (Plan Bay Area) must be conducted in the evening in every county to allow working, taxpaying citizens to attend.
  •  Sessions must be televised and covered on local radio programs in each county so that the public really does have an opportunity to get engaged and weigh in on this
  •  Promoters, supporters and surrogates of MTC/ABAG must be clearly identified as they have a vested interest in promoting the favored plan. These entities or individuals will not be eligible to vote on the plans.
  • The format must be changed from the previous “visioning sessions” to an open forum where a panel of concerned citizens can present information on each of the key areas. Each panel will have 10 minutes to present or refute MTC/ABAG arguments presented to date. This format will provide for diversity of opinion and give citizens their fair share of time to speak on these subjects:
    • The effectiveness of smart growth concepts—where have these concepts been successfully employed? Where have they not performed as claimed, and the consequences
    • The issue of public transit vs individual automobile
    • The issue of forced, subsidized high density housing near mass transit
    • The issue of whether zoning authority should lie with a nine-county panel rather than locally elected city councils and planning boards:
    • The ethics of demanding that a city comply with the One Bay Plan or lose their road repair funds.
    • The assumption that you can balance jobs and housing to insure minimum commutes
    •  MTC-ABAG must present the annual measured and recorded GHG levels for all nine Bay Area Counties from 2000-2010 to comply with California Executive Order 5-3-05..By presenting these figures MTC/ABAG will provide the 2010 baseline GHG levels for periods going forward. If measured (not calculated) GHG did not go down then –on what basis can you assure us that this 2030 plan will accomplish any reductions? If it did go down, what proof do you have that your plans were the actual cause of the reduction?

The taxpaying, concerned citizens of the Bay Area are awake and aware of what is going on.  We are not going  away .  We want an honest debate on the issues.  If citizens decide they do not want the plan for their  town or county, they should be free to walk away from it without any repercussions, such as loss of road repair funds.  We look forward to MTC-ABAG rethinking their public input strategy or there will be more “painful” experiences moving forward.
Marinwood-Lucas Valley is receiving 71% of all affordable housing in Unincorporated Marin

Sunday, November 9, 2014

City Life In 2040 Propaganda

See more propaganda from this group: HERE

VIDEO: Saratoga Says "No!" to ABAG






Here is a quiet argument calling for sanity in the Housing Element in the small town of Saratoga.  The speaker calls for commonsense reflection of the affordable housing demands and cites the unholy alliance with ABAG, non profit advocates and developers.



Communities everywhere are standing up against ABAG

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Local Control Under Attack in Marinwood-Lucas Valley

ABAG and MTC control over 200 Billion Dollars of Transportation Funds
Local Control under Attack

by Carol Brandt

 The regional war on suburbia has been simmering for quite some time but the heat is being turned up and the pot is about to boil over.  The “Plan Bay Area” is the brainchild of a head-spinning group of four regional agencies: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). They hope that the public is too busy to pay attention. However, the resistance is growing as local community leaders and neighborhood groups are starting to stand up against this plan that will forever change the landscape of our small towns. Plan Bay Area will require future housing to be high-density and transit-oriented. It could also allow for a change in the zoning of existing single-family neighborhoods to allow high-density housing units – no more single family lifestyle for you!

Governor Jerry Brown wants to reform the requirements of CEQA review, particularly for high density developments. He claims that CEQA is the NIMBY group’s tool to oppose development. I believe most of the public sees CEQA as a tool to help preserve the character of neighborhoods, downtowns and open space and gives the public the right to speak up for or against a proposed project and hold that project to defined environmental standards.  Brown has political allies with Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) and Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) jumping on the CEQA-bashing bandwagon by piling on their versions of CEQA reform bills this past week.  At a recent conference on the future of California’s housing, Brown was asked how he avoided CEQA-related lawsuits over all the development that happened under his watch in Oakland. He replied that they put so many projects in the planning pipeline that the opposition couldn't mobilize fast enough. He also said they overwhelmed the opposition with mass, “kind of the Soviet model.” Afterwards he tried to backpedal by saying he probably should not have said that, but it was too late and the press got it down. This is our Governor speaking and we should be outraged.

We also have our local officials participating as board members or commissioners on all four of the agencies pushing the Plan Bay Area. Are they representing our voices or are they helping form this regional high-density plan? ABAG’s Regional Planning Commission includes Supervisor Susan Adams and Novato Mayor Pat Eklund. Supervisor Adams and Supervisor Judy Arnold serve as ABAG’s County representatives as does San Rafael councilmember Damon Connolly.  ABAG’s Executive Board includes Supervisor Katie Rice and Mayor Eklund. Supervisor Steve Kinsey serves on the board of MTC. Supervisor Adams also serves on the board of BAAQMD and both Supervisor Adams and Supervisor Kathrin Sears are commissioners on BCDC.

It is contradictory that local officials jump up and down with joy as they champion things like banning plastic bags in the name of saving the environment, yet they don’t object to high-density developments that will require huge increases in demand for building materials, water, energy, schools and other infrastructure.

Regional agencies and politicians are full steam ahead on the Plan Bay Area. Who is listening to the voice of the people? One response is the upcoming Town Hall Meeting, June 20, 2013, 7:30pm at the Marinwood Community Center, San Rafael.  The information states the meeting will address planning and housing challenges in Marin and the public will have a chance to learn the truth about Plan Bay Area. It is sponsored by Organized Residents of Marinwood, a group of well-informed citizens.

LA Times story on Housing Conference.
[Editor's Note: Carol Brandt was a ten year resident of Marinwood. She ran against Susan Adams for Supervisor. Although she now lives in the Glenwood area, she remains vitally interested in Marinwood . She is an advocate for renewing Marinwood Plaza for  a vibrant retail center that will serve as a true town center.]