Fable: The Ox who Envied the Pig. ( A lesson for Politicians/Planners/Activists seeking OBAG grants.)

THE OX WHO ENVIED THE PIG

ONCE upon a time there was an Ox named Big Red. He had a younger brother named Little Red. These two brothers did all the carting on a large farm.

Now the farmer had an only daughter and she was soon to be married. Her mother gave orders that the Pig should be fattened for the wedding feast.

Little Red noticed that the Pig was fed on choice food. He said to his brother, "How is it, Big Red, that you and I are given only straw and grass to eat, while we do all the hard work on the farm? That lazy Pig does nothing but eat the choice food the farmer gives him."

Little Red noticed that the Pig was fed on choice food.

Said his brother, "My dear Little Red, envy him not. That little Pig is eating the food of death! He is being fattened for the wedding feast. Eat your straw and grass and be content and live long."

Not long afterwards the fattened Pig was killed and cooked for the wedding feast.

The fattened Pig was killed and cooked for the wedding feast.

Then Big Red said, "Did you see, Little Red, what became of the Pig after all his fine feeding?"

"Yes," said the little brother, "we can go on eating plain food for years, but the poor little Pig ate the food of death and now he is dead. His feed was good while it lasted, but it did not last long." 

"Plan Bay Area is Racist" - testimony from Walnut Creek 4/22/2013 (This is the "disruption" that the MTC wants to avoid in public meetings).

The problems with High Density Living-A perspective from Berkeley Planet

The Marinwood Village Project will cram as many people as possible in 3 acres. It might be the most profitable solution for developers, but is it the quality of life we want for our community?

BRT, Activism, Densification, and Quality of Life

By Joseph Stubbs

Monday May 17, 2010 - 10:05:00 PM

The relationship between the recently defeated Bus Rapid Transit proposal (in Berkeley) and densification of our neighborhoods has ramifications which will continue to come up again and again, and it is vitally important that we look at these issues.

Everybody knows that the more people you can deposit into a given space, the more revenue stream can be generated from that space. That revenue goes to three places. First it goes to the owner of the property, who is often also the developer. Second it goes to the bank which gave the developer or owner a loan to build/buy the property and is also collecting interest on that loan. Third it goes to the city which hosts the property, in the form of property taxes, permit fees, etc. So if a city is fiscally distressed, then encouraging new and higher density development is one thing they can do to try and help their situation. [Editor note :although Marinwood Village will provide virtually no tax revenue for 55 years, creating a huge tax drain on Marinwood CSD]

The problem comes in when we start to consider how higher density living situations affect the quality of life for people living in them.

Although Smart Growth models focus on how to make such things work as efficiently as they can, they cannot ameliorate the fact that with people’s earning ability (or self-sufficiency quotient) held as an unchanging variable, increasing density in an already dense urban environment decreases quality of life proportionately.

The specific reasons for this can be found within common wisdom, but also in specific studies. Some references would include: Quality of Life in a City: The Effect of Population Density, a Netherland study by Victoria Cramer et al, and In Growth We Trust: Sprawl, Smart Growth and Rapid Population Growth by Edwin Stennett.

One example of an impact, explored by french sociologist Emile Durkheim, is an inverse relationship between population density and personal freedom. This applies most to those living directly in high density buildings and can bee seen consistently in regulations which reduce one’s freedoms in the commons to the lowest common denominator of what is acceptable to all.

There are numerous other factors as well which kick in for all as our personal spaces close in on each other. These are opposing motivators (revenue stream issues and quality of life issues) and they set up the likelihood of a conflict of incentivization between communities of people living in neighborhoods and the city governments who are supposed to be looking out for their interests.

If a community is particularly atomized, then little can be done to resist densification from going forward. But if a neighborhood has some cohesiveness in the form of neighborhood associations or other groups, then it will tend to resist densification, sometimes effectively.

It is important to realize that regional planning associations, such as ABAG, formulate their recommendations on how much we should expect to grow on population and growth predictions which are regional in nature. Such recommendations do not always take into account the particular local conditions which define the nature of a particular community, and likewise do not necessarily take into account specific factors which have different impacts on different localities.

In Berkeley, for example, much public notice has gone into the fact that although regional population has increased in the last decades, Berkeley’s population has remained relatively constant. Comparison with a commuter city on the Bay Area margin, such as Antioch, would reveal an entirely different situation, based on different factors which exist there. This is not to say that Berkeley government today employs a policy that resists densification, but it should suggest that the density growth in a particular locality can be regulated according to what a city deems its reasonable carrying capacity to be.

Another potential problem introduces itself when higher powers recommend that we increase our density based on regional projections. Since development interest, which includes the University of California Berkeley, is largely based on principles of expansion, it is easy to conceal responsibility for a motivation to increase density on recommendations or so called “mandates” which come to us from regional planning bodies. This can conceal the degree to which an actual “need” for densification may be based more on the desires of local stakeholders as distinct from needs which really do reflect the public interest as a whole. This potential confusion is just complicated enough to rightly baffle average people who live in affected neighborhoods when it comes to establishing policy. But when a specific project threatens to intrude on their way of life, people will generally get the message.

In addition to serving as intentional or unintended fronts for these stakeholders, the problem with Smart Growth ideologues is that they just can't wait to impose their new high density models on communities, even before such a thing may be actually needed. This then causes the problem that densification occurs faster than it otherwise would have under the principle that 'if you build it, they will come.' You create the infrastructural receptacle for increased density, and end up creating the density you are claiming to mitigate.

The recent struggle around Bus Rapid Transit in Berkeley is an example of this principle in action. The principle is well illustrated in the fact that the “need” for such a BRT system in Berkeley has been promoted, not based on current demand for bus service, but on projected future demand for bus service. This is one important reason that BRT with dedicated lanes on Telegraph was able to be defeated at this point in time, even though it was quite a battle.

But it is extremely important to realize that all the people who have fought so hard against this, and under a shadow of ideological rhetoric and elite consensus which was driving this project, have been fighting for more than issues revolving around bus service and traffic congestion. These people, knowing or not, have been defending our very quality of life based on the stone cold reality of what densification means for us.

The BRT full build proposal carried within itself triggers for allowing new developmental incentives which were more enormous than most people realize.[ The SMART Train is being built to unlock incentives for development in Marin, too] Suffice it to say here that the demeanor of Telegraph would have been incentivized towards dramatic changes in the coming decades: much taller, denser and with less protection for historic resources. The umbrella term under which all of these changes are officially founded is the Major Transportation Corridor, an important planning phrase to know, and one which carries with it many regulatory meanings.

Since an increase in density is highly impactful to people living in an already dense urban community, it is an important duty of local governments to protect their populations from these impacts to an extent which is reasonable. When city governments do not do that, then communities are left to fend for themselves. Berkeley just had a success in this regard, but

Berkeley is not alone in being in this position. The distressing conflict in incentivization between local governments and the people living on their streets exists everywhere, and continues to exist in Berkeley, too. If an area is desirable, one party benefits from densification, while others suffer.

But when communities do regulate their quality of life through successfully regulating their density, then haven't they simply acted selfishly by deferring the larger regional population problems to somewhere else? Actually, the answer is no. To grossly simplify, think of a community of life in a petri dish. The dish may be finite, but their desire to grow is not. At some critical point, as elbow room starts to disappear, individuals begin to realize that there is problem. This is very important because it creates "resistance" to continued growth, and that resistance is a bottom-up force which can percolate upward and actually have an ultimate effect on the growth itself.

Without this resistance, things would just continue to get worse and worse. A projection that our regional population will continue to grow and grow and that we must somehow accommodate that promotes the illusion that infinite growth is sustainable, and it's just not.

Creating resistance to that is actually a necessary feedback that keeps us from ultimately becoming the frog which explodes in the warming water.

So, defending this aspect of quality of life becomes a meaningful real world example of "thinking globally, and acting locally."

In the end it is the ultimate green answer.

Marinwood, the next Daly City?

The new 30 housing units per acre designation in Marinwood is 50% more crowded than this section of Daly City

Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of tickytacky
Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes all the same
There's a green one and a pink one and a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

I have nothing against Daly City.  I am sure the people who live there are quite happy to be close to transit hubs, shopping and employment opportunities close by.  Although the fog and the lack of trees and lawn, make it seem forbidding to this Marinwood resident I am certain that they find joys just like I do.

Our family chose to live in Marinwood-Lucas Valley, a  community with lawns, open space and friendly neighbors.  We could have just as easily chosen Daly City but our values for open space and community superceded the convenience that Daly City offers.  I am certain, that most Marinwood residents prefer our community to crowded urban conditions too. 

Why then is Marinwood Priority Development Area being rezoned for high density housing against the will of the people by an unelected regional body ABAG and the Marin County Supervisors without our local community involvement?   

Marinwood Plaza is only the first of many high density developments that may transform our community into "Daly City" north.  It may fundamentally transform everything we know and love about our community.

Speak up! Learn more about the Housing Element and their plans for our community.  Demand answers.  Talk with your neighbors.  Vote!

Can't happen here?  Where there is developer profits to be made...

Between 2005 to 2008, 400 peasant families were relocated to brand-new villas in Wuhan, China. Their former fields were turned into high-rise development, and eviction was payed with a 240-360 m2 three-story villa for each household. [no need to mention the tremendous amount of money earned by the developer in the operation, to afford paying such compensations]

In March 2010, 2 years later, it has been announced that their new homes are to be demolished again. Not because of derelict state at all; spring/summer 2010 season this year just came with the planning of a bunch of new more lucrative high-rise blossoming on-site; quite trendy. Adjacent land price rates at 160 euro/m2, while built apartments are being sold at 600 euro/m2.

Warning if you live with 1/2 mile of Highway 101 in Marin County

At the MTC-ABAG special forum for Community Housing Crisis, held in Oakland, CA,  a woman testifies that she has been forced from her home several times due to redevelopment pressures under Plan Bay Area.  "You are throwing us under the bus"

Marinwood CSD objects to planning its future.

The Marinwood CSD has steadfastly objected to the assembly of citizens for the discussion of the future of Marinwood and design review.  Marinwood is the subject of intensive urban development.  Prior Supervisor Susan Adams quietly submitted Marinwood for a Priority Development Area and to take up to 80% of all low income subsidized housing for unincorporated Marin.  The previous three boards have quashed all public discussion of these plans despite the radical transformation of the community that development will bring.  It is indeed curious why a citizen's committee would be so threatening.  I believe that it is seen as dangerous to the established CSD power structure.  Why shouldn't the community have discussions about its future?   The CSD beileves its only role is to spend money and disavows civic involvement in important affairs that will affect our taxes, schools, roads and even our local government

Will this Tech Company help builders destroy neighborhoods in Marinwood?

How this tech startup is helping 7 homeowners join forces to sell their properties at a premium

BY MONICA NICKELSBURG on June 15, 2017 at 3:00 pm

Owners of the seven properties outlined in red are selling together for a premium. (CityBldr Photo)

In November, Jane and Andy Freeman received an unexpected letter in the mail.

CityBldr CEO Bryan Copley wants to ‘build smarter cities.’ (Photo by Business Rockstars)

A company called CityBldr reached out to notify them that their Shoreline, Wash., home might be worth a lot more than they thought. Intrigued, they gave the Seattle startup a call. They learned that CityBldr software flagged their property as one of a handful that could be sold together for a much higher price than individually. In other words, the whole could sell for considerably more than the sum of its parts.

Working with CityBldr, the Freemans and two other neighbors agreed to sell their properties collectively. With three committed, four additional homeowners signed on, too. This week, all seven homes will go on the market as one unit, targeting developers eager to build more housing inventory for the region’s booming population.

CityBldr zeroed in on the properties for a few key reasons. Combined, they would make plenty of space for a large housing development, they’re located across the street from the Light Rail station going in at 145th St., and the properties fall within a region that was rezoned from single-family to mixed-use residential housing last year.

According to Jane Freeman, her property has the potential to sell for $100-140 per square foot when purchased as part of the assemblage of homeowners. Individually, her 7,000-square-foot lot is currently estimated to be worth about $497,381. Sold on its own, the house would have gone for about $71 per square foot.

“At the lowest, we would be getting for our part of the assemblage a minimum of $700,000,” she said.

The Freemans’ Shoreline home. (Photo by Jane Freeman)

CityBldr has been working with about 50 groups of homeowners, like the Freemans and their neighbors, to help them sell their properties collectively. The Seattle startup charges a 6 percent fee for its services, comparable to what a traditional broker would charge. Homeowners can use the website to find out if their property is undervalued for free.

“We tell them what the best and highest use of their property is and what the value is to a builder or developer if their property is underutilized,” he said. “To builders and developers, their core competencies, we learned, weren’t sales and acquisition, they were actually building. They wanted to take these sites and improve them and build them and develop them to best and highest use. They didn’t want to have a tool built for them, to help them go find sites.”

Instead of doing their own scouting, CityBldr is providing that tool for developers and homeowners in the Seattle area and, as of last week, Los Angeles. Copley says the service will expand to 10 markets in the next six months.

To fuel that growth, CityBldr has raised a $1.6 million investment round, led by real estate developer SRM, which is known for building the Seattle Google Campus. A long list of additional investors participated in the over-subscribed round, including Start It Labs, Millenium Global, PWR Financial, Realogics Sotheby’s, and TUNE CEO Peter Hamilton.

Copley hopes CityBldr’s software can eventually be used to help address Seattle’s homelessness and housing affordability issues. CityBldr is working with a handful of Seattle non-profits to advance that agenda.

As for the Shoreline homeowners, CityBldr’s software predicts their parcel will be used to develop 220 units of multifamily housing. “CallisonRTKL is the architect that has drawn up the plans for the site and corroborated that the software’s yield study is accurate,” Copley said. “The site will attract both local and regional developers and builders as well as foreign investors.”

CityBldr, which launched in May of last year, has broader ambitions than helping homeowners upsell their properties. The company aims to help cities identify and understand underutilized land to make more efficient urban planning choices.

“CityBldr’s goal is to create smart cities,” Copley said when the startup launched. “We can use artificial intelligence paired with empathy and create happy, functional, sustainable communities.”

Monica Nickelsburg handles a variety of editorial roles, including social media, site production, and the Geek Life beat. Originally from Southern California, she studied journalism and history at NYU before landing in Seattle. She loves arts, pop-culture, and her adopted city. Follow her @mnickelsburg

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.

The Great Debate, "Plan Bay Area, Is it good for Marin?"

 

In case you weren't there, or if you were there and are still talking about it and want to share the highlights here is an HD video of The Great Debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OOE7Hyd5B40

Timepoints for reference:

00:00 Host, Robert Eyler, CEO, Marin Economic Forum
03:17 Panel Introductions
05:46 Is PBA good for the region and Marin??
06:57 Pledge of Alegiance
07:29 Mark Luce, ABAG, supports PBA, 10 minute presentation
18:06 Thomas Rubin, opposes PBA, 10 minute presentation
28:25 Steve Kinsey, Marin County Supervisor, supports PBA, 10 minute presentation
38:10 Randal O'Toole, CATO Institute, opposes PBA, 10 minute presentation
47:04 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
47:25 Should PBA be put to a vote? Liz Manning
47:54 - Luce
49:16 - Rubin
50:52 What are the social implications for minoritys in High Density Housing? Chris Pareja
51:05 - Kinsey
51:58 - O'Toole
56:00 What are the mplications of agreement between Marin County and HUD? Basia Crane
56:23 - Kinsey
57:43 - O'Toole
59:00 Please explain the mistakes in the Rena calculations. Diane Furst, Mayor, Corte Madera
1:00:10 - Luce
1:01:54 - O'Toole
1:03:54 What does PBA do to help solve climate change? Bill Kearney
1:04:32 - O'Toole
1:05:42 - Kinsey
1:06:36 - Luce
1:07:24 - Rubin
1:08:22 Why is "no plan" option off of the table? Meilin Kurtzman
1:08:42 - Kinsey
1:09:41 - O'Toole
1:11:10 Are the financial projections in the plan realistic? Chris Engle
1:11:28 - Rubin
1:11:49 - Kinsey
1:12:51 - Luce
1:13:39 - O'Toole
1:14:42 Why is Marin being zoned urban; what is the rational behind 30 units per acre? Amie itzgeral
1:15:12 - Kinsey
1:15:46 - Luce
1:16:46 - O'Toole
1:18:23 This appears to be an attack on the middle class. Clayton Smith
1:19:36 - Kinsey
1:20:33 - Rubin
1:21:01 - Luce
1:22:14 Mark - what would it take for you to change your position? Herb Smith
1:22:50 - Luce
1:23:29 - Kinsey
1:24:19 Why do you think this plan is good for Marin? Blaine Morris
1:25:11 - Kinsey
1:26:00 - O'Toole
1:27:50 How will a deisel train compete with fuel efficient cars? Scott Erkhart
1:28:26 - Kinsey
1:29:08 - O'Toole
1:31:00 Why can't a city member of ABAG, simply opt out? Dan Ucher
1:31:59 - Luce
1:33:19 - Rubin
1:34:51 We are close to the AB32 standards - do you recognize this?? Stephen Nestel
1:36:13 - Luce
1:36:55 - Kinsey
1:37:35 - Rubin
1:40:10 Closing Statement - O'Toole
1:42:26 Closing Statement - Kinsey
1:44:48 Closing Statement - Rubin
1:47:15 Closing Statement - Luce

__._,_.___

Plan Bay Area is an attack on a way of life

The "green" Brave New World that our planners and politicians envision for "One Bay Area"

 see article: Plan Bay Area is an attack on a way of life

By Mimi Steel

Plan Bay Area will fundamentally transform the 101 cities and nine counties into urbanized, transit-oriented, high-rise developments. It is a draconian, top-down, 25-year plan conceived by unelected bureaucrats supposedly in response to a problem (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) that will already be solved (per California Air Resources Board) due to transportation technologies such as more fuel-efficient cars, electric cars and telecommuting.

The most unsettling parts of the plan deal with imposition of unfunded mandates on cities and counties. It subverts local control of land use and zoning decisions. It requires:

Cities must set aside priority development areas (PDAs) for mixed-use development (stores on first floor with housing above). Most development over the next 25 years is supposed to be in these highly restricted areas.

Cities must bear the unfunded costs that the additional populations will force on services such as schools, fire, police, etc.

 

The unique characters of most small towns will be destroyed. Towns such as Saratoga, Los Gatos, Dixon, Marinwood must all follow the same template of a downtown center with mid- to high-rise development near mass transit.

Transportation funds will go to projects such as light rail and commuter rail, which are the least cost-effective options for transportation choices.

Road repair and expansion will be neglected because the point of this plan is to get people out of their cars by purposely causing congestion and restricting parking. 

The plan presents an unrealistic and naïve vision where people live close to where they work and play. The objective is that people should bicycle, walk or take mass transit. Portland is a classic example of the disastrous results of such planning. The Cascade Institute submitted a paper against the plan, saying

" ... The draft Plan mimics the Portland strategy in most respects. ... (there are some differences) but the fundamental approach is the same: funnel most future development into a limited number of centers served by transit; spend most transportation dollars on maintenance of the existing system with capacity expansions focused on transit, not highways; and assume that transit use will increase substantially, resulting in improved air quality and reduced GHGs. However, before Bay Area officials adopt such a plan, they should consider the results from the Portland regional experience. Virtually every assumption about changing travel behavior has proven to be wrong."

The plan allows a handful of bureaucrats to make major lifestyle decisions for 7 million people in the Bay Area. This plan has been flying under the radar for two years with stakeholders (those who will benefit from the plan) providing the bulk of the input, while taxpayers, who will be footing the bill, are largely ignored or marginalized.

 

This plan is an attack on free choice, on free markets, on suburban communities and on automobiles. If people really understood the true implications of this plan, they would not want it except in a few urbanized areas such as Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose.

It is small wonder that the planners have tried to keep this largely under the radar. Media coverage has been sparse to nonexistent.

It is unfortunate when a supposed "journalists" takes a critical issue like this plan and trivializes it by demonizing the opposition. Journalists are supposed to provide facts, to inform the citizens so that they can make reasoned decisions. Watch the video of the only debate that was held in the Bay Area (www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOE7Hyd5B40) and decide for yourself.

Redevelopment on Steriods. A "How to" Workshop to form Redevelopment Agencies

This is how the bureaucrats will finance their Priority Development Areas .

Here are the pdfs of the power point: http://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Education-and-Events-Section/Annual-Conference/2015-handouts/Tax-Increment-Financing-is-Back!-Using-the-New-EIF

How Marin Was Ruined

African American Church gets Cheated in Government Land Swap (Racism in Smart Growth Planning?)

Property Rights Abuse and the Evergreen Baptist Church from Don Casey on Vimeo.
Evergreen Baptist Church overlooks I-65 between Birmingham and Gardendale, Alabama. The Church was required to surrender its property through eminent domain for road construction. The Church agreed to a property swap with the State Department of Transportation. The Church at its old location was serviced with water, gas and electricity - all modern conveniences. Before construction began on the new Church building, Rev. Smith contacted the Birmingham Water Works to ensure that water would be available. With the Water Works assurance, construction was begun. When construction reached ¾ completion, it was
disclosed that the Birmingham Water Works would require $80,000.00 to install a new water main. The Church, consisting of a small congregation, could not afford the demands of the Water Works. Two years have passed and the inequity in the land swap has not been resolved. The Church pleads for a just and appropriate public outcry.

During the 2009 Alabama legislative session, legislation was introduced which will elevate this inequity in future land swaps through eminent domain procedures.

EDITOR'S NOTES:  The Reverend's wife makes a particularly passionate plea about halfway in the clip.  The cost for the water main was due to "smart growth" restrictions on building outside the Urban Growth boundary.  Soon, all rural landowners will notice crushing fees for building outside the "city centered corridor" in Marin and throughout the rural lands in the Bay Area.

  Note that the prior white property owners had water and sewer service on the site.

Steve Kinsey's clearly wants the San Quentin Priority Development Area to move forward.

Steve Kinsey is a back room deal politician working to create a mini Manhattan at San Quentin Village. See this clip from 2012 .

They call it 

Kinseyland

Plan Bay Area "Vision" Meeting highlights

Redevelopment: A Tale of Two Cities- Eminent Domain for Smart Growth?

Recently Supervisor Susan Adams and other Marin county Supervisors removed the Marinwood Priority Development Area first proposed by Supervisor Adams on August 7, 2007.  It includes all land with 1/2 mile of the 101 corridor in Marin.  This will likely be superceded by a new redevelopment law, if passed as projected will have the same effect as a priority development area.  Property can be seized by "eminent domain" if they are determined to have "inefficient land use patterns" i.e.  less than 20 units per acre density.  All land east of Las Gallinas will be threatened.

We are in the midst of a major power grab of California property rights, not seen in our lifetimes.  It is time to fight against this intrusion on our California way of life and preserve liberty for future generations. We must defeat this Plan Bay Area and restore our freedoms.

If you live in the shaded area your home may be subject to eminent domain.  PDAs are no longer needed

PLAN BAY AREA POLICY MAPS outline upzoning, new fees, and incentives for developers in Marinwood-Lucas Valley

Click on MTC Plan Bay Area Policy Maps

and please study the shocking changes planned for the Bay Area.

discussed at the MTC Board Meeting on July 13, 2012

The MTC published these policy maps to help planners visualize the "opportunities within the grand vision" of the One Bay Area Plan.  They call for massive urbanization throughout the Bay Area through a combination of upzoning, transportation funds,  urban growth boundary, development fess (or penalties) and grants.   

You'll find that you may have to pay a fine of up to $50,000 (above current development fees) to discourage residential development in outlying areas.  Non-residential development may have to pay a fee of up to $20.00 per square foot.   Other development in the "approved areas" (such as the Marinwood Priority Development Area) may receive grants for building.   The Marinwood PDA is a "transit neighborhood" and will be upzoned to 50 units per acre vs. 4 single family houses per acre on most streets now.  We will add from 1500 to 4000  housing units to the current area East of Las Gallinas.

Make no mistake, the One Bay Area Plan is nothing short of a radical scheme to reshape the bay area communities, economy, transportation, and government.  This overambitious central plan will create an effective  "city state" and strip away property rights, local democracy and economic opportunity for millions. 

Supervisor Susan Adams needs to address the community with the Truth. She has served on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for over 9 1/2 years including two years as Vice President.  

Supervisor Susan Adams spent 9 1/2 years on ABAG

and served as the Vice President for 2 years.

Enough, Ms. Adams! Please tell us of the full Plan Bay Area plans for Marinwood-Lucas Valley!

www.marinrecall.org

Marin Supervisor Steve Kinsey is the President of MTC

Are Monster Houses coming to a Backyard near You?

Editor's Note: In Seattle, neighborhoods are being invaded with new construction on tiny lots, changing the density and character of the community.  This is the essential county plan for Marinwood-Lucas Valley and other areas along the 101 corridor as the planners claim it is more energy efficient to build these homes close to transit.  We will be facing this in the near future if we do not rid ourselves of "smart growth" zealots, and local politicians who are pushing these schemes.

see this Seattle Channel 7 report: HERE

By David Ham

SEATTLE — 

Opponents of so-called "monster houses" in Seattle say city planners have opened up a new loophole.

Seattle City Council members voted to extend a moratorium on building houses on substandard lots.

It's to give city planners more time to come up with new regulations.

Planners recently released revisions to the proposed changes that include restricting the height on houses built on substandard lots to two stories, and they've also suggested the "100 Percent Rule."

"The department of planning and development was making some progress in closing those loopholes, but in their latest round of recommendations they've thrown in a new loophole which is called the 100 Percent Rule," said Peter Hughes, who has been part of the movement to oppose multiple houses on one lot.

Essentially the 100 Percent Rule would mean someone could build two houses on one lot if that lot is twice the size of most single lots nearby.

"Now this new proposal would free up more of these small lots for big home construction," said Hughes.

"I personally don't see why the 100 Percent Rule would be a problem, as it makes the lot consistent with other lots on the block, but open to hearing other thoughts," said Seattle City Councilman Richard Conlin.

City planners will be taking public comment on the new recommendations until Oct. 16.

The council is expected to start public hearings on the recommendations starting in November