Showing posts with label SB 375. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SB 375. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Stalinist Urbanism

One Bay Area Plan is coming to Marinwood-Lucas Valley 


[Editor's Note: The ideas of Smart Growth and the One Bay Area Plan are similiar to the autocratic land use planning under the Soviet power. The author of this article reaches many of the same conclusions that we have concerning Smart Growth.  Freedom and responsibility under democratic self rule are preferable bureaucratic oppression and tyranny.]

Excerpt from Urbanism under Stalin

Postwar development brought historicism to new extremes in the form of monumental plazas, dramatic statues, and seven famous "wedding cake" high-rises built throughout the city between 1947 and 1953. The largest and perhaps most extravagant is Lomonosov Moscow State University (MSU), which includes a botanical garden and extensive landscaping connected to the park along the river at Lenin (currently Sparrow) Hills.


MSU today.


Fearful symmetry, 1949.


An earlier design, 1947.


Open land around the new building, 1954.


New development, 1957.


An older house prepared for demolition to accommodate the Universitet neighborhood along Leninsky Prospect, 1957.

Housing for everyday citizens remained terribly insufficient, as elites were given beautiful apartments in the city and cottages in the country. New residential development tended to follow a kvartal model, in which buildings of roughly 5-10 stories were bounded by a city block with shops at street level and shared interior courtyards. Today, at least in the more affluent neighborhoods of Moscow, these structures have aged well. They combine density with pleasant landscaping and easy access to amenities. This model influenced the development of larger apartment blocks in "microdistricts" after Stalin's rule. These places are generally not considered beautiful. Still, there is much to be said for the kvartal idea.


Kvartal-like courtyard at lower-right corner, beside the residential tower at Kudrinskaya Square, 1954.

Stalinist urbanism draws upon a number of ideas raised in the 1920s for the socialist city, including the modernization of infrastructure, communal housing, employment and amenities close to home, ubiquitous public transportation, and the integration of green space. However, basic human needs were neglected in favor of industrial development and an image of grandeur. Human rights were given even less concern. This abuse of power in the name of socialism is an enduring tragedy. Stalin's massive urban modernization projects made it possible for Moscow to accommodate a great influx of people. But I'm not sure if they improved living conditions on the whole, or if the ecological consequences can be justified.

Stalin surveying a construction site, followed by Voroshilov, a removed person, and an unidentified person, mid-1930s.

In some ways Moscow's high-density living, extensive public transportation system, and accessible parks sound like a contemporary planner's dream. However, after reading about Stalin I've become more sympathetic to the flip side of this equation, the suburban house with a small park (ie, yard) of one's own, where we can adapt the environment on a smaller scale without imposing our will on others. Can urban condos and parks meet those kinds of needs?
"Increased public spending on health and physical education," a section from the Second Five Year Plan, 1934.

This might seem like a loss of faith in cities, but the real problem is abusive power. Stalin accomplished many things in Moscow that have proven of enduring value. But process is at least as important as results in this case. Great places can come about through autocratic, democratic, capitalist, and socialist means. But for the good of daily life in cities, a democratic socialism sounds preferable to autocratic socialism or democratic capitalism. Oppression and exploitation must give way to freedom and responsibility.

Saturday, March 12, 2016

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


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.

    Thursday, December 3, 2015

    VIDEO: Agenda 21. -John Birch Society (JBS) view on Smart Growth and One Bay Area Plan



    This is a slick video on Agenda 21, presented by the John Birch Society (yeah, the same one that was active during the cold war warning people about communism). 

    Although, we personally do not subscribe to the point of view illustrated in this video,  we present this to you so that you may understand what people are talking about.  The objection to  One Bay Area Plan in Marin and elsewhere spans cultural, political, ethnic and economic lines. We find allies with every group that values individual liberty over government and corporate control.  Quite literally we have allies in the Occupy Wall Street movement,  Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party Activists, Progressives and Environmentalists.  We are indeed all Americans fighting against government over reach and corporate profiteering to transform our communities. If Roosevelt could form an alliance with Stalin to defeat Nazism in World War II, surely the people of the Bay Area can join together to fight ABAG and the One Bay Area Plan.

    Although, we recognize the essential facts of Agenda 21,  this writer is far too cynical to believe anyone could pull of a massive conspiracy of this magnitude.  We believe that Agenda 21 is merely Smart Growth driven by political ambition and fueled by capitalism.  In other words- money and power.

    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.

    Wednesday, November 12, 2014

    Living close to the Freeway is not healthy for Children and other Living Things



    The Sierra Club and the Environmental Law and Policy Center issue severe warnings about high density housing near freeways is unhealthy for people. 

    see WSJ Autism linked to environmental Factors

    SAN SEBASTIÁN, Spain—Researchers at an international conference on autism Friday presented three new studies lending strength to the notion that environmental influences before birth play a role in the risk for the condition.
    In one study, pregnant women who were exposed to certain levels of air pollution were at increased risk of having a child with autism. Another presentation suggested that iron supplements before and early in pregnancy may lower the risk, and a third suggested some association between use of various household insecticides and a higher risk of autism.

    Agence France Presse/Getty Images
    A new study finds that a pregnant woman's exposure to certain levels of air pollution may contribute to an increased risk of autism in her child. Here, an early morning photo shows poor air quality in Los Angeles.
    The causes of autism, a developmental disorder that involves social-skill problems, among other symptoms, aren't well understood but are thought to be multifaceted. Genetics likely account for about 35% to 60% of the risk, many researchers say. But some experts and parents believe that nutrition and other environmental factors may also play a role, especially as the rate of autism in the U.S. appears to have climbed sharply over the past decade.


    The new studies showed only associations and couldn't prove causality, and each factor itself likely accounts for a small portion of the risk for autism, researchers say. But the results, taken together with previous work—showing an association with factors like the flu and the use of certain medicines in pregnant women, for instance—provide more evidence that environmental factors affecting the womb, including what we eat and where we live, are meaningful in terms of autism risk.
    "The exciting thing about looking at environment, or environment and genes in conjunction with each other, is this provides the possibility of intervention," said Irva Hertz-Picciotto, an environmental epidemiologist at the University of California, Davis, who presented the study on insecticides.



    Related Video


    A 2-foot-tall robot therapist may help kids with autism learn to be more social, according to an intriguing new study. Photo: Laura McGuire.

    Speaking in a packed auditorium at the International Society for Autism Research annual conference here, Marc Weisskopf of the Harvard School of Public Health presented results from a large national study, known as the Nurses' Health Study II. The research suggested that a mother's exposure to high levels of certain types of air pollutants, such as metals and diesel particles, increased the risk of autism by an average of 30% to 50%, compared with women who were exposed to the lowest levels.
    Dr. Weisskopf and his colleagues examined levels of some particles and pollutants that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has measured and studied across the country in the locations where the approximately 330 women from the study who reported having a child with autism lived. They compared the levels with 22,000 women who didn't have a child with autism, focusing on 14 pollutants that had been previously reported in the literature as possibly linked to autism.
    The results mimicked those of previously published work on traffic pollution and autism risk in California. The consistency of findings across studies "certainly makes me start to feel much more certain that we're on a path to finding something environmental that's playing a role here," said Dr. Weisskopf, a professor of environmental health and epidemiology. "At this stage it does seem there's something related to air pollution."

    image
    Data from another large study, known as the Charge study, also presented Friday, found for the first time that mothers who reported that they had taken iron supplements just before or early on in pregnancy had a 40% decrease in associated risk of having a child with autism, an effect similar in magnitude to that of folic-acid supplementation and its reduction of certain birth defects, said Rebecca Schmidt, a professor of public-health sciences UC Davis.
    Her team compared the mothers of 510 kids with an autism-spectrum disorder to mothers of 341 kids without autism. Mothers completed a phone survey that included questions on many types of environmental exposures, including supplements like prenatal vitamins, multivitamins and nutrient-specific vitamins, cereal and protein bars, which are often fortified with iron and other nutrients. They weren't asked about other dietary sources of iron, such as red meat and leafy green vegetables.
    Dr. Schmidt cautioned that women shouldn't boost iron intake without getting their levels checked by a doctor, because too much iron can lead to toxicity. "It's much easier to change your diet or supplemental intake than it is to change your exposure to many other toxins," said Dr. Schmidt.
    In a separate analysis of the Charge data, UC Davis researchers also found a relationship between exposure to some insecticides in the household, such as bug foggers, and features of autism, but more research is needed to understand why there is a potential link, said Dr. Hertz-Picciotto.

    Write to Shirley S. Wang at shirley.wang@wsj.com

    Friday, August 8, 2014

    Should Marin be run by a Benevolent Dictatorship?

    "Marinwood/Lucas Valley shall become a Transit Oriented Village to house the needy"




    In last post  Andres Duany, father of New Urbanism,  comments that top down urban planning as seen in Singapore achieves remarkable results.  Many Smart Growth advocates agree.

    Perhaps Marin should be urbanized with the brutal efficiency of a benevolent dictatorship

    Here are excerpts from two articles plus links about  Singapore Justice.  The most telling of comments are by Singaporean residents following the Washington Post article.  It seems that many people see through the veil of "benevolence" for the suffocating reality that it is.

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Excerpt from Washington Post article "

    What Singapore can teach us"

    *Transport. Singapore runs the world’s best airline (despite being based in a nation the size of New York City, with no internal flights). The subways are gorgeous. The city uses electronic road pricing — every wonk’s dream — to ease traffic at peak hours. Digital signs advising where ample parking places can be found dot the main thoroughfares.

    *Housing. In America, “public housing” means “ghetto.” In Singapore, 80 percent of people live in public housing and virtually all of them own their homes, having received mortgage assistance from the government. It’s part of the national strategy to build assets and foster the positive social behavior that comes with ownership.

    *Urban planning/climate change. A big chunk of the downtown bay area is now a reservoir via a feat of engineering I don’t pretend to understand but which experts tell me is remarkable. Meanwhile, Singaporean officials don’t debate whether climate change is real but instead are taking such impressive steps to cope that one U.S. guru told me “it’s actually embarrassing as an American to look at what they have done.”

    For full article : What Singapore can teach Us   (be sure to read the reader's comments too) 

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    excerpt from Sustainability Institute's Article:

    Singapore Leads the Good Life Under a Benevolent Dictator


    Singapore has achieved the American dream, but not in the American way. It is a prosperous, clean city, with imposing skyscrapers and glittering shopping centers. The multinational corporations of the world are welcome here; you can buy any brand name you've ever heard of. The highways are lined with tropical flowers and crowded with BMWs. And at the head of this thriving free-market state is a clever, socialist dictator.

    ....Lee Kuan Yew has interfered with every aspect of Singaporean life. To control population growth he set up free family planning clinics. Then he mounted education campaigns ("Plan your family small") and decreed that women having third-or-more babies would get shorter maternity leave, higher hospital charges, and less income tax relief. There is a $5000 reward for mothers who agree to be sterilized after their second child. Sterilized parents get top priority for public housing, and their children get into desirable schools.

    Singaporeans now accept that two is the right number of children. When I asked one woman how she felt about that, she told me she'd like to have three or four. "But," she said brightly, "I understand why I shouldn't have that many. We are a small, crowded island." In fact the birth rate has fallen so low among highly-educated women, that Lee now offers incentives to "educated mothers" to have three children or more.

    All over the city identical 16-story housing blocks rise, each with its recreation center, swimming pool, shopping center, community center, and school. The apartments are well-built and spacious.

    Anti-social behavior is not permitted in Singapore. The fine for littering is $250. Jaywalking, spitting, and smoking in government offices are also fined $250. Gambling, except for the state lottery, is illegal. The punishment for drug trafficking is death.

    I tried to find Singaporeans who are unhappy with their paternalistic government. In a week of searching, I found none. People think the regulations make sense. No one seems to fear the government; most feel they can bring complaints to it. ...

    Singapore just doesn't fit the world's categories. It's a dictatorship with free speech, no fear, and no corruption. It's an economy that uses capitalist means to attain socialist ends.

    For the full article: Singapore Good Life

    --------------------------------------------------------------------


    Of course there is a dark side to Singapore too.


    For more on Singapore Justice see Caning in Singapore

    For more on the American Teenager sentenced to caning after vandalism see: Michael P Fay



    Saturday, April 12, 2014

    Silvestri: The "ENRON-ization" of Democracy - Part I

    See Article in the Mill Valley Patch:The "ENRON-ization" of Democracy - Part I

    Government "Off the Books"

    A multi-part investigative report into what's behind the push for Plan Bay Area's regional planning, and how the abuse of joint powers authorities are robbing us of representative government.

    PART I
    In August of 2001, Sharon Watkins, a vice president at ENRON Corporation, an “innovative energy trading company,” wrote a memo commenting on some unusual accounting practices. By October, as the news hit the press, ENRON’s stock began to dive from its recent highs of $90 per share to below $1 a share, by November 1st. 

    Its precipitous fall had little to do with the events of 9/11.
    The financial world was in shock. How could one of the most valuable companies in the world, with $100 billion in assets, suddenly become worthless: a company whose finances were overseen by one of the country’s most prestigious accounting firms, Arthur Anderson? The answer is complex but at the risk of over-simplifying, their demise was due to something that might be called “off the books” transactions that showed up as “assets” in their balance sheet but were actually liabilities.  More accurately, most of those “assets” turned out to be worthless.
    What ENRON had been doing is taking all its questionable business deals, failing investments and operations and putting them into so-called “arm’s length” subsidiary entities that were out of the public’s (and apparently their accountant’s) view. Then they were free to magically value them as wildly profitable. They only kept trades and transactions that were actually profitable in the main company, and those turned out to be far and few between (see The Smartest Guys in The Room, by Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind).
    At the time, ENRON was the biggest bankruptcy in American history. But as the old saying goes, “You ain’t seen nothin' yet.”
    By the fall of 2008, the world’s 14 biggest bankers showed us how it’s really done and almost brought down the global economy in the process. ENRON’s little accounting games were nothing compared to the tens (hundreds?) of trillions of dollars of worthless “assets” that the big banks held on their books: assets with fancy names like collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and mortgage backed securities (MBS debt), and other more exotic derivatives and financial creations.
    These billionaire banksters had succeeded in creating an off the books shadow banking system far larger than the real banking system itself. It’s a crime that you and your children will be paying for, either through inflation, taxes or debt, for the rest of your lives (See The Big Short, by Michael Lewis).
    You would think we would wise up. But not to be outdone, your government is now hard at work perfecting this way of doing business in ways ENRON never dreamed of.

    The Rise of the JPA
    In the early 1920’s a variety of government agencies began to realize that collaboration with other cities or other government or quasi-government agencies allowed them to more efficiently and effectively provide services, purchase insurance and implement programs, or in some cases stay solvent. Since that time, a series of legislative acts and court rulings evolved into what has come to be known as a “Joint Powers Authority” (JPA).
    As described in the 2007 report, Governments Working Together, by Trish Cypher and Colin Grinnell:
         “Joint powers are exercised when the public officials of two or more agencies agree to create another legal entity or establish a joint approach to work on a common problem, fund a project, or act as a representative body for a specific activity.
         “Agencies that can exercise joint powers include federal agencies, state departments, counties, cities, special districts, school districts, redevelopment agencies, and even other joint powers organizations. A California agency can even share joint powers with an agency in another state.
         “Examples of areas where JPAs are used commonly include: groundwater management, road construction, habitat conservation, airport expansion, redevelopment projects, stadium construction, mental health facilities construction, educational programs, employee benefits services, insurance coverage, and regional transportation projects.
         “For example, the City of San José signed a joint powers agreement with Santa Clara County to jointly administer redevelopment funds. In another example, the City of Palo Alto has a joint powers agreement to provide cable television service to area residents.”
    Over the years, JPAs evolved from simple partnerships into highly complex entities that increasingly had more and more governing powers, previously only reserved for elected governing bodies, including the power to assess fees and sell bonds. In its latest iteration, a JPA’s increasing powers were codified in the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, SB 1350, Senate Local Government Committee, in 2000.
    In the beginning, JPAs worked well. But like many simple ideas with noble goals, JPAs have morphed into something far beyond the intentions of their creators. Like the big banks, creative minds have used this vehicle to assemble shadow government agencies that operate pretty much off our radar and without public scrutiny. And more and more, it appears that’s become the real goal of creating them.
    What started out as a way to provide more efficient and less expensive public services, has been seized upon by politicians as a method of eliminating public input and democratic process.
    Again, noted by Cypher and Grinnell:
         “JPAs are different from other forms of government because they are the only type of government formed by mutual agreement. Unlike other governments, JPAs are not formed by signatures on petitions, and they’re not approved by a vote of the people.”
    A key point to note is that JPAs can exercise all the powers that are common to their member agencies. The only power they lack is the power to pass real estate property taxes, though they’ve learned to get around that by calling them fees. But think about this for a moment: all the powers of whatever level of government they are formed out of. And all of those powers without any of the historic checks and balances that are the foundation of our democratic system.
    Yes, in theory, JPAs are created and managed by agreement between local or regional governments or agencies (water, power, sewer, police, housing, or cities and county governments) under the supervision of our local elected representatives or at the least the staff members or appointees of those elected officials. However, the reality is that almost all JPAs are run by politically appointed executives who have no prior relationship with any of the JPAs member organizations. They go on to hire their own staff and consultants to create the team that will manage and make decisions for this new “quasi-governmental” agency on a day to day basis.
    In practice, a JPA’s actions go largely unsupervised by anyone after their formation is approved. And the locally elected officials who approved it, who are often unpaid volunteers, can’t possibly analyze their complexities and potential unintended consequences of what they’ve created. So it’s pretty much all done on good faith and a cursory review of the JPA’s annual report.
    At the risk of being cynical, in the sage words of Warren Buffet: “Only invest in things that a moron could run, because sooner or later, one will.”

    JPAs - “Off the Books” Government
    Entities like the Marin Energy Authority (MEA), the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART), and most notably the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), are all JPAs. None of the executives who make policy decisions or direct staff reports are elected.
    Today, JPAs can take on debt (sell bonds, borrow money, etc.) without any vote by ratepayers or taxpayers or elected representatives, even though many provide critical public services or infrastructure.
    In theory, JPAs are separate legal entities and their financial liabilities are not the public’s responsibility. But is that really true, in practice? If MEA or SMART or ABAG gets into financial trouble because of the debt they’ve issued or a construction project they’ve undertaken has cost overruns, or they default on debt and their project, that’s providing critical services to thousands of residents, is only half built, will we really say it’s not our problem to bail them out?
    Let’s not forget that, “technically” under the law, we had no legal liability for all the defaults and losses of the banks in 2008. After all they weren’t even quasi-governmental entities. They were private for profit companies. Yet we were forced to bail them out with taxpayer money because they were deemed “too big to fail.”

    Wednesday, February 26, 2014

    Where the One Bay Area Plan came from.."



    The One Bay Area Plan has it's roots in academic and activist circles decades ago.

    Learn more about the One Bay Area Plan at www.onebayarea.org and speak up. This overambitious plan is for the next 25-40 years of your life. 

    Speak out.  Democracy is not a spectator sport.

    Monday, August 26, 2013

    California Lawmakers Continue to Undermine Property Rights



    See Article: California Lawmakers Continue to Undermine Property Rights

    Under SB-1, urban "sprawl" i.e. suburban developments like Marinwood can be deemed "blight" and taken over by eminent domain to make way for multi-unit development. 

    Urban renewal rears its ugly head again in the Golden State.


    California’s redevelopment law was designed to revive inner-city neighborhoods by giving city planners extra powers to invest tax dollars and direct development decisions in areas that were deemed to be blighted. It morphed into a financial sleight of hand, whereby officials subsidized auto malls and hotels to divert tax revenues that would go elsewhere.

    Property-rights activists loathed redevelopment because it gave cities an excuse to take property via eminent domain and give it to developers who had “better” plans for the property. Anything eyed by these agencies, critics said, became “blight.”

    Even many redevelopment supporters — who point to the revival of San Diego’s Gaslamp Quarter and other projects as proof of its success — admit that agencies sometimes abused their power. But in the end, their financial approach was their undoing.

    In 2011, a state budget crisis that prompted the new governor to look for ways to fill a budget gap led to the end of redevelopment, given that agencies ended up grabbing about 12 percent of state property tax revenues. Sure enough, these agencies have dissolved and new successor agencies can’t start new projects, but can only pay off the debt on old ones.

    Redevelopment’s advocates, including the developers, bond dealers, consultants and government planners involved in it, tried to revive redevelopment last year, but the governor vetoed the bills. They are back again, and SB 1 by Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, passed a key committee on Wednesday.

    Called the “Sustainable Communities Investment Plan,” it’s basically the same process but with a new environmentally oriented twist.

    In the old redevelopment, agencies targeted an area that was deemed “blighted” based on a wide range of mostly subjective factors. All new property tax revenues above the level when the project area was created, called “tax increment,” went to the agency, which floated bonds and subsidized developers.

    The new redevelopment is pretty much the same thing except that instead of targeting urban blight it targets urban sprawl. Supporters believe that new developments should be built in existing urban areas to reduce global warming. Redevelopment redux is a mechanism for providing fiscal incentives to spark the construction of apartments, high rises and stadiums, with “blight” defined as anything that doesn’t fit the infill vision.

    Marko Mlikotin, president of the Folsom-based California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, believes eminent domain could be more easily invoked under SB 1 than before given the broad blight definition.

    From a financial perspective, however, SB 1 is a kinder-gentler approach. Before, city agencies could create project areas and unilaterally grab tax revenues that would have gone to counties, school districts and special districts. The state reimbursed the schools, which is why Brown put an end to it.
    The new legislation requires the districts and cities to work together to create the project, so it can no longer be a mechanism for taking others’ revenue. That greatly reduces the incentive to create project areas and stems the money flow. For that reason, the state’s best-known anti-redevelopment crusader, former Assemblyman Chris Norby of Orange County, sees it as a far cry from the bad old days, even though he is opposed to redevelopment’s return. “Once Frankenstein is dead, it’s very hard to rebuild him,” he said.

    Steinberg’s policy advisor on the issue, Steve Shea, reminded me that the new redevelopment will start the base year for calculating tax increment in 2014, so it will take many years before it can accumulate the kind of tax revenue that old redevelopment agencies had amassed. It is redevelopment on a much smaller scale, something he said is necessary to help ameliorate the higher costs of building projects in urban areas.

    But like his boss, Steinberg, Shea strongly defended the use of eminent domain as an urban-planning tool. So it might not be long before Californians see some of the property-rights controversies that gave redevelopment a black eye, even if it takes years before the agencies become the fiscal sinkholes that led to their demise.

    The most important threat to your community from Sacramento lawmakers today

     SUBURBS & RURAL AREAS ARE BLIGHT

    Stop Plan Bay Area

    California Lawmakers Continue to Undermine Property Rights: Urban renewal rears its ugly head again in the Golden State

    Article by Stephen Greenhut
    California's 1940s-era urban-renewal policy, "redevelopment," is coming back - only less so in some ways but more so in others.


    California's redevelopment law was designed to revive inner-city neighborhoods by giving city planners extra powers to invest tax dollars and direct development decisions in areas that were deemed to be blighted. It morphed into a financial sleight of hand, whereby officials subsidized auto malls and hotels to divert tax revenues that would go elsewhere.

    Property-rights activists loathed redevelopment because it gave cities an excuse to take property via eminent domain and give it to developers who had "better" plans for the property. Anything eyed by these agencies, critics said, became "blight." Read the full article here 

    SB-1
    (Redevelopment Resurrected)
    This bill is a THREAT to Rural and Suburban property owners
     

    Expanding the Definition of
    BLIGHT
    Declares suburban and rural lifestyles-which it terms "inefficient land use patterns-as "blight." Declaring suburban and rural land use a "blight" has appalling and stunning legal and political implications. How does it feel to have a target on your back from these people?
    Creates mini-ABAGs (redevelopment agencies) not controlled by cities and towns.  Allows eminent domain and funding power to assemble and fund massive high density housing projects in suburban downtowns.
    WHY CARE?
    If you own property in an area that the government wants to upzone (such as property in a  PDA), they can arbitrarily take your property and put it with others so they have enough area to develop 
    high density housing near mass transit.  It also provides permanent funding for 
    PLAN BAY AREA



      
    Citizens MUST oppose this law 
    Speak Up


    Friday, August 2, 2013

    A real world look at the Future high density plans for Marin



    The above video slide show is of high density housing in the Portland, Oregon area similar to what is being proposed by Plan Bay Area and the Marin County Housing Element.  Although Marinwood is nominated to be removed from the Priority Development Area,  the State and Local governments have not changed the underlying plans for intensive urban development along the 101 corridor.  The state is anticipated to pass SB-1 which provides local government to declare suburban tracts as "blight" if their development patterns are determined to be "inefficient".  This means your neighborhood could be converted to high density apartments as seen in this video.

    We must Save Marinwood and our future.

    Tuesday, July 16, 2013

    MARIN COUNTY is about to embark on the biggest high-density housing explosion in its history.

    Marin Voice: Plan Bay Area means big changes for Marin


    Linda Pfieffer, Sausalito City Council

    MARIN COUNTY is about to embark on the biggest high-density housing explosion in its history. It's called Plan Bay Area.

    Yet most residents remain in the dark.

    Plan Bay Area sounds good on paper. It aims to reduce Greenhouse Gases (GHG) by building high-density housing near mass transit, claiming it doesn't usurp local zoning control. But the facts tell a different story.
    Local city Housing Elements must comply with the Association of Bay Area Government Regional Housing Needs Allocation. SB375 requires RHNA be consistent with Plan Bay Area's Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).

    So local governments are compelled to select RHNA sites near mass transit and allow for compact, high-density, mixed-use development at state-mandated housing sites.

    Residents need look no further than the high density housing policies being crafted locally to see Plan Bay Area's influence over local control. Add SB375's streamlining of environmental protection regulations, and Plan Bay Area could give the keys to your neighborhood's open space to big development.

    Plan Bay Area also promises to reduce GHGs.

    Unfortunately, the plan is based on questionable assumptions regarding job and population growth, and environmental impacts.

    For example, the plan's draft EIR doesn't consider California's new "Pavley" higher miles-per-gallon standards or the new federal environmental standards (e.g.54.5 mpg for cars and light trucks), which will reduce car and light truck emissions more than any of Plan Bay Area's alternatives, even if we do nothing.

    The DEIR also uses outdated 2005 GHG emissions data.

    Plan Bay Area fails to assess water supply and waste treatment systems required for the thousands of new homes planned.

    Further, it fails to assess the risks to endangered and protected habitats, such as creek, bay, and wetlands damage from water diversions and drawdowns needed to accommodate the massive development.

    The plan's high-density Priority Development Areas border sensitive eco-habitats near neighborhoods with antiquated storm drain, road and sewer infrastructure, high traffic congestion and rising sea levels.

    What cumulative impact will water diversions have on wildlife? How will existing water resources supply proposed development? Without considering Marin's water constraints, how can anyone predict the magnitude of adverse impacts of Plan Bay Area?

    Plan Bay Area says high density housing projects will have individual EIRs, providing sufficient environmental impact analyses. But EIRs are not required for individual city housing elements, despite constraints like traffic congestion, threatened species, sea level rise and crumbling infrastructure.

    And the plan "streamlines" state environmental requirements for PDA developments, so by the time we know the impacts it will be too late.

    The plan's projected growth rates for Marin County are unrealistic.

    The state Department of Finance projects much lower job and population growth. And the Pitkin-Myers University of Southern California report notes, —... much lower population growth is foreseen" than state population projections.

    The plan's GHG projections are flawed.

    Research by the Australian Conservation Foundation indicates that the type of development proposed by Plan Bay Area will increase, not decrease. Plan Bay Area's proposed "solutions" for Marin County could produce 2.5 times the GHG emissions of single family home development and three times the GHG emissions of attached, townhouse development.
    The plan's conclusion that Transit Oriented Development (TOD) reduces GHG emissions is questionable.

    The methodologies used in the draft EIR should be reviewed independently. What primary research on real-world TOD projects, as opposed to simulated scenarios and computer models based on assumptions, were used to assess the accuracy, reliability, and validity of the draft EIR conclusions?

    As presented, Plan Bay Area and its environmental review fail to inform the public, elected leaders and key decisions-makers as to Plan Bay Area's true economic, social, and environmental impacts.

    Residents have been bombarded with pro-Plan Bay Area material. I encourage residents to read the "other side" at www.CitizenMarin.org

    Sunday, June 16, 2013

    FABLE: Brer Fox Catches Old Man Tarrypin

     

    A Georgia Folktale


    Well now, Brer Rabbit had made friends with Old Man Tarrypin, a big turtle that lived in the pond near his house. Brer Rabbit and Old Man Tarrypin liked to pull tricks on Brer Fox, and that rascally fellow got pretty mad about it.

    Since he couldn't catch Brer Rabbit nohow, Brer Fox decided that he'd get even with Old Man Tarrypin instead. He started walking beside the pond every day, hoping to find the turtle out of the water.

    One morning, as he was taking his daily stroll, Brer Fox saw Old Man Tarrypin sitting right in the center of the road. The old turtle looked hot and bothered about something. He kept shaking his head back and forth and he was panting like he was out of breath.

    "Howdy, Brer Tarrypin," said Brer Fox, stopping beside the old turtle. "What's the matter wid you?"
    "I was a-strolling in the field beside my pond when the farmer came along and set it on fire," Old Man Tarrypin gasped. "I had to run and run, but that ol' fire was faster than me, so I curled up in my shell while it passed right over me! My shell is hotter than the noon-day sun, and I think I done singed my tail!"

    "Let me have a look," said Brer Fox. So Old Man Tarrypin uncurled his tail and poked it out of his shell. Immediately, Brer Fox grabbed him by the tail and swung him right off the ground.
    "I gotcha now, Brer Tarrypin," cried Brer Fox. "You ain't gonna bother me no more!"
    Well, Old Man Tarrypin begged and begged Brer Fox not to drown him. He'd rather go back into the fire in the field on account of he'd kind of gotten used to being burned.

    Brer Fox swung the poor old turtle back and forth by his tail, trying to decide what to do. Putting Old Man Tarrypin into the fire was a tempting idea, but then he remembered how the old turtle had curled up into his shell so the fire couldn't touch him. Brer Fox frowned. Fire was no good, then.

    Brer Fox decided to drown Old Man Tarrypin instead. He tucked the turtle under his arm and carried him down to the springhouse by the pond.

    "Please, oh please don't drown me," Old Man Tarrypin begged.

    "I ain't making no promises," Brer Fox retorted. "You've played too many tricks on me, Brer Tarrypin."

    Brer Fox thrust him into the water and began bouncing him up and down.

    "Oh, I is drowning," shouted Old Man Tarrypin when his head bounced out of the water. "Don't let go of my tail, Brer Fox or I'll be drowned for sure!"

    "That's the idea, Brer Tarrypin," Brer Fox yelled back and let go of his tail.

    Immediately Old Man Tarrypin splashed down and down into the water and thumped onto the mud on the bottom, kerplicky-splat.

    That's when Brer Fox remembered that Old Man Tarrypin lived in the pond, and there was never any fear of him drowning, nohow! He could hear him laughing from the bottom of the pond: "I-dare-ya-ta- come-down-'ere".

    Brer Fox jumped up and down in fury. Old Man Tarrypin had escaped him!

    From the other side of the pond, Brer Bull Frog called out: "Knee-deep! Knee-deep!"

    Brer Fox glared at the pond, and then looked back at Brer Bull Frog. "It's only knee-deep?" he asked suspiciously.

    "Knee-deep, knee-deep!" Brer Bull Frog said again.

    All the little frogs joined in the chorus then. "Better-believe-it! Better-believe-it!"

    Well, thought Brer Fox, if it was only knee deep, then he'd have no trouble catching Old Man Tarrypin.

    "Wade-in, wade-in!" croaked Brer Bull Frog.

    "Knee-deep, knee-deep!" agreed all the little frogs.

    Brer Fox didn't much like water, but he really wanted to catch Old Man Tarrypin. He approached the edge of the pond cautiously. From underneath the water, Old Man Tarrypin laughed at him, and his words bubbled up to Brer Fox: "I-dare-ya-ta- come-down-'ere! I-dare-ya-ta- come-down-'ere."
    Well. That did it. Brer Fox ran right up to the edge of the pond. Leaning over, he looked into the water and saw another fox staring at him.

    "Dat's-your-brother! Dat's-your-brother," Brer Bull Frog told Brer Fox.

    Brer Fox was thrilled. He didn't know he had a brother. Now that there were two foxes, catching Old Man Tarrypin would be a cinch! Brer Fox leaned down to shake hands with his new-found brother, and toppled right down into the deep water of the pond.

    All of the frogs laughed and laughed at the trick they had played on Brer Fox, and Old Man Tarrypin started swimming up from the bottom of the pond, his red eyes fixed on Brer Fox's tail. Brer Fox knew that the old turtle wanted to pull him down under that water and drown him, so he learned to swim mighty quick! With much splashing and squirming and kicking, Brer Fox made it to the edge of the pond, where he jumped out and ran away as fast as he could, while Brer Bull Frog laughed and the little frogs shouted with glee.

    The last thing he heard as he rounded the corner was the voice of Old Man Tarrypin calling: "I-dare-ya-ta- come-down-'ere".

    Brer Fox never messed with Old Man Tarrypin again.
     

    Sunday, April 7, 2013

    VIDEO: The plan for Affordable Housing in the Bay Area and EIR presentation 4/16/2012


    Good overview of ABAG housing mandates that will literally change the Bay Area forever.

    Despite some of the hot rhetoric,  there is some important information here to provide you with some perspective on the One Bay Area Plan.




    --- On Wed, 4/3/13, MTC Public Information <info@mtc.ca.gov> wrote:

    From: MTC Public Information <info@mtc.ca.gov>
    Subject: Draft Plan Bay Area EIR Released
    To: lizdale@ymail.com
    Date: Wednesday, April 3, 2013, 12:53 AM

    April 2, 2013
    Release of Draft Plan Bay Area Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
     
    The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) today released for public review and comment a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) as a companion environmental analysis to the Draft Plan Bay Area, which is also out for public review.
     
    Three public hearings are scheduled as an opportunity to provide oral comments specifically on the EIR. Oral comments on the Draft EIR also can be made at one of nine public hearings scheduled for the Draft Plan Bay Area. 
      
    Tuesday
    April 16, 2013
    Tuesday
    April 16, 2013 
    Wednesday
    April 17, 2013 
    10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
    1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Embassy Suites Hotel,
    Novato/Larkspur Room
    Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter Auditorium
    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
    Library, Rooms 225/229
    101 McInnis Parkway
    San Rafael 
    101 8th Street
    Oakland 
      
    150 E. San Fernando St.
    San Jose 

     

    Written comments may be mailed to: 

    MTC-ABAG Public Comment 

    Draft EIR - Plan Bay Area 

    101 8th Street, Oakland, CA  94607

    Or email your comments to: 


    The Draft Plan Bay Area is the region's long-range transportation and land-use/housing blueprint, which charts a course for accommodating needed housing growth within our nine counties while at the same time decreasing greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. 


    The public comment period for both the Draft EIR and Draft Plan Bay Area extends until 4 p.m., Thursday, May 16, 2013. The Draft EIR and Draft Plan Bay Area are slated for adoption by MTC and ABAG in summer 2013.


    An errata sheet for the Draft Plan Bay Area has been posted on the Plan's website. 

     
    For more information on the
    Draft EIR or Draft Plan Bay Area, please visit onebayarea.org.