Friday, December 7, 2012

Renewed push for a 55 percent threshold to pass parcel tax

Watch out for pickpockets!

Editor's Note: This story is particularly important for every Citizen in Marinwood/Lucas Valley.  Our education fees are expected to climb drastically if the six affordable housing complexes are built according to the 2012 Housing Element Plan. The units would increase our population by 25% and they would pay little or no taxes AND THEY VOTE.   Ordinary tax payers will likely see huge increase in their parcel taxes . We can save our community.  Come to our action meeting on Mondays and find out how you can help.


By

It didn’t take long for a Democratic senator among the newly empowered supermajority in the Legislature to go after a low-hanging fruit: lowering the threshold for passage of a local parcel tax for education.

On Thursday, Sen. Mark Leno of San Francisco announced he would introduce a constitutional amendment that would allow voters to pass parcel taxes for school districts and community colleges by 55 percent instead of the current two-thirds majority.

“This change in law would give voters the power to make decisions about public education at the local level, allowing schools much-needed flexibility to improve instruction, fund libraries, music, the arts or other programs, or hire more teachers to reduce student-to-teacher ratios,” Leno said in a statement.

Requiring a two-thirds majority to raise taxes was part of Proposition 13, passed in 1978. However, voters have already lowered the threshold for school construction bonds to 55 percent; they did that in 2000 with Proposition 39. Leno is picking up the banner from termed-out Sen. Joe Simitian, a Palo Alto Democrat who introduced legislation for the 55 percent threshold for parcel taxes during his time in the Legislature. But, despite solid Democratic support, Simitian could never find any Republicans to back it, so his amendment languished.

With last month’s election, Democrats now have the two-thirds majority – 54 votes in the 80-member Assembly and 27 votes in the Senate – to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot or pass a tax on their own. Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John Perez have tempered talk of raising taxes this year, but a constitutional amendment to give voters the right to pass them could be presented as giving voters more local control, a priority of Gov. Jerry Brown.
Parcel taxes are regressive; property owners of castles and cottages pay the same amount. But they have proven popular in those districts that have put them on the ballot, because all of the money raised stays in the district, for uses specified under the terms of the parcel tax. They have ranged from under $50 to more than $400 per parcel in wealthier Bay Area districts.

On Nov. 6, voters passed 14 of 22 parcel taxes. Had the 55 percent threshold been in effect, 19 would have passed. Parcel taxes for community colleges have been harder to pass, and few districts have tried. This month, two out of three failed to get 67 percent; the exception was a $79 tax for the San Francisco Community College District.

Over the past two decades, 55 percent of parcel taxes – 322 of 584 – have passed, according to Mike McMahon, a school board member from Alameda Unified, who has tracked the results.

Full story Renewed Push for 55 percent threshold

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Further proof that Marinwood/Lucas Valley may become the new dumping ground for the region's poor

 
The Board of Supervisors has determined Marinwood/Lucas Valley is the ideal location for affordable housing.


In the latest salvo against our community,  the Board of Supervisors and the Marin Community Foundation is seeking developers for low income housing at Grady Ranch.  In the Marin IJ article  linked below, there is no mention of the extreme financial hardship to our schools, environment and community will suffer as the result of 240 units of housing that pays virtually nothing into the community.  We middle class taxpayers are asked to pay for this "act of charity scheme" dreamed up by the 1%  super rich, The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) , the Board of Supervisors,  crony developers and special interest groups.  This is the second of six large developments that are headed our way as prescribed in the 2012 Housing Element.  Even more are being planned behind closed doors
 
 
Save our beautiful Lucas Valley from exploitation!  Come to our weekly action meetings on Mondays. 

 

 
Save Marinwood/Lucas Valley. 
 

Marinwood Village School children will cost Dixie school Children at least $656, 832 per year





The Marinwood Village affordable housing development will add one to three busloads of kids to Dixie Schools costing anywhere from $600,000 to $2.2 million dollars yearly.
 
Great Schools profile on Dixie Elementary School


Dixie School district profile ranking and per pupil $  $10, 947.21 per student per year. 


In addition each special needs child may cost $100,000 per student per year.

Bilingual instruction for students per child may range from $20,000 up

In California, approximately 1/3 of children are enrolled in bilingual education.  We have no way of telling how many children, special needs and languages spoken for the Marinwood Plaza residents so we provide this rough guide utilizing conservative costs.


60 students,   zero special needs, zero bilingual education $656,832

100 students,  one special needs, ten bilingual education   $1,394,721

150 students,  two special needs,  twenty  bilingual education $2,242,050

Does this "affordable housing" seem affordable to our small Dixie School district?

If you are concerned with maintaining the quality of our local schools, we must demand fair school impact fees from Bridge Housing plus a realistic yearly contribution for each child in the development.

The County Planning department and Board of Supervisors will be considering the Marinwood Plaza application for development as early as next week. 

Voice your opinion on the Marinwood Plaza project by contacting each Supervisor.

Remember, in unincorporated Marin, the five member Board of Supervisors have absolute authority to approve the Marinwood Plaza development.  Incredibly, they have made public statements that they "unequivocally" support the plan without hearing from our community or seeing the application from the developer.

Please sign the petition to request the Supervisors to at least allow a six month period for review by the Marinwood/Lucas Valley community.

If you would like to participate in our weekly discussions on the impacts of  6 affordable housing developments to be built in Marinwood/Lucas Valley and what we can do,  please email us at savemarinwood@gmail.com


Note: we need to revise the impacts upwards.  The Grady Ranch proposal may add another 240 households and  450 children to our Dixie Schools

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Alameda Grassroots Team rages against the TAX machine


Alameda County Property Rights Task Force Team
DEFEAT  
Alameda County Measure B1
(Transportation Tax)
  
EVIL SPAWN OF 
 ONE BAY AREA
 
No One Bay Area
 Volunteer Grassroots Team
Rages against the machine--and WINS
ACTC Shakedown 
 
Alameda County Measure B1-additional sales tax for transportation-was put on the ballot by the Alameda County Tranportation Commission (ACTC).  Most times, there is no argument presented on the ballot for these types of propositions and they usually pass.  ACTC  expected no opposition and thought it would pass easily.  Several people on our property rights team were paying attention.   They wrote the "NO" argument and submitted it under CAPRs name just before the deadline.  The transportation guys panicked because they had not written anything up justifying "YES".  Someone in the county tipped them off to our "NO" and they frantically put in the "YES" argument.  ACTC, builders, developers, contractors, architects, engineers and labor groups funded the 'yes on b1' campaign to the tune of over $600,000 this year (your TAX $ at work).  They lost by a narrow margin.   The areas where we were active, Pleasanton, Livermore, Dublin were solidly in the "NO" column.  Since they lost, they asked for a recount.
 
We defeated the recount after just one day. Read about it here
 
Major Point:  Individuals  on a grassroots organized team with NO MONEY
can make a difference.
 
KUDOS all around especially to:
  
Pat and Judy for catching the ballot measure and recommending we write the "NO"
Chris Pareja and Al Phillips for signing the "NO" argument along with SFBay CAPR
Russ for making signs to put out on the street
Everyone who distributed flyers and spoke to friends and neighbors
Susan Morse and her Election Integrity Project Team for preparing us
Sue Caro and her team for helping man the recount on our side
Frank Lee and Pacific Justice Institute for supporting our efforts
  
Chris Pareja did an excellent job of being our spokesman in the recount and giving some great interviews to the media.
  
If we can do it, others can do it.  
  
This is one small step for the taxpayers of Alameda County
One giant leap for LIBERTY 

 

Sunday, December 2, 2012

TONIGHT! Tuesday, Dec 4th @ 6:30PM Meet with the Developer of Marinwood Plaza

"Wait.  You'll love our new offer!  We are going to sweeten the deal just for you!
Bridge Housing presents:
 
Marinwood Plaza
 
85 Units of Amazing Affordable Housing!



 





 Tuesday, December 4th, 2012
 6:30PM to 8:30PM
Mary Silvera Elementary School
375 Blackstone Canyon Drive
San Rafael (Marinwood), CA 94903
 
Meet the Developer!
Meet the Supervisor!
Meet the County Planners! 
See Color Pictures of the Beautiful Building!
Hear a Slick Presentation!
Hear housing advocates tug at your heart strings! 
Feel Empowered that they are Listening to you!
 
You will get to "vote" with little dots for your favorite building design.
All of your questions will be placed in a magic envelope to be answered at a later date.
 
 
 
If you still have questions about:
 
  1. Where will 300 cars park?
  2. Who is going to pay for the upgrades to the roads, sewer and water?
  3. How  will the Dixie school district (especially Mary Silvera) be able to accommodate an additional 150 school children  (5 classrooms worth)?
  4. Does it make sense to place housing within yards of two microwave antenna towers?
  5. What will be done about the toxic waste spill site at the dry cleaner?
  6. When will we see an environmental impact  report of the development?
  7. How will the fire department be able to fight a multistory apartment fire without a ladder truck?
  8. How will a apartment complex that is 50% taller than the next highest structure in Marinwood affect property values?
  9. How many police, fire, teachers, CSD workers will be hired to accomodate the growth?
  10. What tax burden for this housing project will be?
  11. How much will we be giving the developer in addition to the $1,000,000 improvements already earmarked to provide parking on Marinwood Avenue?
  12. What will this development do to my taxes? My property values? 
  13. When were we made the "Marinwood Priority Development Area for Urbanization"?
  14. Who are the secret "Neighborhood Leaders" approving this development?
  15. Why didn't "Neighborhood Leaders" tell the rest of us?
  16. Who are the local investors, contractors and suppliers for this project?
  17. What will happen to the retail space if Marinwood Market pulls out?
  18.  
  19. and more!
 
Come to the meeting and speak your mind.
 
Remember, this is only the first of 5 more affordable housing developments in Marinwood/Lucas Valley.  The success or failure of Marinwood market will signal a clear sign to other potential developers.
 
Please also join us for a planning meeting in Marinwood on
Monday, Dec 3rd 6:30-8:30pm 
 
 
 If you would like to attend, please email us today at savemarinwood@gmail.com
 
Life is good in Marinwood! 
Let's have a prosperous future for everyone!
 
 
 

Elk Grove says "No" to Smart Growth plans that will destroy businesses, housing and jobs.


Elk Grove, CA rejects plan to cut greenhouse gases

 



Published: Sunday, Nov. 18, 2012 - 12:00 am | Page 3B

The carbon footprint in Elk Grove will stay the same size, at least for now.
The Elk Grove City Council last week backed off on long-range plans to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, saying programs to encourage sustainability might hurt businesses and job creation.
The council put aside two plans crafted by city staff to reduce the city's emissions by about 15 percent by 2020. The plans promote green building, energy efficiency, alternative transportation and resource conservation. Council members, primarily concerned about the effects of green building requirements, unanimously voted instead to meet with business leaders and discuss how to soften any harmful effects of going green.
Key points of the plans called for:
• Requiring all new city and private developments to exceed state energy efficiency standards by 15 percent.
• Requiring large new commercial developments to have electric vehicle chargers and new residential homes to be pre-wired for plug-in vehicles. The proposal called for 300 charging stations citywide by 2025
• Tree planting programs.
• Expanding bicycle parking and storage.
• Converting the city's vehicle fleet to alternative fuels.
Elk Grove's plans were inspired by state Assembly Bill 32, which mandates the state reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, in an attempt to slow climate change.
A centerpiece of the state legislation is the "cap-and-trade" program, which began auctioning off carbon credits Wednesday.
Vice-Mayor Patrick Hume criticized the proposals, especially green building practices that exceed the state's standards, and pre-wiring homes for electric vehicle charging stations.
"What we have before us is not the right course of action today, if ever," Hume said at Wednesday's City Council meeting. "AB 32 is horrible legislation, and (its) carbon offset auction is a joke."
In 2009, the council directed city staff to draft an overarching 20-year "sustainability element" for the city's general plan, and a more short-term Climate Action Plan, which would focus on greenhouse gas reductions through 2020.
The city used federal dollars to pay for the draft proposals, and created a citizens advisory committee for input.
AB 32 doesn't require any local action, so technically the move toward cutting carbon emissions is voluntary, said Elk Grove planning director Taro Echiburu.
But having the plans in place could actually speed development by making the city eligible for certain types of funding, and streamlining environmental permitting on projects, he said.
Echiburu said a recent change in the California Environmental Quality Act requires analysis of greenhouse gas emissions as a condition of development.
"While a Climate Action Plan is not mandated, without it, we will have to comply with CEQA on a project-by-project basis, which adds time and costs to projects for developers and jurisdictions," Echiburu said, adding that projects challenged under CEQA could be delayed or halted. "With a Climate Action Plan in place, the chances of a challenge are low."
Many cities are struggling with whether and how to cut emissions. Because the state regulations are so new, there are no solid data showing they will spur development or save money, Echiburu said. While the city and county of Sacramento and Citrus Heights have adopted Climate Action Plans, the Lincoln City Council voted down its proposed plan.
Echiburu said the controversial green building standards will be needed for the city to meet its 15 percent emissions-reduction target. But it's not clear if there will be consequences for cities that don't meet AB 32 targets.
Like Hume, Elk Grove Mayor-elect Gary Davis opposed the proposed plan, expressing worry about saddling businesses with extra costs. He wants the city to shrink its carbon footprint by bringing in new businesses, particularly in an area slated for commercial development in the southern portion of the city, to allow residents to work closer to home.
"We need to be careful about putting financial burdens on businesses that ultimately prohibits our job growth, which ultimately will prohibit us from lowering our carbon footprint," he said.

 

Supervisor Susan Adams Sez

Supervisor Susan Adams, District One and Marinwood neighbor

Editor's Note: This is an article printed in entirety from Susan Adams December Newsletter.  Editorial comments appear in highlighted in yellow.


Marinwood Village Update: A second community-wide meeting will be held December 4th at 6:30PM at Mary Silveira Elementary, 375 Black-stone Drive

BRIDGE’s involvement with the redevelopment of Marinwood Plaza comes after nearly 7 years’ worth of extensive community participation (only a handful of selected residents and activists meeting behind closed doors), including the process that resulted in the Guiding Principles both with the County-led process and with prior efforts to develop the site.

BRIDGE’s master planning process has been aided tremendously by the work that has been completed since 2005(the previous plan while similiar, was primarily market rate housing that would add to the tax base The current plan is for tax exempt property and subsidized tenants. The previous plan was by no means decided as it was only fleshed out in general terms. It still was quite controversial). In order to further refine the conceptual plan adopted by the County Board of Supervisors, we have been meeting with a smaller group of local residentsa group of about 20 people, all of whom have been actively involved with this site and the plans for its rede-velopment for many years. This group includes members of the Marinwood Community Facilities District, representatives of the Casa Marinwood HOA, a board member of the Dixie School dis-trict, and other long time Marinwood residents. ( Over  43% of residents have moved in since 2007. Are current resident's opinions less valid? The group include government contractors, housing activists, smart growth advocates all of whom have a vested interest in the development.  If it was truely a representative body, why were the meeting held in private?)

We held 4 meetings with this focus group to develop the outlines of a plan that would satisfy the goals that the original planning process identified (Guiding Principles). (Guiding principles were predetermined by staff and political insiders) The 4 meetings focused on the elements of the Northern portion of the site, which continues to be a location for neighbor-hood serving retail and a neighborhood gathering place (having an affordable grocery store closeby was the main concern of 95% of the residents, housing was only accepted when the developer claimed it would not be profitable without housing.  The insistance by the county that the developer gift 50% of the housing to affordable housing made the deal financially unreasonable), alterations to Marinwood Avenue to re-duce the width of the right of way and to create a street that is more in line with a residential neighborhood, and, lastly, we discussed the massing and architecture of the residential compo-nents planned for the southern end of the site.
The Community-Wide Open House held Satur-day, October 27th (This was the first meeting every held for the public.  The crowd was overwhelming opposed to forcing affordable housing on the community without key questions about the impact on our schools, parking, environment and our taxes. Other residents were concerned that  Marinwood Plaza should be 100% commercial since it is the only site that abutts the 101 highway.) It is focused on those same key elements of the plan and sought feedback from the broader community to inform the development of a final master plan. More questions were asked than answered.

A second community-wide meeting will be held December 4th at 6:30PM at Mary Silveira Elementary to report back on a number of questions that were raised at the October 27th meeting and to discuss alterations that have been made to the plan in response to some of the specific feedback we received (and wish to answer. Controversial questions regarding details of the project may not be answered.)  

A notice will be sent by email to those that are on our contact list, as well as by mail to a broad radius of homeowners in Marinwood and Lucas Valley. If you would like to be added to our contact list, please click here.

Thank you to those who joined us for the Community Meeting and Open House On Saturday, October 27th to solicit ideas and feedback on the proposed plans. Nearly 150 community members came together to discuss the plans for Marinwood Village, offer feedback on architecture and ask questions of BRIDGE Housing and Supervisor Adams.

The materials can be viewed on the website: www.marinwoodvillage.com. If you have other questions, please feel free to email us at marinwoodvillage@bridgehousing.com

We look forward to an earnest question and answer session with room for followup questions.  As this is only the second public meeting on the Bridge Housing proposal, many residents will be attending for the first time and will have questions.  Questions concerning parking, taxes, fees,  housing, setbacks, environmental concerns, funding, access have yet to be answered fully.
------------------------------------

Supervisor, Steven Kinsey, voiced the opinion that all supervisors are behind the plan "uneqivocally" but are uncertain that densities can be achieved to make the project affordable and still qualify for government grants. 

The fate of Marinwood Plaza is far from certain. At the TAM meeting, on November 29th, I pointed out that the loss of the Marinwood Plaza site to housing would be devastating on the community. Housing will take away the one thing our community needs to be "walkable, bikeable and sustainable", a successful, vibrant commercial center.

The Marinwood Market is currrently receiving rent subsidies and may not survive once it is surrounded by low income housing and parking is eliminated.  A much better option would be a "Farm to Table Market"  with Marinwood Market as the anchor tenant (for an example see www.oxbowmarket.com). It will serve the local community and provide a tourist gateway to West Marin cheese, organic farms and wineries. It is a natural fit with Sonoma and Napa wine country and benefits from its proximity to San Francisco. 

Oxbow Market, Napa, CA.
 
Marinwood/Lucas Valley can have a prosperous future!

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Here comes the ABAG Money! Important meeting Thursday at 7pm



 
A meeting potentially very relevant to those concerned about the  High Density Housing in Marinwood/Lucas Valley is occurring this Thursday, 7pm at the Marin Civic Center, details below. If you can make time this looks like a very interesting meeting where the dots are likely to be joined on how One Bay Area Funding is being released and controlled - the money trail may be revealed...

 


 

It is important that local Marinwood/Lucas Valley Citizens start showing up at these meetings and voice your concerns.  Remember,  these are the ABAG funding grants that caused the Board of Supervisors to "sell out" Marinwood/Lucas Valley to developers.  They are hoping you will stay home and don't bother. 
 
 
-------------------------------------
 

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 

NOVEMBER 29, 2012 

7:00 P.M. 

MARIN COUNTY CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 330 

3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael, California
 


 

 

This Thursday, November 29, at 7 pm, the TAM Board of Commissioners will consider the applications for One Bay Area Grant funding. The board meeting will be held in room 330 at the Marin County Civic Center, 3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael. 

 

Here is the link to the board meeting agenda and staff report:


See agenda item #8 “Programming of One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Funds. The staff report for agenda item #8 begins on page 45 of the agenda packet.

Please note that before the TAM Board meeting, at 6 p.m., TAM [Transportation Authority of Marin] staff will hold an information session about the One Bay Area Grant (“OBAG”) program. Community members interested in learning more about the proposed OBAG projects or the review process are welcome to attend. The information session will be in Room 324A (the “Rug Room”) at the Marin County Civic Center.

 

Please forward this information to members of the community who may be interested in learning more about transportation funding in Marin. If you have any questions, give me a call.  

Linda M. Jackson

Planning Manager, Transportation Authority of Marin

415-226-0825 (w)

415-419-1523 (c)

 -------------------
On page 58 of the linked document:

Proposed project:

Marinwood Village

Redevelopment

TLC There are two major components to the project: 1) reducing the width of the Marinwood Ave right of way, which is currently 89' and

vastly oversized for the neighborhood context; and 2) intersection improvements at Marinwood Ave and Miller Creek Rd, to

signalized or control traffic by means of a roundabout. The goal of the project is to ensure strong pedestrian and vehicular

connections to the redeveloped Marinwood Plaza Shopping Center, a roughly 5 acre infill site in unincorporated Marin County. One

of the keys to realizing the vision of a neighborhood village is to change the character of public right of ways to transform them into

inviting, walkable, bikable avenues, that also adequately handle vehicular traffic and parking.


 

Monday, November 26, 2012

Snooki loves "Smart Growth" for the Jersey Shore?

 
I wonder what Snooki thinks of Smart Growth coming to Jersey Shore? 
 
 
 
 
Is Smart Growth Really 'Smart'?
 
 first published in Bloomfield Patch  in Bloomfield, New Jersey
Many towns are engaging in some type of redevelopment or another.  And many are touting that it’s being based on Smart Growth Development.  While this type of development is being implemented, no one is questioning its validity.

So, what is Smart Growth?  And is it really all that smart?

Smart Growth development is a centralized land-use policy whose mission is to curb “suburban sprawl.”   In order to do that, the Smart Growth model of development is multi-use properties.  That is, retail on the bottom and apartments on top.  Some refer to this type of development as “stack ‘em and pack ‘em” housing.  These developments are built along transit lines, since that meets the other criteria of Smart Growth, to create pedestrian villages which extremely limit car use.

In the early days of our country, transportation was very limited.  This is why cities were the place to be.  It’s where commerce took place.

As our choices in transportation became better, people realized they would like to live outside the city limits and actually own a piece of property.  In the suburbs, they could have a one family home with a private outdoor space and some distance between their neighbors.

Companies then began moving their locations to the suburbs where more people were living.
But to some, the idea of moving to the suburbs and having more than an acre of land is unconscionable and unnecessary.  But according to whose value system?  And the implication of calling it “smart” implies that government bureaucrats are the all-knowing experts about how the rest of us should live.

But are Americans really ready to embrace high-density living?

The goals of Smart Growth are to control urban boundaries, reduce pollution and promote mass transit - all of which go against our American values of the right to own property, to live in the house and location of our choice and the ability to move about freely – not according to a transit schedule.
National Geographic recently did a cover story on “The City’s Solutions to Earth’s Problems.”  Do you really solve environmental issues by forcing millions of people to live in densely populated urban areas?  Here’s their claim:  “City dwellers tread lightly: their roads, sewers and power lines are shorter.  Their apartments take less energy to heat and cool.  Most important, they drive less.”

While Smart Growth advocates are completely concerned about congestion on the streets, they don’t seem to care about the people who are living in congested apartment buildings and all that brings with it.  More people in a congested, dense area mean more noise, more garbage, more pollution and more crime.  They have also left out the impact it places on local services –police, fire and the school system. 

How do you properly educate the increased amounts of students in the public school system?
Washington Township in Warren County had to address this exact problem.  While town officials embraced the idea of Smart Growth, they never took into consideration the unintended consequences, which are overflowing schools, skyrocketing property taxes and main streets that are congested.

They’ve had to turn trailers into school rooms, build a high school and expand two of its three other schools.

Not only that, most of the town does not get the benefits of a pedestrian friendly concept since the majority of residents live outside the developed area.  In 2007, they were looking at eminent domain to seize property to prevent developers from buying it and building more apartment buildings.

As this agenda has been forced upon us, none of their goals have been achieved.  What they set out to solve has been made worse.

First, if you limit people’s choices of where they can live, Smart Growth will actually end up driving up the cost of housing.  There will be less affordable one family homes.  Less housing logically leads to expensive housing.

Secondly, this development has also failed to reduce pollution.  As more people are living in densely populated cities, it only follows logic that pollution would be worse in these over-crowded urban areas.  One needs only to think of Los Angeles and its major traffic and smog issue.  The reality is, while some people may drive less, there’s plenty who are still driving.  On top of that, add the increased amounts of garbage and noise pollution.  Has anyone walked on a NYC street the night before a garbage pickup?  Smells wonderful, looks wonderful and it brings out the best in urban wildlife.

We Americans are not giving up our cars.  We like the freedom of car ownership and the ability to go where we want, when we want.

More importantly, we are not giving up our right to own property – the cornerstone of freedom – to live in an apartment building that houses hundreds of other people.

To all those Smart Growth advocates who think city living with no personal outdoor space, crowded subways, crowded streets, garbage, noise pollution and crime is the way to live, I challenge you to sell your home in the suburbs and join the masses in the city.

For those of you who enjoy home ownership, a backyard and a car - stand your ground!


Will Marinwood-Lucas Valley win the next New Jersey Future "Smart Growth" Award?


Stand up for the future you want.  Oppose the Urbanization of Marin.  Come to our meetings.  Vote!

Will Marinwood Plaza cost $45 million dollars and pay no taxes?

The Trump Family fortune of $500 million dollars was built by Donald's father with Affordable Housing.


Your tax dollars will be hard at work supporting multimillion dollar affordable housing developer Bridge Housing.  You better be working hard now to earn enough to pay them.

The big joke about "affordable housing" built by "non profit" corporations is they are built cheaply and no one makes any money.   

Check out Bridge Housing's latest project in Oakland  here

That project cost $500,000 per unit!  That is far more than market rate housing in Marinwood for many single family homes. The units are much smaller than standard apartments.  In fact on a per square footage basis, it is easily 4 times the cost of a Marinwood-Lucas Valley home.

On top of all of this,  Bridge Housing receives a 50 year tax abatement,  lowered development costs , special loopholes for environmental reviews, and mitigation.  

A private developer would be expected to pay significant impact fees to the community to make up for the costs of new schools, traffic impact, police and fire services, etc.   We taxpayers will be stuck paying for these fees for Bridge Housing. 

The proposed Marinwood Plaza neighbors are expected to add 150 children to our schools (roughly 5 classrooms worth) and will be able to vote to increase even more parcel taxes on all property owners.

We cannot afford this development.

The only "sustainable" solution for Marinwood Plaza is a retail development like the Farm to Table market concept.   It will actually CONTRIBUTE money to our CSD district in the form of tax dollars and jobs.  The big benefit, is it will provide the success for the market for years to come*.

We can have a properous future. 

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

*Marinwood Market is receiving generous rent subsidies while Marinwood Plaza is being developed. No one is certain that a gourmet market will achieve success with a low income housing project next door.  It is this writers opinion that only by widening the market's appeal to all of Marin by increasing visiability, parking and events, can it hope to survive.  Currently Marinwood Plaza is hidden from Highway 101 where literally millions of locals and tourists pass annually.  With small improvements to visability and good marketing,  a prosperous center can emerge.  One model is Oxbow market in Napa www.oxbowmarket.com  and the revitalized Larkspur Landing rechristened as the Marin Country Mart. www.marincountrymart.com   .  Those "neighborhood leaders" that express the opinion that "Marinwood Plaza will never become anything but an eyesore, so we might as well build government housing"  are ignoring many successful retail makeovers.

 

If we want a food market in Marinwood, it must be successful.  No one will continue to patronize a market out of loyality alone (Remember the "buy American" efforts when Japanese cars took over Detroit? How did that work out?).  The market must be a place people want to come to and shop.

We can have a successful future.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

My Conversation with an ABAG Central Planner

"Hello, I'd like to learn more about the Marinwood Priority Development Area"


me: "Hello, I'd like to learn more about the Marinwood Priority Development Area (PDA).  Can you help?

planner (cheerfully):  "Well not specifically about the plan for Marinwood but I can tell you about   PDA program in general."

me: "Okay,  I am just trying to figure out what it means to be a part of the PDA in Marinwood.  I understand someone had to apply for it, so I would like to know who applied for it and on what criteria"

planner (cheerfully):  The PDA program means that there are more funds available for certain kinds of development to mitigate transportation issues. Transportation dollars will be given for improvements to provide access to equitable transportation access.

me: "Marinwood is a bedroom community,  we have hardly any transportation issues. We won't be building freeways here. What are we going to do with transportation dollars?"

planner (cheerfully):  "Improving streets, bicycle paths, crosswalks",.

me: " But why Marinwood? We are mostly single family homes. We hardly have bus service and the SMART train doesn't have a stop close by."

planner:  " Isn't there a run down strip mall that was proposed for redevelopment?  That project if it meets certain criteria will qualify the community for funds.  In 2007 Marin and community members approved the project for mixed use housing and retail"

me: "That is true but the other project was PRIVATE development and would be required to pay hefty mitigation fees.  The units would be high priced condos not the low income, taxpayer subsidized housing that is being proposed now."

planner (cooly): "It was decided by the County in 2007.  There were public meetings.."

me: " Wait a minute.  I have lived here since then.  There were never any public meetings or announcements.  Where can I find out who filled out the paperwork and made it a PDA. Most of the community doesn't know there is a PDA here.

planner: (cooly) " There were meetings and a resolution."

me: "But no one ever knew.."

planner(drone like): "meetings.  the community agreed...."

 [ In fact the community did not agree on the Bridge Housing proposal. Since 2007 there has been a renewal of the community with young families. Over 43% of current residents have moved in since 2007. ]

me: "this is crazy.  It sounds like very facist decision making.  We live here.  We NEVER were involved with the process"

planner (icely) :  "Have a nice day.  (click) " End of conversation.


Only a few political insiders knew anything about the coming plans. Most of the "neighborhood leaders"  were hand selected to provide the illusion of a "public process".  These leaders did not make their participation public until the October 27, 2012.  Even then, many of them did not dare to show up to share their support of the process. 

Four of the Five CSD Directors were "Neighborhood Leaders" participants in the planning process (Cyane Dandridge, Bill Hansell,  Leah Green and Bruce Anderson).  All had a duty as elected officials to inform the public of what was happening with the project from their date of participation.   Only Bruce Anderson showed up at the meeting (He orginally suggested a development in 2000). 

Cyane Dandridge actually served on the county planning group that selected six sites in Marinwood-Lucas Valley for affordable housing.  We have 83% of all affordable housing in all of unincorporated Marin.  When I asked her about her involvement, she told me that she "didn't attend many of the meetings" The effect of her recommendations, may grow the community by 25%.

Do we live in a democracy?

Cities Summits Joel Kotkin

 
Joel Kotkin is a California Based Demographer, Economist and Land Use Critic.  In this video series,  he outlines the fallacies of Smart Growth land use planning. 
 
 
Do you know that Marinwood-Lucas Valley will house 83% of low income government housing if the 2012 Housing Element for Unincorporated Marin is adapted.  Once adapted,  millions of dollars earmarked for development will flow into our Valley changing us forever.
 
Our population may grow more than 25% and have an additional 1000 children in the Dixie School system.  Since our new neighbors and developers will receive generous tax breaks for up to 50 years,  the current residents will foot the bill for all of this growth.