One Bay Area and Board of Supervisor's are planning massive growth for Marinwood/Lucas Valley

Editor's note: This came to us from an East Bay group called Bay Area Liberty

ONE BAY AREA

REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA)

Could DESTROY The Character of Your Town

(the purpose of RHNA is 175% income redistribution, see MTC quote below in

“Why RNA?” paragraph)

 SACRAMENTO & UNELECTED REGIONAL BUREAUCRATS

Dictate Housing Numbers**!!

Sussman Exposes Top Down Housing Allocations-KSFO

Cities must object by September 10

(officially by Sept 18 but ABAG told us they would probably ignore comments after Sept 10)

 How could these numbers destroy the character of your town?

1.  There is no funding for schools and other services. Local taxpayers will have to bear that burden

(Pleasanton braces for 3X student population-view video here)

 2.  Numbers REQUIRE a ‘fair share” of low income, very low income people in stack and pack housing near transit.  How will that affect the character of your town?

 Towns hardest hit will be those that ABAG considers imbalanced

Things You Can Do

Tell your city council to send letter to ABAG protesting the allocation.

Hold a Townhall Meeting to Educate your neighbors 

 Start a petition in your town and send a citizens petition directly to ABAG.

**Bureaucrats in Sacramento at the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) have dictated to each region in the State how much housing they must accomodate.

MTC-ABAG took this number and used a computer model that compared housing value, household income, and school scores to determine the

FAIR SHARE

that each community must take

(failure to comply means loss of road repair funds)

WHAT IS RHNA?

The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Methodology specifies how all cities and counties in the Bay Area work to provide a fair share or proportion of the region ’s total and affordable housing need, which is a core requirement of the Housing Element Law.

WHY THE RHNA?

“ (One Bay Area)…..adopts a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology …known as the “175 percent income redistribution”. .. The Complete Community framework, along with the affordable housing strategy of RHNA, is the primary method by which social equity is built into the land use scenarios.”…. Proposed Alternatives Letter  to the One Bay Area Plan dated June 16, 2011 , Steve Heminger, Exec Director, MTC

(numbers are listed by income group, each city MUST take it’s share of very low, low, moderate and above moderate income families, there is a column for each in the document and then a column with the total number the city must accomodate)

Cities that have pushed back have had their allocation reduced. 

You CAN make a difference

The State Mandates are not Real - Elk Grove, Ca discovers the Lies

Much of what we are told about "Housing Mandates"  deserves further review.

Editors Note: Communities are fighting back all over California at new housing mandates that are forcing development in their community.  I received the following communication with comments as I received it:

*****************

Comment from Concord, CA:

This came from a friend in Elk Grove,

As I keep stating. AB32 and SB375 are NOT mandatory for local municipalities. We can say NO and we should! Do not let your local officials lie to you about this being a mandate! The mandates only call for state or regional bodies to perform these functions and clearly state that local jurisdictions are not compelled to adopt these in their general plans!

*************************

Comment from private developer from Half Moon Bay:

Maybe our Board of Supervisors should take a lesson from Elk Grove.  We do not have to change our General Plan in order to comply with AB32.  Get it?  These are voluntary requirements.  The only reason a jurisdiction would straddle these requirements on their people is in order to make it easier for large developers to slide their projects through the process - without environmental review.  The more dense the easier to get through the process.  I just finished the plans for a building project in Half Moon Bay.  They have adopted these types of requirements.  It was a very small house.  It took 21 sheets to complete this project, not counting the fire and grading sheets.  (It is a flat lot and before Green it only took 9 to 12 sheets).  Since my client is along Highway 1 I told him that he should put a high rise on the parcel and he would not have to meet the same requirements. 

Welcome to the new world of Green.  It is not about saving the environment.  It is not about health and safety.  It is about putting the lobbyist's widget on every house in California - AND in El Dorado County it's called saddling the cost of high rises, hotels and box stores along our corridors on the back of the tax and rate payers.

*****************************

---

Elk Grove says no to green....

Elk Grove rejects plan to cut greenhouse gases

By Anne Gonzales
afgonzales@sacbee.com

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.

It is ILLEGAL to dump low income housing in Marinwood/Lucas Valley

 Editor's Note: It is ILLEGAL to dump all the affordable housing in Marinwood/Lucas Valley according to state law.  This is the same state law that angry Novato citizen's used to repeal their aggressive housing quotas last year.  We have been targeted in Marinwood/Lucas Valley because we are politically weak and uninformed.  They are hoping no one notices until AFTER they break ground.  Over 83% of all AFFORDABLE HOUSING (extremely low to low income) is mandated for Marinwood/Lucas Valley.  This is illegal.  The state law requires housing to be spread EVENLY across unincorporated Marin.   (I wonder where the "extremely low income" housing will be built in Belvedere?) 

 

California Government Code Section 65584

Legal Research Home > California Laws > Government Code > California Government Code Section 65584

(a) (1) For the fourth and subsequent revisions of the
housing element pursuant to Section 65588, the department shall
determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region
pursuant to this article. For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section
65583, the share of a city or county of the regional housing need
shall include that share of the housing need of persons at all income
levels within the area significantly affected by the general plan of
the city or county.
   (2) While it is the intent of the Legislature that cities,
counties, and cities and counties should undertake all necessary
actions to encourage, promote, and facilitate the development of
housing to accommodate the entire regional housing need, it is
recognized, however, that future housing production may not equal the
regional housing need established for planning purposes.
   (b) The department, in consultation with each council of
governments, shall determine each region's existing and projected
housing need pursuant to Section 65584.01 at least two years prior to
the scheduled revision required pursuant to Section 65588. The
appropriate council of governments, or for cities and counties
without a council of governments, the department, shall adopt a final
regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional
housing need to each city, county, or city and county at least one
year prior to the scheduled revision for the region required by
Section 65588. The allocation plan prepared by a council of
governments shall be prepared pursuant to Sections 65584.04 and
65584.05 with the advice of the department.
   (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the due dates for
the determinations of the department or for the council of
governments, respectively, regarding the regional housing need may be
extended by the department by not more than 60 days if the extension
will enable access to more recent critical population or housing
data from a pending or recent release of the United States Census
Bureau or the Department of Finance. If the due date for the
determination of the department or the council of governments is
extended for this reason, the department shall extend the
corresponding housing element revision deadline pursuant to Section
65588 by not more than 60 days.
   (d) The regional housing needs allocation plan shall be consistent
with all of the following objectives:
   (1) Increasing the housing supply and the mix of housing types,
tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the
region in an equitable manner, which shall result in each
jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for low- and very low
income households.
   (2) Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the
protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and the
encouragement of efficient development patterns.
   (3) Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs
and housing.
   (4) Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income
category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high
share of households in that income category, as compared to the
countywide distribution of households in that category from the most
recent decennial United States census.
   (e) For purposes of this section, "household income levels" are as
determined by the department as of the most recent decennial census
pursuant to the following code sections:
   (1) Very low incomes as defined by Section 50105 of the Health and
Safety Code.
   (2) Lower incomes, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and
Safety Code.
   (3) Moderate incomes, as defined by Section 50093 of the Health
and Safety Code.
   (4) Above moderate incomes are those exceeding the moderate-income
level of Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
   (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, determinations
made by the department, a council of governments, or a city or county
pursuant to this section or Section 65584.01, 65584.02, 65584.03,
65584.04, 65584.05, 65584.06, 65584.07, or 65584.08 are exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing
with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).

300 Danville Citizens "greet" Planning Commission Quotas

Unhappy residents warn that low-income, high-density housing could mean more traffic and crime for Danville By Jason Sweeney jsweeney@bayareanewsgroup.com Posted:   12/11/2012 09:45:56 PM PST Updated:   12/12/2012 06:58:27 PM PST   1 of 6 Danville Planning Commission hears opposition to low-income housing Jeanne Wisniewski, of Danville, signs a petition before a Planning Commission meeting held in Danville, Calif., on Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012. Wisniewski was part of a large group in attendance to voice their opposition to the 2030 General Plan & Draft Sustainability Action Plan that would build high-density, low-income housing in Danville. (Doug Duran/Staff) . DANVILLE -- A sometimes raucous crowd of 300 filled to overflowing Tuesday at a planning commission meeting that rang with complaints over possible low-income and high-density housing in town. Danville is in the process of updating its general plan, but proposed changes regarding agricultural land-use zoning and increases in land zoned for high density, affordable housing have many residents concerned Danville could lose its small town charm. Several people in the crowd held signs that said Danville should get out of the Association of Bay Area Governments, which allocates housing requirements to local governments as mandated by the state. "Why are we allowing unelected bureaucrats of a regional government to boss us around?" longtime resident Anne Blake asked the commission. "The people here in Danville are the top type of people in the nation, the smartest. Why can't we stand up to all of the shenanigans that are going on?" At least 35 people spoke at the meeting, that stretched late into the night. Many voiced concerns that low-income, high-density housing could increase crime, fire hazards, traffic congestion and overburden Danville schools. "Build it, and they will come," resident Sheila Truschke said. "But don't build it, and they won't." The meeting took an occasionally raucous tone similar to a previous meeting on Nov. 27 when the draft environmental impact report for the plan was discussed. Speakers Advertisement voiced skepticism about climate change and some suggested the United Nations is behind the One Bay Area Plan, which is a long-range transportation and land-use and housing plan being implemented regionally. Some speakers urged the town to follow the city of Corte Madera's lead and leave ABAG. Town Manager Joe Calabrigo assured the crowd that the town government is committed to preserving Danville's small town character. He said membership in ABAG allows the town to represent its best interests by keeping housing numbers lower than what the state might directly mandate if Danville were to pull out of the association. He added that the town does not want to forgo state and federal funding by leaving. "Whether we appreciate it or not, the state and regional entities in my time here at the town have become increasingly involved at the local level," Calabrigo said. "Danville has been, I believe, very proactive and very persistent in trying to deal with this dynamic." Save Open Space Danville members Maryann Cella, Todd Gary and the group's attorney, Stuart Flashman, said the new general plan rewrites agricultural zoning rules to do an end-around Measure S, Danville's Open Space Preservation Initiative, which requires a public vote on general plan amendments that change land use. The group is trying to force a vote under Measure S on a proposed SummerHill Housing project for 70 homes on agriculturally zoned land. Planning Commission Chairwoman Lynn Overcashier said Wednesday that there is a lot of misinformation and fear over the new general plan. "We (commissioners) passionately care about our community. We will never look like Dublin. We will never look like Fremont. All the affordable housing in Danville has very strict guidelines and height limits. We're talking about senior facilities, housing for teachers, retail workers, restaurant workers. It doesn't mean that we are bringing crime elements or gangs into Danville." The commission will hold two more public hearings about the general plan on Jan. 8 and 22. The town council will review the plan and take public comments on Feb. 5. The council will hold a second meeting on the plan on March 5. It could vote to adopt the plan at that meeting. Contact Jason Sweeney at 925-847-2123. Follow him at Twitter.com/Jason_Sweeney. ReprintPrint   Email   Font ResizeReturn to Top   • FAQ: Article commenting how-tos and tips

Why are they forcing all this housing when we are not growing?

Marin only added 523 people in 2012 yet will be building up to 4400 units of affordable housing in the county.

 

Editors Note: Does it make any sense at all to build housing at 10 times the housing need in Marin?

Marin population sees tiny bump, state sees modest growth

By Janis Mara
Marin Independent Journal

marinij.com

Posted: 12/13/2012 05:33:23 PM PST

Marin continued its longstanding pattern of slow growth as the county saw only a minor increase in population over the last 12 months, according to state population estimates released Thursday.

Marin grew by 523 people, a 2 percent change, clocking in with a population of 255,000, as reported by the state's Department of Finance.
Statewide growth outpaced Marin's increase with California's population growing 7 percent over the same period. The state grew by 256,000 people, raising its population to 37.8 million people.
"This level of growth (for Marin) is in line with previous years," said Bill Schooling, the chief demographer of the Department of Finance. "Marin is not usually a fast-growing county."

See full articleMarin population slow growth

VIDEO: Don't mess with Heather. Fighting One Bay Area Plan

Sometimes the public forums the Association of Bay Area Governments can get testy.   In this video , Heather Gass,  a homeowner and frequent critic of One Bay Area,  is questioning the seminar leader about "open space".  

When the seminar leader asks the crowd if they want "open space",  Heather astutely asks if "open space" is defined as "government owned" exclusively or if it also means "private, undeveloped lands" as well.

This is a critical point to understand.

The One Bay Area Plan is an aggressive and ambitious plan to control ALL Development property rights by a central regional government.  The plan was developed under the theory of "Smart Growth" which requires a central planner for all property decisions.  It will drastically impact the value of property and essentially eliminate property rights for thousands of Bay Area citizens.

While we are fighting several unwise affordable housing developments and rezoning of our neighborhoods in Marinwood/Lucas Valley,  we must understand our communities plight is part of a larger struggle of fellow communities through out the Bay Area and California.

Larger coalitions of property owners are forming across the region and soon all across California. If you are disturbed at the aggressive government powers being asserted,  first we urge you to educate yourself about the 2012 Housing Element for Unincorporated Marin.  Next we recommend that you read some of the information about Smart Growth to understand the theories.  Then, we ask you to contemplate the actual impacts on your life and the community around you.  Lastly,  we ask you to share your views with others and join us in the mission to save Marinwood-Lucas Valley from hi density urbanization.  

In the near future, you tree-lined street may become filled with apartment building- especially if you live anywhere close to the 101 freeway.

Unless we stop it,  developers will win.

Join us for our Monday meeting.  email us at savemarinwood@gmail.com

Calling All Citizens! Defend Marinwood/Lucas Valley!

Marinwood/Lucas Valley is under attack ...

from developers pushing greenwashed "pack and stack" housing in our neighborhoods

Our voices will be heard.

Our freedom to live as we choose will be defended.

Our families will be safe. Our schools will be strong.

 

Our lives will be lived deliberate and free.

And we will defend our Valley from exploitation from developers, planners and politicians who want

bulldoze our neighborhoods to fulfill their high density housing schemes or tax us to death trying.

 

Join us.

 

Monday meetings.

 

for more info savemarinwood@gmail.com

P.S. Last night's Meeting went well. Please join us next Monday 6:30-8:30PM

Mighty Moms of Marinwood Meet Mondays! (all are welcome)

Moms are meeting Mondays to save Marinwood.   All are welcome to attend (men too!).   We will be discussing the impact of the Marinwood Village  and other housing proposals on our schools and community.

We recognize that the 2012 Housing Element proposes six large affordable housing development that may increase our population by 25%.  These developments will be largely supported by our tax dollars. The proposed Marinwood Village alone will add 60 to 150 children in our packed Dixie schools. The remaining five developments may increase our total school age population by hundreds, forcing us to build more schools. 

With population growth, we can expect an increase in taxes. traffic, pollution, crime and other problems that come with crowded urban living.

Some feel that  affordable housing will enhance our community.  We will explore these issues in detail too.

We meet from 6:30-8:30 PM. in Marinwood.  Childcare is provided.  If you would like to attend, email us at savemarinwood@gmail.com


P.S. Everyone is invited.  You don't have to be a mom to attend. I just liked the way it sounded in the headline :). Men are welcome too.

VIDEO: Dream of the 1890s in Portland

Portland is said to be the model  "Smart Growth" city where people live close together in small apartments above local shops, ride streetcars and peddle bicycles everywhere. 
This satiric clip from the 2nd season of the  IFC Cable TV show "Portlandia" is worth a view.

It is time to laugh at the silliness of "Smart Growth".

Enjoy.

Report on the meeting with Bridge Housing, hopeful developer of Marinwood Plaza

 

The Bridge Housing proposal for Marinwood Village was met with "open arms"

 

The Tuesday 12/4 meeting with Brad Wilban VP of Bridge Housing, Supervisor Susan Adams, staff from the Community Development Department, assorted politicians and professional housing advocates with several hundred local residents was a true town hall meeting in our democratic tradition.

 

The bright and very capable Brad Wilban tried his best for the second time to create a compelling vision for our only commericial plaza that abutts the 101 freeway.  He brought beautiful photoshop graphics and concept drawings but warned that the work was still in progress.  His slideshow presentation answered some of our questions but left many more unanswered.

 

 

 

 

Many of the same people attended and many of the famed "Neighborhood Leaders" that met privately for months and gave approval to the plans were missing from the room.  It would be nice to have at least one meeting where all of the leaders could explain their reasons for support of the development.  We did hear from Supervisor Susan Adams, Bruce Anderson, Kelly Smith, Cameron Case, John Hammond, Dr. Ralston and others who voiced strong support of the project.  I commend them since the crowd was 90% in opposition to the development.

 

Several key points were made .  The 82 unit Bridge Housing proposal will have many schoolchildren requiring new portable classrooms at $150,000 or more each.  The original estimate of 1.8 children per unit (150 +/- kids) was revised downward to .8 children per unit (60 kids).  Still with this many school children at least three portable classrooms will be needed and new teachers, administrators, staff will be required.  The $200.000 school mitigation fee will barely cover the cost of a single classroom. 

 

Property tax contributions will be minimal.  Bridge housing will receive a 55 year tax abatement.  Since Bridge Housing is a "non profit" developer,  the they will sell tax credits to provide ultra wealthy investors deep discounts on their tax liability.  Utilizing the valuation of Bridge Housing's recent Emeryville project,  The Marinwood Village project could be worth  40 million dollars. 

 

 

The annual parcel tax fees for Marinwood Village are a paltry $10,000 for all 82 units per year or roughly $ 147 per family.  Many neighbors expressed shock, especially those who purchased their home at the height of the market.  They are nearly paying the same property taxes for their single family home!

Washington politicians tell us that we are on the edge of a "fiscal cliff" and our federal taxes may increase as much as $3500 for the average middle class taxpayer.  We are reeling from the down economy  and high unemployment.  We all have suffered a the loss of 30% of the value of our homes since the crash. 

Now we must pay millions more in local taxes to support this "affordable" development?

Just who is it "affordable" for?  The developers get rich.  The politicians get power. We get .....ed! 

 

Many questions still remain unanswered or only answered superficially.  Here are questions I still have: 

·         Where will 300 cars park?

·         Who is going to pay for the upgrades to the roads, sewer and water?

·         How will the Dixie school district (especially Mary Silvera) be able to accommodate an additional 150 school children (5 classrooms worth)?

·         Does it make sense to place housing within yards of two microwave antenna towers?

·         What will be done about the toxic waste spill site at the dry cleaner?

·         When will we see an environmental impact report of the development?

·         How will the fire department be able to fight a multistory apartment fire without a ladder truck?

·         How will a apartment complex that is 50% taller than the next highest structure in Marinwood affect property values?

·         How many police, fire, teachers, CSD workers will be hired to accomodate the growth?

·         What tax burden for this housing project will be?

·         How much will we be giving the developer in addition to the $1,000,000 improvements already earmarked to provide parking on Marinwood Avenue?

·         What will this development do to my taxes? My property values?

·         When were we made the "Marinwood Priority Development Area for Urbanization"?

·         Who are the secret "Neighborhood Leaders" approving this development?

·         Why didn't "Neighborhood Leaders" tell the rest of us?

·         Who are the local investors, contractors and suppliers for this project?

·         What will happen to the retail space if Marinwood Market pulls out?

Many people who were originally inclined to support the project,  left in doubt.  They saw how much this affordable housing will cost the community.

 

The crowd simply did not accept the proposal despite Brad Wilban's best efforts.  I felt sorry for him.  He is a very nice guy and smart too.  It is just that we don't want our only commercial center turned into housing and we want to make certain that WE can afford "affordable housing".

 

 

 

Supervisor Susan Adams defended the project and her support for infill housing for the Marinwood Priority Development Area she helped create.  Last year she served as the Vice President of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and was instrumental in many of the policy decisions that are creating urban infill housing along the  Highway101 corridor. She came to office years ago with the promise of stopping housing development at Silvera Ranch.  Lately, she has become a Smart Growth advocate and supports 6 low income housing developments proscribed in the 2012 Housing Element for Unincorporated Marin. 83% of all extremely low to low income housing is planned for Marinwood/Lucas Valley.  Terra Linda has many affordable housing units along the Civic Center Northgate Plaza area that will provide homes for thousands of low income residents.  Without a doubt,  Susan Adam's District One will have the majority of government assistance housing for any Supervisor's distict in Marin County.   

 

I believe Supervisor Adams still loves the people of Marin/Lucas Valley and means well.  I believe even she is shocked that we did not approve the project.  I know that she will work with our community for a common vision for our future.  My hope is that she will be able to convince several other Supervisors to improve the plan for Marinwood/Lucas Valley.  A great first start will be to pause approval of the 2012 Housing Element until a genuine, open community wide dialogue discussing the actual costs and vision for growth can occur.  She is our neighbor.

If you would like to join our discussions about how we can provide a great future for Marinwood/Lucas Valley, come to our Monday meetings.  Email us at savemarinwood@gmail.com

 

VIDEO: Wendell Cox on Plan Maryland and the folly of Smart Growth

 

Wendell Cox is a leading academic and critic of the "Suburban Renwal" fad called "Smart Growth" which is the theory behind the redevelopment of Marinwood and the "Urbanized 101 Corridor"

 

This clip is provided to provide you a flavor of the intellectual criticism of "top down" style planning and the essential false claims made by Plan BayArea that will destroy our communities.