The Pretenders-My City was Gone

MY CITY WAS GONE

I WENT BACK TO OHIO

BUT MY CITY WAS GONE

THERE WAS NO TRAIN STATION

THERE WAS NO DOWNTOWN

SOUTH HOWARD HAD DISAPPEARED

ALL MY FAVORITE PLACES

MY CITY HAD BEEN PULLED DOWN

REDUCED TO PARKING SPACES

A, O, WAY TO GO OHIO

WELL I WENT BACK TO OHIO

BUT MY FAMILY WAS GONE

I STOOD ON THE BACK PORCH

THERE WAS NOBODY HOME

I WAS STUNNED AND AMAZED

MY CHILDHOOD MEMORIES

SLOWLY SWIRLED PAST

LIKE THE WIND THROUGH THE TREES

A, O, OH WAY TO GO OHIO

I WENT BACK TO OHIO

BUT MY PRETTY COUNTRYSIDE

HAD BEEN PAVED DOWN THE MIDDLE

BY A GOVERNMENT THAT HAD NO PRIDE

THE FARMS OF OHIO

HAD BEEN REPLACED BY SHOPPING MALLS

AND MUZAK FILLED THE AIR

FROM SENECA TO CUYAHOGA FALLS

SAID, A, O, OH WAY TO GO OHIO 

Dixie School Board Candidates Night on October 17, 2013 (unedited)

Candidates websites:

Bruce Abbott

Ruth Carter

Brad Honsberger

Mark Schott

Lisa Culbertson Simmons

and Dixie School District School Board

And to see addional one on one interviews see www.electmarin.org

How to handle the next recession

Plan Bay Area is the Precursor to the Proposed HUD rule.

What do you think?

Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities 
by Stanley Kurtz 
Link: http://amzn.com/1595230920

Planning Commision Denies a 3 inch variance to Marinwood HomeOwner (from 1956)

Phillip Cotton of 573 Kernberry Ave,Marinwood, CA appealed to Planning Commission to allow a
variance for 3 inches into the setback.  The property was built in 1956 . The planning commission voted down the appeal. Ironically, if it were an affordable housing complex he would be able to build closer to the lot line.

The planning commision delivers harsh judgement on homeowners while loosening restrictions on non profit affordable housing developers.  Mr. Cotton will likely pay MORE taxes than Bridge Development proposal of Marinwood Village. Does this sound like "fair housing" to you?

See full meeting on September 14, 2013

Read the Marin IJ story by Nels Johnson

Anti-Sprawl Policies Threaten America’s Future

by Joel Kotkin on August 23, 2013

Among university professors, government planners and mainstream pundits there is little doubt that the best city is the densest one. This notion is also supported by a wide number of politically connected developers, who see in the cramming of Americans into ever smaller spaces an opportunity for vast, often taxpayer-subsidized, profiteering.

Invest, Inspire and Innovate is our motto at Bridge Housing.
When you invest with us we will invite you to our cool parties like this one HERE

More recently density advocates cite a much-discussed study of geographic variations in upward mobility as suggesting that living in a spread-out city hurts children’s prospects in life. “Sprawl may be killing Horatio Alger,” quipped economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

Yet the study actually found the highest rates of upward mobility not in dense cities, but in relatively spread-out places like Salt Lake City, small cities of the Great Plains such as Bismarck, N.D.; Yankton, S.D.; and Pecos, Texas — all showed bottom to top mobility rates more than double New York City. And we shouldn’t forget the success story of Bakersfield, Calif., a cityColumbia University urban planning professor David King wryly labeled “a poster child for sprawl.” Rather than an ode to bigness, notes demographer Wendell Cox, the study found that commuting zones (similar to metropolitan areas) with populations under 100,000 — smaller cities that tend to be sprawled by nature  —  have the highest average upward income mobility.

“Sprawl” did not kill Detroit, as Krugman suggests in his previously mentioned column, the city did that largely to itself. Another like-minded critic, historian Steven Conn,  blames the auto industry for the city’s problems, perhaps not recognizing Detroit would be little more than a more southerly Duluth without it.
There are at least three major problems with the thesis that density is an unabashed good. First, and foremost, Census and survey data reveal that most people do not want to live cheek to jowl if they can avoid it. Second, most of the attractive highest-density areas also have impossibly high home prices relative to incomes and low levels of homeownership. And third, and perhaps most important, dense places tend to be regarded as poor places for raising families. In simple terms, a dense future is likely to be a largely childless one.

Let’s start with something few density advocates consider: what people want and what they would choose if they could. Roughly four in five buyers, according to a 2011 study commissioned by the National Association of Realtors, prefer a single-family home. This preference can be seen in the vastly greater construction of single-family houses in the past decade: Between 2000 and 2011, detached houses accounted for 83% of the net additions to the occupied U.S. housing stock.  The percentage of single-family homes in the total housing mix last decade was more than one-fifth higher than in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the pattern is not likely to end, barring a longer-term recession or government edict. As the number of households once again begins to rise and birthrates tick up, single-family homes are once again leading housing growth.


Buyers of single-family homes are not necessarily embracing exurban lifestyles so much as reacting to basic economic factors. In many cases the nicest single-family districts closest to work and amenities are prohibitively expensive — think Beverly Hills or Studio City in the L.A. area, Bethesda near Washington, or Evanston outside Chicago. People move further out in order to afford something better than an apartment.
The last decennial Census shows us definitively that people tend to head toward the periphery. Barely 6% of Americans live in densities of over 10,000 per square mile, and the fastest-growing central cities between 2000 and 2010 — such as Raleigh, Charlotte and Austin — have average densities less than a third as intense as places like New York, Chicago, Or Los Angeles.

Overall, domestic migrants tend to be moving away from these denser metropolitan areas. Between 2000 and 2010, a net 1.9 million people left New York, 1.3 million left Los Angeles, 340,000 left San Francisco, while 230,000 left San Jose and Boston. In contrast, some of the largest in-migration has taken place over the past decade, as well as since 2010, in relatively sprawling cities, including Houston, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Tampa-St. Petersburg and Nashville.

Our perceptions of density are often distorted by media coverage, which tends to revolve around city centers. To be sure many downtown areas have experienced impressive growth, but this accounted for less than 1% of the 27 million expansion in the U.S. population between 2000 and 2010. In reality virtually all net population growth in the nation took place in counties with under 2,500 persons per square mile. The total population increase in counties with under 500 people per square mile was more than 30 times that of the growth in counties with densities of 10,000 and greater.

Some inner suburbs may be struggling adjacent to some hard-pressed cities, as is often highlighted by density advocates, but they are thriving in areas where prices are reasonable and the economy is strong. In Houston, arguably America’s most economically vibrant big metro area, over 80% of homes sales in 2012
were outside Beltway 8, the city’s second ring. The city’s inner ring, inside the 610 loop, has experienced an impressive revival, but still it only accounted for 6% of home sales last year.

There is clearly a growing chasm between affordable, family-friendly cities and those that, frankly, are not. Until the 1970s, in virtually all American metropolitan areas, a median-priced home cost roughly three years’ median income. This equilibrium was smashed by the imposition in some states of “smart” land-use policies that seek to limit or even prohibit suburban building, huge impact fees, as well as in some markets,  massive investment from speculators.

Small towns are preferred by many people

As a result, many of the metro areas beloved by density advocates, such as New York and San Francisco, now have median home price multiples well over 6 or 7; if current trends continue, they could, as occurred during the last housing boom, reach upward of 10. Not surprisingly, these areas all have low rates of homeownership compared to the national average.  For example, in New York and Los Angeles, the homeownership rate is half or less than the national figure of 65%. This is particularly true among working class and minority households. Atlanta’s African-American home ownership rate is approximately 40% above those of San Jose and Los Angeles, approximately 50% higher than Boston, San Francisco and Portland, and nearly 60%  higher than New York.

All these factors are particularly relevant to one group: families. Much of contemporary urban theory rests on the idea of weakening family connections: fewer marriages and lower birthrates will decrease the appetite for lower-density housing. Families do not make up the prime market for dense housing; married couples with children constitute barely 10% of apartment residents, less than half the percentage for the population overall.
Families also generally settle in less dense parts of cities, suburban or exurban areas;  the places with the lowest percentage of households with children include favored abodes of the  density lobby such as New York (particularly Manhattan), as well as Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle. In contrast the metropolitan areas with the strongest growth in their child populations — Raleigh, Austin, Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Oklahoma City — have much lower densities and far smaller urban cores.

This flight from density among families is not merely an American phenomena. There are far higher percentages of families with children in the suburbs of Tokyo, London and Toronto than within the inner rings. The ultra dense cities of East Asia — Hong Kong, Singapore and Seoul — have among the lowest fertility rates on the planet. Tokyo and Seoul now have fertility rates around 1 while Shanghai’s has fallen to 0.7, among the lowest of any city ever recorded, well below China’s “one child” mandate and barely one-third the number required simply to replace the current population.

Families come in all kinds.

Some have suggested that the Obama administration is conspiring to turn American cities into high-rise forests. But the coalition favoring forced densification — greens, planners, architects, developers, land speculators — predates Obama. They have gained strength by selling densification, however dubiously, as what planner and architect Peter Calthorpe calls “a climate change antibiotic.” Not surprisingly, there’s less self interest in promoting more effective greenhouse gas reduction policies such as boosting  work at home and lower-emissions cars.

The density agenda need to be knocked off its perch as the summum bonum of planning policy. These policies may not hurt older Americans, like me, who bought their homes decades ago, but will weigh heavily on the already hard-pressed young adult population. Unless the drive for densification is relaxed in favor of a responsible but largely market-based approach open to diverse housing options, our children can look forward to a regime of ever-higher house prices, declining opportunities for ownership and, like young people in East Asia, an environment hostile to family formation. All for a policy that, for all its progressive allure, will make more Americans more unhappy, less familial, and likely poorer.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and Distinguished Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University, and a member of the editorial board of the Orange County Register. He is author of The City: A Global History and The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. His most recent study, The Rise of Postfamilialism, has been widely discussed and distributed internationally. He lives in Los Angeles, CA. This article originally appeared in Forbes Magazine and is republished here with permission from the author.

Video: Do Transit Buses and Trains make financial sense?

My guess is the SMART train will be significantly less efficent than the Trolley due to the lack of major employment centers and the low population density on the route. If light rail can't work in San Jose, why does anyone think it can work in a suburban corridor?

ABC interviews Plan Bay Area executives Ezra Rapport and Ken Kirkey

Mimi Steel talking about Plan Bay Area on Barbara Simpson Show

Our Glorious Future Marinwood Village circa 2008-Notes from the Marinwood Village Collaborative



Glorious Future "Concept Drawing" for Trammel Crow's Marinwood Village project in 2008

Glorious Future for the China's One Child Policy

Editor's Note:  These are the notes from the 2008 Marinwood Village Collaborative community meeting with private developer Trammel Crow with Peter Brandon as project leader.  This project was PRIVATE.  The Bridge Housing proposal in 100% affordable housing and will have a 55 year tax abatement and pay minimal fees (around $10,000 for 83 families). It represents a major burden on our  community especially the schools and government services.  Many of the same unanswered questions concerning parking,  fire protection, building heights, density and keeping a commercially viable food market still remain in the current proposal.   The concept drawing above represents a fanciful interpretation of the Glorious Future circa 2008.

see the video of this meeting at http://marin.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=459

Marinwood Village Collaborative

Community Workshop #1: October 22, 2008

Meeting Summary

Community Workshop #1 of the Marinwood Village Planning Process was held at the Mary E. Silveira Elementary School Multipurpose Room on October 22, 2008. The Marinwood Village Planning Process is a grant-funded collaborative process intended to bring together the developer of the site, nearby residents and other community stakeholders to provide direction for development of the underutilized Marinwood Plaza site.

This workshop was advertised on the County Website, by email distribution and by a newsletter notification mailed to approximately 2500 residents of the Marinwood area. This workshop was well attended: 108 people entered their name on the sign-in sheets.

1. Welcome and Background

The workshop began with a welcome from District One Supervisor Susan Adams, who thanked participants for attending on a week night, described briefly the history of the project, and summarized her hopes for a collaborative effort. She also introduced the advisory committee for the planning process, the Marinwood Village Collaborative, and described the formation of the Collaborative from local residents, previous Marinwood task force members, and community leaders. She also mentioned that the meeting would be recorded on video. One of the committee members, Cyane Dandridge, a collaborative member and original member of the Marinwood Task Force, spoke about the previous

planning process which took place in 2006 and resulted in a Concept Plan and a set of guiding principles.

Cyane talked about the interaction between the Collaborative and the developer of the site, Peter Brandon of Trammell Crow Company. She said there had been good communication and she is looking forward to continuing the process.

2. Concept Plan Presentation.

After the introduction, a presentation was made to the workshop. First

was the consultant, David Early of Design, Community and Environment, who was also involved in the 2006 Concept Plan. He talked about the agenda for the evening: developer Peter Brandon, of Trammell Crow Company would talk about the latest Concept Plan, Leelee Thomas from Marin County Community Development Agency would talk about housing, John Templeton of Parisi Associates would talk about transportation issues, and members of the Marinwood Village Collaborative would provide their viewpoints.

Following this presentation the floor would be opened to the public for comments. (Note – the entire PowerPoint presentation is available on the County’s website):

http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/BS/Main/sups/sdistr1/Marinwood_village.cfm

Peter Brandon’s presentation covered his background in development and his interest in the Marinwood Community, having been a resident for 12 years. He talked about the overall goal of creating a place to shop, live and meet neighbors. He then talked about work to date on the project, including schedule (entitlement early 2011) and environmental cleanup. He described the large number of architects he has

worked with and site plans created. He then gave a presentation of the latest concept plan, which includes 92 2 units of housing and 25, 100 square feet of retail. Included in the presentation was a digitally animated walkthrough of the project.

Leelee Thomas then gave a presentation of affordable housing issues, including who would qualify for moderate, low and very-low income housing, and she showed examples of recent Marin County affordable housing. She talked about the goals from the 2006 guiding principles and goals from the 2008 Countywide Plan. She also talked about options for including affordable housing at Marinwood including for-sale or rental housing, deed restrictions on for-sale housing and professional management of rental housing.

John Templeton then gave a brief presentation of the goal of the Parking and Circulation study that his firm is developing as part of the Planning Process. This study will look at existing conditions as well as conditions after a proposed project, for the site, Marinwood Avenue and Miller Creek Road. It will look at vehicular traffic, bicycle and pedestrian connections, connections to transit, and parking issues.

3. Collaborative Viewpoints.

Members of the Marinwood Village Collaborative then gave their viewpoints of the project and the process. John Hammond began by talking about his experience on planning this site from very early on. He mentioned the desire and need of the community for a gathering place and store and made the point that the only way this could happen on this site is to include housing. He talked about this as an ongoing process that will welcome community feedback. Dan Carraher gave a presentation cautioning everyone to stay on top of this process. He believes that during the EIR process is too late to make any changes to the project He also stressed the importance of community, County and developer “laying all cards on the table” in a forthright manner, and negotiating from knowledge. Steve Rule then introduced himself as president of the Lucas Valley Homeowners Association, and said that he and his constituent’s interests are in having a place to go shopping and gather in the neighborhood rather than down the freeway and he has been supportive and appreciative of the collaborative process.

3. Comments and Questions.

After the presentation there was a public discussion facilitated by David Early and open to all that were interested in speaking. Following is a summary of the questions and comments that were raised and answers that were given.

Would it be possible to get story poles erected on site?

Difficult because of existing trees. Developer will review.

Concerns about % affordable – is it 20% or 50%?

Guiding Principles state that the project will be 20-50% affordable.

What are height restrictions currently on this site?

In this area, 30’ height is typical in residential areas. The current commercial zoning also has a 30 foot height limit. However, flexibility in the height standard can be considered through provisions in the County’s Development

Code (zoning ordinance) and the Housing Overlay Designation policy of the Countywide Plan. The specific building heights and how they relate to the current County regulations would be evaluated through the development review process.

What is the height of this project?

Concept plan height shown at approximately 45’

3 Was opposed to the 2006 Concept Plan, but this footprint is appealing. Would support if 2 story.

Can this project be 100% commercial?

Housing has been an integral component of the concept plan from the start of the Marinwood Village planning process for many reasons including economic feasibility. Moreover, the Countywide Plan states that this site should accommodate housing to meet County-wide housing needs.

Concern over wind generator – it would be noisy and the site doesn’t get enough wind.

What is the height of units vs. trees? It looks like units are 60’ tall. The tree and the unit are drawn at 45’in the section shown at the meeting.

Concern over the car lift.

Shown was a lift by Wohr Co., which can operate at any time. The bottom space would belong to the same owner as the top space. There would be one lift per apartment unit for a total of two spaces per unit. Lifts are proposed for apartments only, and not to serve the townhouse units or the retail space.

Does the lift add height?

The lifts require a total floor height of 15.5’, as opposed to typical ground floor of 12’. This height is depicted in the project drawings.

What is the relationship between affordable units and cost? Size, cheaper materials?

Units would be subsidized by state and federal funds. They would likely not differ outside. Interiors would likely be less expensive materials. Affordable units may be smaller units, but all of the units would be an adequate size.

Concern about high turnover in affordable units - would like to see families move here and stay here.

Residents of affordable housing in Marin don’t move often because it is difficult to find affordable housing. Waiting lists are long and turnover is low.

Concerned about height of project.

How would parking work for retail/visitors?

Visitors would use on-site and on- street parking. Parking for employees and loading for delivery trucks would be behind the stores.

Concern about recreation facilities – who will run bocce court and pool?

Current thinking is that bocce court may be open to public, but managed privately by the homeowners. Landscape will be managed privately – and the pool will be private for residents only.

The Casa Marinwood wall should be removed.

Question for Dan Carraher – what is missing here?

We have three more meetings and have a lot to discuss. Concerns stated tonight will need to be resolved. Community is excited by retail, not housing. Just because this is a Caltrans funded process - 90-100 units should not be seen as a done deal. Supports building of a physical scale model to compare Casa Marinwood and new project. Can’t relate tocomputerized model.

An alternative plan should be presented at the next meeting. It should be a “horizontal retail, horizontalhousing” plan. Concern about street parking appearance – Marinwood should be attractive – it is embarrassing now. Make sure appearance is compatible with Casa Marinwood; style should be set by Casa Marinwood. Concern about height.

Before this meeting, felt the project was too big and we should rein it in. Now it is even bigger, even taller and far too dense. This deal between County and developers should get a no vote.

Instead of funding this planning project, Caltrans should spend the money on landscape and maintenance of the freeway interchange please.

Will gas station site be tested for hazardous materials?

Yes, that work is going on now.

Story poles could go at south of site where there are fewer trees.

Concern about affordable housing. Would units be low or very-low income?

Could be a range including very-low-, low- and moderate-income. The 20% required by the County’s inclusionary ordinance must be affordable for low- and very-low income households. Any additional affordable housing might be negotiated to include moderate-, low- and very-income housing, although the Countywide Plan sets a goal to

focus on very-low- and low-income housing.

Concerned about rental management.

There are more restrictions on rental of affordable units than on market rate units. Not-for-Profit housing developers have strict lease guidelines and excellent management programs, so management would not be haphazard in the way that it sometimes is for privately-owned single-family homes.

Represents safe routes to school and wants to make sure best practices are incorporated - safe and separate bike/pedestrian access for all - kids and elderly, not just fast bikers. Should consider connections to surroundings such as Oakview connection to Lucas Valley Road, YMCA, McGinnis Park.

The project proposes a Class I separated bike path similar to that desired by the speaker.

Support for Peter Brandon but concern that the project is being forced to include housing because of the mandate from the State. Concern that this will further urbanize 101 corridor.

Supervisor Susan Adams is working with ABAG to give more local input on difficult issues such as water and housing.

Will PowerPoint presentation be available?

Yes, it has been posted to Supervisor Adams’ website at
http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/BS/Main/sups/sdistr1/Marinwood_village.cfm

Will it be possible to see and work with an interactive traffic model?

Our process will be to take existing traffic and add project traffic to it to see the results, so there is not that much need for an interactive model. We will be glad to work with the public during this process.

Who should we send email to?

Christine Gimmler, Marin County Community Development Agency, at

cgimmler@co.marin.ca.us.

Likes look of project, but concerned about parking on Marinwood Ave. Doesn’t want it to look like a parking lot. Also, concerned about traffic – getting in/out of Casa Marinwood. Affordable housing will bring lots of kids – they should have a play area. Even though number of units have gone down, there are still too many units. Add trees to the project.

Concerned about charm – the look is very austere. Add more landscape/hanging baskets. Doesn’t want it to look like Terra Linda (shabby). Also, disappointed with the appearance of the Pt. Reyes affordable housing development.

You may be reacting to the 3D virtual model, which is not detailed. Three dimensional architectural renderings have not been presented yet.

Doesn’t like design. There will be kids/car conflict in public spaces. Also, it’s unacceptable that this whole project may not work due to current economics. Bad way to plan.

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is an important concept. This affordable housing is for people who work here. It will be sustainable because it will reduce VMT, units should be smaller and more affordable. Design – likes preservation of store, but concerned with landscaping. The proposed alleys would be unappealing. Should try to be more of a village with intensity in the middle. This could be done with a podium, and then pedestrian area would be separated.

The developer agrees that a podium would be superior from a design perspective. However, it would require a much higher density to be financially feasible, with a minimum of 130 units.

Concern from a retired Fire Lieutenant - how this will work if there are not aerial ladders in the local fire department.

The County, developer and DC&E will review this issue and consider it in future planning.

A local teacher supports the affordable housing, but can we have more focused meetings on housing? There is not enough information at this meeting. Perhaps there could be other meetings on Design and Traffic.

If you contact Leelee Thomas, she will be happy to attend a coffee or get-together to discuss affordable housing.

4. Next Steps and Adjournment.

After this question, next steps were discussed. The Collaborative will meet to review comments from this meeting, and will hold a total of three more meetings. There will be another Community Workshop on January 7, 2009.

Schools are now Tracking Kids Online- NSA for School Adminstrators

Companies are now datamining your childrens online activity for their "safety". Using the reason to "protect the children" from bullying and preventing suicide.  Vast student populations are being tracked.  It is yet another intrusion into our private lives by government under the guise of safety.  Where will this stop?

See related post on the Common Core HERE.

Governor Brown just signed a new surveillance law Assembly Bill 256 that allow schools to scour social media, text and emails to "protect the children".  It is yet another breech in our privacy rights. Before we give ALL privacy away, perhaps we need to pause and ask if such a security net is really necessary.  See Patch article HERE.

Facebook's Zuckerberg buys his privacy for $30 Million Dollars while Yours Disappears

The CEO snaps up 4 homes near his and leases them to their current residents, all to avoid prying eyes.

By Vincent Trivett, Minyanville

Facebook (FB +0.12%) just made it even harder to keep your activities private, but its founder just spent tens of millions of dollars to avoid prying eyes.

According to the San Jose Mercury News (hat tip to Business Insider), Mark Zuckerberg found out that a developer was promoting a neighboring house with his name. It's an understandably creepy invasion of privacy. I wouldn't want my name and location used to sell a home -- or any other goods or services -- unless I'm fairly compensated for it.

Zuckerberg's response was to buy four surrounding homes and lease them to their current residents. This is in Palo Alto's Crescent Park neighborhood, where Zillow finds homes going for an average of $3 million, up 21% year over year, so this wasn't cheap. The Facebook founder spent $30 million for the houses adjacent to his modest home. One neighbor demanded $14 million.


Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) founder Larry Page pulled a similar stunt so he could build a sprawling mansion (sorry, no Google Island just yet).

Sound a little ironic?

We see so many headlines on Facebook's slowly loosening privacy rules that, at this point, it just registers as white noise. But today, privacy-conscious users are upset over the social network's dismantling of a feature that allows you to stay invisible in search.

Chief Privacy Officer Michael Richter said yesterday that the change, which was hinted at a year ago, will begin to go into effect soon. Currently, about 10% of users, which would be equivalent to the 12th most populous country in the world if they all got together, limit those who can search for them by name to "friends of friends." Richter says that though your identity will not be hidden, you can still choose who gets to see what's in your profile.

Earlier this year, Facebook released Graph Search, which allows you to search for people without knowing exactly who you are looking for. Naturally, this could get dicey with everyone -- including government officials, law enforcers, and wrongdoers -- having easy access to lists of "married people who like prostitutes," "family members of people who live in China and like Falun Gong," and "Islamic men interested in men who live in Tehran, Iran"

Users of Facebook and Google products are getting used to the idea that what happens in your personal life online doesn't necessarily stay private, especially after the Edward Snowden leaks that revealed back doors for the government peeking at major websites. If you want a low profile, you have little choice but to just stay off social networking sites. And if you want to get rich enough to buy your privacy, buy up some Silicon Valley real estate while the getting is good.

[ Editor's Note:  I wonder if he will have a "Priority Development Area" in his neighborhood.  Will HUD insist on affordable housing next door to him?  Oh, that's right.  He has power and money and can escape government control. Apparently Priority Development Areas and HUD social engineering is for middle class communities.]

It's nice to have friends in high places.

More Americans Trust IRS Than Facebook with Privacy: