Don't Eat Your Dog: The Surprising Moral Case for Free Enterprise

Dick Spotswood: High court ruling on Fair Housing and zoning could hit home

Marin Independent Journal



Shaun Donovan, Former HUD Secretary



 

Posted:   10/18/2014 06:25:23 PM PDT4 Comments

After long deferring the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed to accept a case which will determine the definition of housing discrimination. The implications for Marin are huge.

The high court took on appeal Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs vs. Inclusive Communities Project.

It emanates from a New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court decision which summarized, "The primary issue on appeal is the correct legal standard to be applied in disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act."

Since the Obama administration's advent, the Department of Housing and Urban Development holds that what must be proved to find racial discrimination is that some government action creates a "disparate impact."
Essentially this doctrine says that if any laws, especially zoning ordinances, are instituted and thereafter results in what HUD determines as racial imbalance, the law is deemed inherently discriminatory even if that's not its intention. Actions are then mandated to remedy the alleged discrimination.

This aggressive stance contrasts with the once widely accepted notion that discrimination findings require a "specific intent" to discriminate.
 
It's what the fractious litigation involving HUD and New York's suburban Westchester County is about. The federal agency claims that prosperous Westchester's utilization of single-family-home zoning is, by definition, racially discriminatory. As fewer so-called "protected class" members live in single-family neighborhoods, zoning should be changed to multi-family.

Texas vs. Inclusive Communities involves a state of Texas appeal of a judgment approving a "disparate impact" claim. There it was claimed that housing grants, including Section 8 funds, were directed exclusively to minority-majority areas and not into middle class majority-white neighborhoods.

With much of Marin zoned for single-family homes and open space, the ramifications to Marin, similar suburban communities and elite urban neighborhoods are obvious. If HUD prevails it can mandate multi-unit housing in historically single-family and rural communities nationwide.
Marin's potential consequences substantially increased after its Board of Supervisors in 2010 unanimously approved a "Voluntary Compliance Agreement" with HUD. That pact is similar to the one enabling the federal no-holds-barred enforcement action against Westchester. It requires placement of multi-unit low-income housing within upper-middle-class communities.

The Marin-HUD agreement partially explains the county supervisors' consistent advocacy for more Marin multiunit housing designed to facilitate racial and class diversity.

HUD and housing activists maneuvered to settle two similar suits before reaching the justices. Their concern was the top court would decide actual discriminatory intent was required to justify findings of discrimination.

Appellant Texas is betting on a Supreme Court significantly more conservative than circuit courts.
The nine justices will decide if the "disparate impact" doctrine applies to the federal Fair Housing Act. That law makes it illegal to "refuse to sell or rent ... or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin."
The congressionally written ill-defined phrase "otherwise make unavailable" is at the crux of the argument. Congress itself could redefine the phrase but Congress is incapable of any action.

Housing advocates contend that even absent actual discriminatory intent, current zoning laws create patterns of discrimination that facilitate deplorable living conditions plaguing "protected classes."
Texas will assert, as did the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court when ruling in the "Arlington Heights" case, that "not every action which produces discriminatory effects is illegal."

There's little incentive for hard-nosed Texas to settle. The court will resolve the long-running dispute once and for all, probably on a 4-5 vote.

Which way the wind is blowing is likely known only to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the tribunal's usual swing vote. Expect a ruling by June.

Columnist Dick Spotswood of Mill Valley shares his views on local politics every Sunday and Wednesday in the IJ. Email him at

New Breakthrough in Fusion promises a new era of cheap, green energy.

Lockheed Martin Promises to Deliver Fusion Reactor in Just a Decade

Editor's Note: It looks like we won't be needing that high density housing after all.

 

The company believes nuclear fusion is the future of energy, expects its compact reactor will forever change the world

By Laura Sinpetru on October 18th, 2014 03:45 GMT

There's a lot of talk about going green energy-wise these days, chiefly because piles and piles of scientific papers are constantly reminding us that climate change and global warming are having their way with our planet.

The thing is that, of the folks who like to refer to themselves as supporters of clean energy, some are in favor of mainstream green power sources such as wind, wave and sun.

Others, like the folks behind technology company Lockheed Martin, have something entirely different on their mind. In a nutshell, these people strongly believe nuclear fusion is the future of energy.

What the heck is nuclear fusion?

For those unaware, nuclear fusion is all about getting atoms to come together, cuddle up to each other and fuse. More precisely, it's about figuring out a way to compel two light atomic nuclei to get together and birth a heavier one.

As explained by scientists, such a reaction – which, by the way, is the same one that fuels our Sun – releases massive amounts of energy. It doesn't, however, produce any radioactive waste or greenhouse gases.

Because of this, there are some people who very much like talking about nuclear fusion as if it were no more and no less than the holy grail of energy production.

What does Lockheed Martin have to do with it?

As it turns out, quite a lot. Thus, it was earlier this week when the company issued a statement saying that, having taken its time to research the ins and outs of nuclear fusion, it was confident that it would deliver a compact fusion reactor in about a decade.

What's more, the technology company maintains that the compact fusion reactor it has in the works will be comparable to a Class 8 trailer tractor. Simply put, it will be way smaller than most people would expect it to be.

“Skunk Works team is working on a new compact fusion reactor (CFR) that can be developed and deployed in as little as ten years. Currently, there are several patents pending that cover their approach,” Lockheed Martin says.

“While fusion itself is not new, the Skunk Works has built on more than 60 years of fusion research and investment to develop an approach that offers a significant reduction in size compared to mainstream efforts,” it adds.

Interestingly enough, the company swears to it that it will be done building a prototype of this compact nuclear fusion reactor in about 5 years. Besides, it argues that, once all the details get sorted out, it will only take it a year to build the actual reactor.

The thing is that, up until now, the company has failed to publish any scientific papers detailing its approach when it comes to using nuclear fusion as an energy source. Hence, it might be wise to take its announcement with a grain of salt.

To learn more about what nuclear fusion is about and how Lockheed Martin believes it can forever transform the world we live in, check out the video below.

Friday Night Music: Police Greatest Hits.

Power concedes nothing without a demand..

Frederick Douglass, Former Slave and Abolitionist 1849

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and this will continue till they have resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those who they suppress."
-- Frederick Douglass, 1849

The Argument Against Smart Growth

The Argument Against Smart Growth

Halle-Neustadt, East Germany, the first "Smart Growth" City aka. "The Ideal Communist City"

Will smart growth result in more traffic congestion and air pollution? Wendell Cox presents the argument for sprawl and against urban 'smart growth' development.

By Wendell Cox
Jan 22, 2001
As it appeared in PLANETIZEN



Over the past 50 years, America's suburbs have grown to contain most urban residents. As the nation has become more affluent, people have chosen to live in single family dwellings on individual lots and have also obtained automobiles to provide unprecedented mobility.

As population has continued to grow, the amount of new roadway constructed has fallen far short of the rise in automobile use. As a result, American urban areas are experiencing increased traffic congestion. The good news is that improved vehicle technology has made the air cleaner in many cities than it has been in decades.

Low density suburbanization is perceived by the anti-sprawl movement as inefficiently using land, by consuming open space and valuable agricultural land. The anti-sprawl movement believes that suburbanization has resulted in an inappropriate amount of automobile use and highway construction and favors public transit and walking as alternatives. Moreover, they blame suburbanization for the decline of the nation's central cities.

The anti-sprawl movement has embraced "smart growth" policies. In general, smart growth would increase urban population densities, especially in corridors served by rail transit. Development would be corralled within urban growth boundaries. There would be little or no highway construction, replaced instead by construction of urban rail systems. Attempts would be made to steer development toward patterns that would reduce home to work travel distances, making transit and walking more feasible. The anti-sprawl movement suggests that these policies will improve the quality of life, while reducing traffic congestion and air pollution.

But the anti-sprawl diagnosis is flawed.

• Urbanization does not threaten agricultural land. Since 1950, urban areas of more than 1,000,000 have consumed an amount of new land equal to barely 1/10th the area taken out of agricultural production. The cultpit is improved agricultural productivity, not development.
• Only 15 percent of suburban growth has come from declining cental cities. Most growth is simple population gain and the movement of people from rural to suburban areas. The same process is occurring throughout affluent nations, from Europe to Asia and Australia. In these nations, virtually all urban growth in recent decades has been suburban, while central cities have lost population. Since 1950 Copenhagen has lost 40% of its population and Paris 25%.
• There is no practical way for low density urban areas to be redesigned to significantly increase transit and walking. Whether in America or Europe, most urban destinations are reasonably accessible only by automobile. Transit can be an effective alternative to the automobile only to dense core areas, such as the nation's largest downtowns.
• Large expanses of land are already protected as open space. All of the nation's urban development, in small towns and major metropolitan areas, accounts for approximately four percent of land (excluding Alaska).

Ironically, smart growth will bring more traffic congestion and air pollution, because it will concentrate automobile traffic in a smaller geographical space. International and US data shows that:

• higher population densities are associated with greater traffic congestion.
• the slower, more stop-and-go traffic caused by higher densities increase air pollution.

Further, urban growth boundaries ration land for development. Rationing, whether of gasoline or of land drives up prices. For example, in smart growth oriented Portland, Oregon, housing affordability has declined considerably more than in any other major metropolitan area. This makes it unnecessarily difficult for low income and many minority citizens to purchase their own homes.

The anti-sprawl movement has not identified any threat that warrants its draconian poliicies. As the "Lone Mountain Compact" puts it, people should be allowed to live and work where and how they like absent a material threat to others.

As urban areas continue to expand -- which they must do in a growing affluent nation -- sufficient street and highway capacity should be provided, so that traffic congestion and air pollution are minimized.

Wendell Cox is principal of Wendell Cox Consultancy, an international public policy firm. He has provided consulting assistance to the United States Department of Transportation and was certified by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration as an "expert" for the duration of its Public-Private Transportation Network program (1986-1993). He has consulted for public transit authorities in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and for public policy organizations.

Solar's 'Threat' to Utilities Prompts Financial Rating Downgrade

                      

Solar's 'Threat' to Utilities Prompts Financial Rating Downgrade

by Chris Clarke

May 30, 2014 1:09 PM

Share

Old-school Barclays Bank sign | Photo: Dominic Alves/Flickr/Creative Commons License

It's that embarrassing thing where a major financial firm tells you your industrial sector might not survive if we save the planet. A team of analysts at Barclays, the dreadnought British bank and financial services firm, downgraded its rating for the American utilities sector this week due to perceived threat to the industry from residential rooftop solar with battery storage.
The move will make it more expensive for American power companies to obtain loans, especially if other analysts follow suit.
And it's all because the Barclays boffins figure that it will soon be cheaper to generate and store your own power than it will be to pay your electric bill as usual.

Story Continues Below

Support KCET

The 324-year-old London-based financial firm, the world's seventh-largest bank, dropped its rating of American electrical utilities to "underweight" from "market weight." An "underweight" rating is intended to suggest to investors that they consider whether they might own too much of a particular stock, a more nicely worded version of the old "sell" rating being phased out by investment analysts.
It's not news that the price of solar panels has been dropping precipitously over the last decade. As long as the sun shines, using that power is already cheaper in much of the United States, with the costs of equipment and installation amortized over the life of the panels, than buying power from your local utility.
That cheaper electricity from solar has driven a huge amount of growth in solar leasing and net metering. The problem for property owners seeking to become energy independent is that the sun sets, and then they need to use power from the grid to keep their lights on and refrigerator running.
But as it turns out, the price of battery storage suitable for residential-scale applications has also dropped dramatically. According to Rob Wile at Business Insider, a local battery bank for a household that cost $17,000 in 2009 costs just $3,700 now, largely due to the increase in electric car manufacturing.
Barclays' analysts project that solar-plus-storage systems could become cheaper than grid power in California by 2017, and in the rest of the country well before 2030. (The state of Washington, with its super-cheap hydroelectric power, will be the last holdout.)

Projected solar plus storage grid parity timeline, in years after 2014. Click to enlarge | Image: Barclays

Barclays' assessment of utilities' mid-term future is relatively bleak, with escalating costs of grid power making solar and storage more attractive to an increasing number of ratepayers. Or maybe that should be former ratepayers.
Of course, Barclays isn't the only firm that sees this coming. The utilities do as well, hence the recent flurry of attempts nationwide to tax, disincentivize, or otherwise undermine home solar and storage. But the British bank thinks those attempts will ultimately fail:

We fully expect utilities and regulators to make a good faith effort to preserve the status quo "regulatory compact," whereby the monopoly utility provides a safe and reliable service and regulators allow it to earn a reasonable low-risk return. However, we also expect them to be playing a constant game of catch-up as solar develops. The costs of solar and storage technologies are falling quickly and may fall even faster as higher demand builds additional scale. But the cost of distribution grids and thermally generated power are more likely to rise than to fall, in our view. As a result, regulators and utilities will be constantly trying to respond to a moving target, which is precisely the environment where slow-moving incumbents can fall behind.

In other words, the 20th century monopoly utility business model may be a necessary casualty of a sane climate policy. it depends how soon America's power companies see the handwriting on the wall -- and in their bond ratings -- and change course on distributed solar with storage.

 

About the Author

Chris Clarke is a natural history writer and environmental journalist currently at work on a book about the Joshua tree. He lives in Joshua Tree. MORE

Westchester Executive Rob Astorino stands up to HUD Housing to takeover zoning! (MARIN BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGREED TO THIS!)

Marin Board of Supervisors, Steve Kinsey, Katie Rice, Kate Sears, Judy Arnold and Susan Adams AGREED to these HUD demands.  Rob Astorino is a candidate for NY Governor.

Urban intensification: Rise of the apartment. Will this the future for Marin?

Urban intensification: Rise of the apartment

5:00 AM Monday Oct 6, 2014

 

Developers and council planners have sidelined the community over building heights for some new projects, say worried residents.

Concerned Grey Lynn residents Andy Jacobs (left) and Keith Milne in front of The Turing on Great North Rd. Photo / Dean Purcell

Is six storeys the new height for apartment buildings in zones approved for four storeys?

The question is being posed by inner-city residents in Grey Lynn and Arch Hill, who say they have had no say about five and six-storey apartment buildings approved on Great North Rd.

It was residents who last year came up with the idea of making the car yards and light industry on Great North Rd a showcase for intensification. A year on, some feel developers propose, and council planners approve, intensification well beyond what the community had in mind.

The feeling of being sidelined comes as the council prepares for hearings on its Unitary Plan, the rulebook that sets out how Auckland will squeeze in another million residents over 30 years.

Grey Lynn Residents' Association chairman Dan Salmon says the community was "sold a cool restaurant but is getting a McDonald's".

He is referring to the vision of Great North Rd being turned into one of the city's great boulevards with bus lanes, cycleways and well-designed apartments generally sticking to the allowable four storeys in the existing district plan and proposed Unitary Plan. Not five- and six-storey apartment buildings being approved on the doorstep of heritage villas.
At one former car yard site, developer Greer Stephens said council planners had indicated they would look favourably on a seven-storey apartment building if he met higher design standards.

Auckland Council said at the time no commitments had been made to the developer and it had not agreed to anything in terms of height. A decision on any consent application would be made in due course.

"There is a massive air gap in the council's communications between what they have sold communities who have got on board with intensification ... and people reading the rules and finding they are starting points and not finishing points. That is a shock to people," Mr Salmon said.

The community, he insists, is pro-intensification, but just wants to see good buildings built by good developers that take into account the impact on the community.
It was the impact of four developments - The Turing, North Apartments, 217 North and the proposed The Dylan apartment on the corner of Harcourt St - that drew dozens of people to a "community conversation" in the Trades Hall on Great North Rd.

Council planner David Oakhill sought to calm residents' fears by explaining the "somewhat subjective" planning process leading to five- and six-storey apartment buildings in Great North Rd. Mr Oakhill rejected the notion that the rules could be easily broken by developers, saying bad plans were routinely rejected at informal, pre-application meetings.

When developments reach the formal application stage, Mr Oakhill said: "Our job is not to take sides but to look at an application and consider it."

Barrister Paul Cavanagh, QC, says the Resource Management Act gives council planners discretion to approve developments beyond permitted rules. "It's a broad discretion and it's all about effects," he said.

Mr Cavanagh agrees with the view that council planners who opposed the direction that politicians took last year to reduce intensification measures in the draft Unitary Plan are approving projects fitting a pro-intensification agenda.

Not only that, he believes the "deck is stacked against [community groups]" when public hearings proper start this month on the Unitary Plan.

The barrister says community groups, denied funding by the Ministry for the Environment, will be up against well-funded corporates like Fletcher Building and Housing New Zealand, who want the intensification rules loosened.

Dr Roger Blakeley, the council's chief planning officer, declined to be interviewed but in a statement said the applications for apartment buildings in Great North Rd followed the Resource Management Act process for non-complying consents.

All the applications were under existing planning rules, not the proposed Unitary Plan, he said.

Dr Blakeley said the council supported listening to communities, saying there was huge public engagement in preparing the Unitary Plan, which had led to changes being made.
Developer Mark Todd, who is building The Turing on Great North Rd, strongly advocates unrestricted density in a submission to the Unitary Plan.

He says it is the best use of the urban environment because it promotes a diverse and larger housing supply, more affordable options, more green space and less concrete.
Add opportunities for inter-generational living, more vibrant communities, better public transport and, in his view, it's a no-brainer, he says.

The developer is on the same song sheet as youth-based Generation Zero, with more than 10,000 supporters, mostly between the ages of 18 and 30.

Generation Zero's Auckland policy director Luke Christensen says young people these days want to live close to vibrant cities, where they are less likely to drive. Not only that, but the ageing population means people want to downsize from large detached houses, the proportion of families is reducing and the number of households without children is now more than 50 per cent.

Mr Christensen says the most market-attractive areas in Auckland are the city centre, city fringe suburbs, central isthmus and coastal areas to the north and east - but community opposition to intensification in these areas has forced downsizing.

In his view, Great North Rd can accommodate five-, six- and seven-storey apartment buildings, saying developers found it very expensive to build four-storey apartment buildings.

Waitemata Local Board member Vernon Tava says the extra height and density being granted for Great North Rd apartment buildings is a concern to the board.

"We have a contract with the community [for four storeys]," says Mr Tava, "and if [an apartment building] is outside of that it should be notified."

He believes it's still not too late to bring the parties together and come up with a "whole of area approach" for Great North Rd.

Smaller not always cheaper

If you think central city apartments are affordable, think again.

One-bedroom apartments in Great North Rd start at $500,000 and the top penthouses are priced at more than $1.5 million.

Brady Nixon, development manager, says an apartment costs $8000 to $10,000 per sq m to build in Auckland.

A 54sq m one-bedroom apartment at North Apartments is priced at $11,462sq m.
Brady says 238sq m houses at Flatbush in South Auckland valued at $750,000, cost $3150sqm.

"If people think that apartments are going to make for cheaper housing they are mistaken," says Brady.

He says developer margins are very tight and being squeezed by rising construction costs.
Precasters are so busy there is now a four- to five-month pre-order wait and block work costs are rising significantly.

"The only way to produce cheaper houses is smaller houses on smaller plots of land," says Brady.

Changing face of a neighbourhood

Keith Milne has lived in Grey Lynn for 30 years, bucking his father-in-law who did not want his daughter, Jan, living in a slum.

The Milnes have raised a family and seen many changes to the neighbourhood in that time, but nothing like the proposed seven-storey apartment building over their fence with starting prices of $500,000, rising to $1.5 million for a penthouse.

Mr Milne and Arch Hill resident Andy Jacobs support intensification of Great North Rd, but within the current rules allowing a maximum permitted height of 15m, or four storeys.
Mr Milne says since he lived in Harcourt St, the zoning has changed three times to reduce the height and bulk of buildings. Under the Unitary Plan the maximum height is proposed to be lower again, at between 13.5m and 14.5m. But the opposite is happening. The proposed seven-storey apartment building overlooking his villa in Harcourt St exceeds the height restriction by 8.5m and the density provisions by nearly 100 per cent. It's not just the extra height and bulk that worry Mr Milne. It's the extra vehicles, washing and rubbish that come with an additional 15 apartments on a site no bigger than two residential sections.

Mr Milne, a property manager who understands the economics of housing, says developers see the height restrictions in the district plan as a starting point and blames the council for not enforcing its own rulebook to pursue greater intensification.

Mr Jacobs, a designer, questions having a vision for the city and a set of rules if they are routinely flouted by developers.

The council, he says, "should work with the community and not against it". In his case, he was not given a say when a council planner recommended a five-storey apartment building, The Turing, last November.

The extra fifth floor threatens to shade his worker's cottage in Dean St from the winter sun.

Because the extra floor has only just gone up he will not know the impact until next winter.

- NZ Herald

"The dogs don't like the dog food" ABAG examines failures in communicating Plan Bay Area I

On May 15, 2014 ABAG held a meeting to discuss Plan Bay Area 2014. They did an analysis of "what went right" and "what went wrong" in the last set meetings that led up to approval of the Plan on July 18, 2013, the same day that Detroit declared bankruptcy. They had 2 pages of what went right and 7 pages of what went wrong. You can read a summary of their findings here (http://www.abag.ca.gov/abag/events/ag...). You can see the slides here http://www.abag.ca.gov/abag/events/ag...



Comment from Save Marinwood:


We did all the marketing right but the dogs don't like the dog food". Brad Paul demonstrates the arrogance and stupidity of the ABAG staff. They call us names and think we cannot do math. Gee, maybe we REJECT the massive urbanization and Government control.. Maybe we don't want central planners guiding every aspect of our lives and destroy our neighborhoods. He is a hint Mr. Paul. We love our communities. We love our homes and we don't need ABAG to "improve our lives".

Susan Adams/Judy Arnold/Damon Connolly answers question on health and safety living near the Microwave Towers at Marinwood Plaza.

asda

The "Choosing the Future We Want Show" September 17, 2014. Finance Salesman David Kunhardt, explains the LIHTC

Low income housing is BIG BUSINESS generating millions in Tax Credits for corporate fat cats and hedge funds.    "Structured Finance" salesmen like David Kunhardt get rich selling investment to Wall street investors.

Mr Kunhardt is part of a coalition of housing activists and lobbyists who can be seen at nearly every housing event pitching for taxpayer subsidized housing.  Local homeowners foot the tax bill for nearly all of the development's cost to the benefit of wall street investors, banks and owners.

He is a big advocate of pushing subsidized housing in the community of Marinwood/Lucas Valley  miles away from his 3400 square foot" McMansion in Corte Madera hills.   Clearly he has been successful in selling "tax advantaged" investments.

For more on  making Triple Profits from low income housing this article HERE