Tuesday, April 21, 2015

George Lucas PR Machine sells his HOUSING Plan on CNN

See the Propaganda HERE.

Is this actually news?  Seriously,  I wonder if it was a paid endorsement.  What is the news value of this piece?  Was any journalistic standard of fairness followed? Apparently, they want to put out the message that we are all millionaires in Marinwood-Lucas Valley instead of the reality that we are a middle class community with an average family income barely over the $88,000 threshold that the county determines as "low income".  WE WILL BE PAYING THE TAXES and infrastructure upgrades for Grady Ranch project NOT the politicians and the LIMOUSINE PROGRESSIVES that live miles away.  It is actually funny that a CELEBRITY BILLIONAIRE is complaining about millionaires.
Apparently, he does not consider them worthy neighbors.

A User’s Guide To Dealing With Trolls On The Internet



A User’s Guide To Dealing With Trolls On The Internet

Here is your hazmat suit for the toxic garbage dump known as the ‘net.


(Technically, an ogre, but let’s just be chill about it.) Dreamworks
2014 has been an especially bad year to exist as a human on the internet. It’s felt as though a fog of animosity rolled in and engulfed all our interactions; almost no one was left completely untouched from some sort of awful interaction with a stranger online. As someone who has spent too much of her own time eating bugs from the rank waters of the internet swamp, I hope to share some advice on how to navigate through the fog.
First of all, real trolls aren’t like you and me.
They’re not just someone with a different opinion. Real trolls come from deep down in the swamps of the internet, where their bad attitudes have been preserved in the peat bogs for years. They come from places such as Reddit and late ’90s-looking message boards and multiplayer online video games, where their most treasured pastime is hurling insults at one another for hours on end. Imagine the Ivan Drago training montage in Rocky IV, but instead of doing pull-ups in a lab, it’s sitting on Reddit for, like, four years straight. They’re Teflon.
[I should clarify the definition of troll as it applies to this post. From here out, we are talking about real honest-to-god trolls, not just “someone who disagrees with me.”]
To be dreadfully honest, it doesn’t look great for you: They are masters. They have been training all of their lives for this moment, and you’re just some schmuck who decided to sign up for Twitter a few years ago to shoot some ideas off the dome. It is arrogant to think that you can win against them. It’d be like if you showed up to a law firm and asked to try a few cases because you watch The Good Wife.
It gets worse. These lunkheaded goons from the primordial internet ooze aren’t just haphazardly hurling random insults at each other (or you, if you’re an unlucky target). True trolls of the internet take their craft seriously, and spend hours analyzing how to argue. Think of the fedora atheists who love “debating” so much they have several subreddits devoted to it (r/DebateAnAntheist, r/DebateAChristian) and proudly post all the sick owns they deliver to their high school friends on Facebook. They obsess over terms like “logical fallacy” and “strawman argument” as if they believe they could be transported through time into the Scopes trial. They love discussing the art and science of internet arguing just as much as they love actually delivering sick owns on the ‘net. They have been training for this moment their whole teen lives and, like Ivan Drago, they will break you.
A User's Guide To Dealing With Trolls On The Internet
The internet vs. you. i.imgur.com / Via reddit.com
This is where I have to tell you the bad news: You will never win against them.
I’m sorry. This sucks. I wish I had something more hopefully to impart to you. The truth is, if you are reading this article on BuzzFeed dot com right now, you are probably already too well-adjusted to win an argument against a true internet troll. However, you are likely enough of an internet native that you have some experience with trolls or arguing on the internet. A recent Pew surveyfound that 40% of online adults have experienced some sort of harassment or name-calling, and 8% have been physically threatened. A YouGov survey found that 30% of adult men and 18% of adult women have “argued with someone about an opinion” on the internet.
However, of these descriptions of online harassment, only 38% said their harrasser was a stranger — a true internet troll. Friends, exes, co-workers, and even family were frequently the ones responsible for internet unkindness. Here’s an example from Pew’s survey: “my own brother calling me racist for not supporting Obama and for disagreeing with his policies.”
This is clearly not a good situation, but there’s an important distinction, here: Your brother is not an internet troll; he’s just a guy who disagrees with you. You can disarm your libtard brother by reminding him of the time he crapped his pants at Disneyland. You cannot win against a real internet troll. You have zero hand.
So that’s where I come in. I am here to help you get over your ego that keeps telling you have a chance to “win.” There is no “win” here on the ‘net.
The sooner you accept this, the happier you will be.
Consider this Wondermark comic about an annoying sea lion:
The idea of “sea-lioning” is to be a sort of overly polite yet insistent pest, to be so passively annoying that you goad your target into exploding in anger at you, thereby making you the victim. GamerGate has found this tactic so useful that its main subreddit, r/KotakuInAciton uses a photo of a sea lion as the page header, and the movement named its campaign of emailing advertisers for websites its followers don’t like as “Operation Sea Lion.” The idea is to be so polite in your emails that no one will think you’re an internet troll.
Do you realize how devious that is? That is is so much smarter than you’ll ever be. You would’ve never thought of that!
And that’s why you will not win. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, here since you seem like an excellent human. But that’s the problem. You’ve got no chance.
But it’s not all bad news!
Although you will never WIN an argument online, you do have one huge tool in your arsenal, which you can use over and over again. Allow me introduce you to the art of Not Responding.
Not Responding is both underrated and completely powerful. It lacks the showiness of Responding because you don’t get the glory of a Perfect Own, but don’t sweat it. You’d never really get that Perfect Own anyway. The Perfect Own is like the Fountain of Youth; it’s a desert mirage, a fever dream, and searching for it will leave you broken, weak, and perhaps dead from a poison-tipped arrow (just ask Ponce de León…or should I say, Ponce de Leown…nailed it).
Don’t think of Not Responding as forfeiting your turn at bat, but rather as a bunt. A sacrifice for the team. Not Responding has its own power too: There’s a layer of mystery (“did they not SEE my insult?”) and elitism (the implied “not worth my time to even reply”).
It’s common for a troll to say they’re in it “for the lulz.” When dealing with tried and true trolls please do not underestimate the power of “for the lulz.” That’s the same modus operandi teenagers cite — “boredom” — for why they carved something in the study hall desks or got a tattoo. And think about how many teens get tattoos! Literally, like SO MANY. Tattoos are totally normal now!
One of the key elements of true trolling that we often forget is that trolls don’t actually mean it; they’re just trying to stir shit. When a troll hops in and says, “Actually, Hitler was cool,” they don’t believe Hitler was cool — they’re just trying to get you mad. Because, as you very well know, Hitler is not actually cool.
But the moment you fall for it and scream back, “Actually, Hitler is WAY not cool!” you have already lost. Please look into Not Responding as a lifestyle.
But! And let me be very, very, very clear, here: This isn’t to say that people experiencing harassment online should just keep a stiff upper lip and take it. This is to say that if you are experiencing harassment online, your best strategy may be to resist the temptation to argue back and stoop to the same level as your harasser.
What’s happened in the last few years is a new mingling of two groups of people: old-school message board trolls and normal humans. It used to be easy to avoid the troll lairs, since they were obscure sites and the teen monsters lurking were siloed off to call each other “fags” back and forth. Now, the two groups are mixing together on places like Twitter and Tumblr. This has resulted in a very serious imbalance of trolling powers. One group has been training for years how to be an asshole online, and the other is a complete novice. It’s like if the New York Yankees showed up for a Little League game.
You (the normal people) are gentrifying the trolls’ neighborhood. The internet is where they live, and chances are they have been here for much longer than you. You tore down their homes and built a Starbucks. If this were a movie, 4chan’s venomous /pol/ board would be the rec center run by a kindly old priest that they are trying to save from the Acme Corp developers. This is the mind-set the troll will have as he puts you in his sights — it’s a flaccid attempt at taking back the moral high ground.
A User's Guide To Dealing With Trolls On The Internet
Not Responding in action. giphy.com
Before you despair, though, I would be remiss if I did not address one key element of the troll that should give you some solace: your hellish troll isprobably a teen boy. Places like 4chan or Reddit, even Twitter and Tumblr, act as a sort of locker room where young men tease one another to jockey for some sort of alpha status, and try to impress each other with transgressive behavior. Doxxing and harassing strangers is equivalent to smoking cigarettes under the bleachers to seem cool to your peers.
Remember this when your instinct is to say something really nasty in response. This is probably literally a child talking to you. If it wasn’t for teen boys saying “stfu bitch” on Twitter to me every now and then, I’d have zero contact with teenage boys at all. Do not be mean to children. Remember the “don’t punch down” rule. And for women receiving harassment on Twitter, congrats! That means you have something to say that is powerful enough that someone is threatened. You have the upper hand, and responding will be punching down.
I wish I had a better answer here. I wish that I had any idea how to actually stop online harassment at a root level, but I just don’t. The truth is it sucks and it hurts and it goes against ever fiber of your humanity to sit there when someone is saying awful things to you. Your blood should boil, your pulse should race. I’ve literally been kept awake at night being angry that a stranger said something nasty to me on the internet (please forget I ever admitted that). You shouldwonder how seriously to take a threat or real violence. If you don’t, you’re not human.
We should not have to take it or tolerate it. It’s not an issue of being “butthurt”; it’s the issue of misogyny and racism and how these teen boys are being taught to normalize those behaviors. The sad truth is that I just don’t have any solutions to offer for how to actually stop it. All I can offer is my advice on how to minimize the mental energy it saps out of you.
Godspeed and stay safe out there on the ‘net, my friends.
Katie Notopoulos is a senior editor for BuzzFeed News and is based in New York. Notopoulos writes about the intersection of tech and web culture.
Contact Katie Notopoulos at katie@buzzfeed.com

Monday, April 20, 2015

Planning for Reality: Disenfranchised by an Ecosystem


See Richard Halls Blog in the Patch: Planning for Reality: Disenfranchised by an Ecosystem

The "fast growth" ecosystem
The "fast growth" ecosystem
Many of us have been attending community meetings objecting to high density housing near transit for a year or more  -  yet we find ourselves facing  highly organized, well-funded opponents who have controlled the conversation for years - before we ever showed up. These groups helped usher in designations of many Marin neighborhoods as Priority Development Areas – hot-spots where 80% of new housing growth is targeted by Plan Bay Area. 

While we learned about neighbors wanting to build kitchen extensions somehow our elected representatives overlooked telling us about their far more radical development plans. Finally when we did show up we found ourselves dismissed as a nuisance as anything from “johnny come latelys” to NIMBYs and racists.
The outcome despite a near 10 to 1 ratio of opponents to proponents is that fast growth and high density is going through in Marin:
  • Civic Center is going to be turned into a 5-story Northgate City metropolis. Its "Transit Town Center" PDA designation signals MTC’s target to pack in 7,000 housing units within ½ mile of the SMART train station where there are currently only 1,165 units. (Read this MTC guide to understand PDA designations)
  • Marinwood and Lucas Valley face absorbing 546 high density housing units. This has the potential to cause significant impact on schools - it is estimated to place a burden of $4.9m year on local taxpayers if schools are to maintain their quality due to subsidies and tax exemptions provided to low income and affordable housing developers and residents.
  • Strawberry and Marin City face similar fates, Marin City’s situation is especially perplexing as high density affordable housing could displace the black population of Marin, many of whom are low income and cannot by definition afford affordable housing
Most of us returned from meetings where opponents outnumbered proponents dumbstruck by how this could have happened – and was continuing to happen. So we started to research - and we followed the money…
Plan Bay Area – Following the ABAG Money
Plan Bay Area and the associated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) are the two major tools being used by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to drive our cities and county to embrace high density housing.

ABAG claims there is no loss of local control, but if the planning numbers aren’t met then city and counties open themselves up tolegal liability. Those locations that embrace development via Priority Development Areas receive lucrative transportation and housing grants.
The Ecosystem of Advocacy Groups
Plan Bay Area started its conception years ago in conjunction with a number of housing and transportation advocacy groups. These groups formed strong relationships with ABAG, MTC and have also endeared themselves to counties, cities and businesses.
Here in Marin an organization calling itself the Grassroots Leadership Network was formed, it evolved to become Marin Grassroots. Receiving donations of over $634,116 in 2011, with plush offices located amongst Marin County offices, and employing multiple full time staff it doesn’t quite align with the definitions of Grassroots on Wikipedia
Like other housing and transportation advocacy groups, Marin Grassroots embedded itself in the committees involved in planning. They showed up early and often while most of us slept unaware of the radical change that was planned for us.
In March 2013 Marin Grassroots along with other housing advocacy groups was paid by MTC to conduct focus groups to capture feedback from minorities and low income residents on  their needs (see page 4). A laudable goal, but paying a political organization with a strong agenda to increase high density housing and switch residents from cars to transit was surely unlikely to produce unbiased conclusions.
But these groups weren't treated just as vendors, they are partners of ABAG  with Marin Grassroots awarded a $56,000 grant by ABAG.
These groups would attend community meetings, not disclosing their relationships to ABAG and MTC and cheer on ABAG and MTCs Plan Bay Area, holding up signs promoting the plan.
When finally accused of derailing conversations and failing to disclose that they were funded by taxpayer , ABAG and MTC contributions they claimed not to have taken a position on Plan Bay Area . Yet even the most glancing visit to the Marin Grassroots' website proved otherwise as they strongly advocated not just the enactment of Plan Bay Area, but it’s most severe variant – the Environment, Equity and Jobs alternative (EEJ) - even going so far as to create a petition advocating adoption of this alternative . The EEJ option diverts a further $2.5bn from maintaining and expanding highways towards transit.

Consider also that these advocacy organizations are non-profits (501(c)(3)s) where donations are not taxable.

Marin County Connections

Marin County through the supervisors has become heavily intertwined with Marin Grassroots. Between 2009 and 2011 the county paid Marin Grassroots $115,000(see item CA-4 (d)(ii)).

The Marin County supervisors are very involved with Grassroots, involving them on committees and attending and supporting their "We are Marin" party.

The Billion Dollar Community Foundations

The other way that these groups raise money is through bequests made typically by wealthy individuals to Community Foundations such as the Marin Community Foundation (MCF) or the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. MCF has assets of $1bngathered initially through bequests such as Mrs Beryl Buck and subsequent donors many of whom made donations in their wills. It is meant to direct funds to improve the quality of life and diversity for the people of Marin. However of late it has donated $250,000 to Marin Grassroots and $75,000 to Stand Up for Neighborly Novato - both housing and social equity advocacy groups that have supported Plan Bay Area.
Where Does this Leave Us Marinites?
Now we know what’s occurring Marinites can better understand how we got to this fast growth situation. Plan Bay Area was conceived and promoted by a network of political patrons. What we can do about this is vote out officials that let this patronage occur, especially those who supported it:
  • Supervisors Steve Kinsey , Katie Rice Judy Arnold voted to make Marin Grassroots Director, Ericka Ericsson , a Marin County Planning Commissioner despite a perceived lack of experience.  
  • All the Marin County Supervisors are “host sponsors” of Marin Grassroots upcoming “We Are Marin” picnic event at Civic Center Park. 
  • San Rafael city council candidate and fast growth proponent Greg Brockbank, alongside Marin County Supervisor Kinsey have both regularly attended and shown their support for Marin Grassroots events such as the declaration of the state of emergency where fast growth opponents were labeled a racist lynch mob. Supervisor Kinsey spoke with the Marin Grassroots and Concerned Marinites protest outside the Citizen Marin town hall.
Elected officials need to be on notice that their patronage and support of these organizations is unacceptable. Voters in Marin should demonstrate the ramifications of this behavior at the ballot box starting by voting for Randy Warren in the November San Rafael city council race and supervisor candidates Carol Brandtand Toni Shroyer. Businesses and individuals can also help offset the imbalance by donating to their campaigns.

Marin needs a major reform - voters need to send a clear message – this political patronage is unacceptable and we do not want Marin overrun by fast growth.

The Big Idea: California Is So Over


California Is So Over
Photo Illustration by Emil Lendof/The Daily Beast



DRIP, DRIP…


04.19.1512:01 AM ET
The Big Idea: California Is So Over


California’s drought and how it’s handled show just what kind of place the Golden State is becoming: feudal, super-affluent and with an impoverished interior.


California has met the future, and it really doesn’t work. As the mounting panic surrounding the drought suggests, the Golden State, once renowned for meeting human and geographic challenges, is losing its ability to cope with crises. As a result, the great American land of opportunity is devolving into something that resembles feudalism, a society dominated by rich and poor, with little opportunity for upward mobility for the state’s middle- and working classes.


The water situation reflects this breakdown in the starkest way. Everyone who follows California knew it was inevitable we would suffer a long-term drought. Most of the state—including the Bay Area as well as greater Los Angeles—is semi-arid, and could barely support more than a tiny fraction of its current population. California’s response to aridity has always been primarily an engineering one that followed the old Roman model of siphoning water from the high country to service cities and farms.


But since the 1970s, California’s water system has become the prisoner of politics and posturing. The great aqueducts connecting the population centers with the great Sierra snowpack are all products of an earlier era—the Los Angeles aqueduct (1913), Hetch-Hetchy (1923), the Central Valley Project (1937), and the California Aqueduct (1974). The primary opposition to expansion has been the green left, which rejects water storage projects as irrelevant.


Yet at the same time greens and their allies in academia and the mainstream pressare those most likely to see the current drought as part of a climate change-induced reduction in snowpack. That many scientists disagree with this assessment is almost beside the point. Whether climate change will make things better or worse is certainly an important concern, but California was going to have problems meeting its water needs under any circumstances.


Not Meeting the Challenges.


It’s not like we haven’t been around this particular block before. In the 1860s, a severe drought all but destroyed LA’s once-flourishing cattle industry. This drought was followed by torrential rains that caused their own havoc. The state has suffered three major droughts since I have lived here—in the mid ’70s, the mid ’80s and again today—but long ago (even before I got there) some real whoppers occurred, including dry periods that lasted upwards of 200 years.


This, like the threat of earthquakes, is part of the price we pay to live in this most beautiful and usually temperate of states. The real issue is how to meet this challenge, and here the response has been slow and lacking in vision. Not all of this is to be blamed on the greens, who dominate the state politically. California agriculture, for example, was among the last in the nation to agree to monitoringof groundwater. Farmers have also been slow to adjust their crops toward less water-dependent varieties; they continue to plant alfalfa, cotton, and other crops that may be better grown in more water-rich areas.


Many cities, too, have been slow to meet the challenge. Some long resisted metering of water use. Other places have been slow to encourage drought-resistant landscaping, which is already pretty de rigeur in more aridity-conscious desert cities like Tucson. This process may take time, but it is already showing value in places like Los Angeles where water agencies provide incentives.


But ultimately the responsibility for California’s future lies with our political leadership, who need to develop the kind of typically bold approaches past generations have embraced. One step would be building new storage capacity, which Governor Jerry Brown, after opposing it for years, has begun to admit is necessary. Desalinization, widely used in the even more arid Middle East, notably Israel, has been blocked by environmental interests but could tap a virtually unlimited supply of the wet stuff, and lies close to the state’s most densely populated areas. Essentially the state could build enough desalinization facilities, and the energy plants to run them, for less money than Brown wants to spend on his high-speed choo-choo to nowhere. This piece of infrastructure is so irrelevant to the state’s needs that even many progressives, such as Mother Jones’ KevinDrum, consider it a “ridiculous” waste of money.


We are producing a California that is the polar opposite of Pat Brown’s creation.


And there needs to be, at least for the short term,an end to dumping water into San Francisco Bay for the purpose of restoring a long-gone salmon run, or to the Delta, in order to save a bait-fish, the Delta smelt, which may already be close to extinct. This dumping of water has continued even as the state has faced a potentially crippling water shortage; nothing is too good for our fish, or to salve the hyper-heated consciousness of the environmental illuminati.


The Political Equation


The biggest reason California has been so slow, and uncharacteristically feckless, in meeting this existential challenge lies with psychology and ends with political power. The generation that built the sinews of modern California—most notably the late Governor Pat Brown Sr., the current governor’s father—sprang from the old progressive spirit which saw in infrastructure development a chance not only to create new wealth, but also provide opportunity to working- and middle-class Californians.


Indeed, if you look at California’s greatest achievements as a society, the Pat Brown legacy stands at the core. The California Aqueduct turned vast stretches of the Central Valley into one of the most productive farming regions in the world. The freeway system, now in often shocking disrepair, allowed for the construction of mass suburbia that offered millions a quality of life never experienced by previous generations. At the same time the development of energy resources—California still boasts the nation’s third-largest oil production—helped create a huge industrial base that included aerospace, semiconductors, and a host of specialized industries, from logistics to garment manufacturing.





In contrast, Jerry Brown has waged a kind of Oedipal struggle against his father’s legacy. Like many Californians, he recoiled against the sometimes haphazard and even ugly form of development that plowed through much of the state. Cutting off water is arguably the most effective way to stop all development, and promote Brown’s stated goal of eliminating suburban “sprawl.” It is typical that his first target for cutbacks this year has been the “lawns” of the middle-class suburbanite, a species for which he has shown little interest or tolerance.


But it’s not just water that exemplifies the current “era of limits” psychology. Energy development has always been in green crosshairs and their harassment has all but succeeded in helping drive much of the oil and gas industry, including corporate headquarters, out of the state. Not building roads—arguably to be replaced by trains—has not exactly reduced traffic but given California the honor of having eight of the top 20 cities nationally with poor roads; the percentage of Los Angeles-area residents who take transit has, if anything, declined slightlysince train-building began. All we are left with are impossible freeways, crumbling streets, and ever more difficulty doing anything that requires traveling.


The Road to Feudalism


These policies have had numerous impacts, like weakening California’s industrial sector, which cannot afford energy prices that can be twice as high as in competing states. Some of those who might have worked in the factories, warehouses, and farms of California now help swell the numbers of the welfare recipients, who remarkably make up one-third of the nation’s total. As recently as the 1970s and ’80s, the percentage of people living in poverty in California wasbelow the national average; California today, based on cost of living, has thehighest poverty rate in the country.


Of course, the rich and entitled, particularly in Silicon Valley have achieved unprecedented riches, but those middle-class Californians once served by Pat have largely been abandoned by his son. California, long a relative beacon of equality and opportunity, now has the fourth-highest rate of inequality in the country. For those who, like me, bought their first home over 30 years ago, high housing prices, exacerbated by regulation, are a personal piggybank. But it’s doubtful either of my daughters will ever be able to buy a house here.


What about “green jobs”? California leads in total number of green jobs, simply by dint of size, but on a per-capita basis, a recent Brookings study notes, California is about average. In wind energy, in fact, California is not even in first place; that honor goes to, of all places, Texas, which boasts twice California’s level of production. Today even  The New York Times has described Governor Jerry Brown’s promise about creating a half-million green jobs as something of a “pipe dream.” Even surviving solar firms, busy in part to meet the state’s strict renewable mandates, acknowledge that they won’t be doing much of the manufacturing here, anyway.


The Cost of Narcissism


Ultimately this is a story of a state that has gotten tired, having lost its “animal spirits” for the policy equivalent of a vegan diet. Increasingly it’s all about how the elites in the state—who cluster along the expensive coastal areas—feel about themselves. Even Brown knows that his environmental agenda will do little, or nothing, to combat climate change, given the already minimal impact of the state on carbon emissions compared to escalating fossil fuel use in China, India and elsewhere. But the cosmopolitan former Jesuit gives more priority to his spiritual service to Gaia than the needs of his non-affluent constituents.


But progressive narcissism is, as some conservatives assert, not the main problem. California greens are, to be sure, active, articulate, well-organized, and well-financed. What they lack is an effective counterpoint from the business class, who would be expected to challenge some of their policies. But the business leadership often seems to be more concerned with how to adjust the status quo to serve privileged large businesses, including some in agriculture, than boosting the overall economy. The greens, and their public-sector allies, can dominate not because they are so effective as that their potential opposition is weak, intimidated, and self-obsessed.


What we are witnessing the breakdown of a once-expansive, open society into one dominated by a small group of plutocrats, largely in Silicon Valley, with an “amen” crew among the low-information donors of Hollywood, the public unions, the green lobby, and wealthy real estate developers favored by Brown’s pro-density policies. This coalition backs Brown and helps maintain the state’s essentially one-party system. No one is more adamant about reducing people’s carbon footprint than the jet set of Silicon Valley or the state’s planning elite, even if they choose not to live in a manner that they instruct all others.


This fundamentally hypocritical regime remains in place because it works—for the powerful and well-placed. Less understandable is why many Hispanic politicians, such as Assembly Speaker Kevin de Leon, also prioritize “climate change” as his leading issue, without thinking much about how these policies might worsen the massive poverty in his de-industrializing L.A. district—until you realize that de Leon is bankrolled by Tom Steyer and others from the green uberclass.


So, in the end, we are producing a California that is the polar opposite of Pat Brown’s creation. True, it has some virtues: greener, cleaner, and more “progressive” on social issues. But it’s also becoming increasingly feudal, defined by a super-affluent coastal class and an increasingly impoverished interior. As water prices rise, and farms and lawns are abandoned, there’s little thought about how to create a better future for the bulk of Californians. Like medieval peasants, millions of Californians have been force to submit to the theology of our elected high priest and his acolytes, leaving behind any aspirations that the Golden State can work for them too.


Joel Kotkin is the RC Hobbs Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University in Orange, California, and director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His last book, The New Class Conflict, was published by Telos Press Publishing in 2014.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

The New Coastal Plan for Marin County-Take away property rights from Farmers.




Imagine a farmer getting a permit for each time he changes crops.  In addition, the coastal plan severely limits the uses and buildings that a farmer can place on his property.   This some of the outrageous intervention in private property rights that everyone will face in the Coastal Plan. This is not freedom.  Ultimately this will undermind the business of agricultural in Marin County.  

It will be great for the "trust fund progressives" that do not depend on the land for their income.   They will get to live in  the most exclusive gated community in all of Marin.  

Who are the real NIMBYS?

Prosperity, Poverty and Really Bad Planning.

48hillseconprosp
By Zelda Bronstein

See the story in  48 Hills HERE
APRIL 14, 2015 – Last October, a 100-page document called the Economic Prosperity Strategy for the Bay Area appeared on the website or the urban-affairs group SPUR. Coordinated by SPUR and commissioned by a little-known outfit operating under the aegis of two regional agencies, the EPS has been designated by the Association of Bay Area Governments staff as one of the “Key Reports” to inform the Bay Area’s first “Regional Economic Program.”
That’s cause for alarm.
The Economic Prosperity Strategy’s take on the local economy is superficial, incoherent, and, in major respects—it assumes that growth per se is good, and that more market-rate housing will help solve the affordability crisis—just plain wrong.
And since it’s backed by ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, funded by nearly $500,000 of grant money from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, and

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Citizen Marin meets the Marin County ABAG representatives on April 9, 2015





The county representatives for ABAG met with Citizen Marin members to discuss Plan Bay Area II.

Steve Kinsey, Supervisor and  Marin's ONLY representative for the MTC did not appear.   In fact, he has refused to engage the public in any open forum regarding the forty year plan for your life known as "Plan Bay Area II".

Public Forums will be held around the Bay Area in April and May 2015


Here Comes SMART!


Does anyone think this ISN'T going to affect the Wetlands?  

Where are the environmentalists Now?

Friday, April 17, 2015

Grady Ranch is still a bad idea

Grady Ranch is still a bad idea

Stop Sign
Stop Sign by thecrazyfilmgirl, on Flickr
Last Thursday, the IJ published an editorial defending the Grady Ranch affordable housing project from critics. If we don’t know what the project will look like, asks the editorial board, how can we criticize? Perhaps it will include a bike lane and sidewalks all the way to 101. Perhaps there will be a place for Marin Transit to run a shuttle, never mind the cost. And perhaps there will be a small grocery store so residents will be able to do at least one errand without getting in the car.
While it’s true that we don’t know how the project will look, the arguments in defense of the project don’t address the fundamental flaw of “affordable” sprawl: the burden of car-dependence on residents, and the burden of maintenance on the County.
Grady Ranch isn’t “a rare opportunity to help meet Marin’s need for affordable housing.” To the contrary, it would doom hundreds of low-income people to an expensive existence of car-dependance. The whole point of creating a walkable, bikeable mix of jobs and housing, which the IJ dismisses so easily, is to free people from the burden of car ownership. A car should be an option for those who want it, not a necessity for those who can’t afford it. Why we would want to give our poor another burden they cannot carry is beyond me.
If car ownership will be residents’ burden, services and infrastructure will be the County’s. MCF, as a nonprofit, doesn’t pay any taxes on any of its land or developments, meaning new residents won’t have to pay. And, even if supervisors could foist the cost of extending services and infrastructure onto developers, that still leaves ongoing costs. Infrastructure needs maintenance and services have payrolls. Will Lucas, or MCF, or “possible grant providers” be willing to pay that expense for the next 50 years? Somehow, I don’t think even George Lucas would be that generous.
These problems and the others I raised before need to be addressed in the first draft of the plan, not later. We cannot give MCF and Lucas “the opportunity to come up with a detailed plan before going on the attack.” Supervisors, citizens, and the two Grady Ranch partners must answer these problems now.
Besides, even if Grady Ranch is an irredeemable project, that doesn’t mean the end result can’t be less terrible. Given how bad the project is just on its face, we need to start to shape it before they’ve put time into a detailed plan. If the county pushes forward, this may be the only chance we’ll get.

Marin Voice: More creativity needed to address local housing goals

Larkspur’s City Council recently approved a draft housing element for its citywide general plan.
The draft was approved by a vote of 4-1. I was the only council member who dissented, and I think it is important to explain the reasons why.
Like most, I support the goal of improving opportunities for affordable housing throughout Marin County. I worry that the lack of affordable options limits the ability of some — especially the growing number of seniors in Marin — to share the benefits of living in this unique community.
But I also am concerned about how the need for affordable housing can be used, sometimes cynically, to serve the private interests of private land developers and property owners.
In casting my vote on Larkspur’s draft housing plan, I focused on three issues: the role state agency officials in Sacramento play in directing local land use decisions; the importance of meaningful public input on the environmental consequences of those decisions; and the need for flexibility in meeting our housing goals.
On the role of Sacramento, there is a common perception that no housing plan can even be considered unless it conforms to the narrow expectations of staff employees at the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
That is not true.
Under the state government code, HCD guidelines are only “advisory” to local agencies in developing draft housing plans. Even if HCD disapproves a plan, the statute allows local government to adopt it anyway, so long as it makes a finding to explain why the plan meets the requirements of state law.
On the importance of public input, some argue that draft housing plans have no significant environmental impacts, so long as they do not change pre-existing zoning determinations — that way, local governments can avoid the public review and comment process that ordinarily is required under the California Environmental Quality Act. This approach ignores the fact that current conditions may be different from those existing at the time earlier zoning decisions were made.
Formal consideration of public views is essential to ensuring that current conditions and potential future consequences are fully addressed.Finally, on the need for flexibility, it is a mistake to assume that our housing needs can only be met through the development of large parcels that conveniently are adjacent to transportation corridors like Highway 101 or the looming SMART rail project.
In a low-growth county like Marin, there are other options, such as encouraging junior second units as an adjunct to the existing housing stock. Affordable junior second units can be particularly attractive to seniors needing less living space than growing families might want.
The promotion of junior second units is sometimes dismissed by planning consultants as not credible, since it doesn’t have a sustained track record showing past success in meeting regional housing goals.
Yet that kind of record will never be developed without a strong commitment to giving this strategy a priority over more traditional approaches.
There is no reason why local government officials cannot do more to foster creative strategies that meet the county’s affordable housing needs. Our constituents remind us repeatedly that they do not want new high-density development cluttering Marin County’s unique landscape.
By adopting innovative approaches to planning, we can meet our community’s expectations in all respects — and be proud of what we have accomplished in the process.
Kevin Haroff is a Larkspur City Council member. He also is the managing partner of Marten Law PLLC in San Francisco.