We are being forced from our homes due to Plan Bay Area

Rage Against The Machine ON SHOVEL

Someone must be lying about the ABAG MTC merger vote

Novato Mayor, Pat Eklund asks why language was added to the merger documents at the last minute.  The MTC Chair,  long time politician Dave Cortese flatly denies the charge. Someone must be lying.

For an in depth look at the dirty politics of the ABAG-MTC merger see  this great article in 48hills.org by Zelda Brownstein.



And now the actual meeting video. Cortese did not bring copies of Resolution 4210. Apparently, Mr. Cortese "Misremembered" events.

Marin Voice: Bay tax is taxation without representation for Marin

By Susan Kirsch

POSTED: 03/09/16, 11:44 AM PST | UPDATED: 4 DAYS AGO

22 COMMENTS

The San Francisco Bay is a precious resource and the entire area is enhanced by it. Of course, we must work to preserve it. That said, I hate the idea of a regional government agency claiming our tax dollars without local representation. I would like to see restoration done another way.

In June, the Clean and Healthy Bay Ballot Measure will be on the ballot. Measure AA is brought forward by the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority. It puts a special parcel tax of $12 per year for 20 years up for a nine-county vote.

The authority is a regional government agency created by the state Legislature in 2008. The mission is to raise money and allocate resources “for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline.”

For example, funds could be used to reduce trash and toxins, improve water quality or protect communities from floods.

The authority proposes to raise money by charging a $12 tax on every parcel in the Bay Area.

This tax applies equally to a single, one-story home in Marin, a 10-story building of luxury condos in San Francisco, and the corporate campuses of Facebook or Google in Silicon Valley.

At the modest rate of $12, you wouldn’t pay much, but you’d pay the same as Apple and Chevron. This is unfair.

Like any other tax, Measure AA needs 67 percent voter approval to pass. What’s different — indeed historic — about Measure AA is that it would be the first regionwide tax in the Bay Area. Regardless of voters’ wishes in any one county, the regional vote will prevail. Local input and control is diminished. That’s a problem.

Another problem is the way the tax would be collected and distributed.

The tax is estimated to generate $25 million per year, eventually totaling $500 million over 20 years. County tax collectors would collect the funds and send them to the authority to dole out.

The authority is governed by a seven-member board appointed by the executive board of the Association of Bay Area Governments, an agency in danger of being swallowed up by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

This board doesn’t have representation from each county, and Marin is one county without a representative. Like MTC, none of these board members, who will pick the projects, are elected by a direct vote of the people.   See the full article in the Marin IJ HERE

King Canute  could not command the Sea.

Plan Bay Area is an attack on a way of life

The "green" Brave New World that our planners and politicians envision for "One Bay Area"

 see article: Plan Bay Area is an attack on a way of life

By Mimi Steel

Plan Bay Area will fundamentally transform the 101 cities and nine counties into urbanized, transit-oriented, high-rise developments. It is a draconian, top-down, 25-year plan conceived by unelected bureaucrats supposedly in response to a problem (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) that will already be solved (per California Air Resources Board) due to transportation technologies such as more fuel-efficient cars, electric cars and telecommuting.

The most unsettling parts of the plan deal with imposition of unfunded mandates on cities and counties. It subverts local control of land use and zoning decisions. It requires:

Cities must set aside priority development areas (PDAs) for mixed-use development (stores on first floor with housing above). Most development over the next 25 years is supposed to be in these highly restricted areas.

Cities must bear the unfunded costs that the additional populations will force on services such as schools, fire, police, etc.

 

The unique characters of most small towns will be destroyed. Towns such as Saratoga, Los Gatos, Dixon, Marinwood must all follow the same template of a downtown center with mid- to high-rise development near mass transit.

Transportation funds will go to projects such as light rail and commuter rail, which are the least cost-effective options for transportation choices.

Road repair and expansion will be neglected because the point of this plan is to get people out of their cars by purposely causing congestion and restricting parking. 

The plan presents an unrealistic and naïve vision where people live close to where they work and play. The objective is that people should bicycle, walk or take mass transit. Portland is a classic example of the disastrous results of such planning. The Cascade Institute submitted a paper against the plan, saying

" ... The draft Plan mimics the Portland strategy in most respects. ... (there are some differences) but the fundamental approach is the same: funnel most future development into a limited number of centers served by transit; spend most transportation dollars on maintenance of the existing system with capacity expansions focused on transit, not highways; and assume that transit use will increase substantially, resulting in improved air quality and reduced GHGs. However, before Bay Area officials adopt such a plan, they should consider the results from the Portland regional experience. Virtually every assumption about changing travel behavior has proven to be wrong."

The plan allows a handful of bureaucrats to make major lifestyle decisions for 7 million people in the Bay Area. This plan has been flying under the radar for two years with stakeholders (those who will benefit from the plan) providing the bulk of the input, while taxpayers, who will be footing the bill, are largely ignored or marginalized.

 

This plan is an attack on free choice, on free markets, on suburban communities and on automobiles. If people really understood the true implications of this plan, they would not want it except in a few urbanized areas such as Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose.

It is small wonder that the planners have tried to keep this largely under the radar. Media coverage has been sparse to nonexistent.

It is unfortunate when a supposed "journalists" takes a critical issue like this plan and trivializes it by demonizing the opposition. Journalists are supposed to provide facts, to inform the citizens so that they can make reasoned decisions. Watch the video of the only debate that was held in the Bay Area (www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOE7Hyd5B40) and decide for yourself.

Remembering the Unlikely Heroes of Tiananmen Square

Pig vs. Cookie

Solar Lease vs Buy: Free Installation Lease Is Just A Myth

The solar industry boom in recent years is due to three main factors

1. Electricity rates are rising in many cities and states.
2. The cost of solar equipment has dropped 50 percent or more since 2008.
3. Solar leases and PPA financing is more prevalent.

If you live in California or other solar ready states, you have heard about a “solar lease” and many times the advertising promises, “free solar installation”. The offer sounds good but of course the promise of anything free should raise red flags for any consumer.

In fact, free solar installation is a myth and here are the reasons why:

1. Solar leases agreements mean you forfeit the 30 percent solar tax credit and any local rebates. $0 down sounds good, but it is important to look at the fine print. Realize that when you sign a PPA or solar lease, you don’t own the actual equipment, the lease company and its investors own the equipment, so you aren’t entitled to these credits.What is the value of a 30 percent tax credit? In California, the average system size is a 5.0 kW system. The tax credit amount averages between $4,000 and $6,000 for most homeowners that qualify for the tax credit. That is not Free installation.
2. Solar lease monitoring, maintenance and insurance are not free. The reality is that solar power systems rarely have any need for maintenance or repair. The money the lease takes from your tax credit and monthly payments adds up to tens of thousands of dollars more than will ever be needed to install, monitor or repair a solar system. Out of the box monitoring and inverter replacements might add up to a few thousand dollars total. With solar leases, this actually costs a premium from home owners, costs that are simply pocketed by the company holding the lease.It is far more important to choose a contractor with longevity who gives you confidence that the company will be in business to honor a warranty of service issues.
3. Solar leases have 20-year terms with built-in escalators and no pre-payment options. Remember that after your so-called free installation, you now have 20 years of monthly payments to make. The lease amounts to your new utility company. Solar leases are firm contracts. They require monthly payments, don’t have any pre-payment options and include escalators that increase your monthly payments year after year. As time goes by, the actual numbers and costs are relaized, leases end up costing the homeowner two to three times more than simply purchasing the system, with no way to economically get out of the contract.

The fact is that as the cost of solar has dropped making solar ownership the best option for most homeowners. If you want to see what the cost of solar would be for your home based on your current electricity bills, use our PowerSaver Estimator to see costs. Converting to solar is an easy process and by locking your electricity rate at 6 cents – 8 cents, you can save thousands over sticking with the utility or solar leases.

Here are some questions to ask solar contractors to help compare solar lease proposals to solar purchase proposals.

1. Make sure to get multiple bids from multiple contractors.
2. Get at least one bid for a solar purchase, (not the purchase price from a lease company).
3. Ask all your contractors to show you in writing the price per watt for their system quotation.
4. Ask all of your contractors to show you in writing the 30 percent solar tax credit amount and any rebates or other incentives for the quote being proposed.
5. Investigate other payment options including loans, PACE programs and lines of credit.

Editor's Note: The Marinwood CSD agreed to buy electricity at  $.30 per Kilowatt Hour  with SolEd vs. $.06 per Kilowatt Hour if we purchased a system.   Even if we continued buying electricity from PGE we could pay less 19 cents per Kilowatt Hour by simply changing our tariff schedule.  The CSD completely botched this SolEd deal and one of the beneficiaries is a former CSD Director.  It is maddeningly simple yet no director would consider alternative vendors or cost savings strategies.

Citizen Solar's power only works on Sunny Days

Should Marinwood CSD Directors get Free Stuff from the Marinwood CSD?

S

Marinwood CSD president, Justin Kai proposes that all CSD directors and commission members receive a "Golden FREE Pass" to all of the classes, camps, pool memberships and special events offered by the Marinwood CSD at a potential revenue loss of up to $30,000 annually.  

The other CSD directors quickly shoot this idea down as it would be unjust compensation and a huge revenue loss to the district.  
  

***3/15/2016  I arose this morning and discovered a big controversy on NextDoor on this post.   A neighbor pointed it out to others and both she and I were attacked.  

Here are a few points of clarification:  

1.) The figure of up to $30,000 revenue loss is based upon the statements of one of the CSD directors who spends an estimated $2000 to $2500 each year on Marinwood CSD programs.   We have 17 directors and commission members.  If each were given $2000 of free services that would mean a revenue loss of $34,000 annually.  Of course there is no way to know how many people would use the "Golden FREE pass" benefit.  A big family might spend more than $2000.

2.) When Director Kai claims there is "no cost" to the district, he is overlooking the obvious.  When a camp or class is limited, then the "Golden FREE pass" customer takes a spot away from a regular "paying customer".  Even in the pool membership with high fixed costs and low marginal cost experience a "revenue loss" when a board member who regularly pays for membership, now uses his "Golden FREE pass" instead.  

3.) Director Kai attacked this post as a "hit piece" and that it is taken out of "context" .  In actuality, the entire 9 1/2 minute clip is completely unedited and the full context is provided.   Bill Shea, Izabela Perry, Jeff Naylor and Leah Kleinman-Green look pretty good. You could also say that it is a "promo piece" for them since it showcases their commonsense.  In the end, though, this video is simply what happened and the viewer can decide for themselves to endorse Justin's view or Bill, Izabela, Jeff and Leah's point of view.

Government Theft & Nietzsche

Marinwood Soled Deal - Marinwood CSD Ignore problems, construction delays and impact to the Pool summer season and Approves any way.

There has been many red flags with SolEd.

Here are just a few reasons why we should never have approved a deal with SolEd:

1.)  An EXCLUSIVE consulting contract was issued to a sitting CSD Board Member, Cyane Dandridge without a competitive bid process.  When questions about the ethics of contracting with a sitting board member were raised, she immediately resigned her CSD director seat.  Then  the "no compete" contract was approved OUTSIDE A PUBLIC MEETING in total violation of the Brown Act.

2.) SolEd was the least experienced and qualified vendor on the SEED contract with San Rafael.  It formed just a few months prior to winning the contract with ZERO experience in successful municipal installations.  Contract bidding rules required five successful municipal installations.  SolEd beat well funded and successful companies with far reaching experience and references. Why?  Marinwood never vetted SolEd for experience, reliability or financial strength but instead relied 100% on San Rafael's bid process.

3.) SolEd promised much but delivers little.  Of the fifteen original municipalities in the contract,  half have dropped out.  On November 10, 2015,  the City of St Helena dropped SolEd due to NON PERFORMANCE and wrote about it in this scathing staff report.

4.) SolEd could not secure financing and this caused many delays. Finally SolEd partnered with a young 29 year old entrepreneur from New York who formed a Delaware corporation in May 2015 to "handle" the transaction.  This deal will likely be sold to another entity and Marinwood has NO IDEA who we have contracted with for TWENTY YEARS!  SolEd assigned the rights!

5.) SolEd is building an expensive custom carport structure for the pool area that will be financed over twenty years.  The Marinwood CSD will pay an eye popping $.30 per kilowatt hour or MORE with escalators while competitive solar deals offer rates as low as $.06 cents per kilowatt hour.

6.) The carport construction will impact the Swimming Pool and Summer Camp Season where hundreds of children play.  It will be dangerous and disruptive.

7.) The CSD has ignored outside legal and financial advice and relied almost exclusively on the vendor and his representatives.

8.) The CSD did not follow legal advice give to Schools Districts on the "Ten Mistakes School Districts Make with a Solar PPA"   We have made eight of these errors. Why was the CSD in a rush to implement this delayed project?

The board voted unanimously to approve on March 8, 2016.

Ignoring dangers  will get you burnt.

Is the Marin County Sheriff being used for Political Advantage?

Marinwood CSD board president confirms that Marin Sheriff reported private conversation which was then used for political purposes at a Marinwood CSD meeting on March 8, 2016.

In a related video, we observe an armed Marin Sheriff while allegedly  performing security, testify with highly salacious  testimony to support the passage of a local dog leash ordinance.  We question the ethics of doing this in an official capacity.   

In our view, Marin Sheriff's office violated ethics twice.  Once, when the officer provided the irrelevant testimony to inject fear of outsiders in the discussion about the dog leash law and twice, when a private complaint was revealed to Justin Kai for his political advantage.

We expect our police to uphold the law and serve the public in a unbiased manner and not become political tools for petty officials.

To appreciate the ethical problem poised by the deputy, consider the following.  Imagine if the armed sheriff standing guard, suddenly spoke up in favor of the current "leash optional" policy and said. "Excuse me board members, I don't think you have established the facts.   There have been ZERO reported incidents in the Marinwood Park Panhandle".

Even though the deputy would have spoken the truth,  his improper injection of personal opinion into the community discussion while serving as a security officer would have been totally improper.  It would have been perceived that he was challenging the majority of the CSD board and creating undue influence.

The Sheriffs department should not be unofficial advocates for any political discussions while performing their duties in uniform at a public meeting.