Dixie School District is digging a Deep Hole for Themselves.

From Superintendent Yamishiro on 6/20/19:


There is a construction project at Miller Creek this summer. It is to replace 16 portables with 16 modular classrooms and will be completed this summer. There have been at least two times this spring where details related to the project have been on the Board agenda, but we are aware that this would not necessarily reach the broader community. We received notice to proceed right at the end of the school year (just last week) and tried to reach out with communication to direct neighbors at that time. I am not sure who staff was able to reach. Based on your communication we will try to establish an update link on our website to keep the community informed of progress on the site.


I shared your concerns with our project manager who confirmed that we can build on the site (keep in mind that this is a replacement project for badly outdated portables). As you can tell from the video the portables have been removed and destroyed and we absolutely have to complete this project by the end of the summer, so we cannot delay it. There is follow up happening in regards to your concern about the tree branches and I will get back to you on that. I know this is a quick, basic summary, but I hope it addresses your desire to know more information about the project, whether it was cleared by the proper channels, and that we will follow up on the tree questions/issues.


Thank you,
Jason





To Superintendent Yamashiro two hours later:



I just walked past the site again and discovered a massive excavation next to the Heritage California Bay, The tree is huge with a trunk in the range of 70". I expect the root system was compromised today during the digging.


I asked the workers if they were putting in a pool. They shrugged their shoulders and walked away. The hole appears at least 8 feet deep and is the size of a large residential pool. I wonder if this is a footing or a basement foundation for a large building.


One thing for certain, this is NOT MERELY A REPLACEMENT of existing buildings. This hole indicates something else.


It is frustrating that it appears that this project has not been made public. It seems very unwise. Does the district think that no one will notice? And even today, the responses are lacking in detail. Surely you know the details. You approved them.

Marin County Tree Removal fact sheet

William Tell Overture by Austrian Harmonica Band

Speak Softly Love (Theme from The Godfather)

Al Dugan attacks Marin County Back Room Politics

Arrogant CSD Directors ignore and insult Marinwood People who Care

This 2018 video makes Jeff Naylor looks even more irresponsible and arrogant.  The Maintenance Shed is now 400% of the original budget and the construction site plan is not approved due to non compliance with County regulations. NO INFORMATION has been released about the projected cost or the problems encountered despite Naylor's promise to have more information AFTER the plan has been approved.

It suprises no one from the general public since the problems the CSD is now encountering with the plan were ignored such as the lack of usuable space on the lot for landscaping equipment,  the wasteful drive through design,  the lack of detail concerning the environmental impact and the scope of the facility on the park.   

Bill Hansell, architect and former CSD Politician has produced a plan that will likely never get built for approximately $40,000 cost to taxpayers.  ALL OF THE ERRORS should have been uncovered and dealt with prior to submittal to the Marin County Community Development Department. He should be dismissed immediately because of his cost overruns and non compliance with county regulations.  The Marinwood CSD could have purchased a prefab garage facility FOR LESS than the amount wasted on the Hansell Design.

The arrogance of the CSD is truly stunning.  They are all responsible for this disaster.

NY TIMES Opinion and Reaction to "American's Needs More Neighbors"

Americans Need More Neighbors

A big idea in Minneapolis points the way for other cities desperately in need of housing.


By The Editorial Board


The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.
June 15, 2019

A new apartment complex being built next to a single-family home in South Minneapolis.CreditBrooklynn Kascel for The New York Times


A new apartment complex being built next to a single-family home in South Minneapolis.CreditCreditBrooklynn Kascel for The New York Times


Housing is one area of American life where government really is the problem. The United States is suffering from an acute shortage of affordable places to live, particularly in the urban areas where economic opportunity increasingly is concentrated. And perhaps the most important reason is that local governments are preventing construction.

Don’t be misled by the construction cranes that punctuate city skylines. The number of housing units completed in the United States last year, adjusted for the size of the population, was lower than in any year between 1968 and 2008. And the problem is most acute in major urban areas along the east and west coasts. Housing prices, and homelessness, are rising across the country because there is not enough housing.

Increasing the supply of urban housing would help to address a number of the problems plaguing the United States. Construction could increase economic growth and create blue-collar jobs. Allowing more people to live in cities could mitigate inequality and reduce carbon emissions. Yet in most places, housing construction remains wildly unpopular. People who think of themselves as progressives, environmentalists and egalitarians fight fiercely against urban development, complaining about traffic and shadows and the sanctity of lawns.

That’s why a recent breakthrough in Minneapolis is so important. The city’s political leaders have constructed a broad consensus in favor of more housing. And the centerpiece is both simple and brilliant: Minneapolis is ending single-family zoning.


Local governments regulate land use by chopping cities into zones, specifying what can be built in each area. This serves some valuable purposes, like separating homes from heavy industry. But mostly, it serves to protect homeowners. In many cities, including Minneapolis, more than half of the city’s land is reserved for single-family homes.  See full Article HERE.

Read the comments after the article.  Here is an excellent response:

Aaron

USAJune 16

Times Pick

I live in Minneapolis. I'm a millennial. I own my home. I oppose this plan completely. There is a large segment of our city that is very affordable, but it's in the black community and the crime rate is high so few want to move there. I'll let you draw your own conclusions on what motivates people in this instance. Speaking of our community members of north Minneapolis -- they asked the council to make major financial investments in their community to make it nicer. The council decided to upzone their homes instead. Who stands to gain from that? There was only one councilperson who voted against airbnb in Minneapolis. That's your government voting against your own interests, Linnea Goderstad, since the council decided it's legal for investors to buy housing stock and airbnb it for profit. Yet she villifies older single family home owners... That photo of Ms Goderstad is in downtown east next to the Minnesota Viking's new billion dollar stadium, which was half paid for through state funds and a sales tax hike on people buying food, alcohol, and lodging downtown. There are homeless people camping in its shadow. Middleclass, older single family home owners are the problem with housing affordability, though, not politicians who give away a half a billion to a sports franchise. Coincidently, my mass transit stop is at the stadium, so I've seen the dense housing stock spring up since I work in a highrise downtown. Very little of it would be considered affordable. Just absurd

An Addiction Crisis Disguised as a Housing Crisis

Homelessness is an addiction crisis disguised as a housing crisis

 Homelessness is an addiction crisis disguised as a housing crisis

Homelessness is an addiction crisis disguised as a housing crisis. In Seattle, prosecutors and law enforcement recently estimated that the majority of the region’s homeless population is hooked on opioids, including heroin and fentanyl. If this figure holds constant throughout the West Coast, then at least11,000 homeless opioid addicts live in Washington, 7,000 live in Oregon, and 65,000 live in California (concentrated mostly in San Francisco and Los Angeles). For the unsheltered population inhabiting tents, cars, and RVs, the opioid-addiction percentages are even higher—the City of Seattle’s homeless-outreach team estimates that 80 percent of the unsheltered population has a substance-abuse disorder. Officers must clean up used needles in almost all the homeless encampments.

For drug cartels and low-level street dealers, the business of supplying homeless addicts with heroin, fentanyl, and other synthetic opioids is extremely lucrative. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the average heavy-opioid user consumes $1,834 in drugs per month. Holding rates constant, we can project that the total business of supplying heroin and other opioids to the West Coast’s homeless population is more than $1.8 billion per year. In effect, Mexican cartels, Chinese fentanyl suppliers, and local criminal networks profit off the misery of the homeless and offload the consequences onto local governments struggling to get people off the streets.

West Coast cities are seeing a crime spike associated with homeless opioid addicts. In Seattle, police busted two sophisticated criminal rings engaged in “predatory drug dealing” in homeless encampments (they were found in possession of $20,000 in cash, heroin, firearms, knives, machetes, and a sword). Police believe that “apartments were serving as a base of operations that supplied drugs to the streets, and facilitated the collection and resale of stolen property.” In other words, drug dealers were exploiting homeless addicts and using the city’s maze of illegal encampments as distribution centers. In my own Fremont neighborhood, where property crime has surged 57 percent over the past two years, local business owners have formed a group to monitor a network of RVs that circulate around the area to deal heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamines. Dealers have become brazen—one recently hung up a spray-painted sign on the side of his RV with the message: “Buy Drugs Here!”

What are local governments doing to address this problem? To a large extent, they have adopted a strategy of deflection, obfuscation, and denial. In her  #SeattleForAll public relations campaign, Mayor Jenny Durkan insists that only one in three homeless people struggle with substance abuse, understating the figures of her own police department as well as the city attorney, who has claimed that the real numbers, just for opioid addiction, rise to 80 percent of the unsheltered.

The consequences of such denial have proved disastrous: no city on the West Coast has a solution for homeless opioid addicts. Los Angeles, which spent $619 million on homelessness last year, has adopted a strategy of palliative care—keeping addicts alive through distribution of the overdose drug naloxone—but fails to provide access to on-demand detox, rehabilitation, and recovery programs that might help people overcome their addictions. The city has been cursed, in this sense, with temperate weather, compounded by permissive policies toward public camping and drug consumption that have attracted20,687 homeless individuals from outside Los Angeles County.

No matter how much local governments pour into affordable-housing projects, homeless opioid addicts—nearly all unemployed—will never be able to afford the rent in expensive West Coast cities. The first step in solving these intractable issues is to address the real problem: addiction is the common denominator for most of the homeless and must be confronted honestly if we have any hope of solving it.

Christopher F. Rufo is a contributing editor of City Journal. He is a documentary filmmaker and research fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center on Wealth, Poverty, & Morality. Follow him on Facebook here.

Happy Monday: We won't get Fooled Again

Happy Monday: Jeev Rangala

Fable: THE LION AND THE GNAT

THE LION AND THE GNAT

    "AWAY with you, vile insect!" said a Lion angrily to a Gnat that was buzzing around his head. But the Gnat was not in the least disturbed.

"Do you think," he said spitefully to the Lion, "that I am afraid of you because they call you king?"

The next instant he flew at the Lion and stung him sharply on the nose. Mad with rage, the Lion struck fiercely at the Gnat, but only succeeded in tearing himself with his claws. Again and again the Gnat stung the Lion, who now was roaring terribly. At last, worn out with rage and covered with wounds that his own teeth and claws had made, the Lion gave up the fight.

The Gnat buzzed away to tell the whole world about his victory, but instead he flew straight into a spider's web. And there, he who had defeated the King of beasts came to a miserable end, the prey of a little spider.

The least of our enemies is often the most to be feared.

Pride over a success should not throw us off our guard.

ABAG EXEC DIRECTOR ''REGIONAL GOVERNANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL

Important video. I would love to hear the rebuttal of Ezra Rapport by a constitutional scholar. No where does he mention the people right to self govern. His justification of "states authority" is positively socialist in concept. It changes our democracy into a authoritarian central planning model. I understand that Ezra Rapport was a lawyer.in his prior life.

I posed the question about how to rebuff Ezra Rapport's argument and received this response from a friend:

There are many arguments for local control but not based on the US Constitution. In the system of federalism, The federal and state governments co-exist as soverigns. The Constitution reserves the powers that belong to the federal government, and these pre-empt any contrary state or local laws. Anything not reserved to the feds belongs to the states to do as they please, as long as not in conflict with the Bill of Rights or other constitutional provisions. In contrast, the state and cities are not separate sovereigns. The cities are subordinate to the state, and derive any and all of their powers from what the state grants. The state has authority to delegate its powers to agencies, and has done so here. This is the constitutional explanation. As used here, I would argue it is bad governance, but it is constitutional.

Here are a few other comments: 

Constitutionally, he is right.

Just like, after the Reichstag fire in 1933, Hindenburg’s Reichstag Fire Decree suspending basic rights and allowed detention without trail, followed by Hitler getting the Enabling Act passed by the new Reichstag to respond to the emergency, and Hitler taking over as sole dictator of Germany after the death of Hindenburg, Hitler became all-powerful in a perfectly legal manner.

Remember the sequence in Star Wars III where Palpatine convinces the Senate to convert the Republic into the Empire with him as Emperor?

Guess what it was based on?

“A republic, if you can keep it.”

And this one:

Rapport may be correct that the state can subdivide into regional agencies, but this does not permit it to do so without democratic representation. Here is the portion of the Constitution, Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence. 

Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution HERE