Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Marin Voice: Why Marin’s traffic is bad and getting worse

Marin Voice: Why Marin’s traffic is bad and getting worse

Most people agree that traffic congestion in Marin County is out of control.
Sir Francis Drake Boulevard is gridlocked for miles with commuters trying to drive to work each morning. The backup on 101 brings cars and buses to a grinding halt each night at the Greenbrae interchange.
Conditions are hardly better anywhere else.
Meanwhile, there is no coherent strategy for dealing with these problems at the county level. That grim reality was brought home at a recent meeting of the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM).

Read the story HERE

Ten things Back to the Future Got Wrong (and Right) for October 21, 2015


Monday, October 19, 2015

Citizen Victory! : Littleton to require voter approval on urban renewal

Littleton to require voter approval on urban renewal

Denver Business Journal
Downtown Littleton.
Littleton voters Tuesday approved ballot measures reforming urban renewal in the city following a special election, making it unique among Colorado cities because it will now require voter permission to use state-sanctioned tools for urban renewal.
Questions 300 requires the city to go to the voters before using common urban-renewal tools such as tax-increment financing and eminent domain. Question 300 passed by 5,755 yes votes to 3,811 no votes, a margin of approximately 60 percent to 40 percent.
Question 2A, which prohibits the use of eminent domain, except at the request of the property owner, was even more widely approved, passing by 6,583 yes votes to 2,890 no votes.
Question 300 was brought for special election after Littleton residents objected to the way urban-renewal tools were being used in the city. Specifically, residents took issue with the city's designation of four zones as blighted, which opens the door for the use of urban renewal. Many areas within those zones are not blighted, residents say, and some places even include new development.
"Like most elections, this one was a large difference of opinion, this one about what is best for Littleton," said Paul Bingham of Your Littleton Your Vote, the group that pushed to get Question 300 on the ballot. "The Your Littleton Your Vote group's opinion was favored by more of the voters than the other group's."
But opponents of Question 300 argued that the measure would cause developers to pass over Littleton for projects because of an additional hurdle to getting development done.
Littleton Mayor Phil Cernanec, who was opposed to Question 300, issued the following statement: "Regardless of the voters' decision, the city council and I will continue engaging with citizens and encouraging healthy dialog on the very important issues we face. It is, and always has been, our goal to look for ways to keep Littleton moving forward."

Lesson for Marin: Citizen Fight in Colorado.

Arvada Citizens Also Engaged in Urban Renewal Gone Bad

Urban Renewal: Everything That Can Be Wrong With Local Government

Fat_Cat-AURA-Council-DevelopersCronyism, corruption, corporate welfare, corporate socialism, elitism, insider deals, political payoffs, central planning, social engineering … the worst of what can happen when politicians, government bureaucrats and business fat cats get together under the auspices of your local  ‘urban renewal authority’.
In recent years we have seen the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority (AURA) go on a tax give-away binge and engage in heavy-handed regulation for the benefit of favored developers; behavior that has gone far beyond what the ‘urban renewal’ concept was ever meant to accomplish.
Perhaps most egregious is the strong-arm power of urban renewal authority that distorts and manipulates the functioning of the free market. Local established businesses and historic neighborhoods are thus artificially impacted in ways from which they may never recover. In just the past couple of years in Arvada we have witnessed the city council and AURA applying elitist “we always know what is best for you” decisions in the central region of the city especially.
The whole urban renewal process often descends into what amounts to sanctioned bribery and graft when developers get rebated millions and millions of tax dollars to build projects desired by government — where otherwise the free market would render its own organic resolution and judgement. Any such system is ripe for abuse: thus, not unexpectedly, we have seen in city council elections, proponents of city government largess tending to receive campaign contributions from their developer ‘friends’.
Once upon a time, government urban renewal was meant to reconstruct rundown or ‘blighted’ urban areas. These days it means
The Arvada Urban Renewal Authority has become a scandal … but, the concerns of city residents are belittled and ignored.
What are the typical responses of the elected elite, the establishment politicians and their cronies to this tax give-aways and favoritism towards wealthy developers?
  • Why, we common folks just don’t understand the mechanics of city planning and how government and business have to ‘work’ together.
  • We are naivĂ© to think that this isn’t how big, important deals are made … and besides, what do you know about what is best for the future of Arvada?
  • And then there is the slickest line of all: if government doesn’t give developers tax money, they wouldn’t be able to afford to build and ‘improve’ the city. Next time you need to repaint or re-roof your house, go to city council and try that reasoning on them — ask for three of four years of city sales tax rebate so you can afford to ‘improve’ your neighborhood.
Lately, however, citizens across the metro area are waking up to this abuse of government power that favors special interests over free markets and taxpaying residents.
Residents of Arvada, Westminster, Littleton — indeed, the entire Denver region — all want good quality economic prosperity for our communities. Undoubtedly, however, most regular folks also believe that free enterprise, fairness and the ‘old fashioned’ American way of doing business should not be subverted by government favors and preferences for a chosen few picked to be ‘winners’ by urban renewal authorities.
•••
To find out more about the Littleton urban renewal ballot issue, go to: http://yourlittletonyourvote.wordpress.com

A Pit of Rattlesnakes

Development foes hope to address Boulder growth on November ballot

Development foes hope to address Boulder growth on November ballot

Two charter amendments related to development issues submitted to city

By Erica Meltzer
Staff Writer
UPDATED:   04/23/2015 09:49:35 PM MDT

Ricardo Acosta, of ISA Construction LLC, works last September to level an area for concrete to be poured at a development site on the 28th Street frontage
Ricardo Acosta, of ISA Construction LLC, works last September to level an area for concrete to be poured at a development site on the 28th Street frontage road in Boulder. (Jeremy Papasso / Staff Photographer)
Boulder's development debate is headed toward the November ballot as growth opponents on Wednesday announced a pair of voter measures that would give residents more control over which projects are approved and require developers to pay more to the city to offset growth.
The proposed amendments to Boulder's charter have been submitted to the city for legal review before their language is finalized.
The City Attorney's Office has until Monday to provide feedback on the initiatives, but proponents are not required to accept all of the city's suggestions. Supporters would then have 90 days to collect 4,511 valid signatures to place the measures on the November ballot.
Supporters of the charter amendments say they'll provide important protections for Boulder residents, while those who advocate for denser development said they would "enshrine selfishness."
Proposed Boulder charter amendments
"Development Shall Pay Its Own Way" would require the city to develop measurements for levels of service in a variety of areas, including police, fire, libraries, parks, human services and transportation, and to not approve new development that does not pay for or otherwise provide for that level of service to be maintained. New development would be defined as any project that increases the floor area of a building or site, or any change in use of an existing building.
"Neighborhoods' Right to Vote on Land-Use Regulation Changes"would require a vote on land-use changes if 10 percent of the registered voters in a neighborhood asked for one. Land-use changes that would subject to a vote would include exemptions to height, density and the occupancy limit, reductions in parking and setbacks, and zoning changes. Land-use changes that affect multiple neighborhoods would require separate elections in each neighborhood.
The initiatives are the first salvo in a city election season that may be defined by growth and development issues.
One charter amendment would give neighborhoods the right to vote on land-use changes if 10 percent of the registered voters in a neighborhood sign a petition seeking an election on the requested land-use change.
That charter amendment would apply to requests for changes to height, density, occupancy limits, zoning, parking requirements and setbacks.
Land-use changes that would affect multiple neighborhoods would have to be voted on separately by each affected neighborhood.
Stephen Haydel, a member of Livable Boulder, the group proposing the charter amendments, and a resident of the Goss-Grove neighborhood, which was downzoned at the request of long-time residents, said the current process doesn't give enough weight to residents' concerns and preference.
"Right now, the neighborhoods don't feel they have a big enough say in the process," he said. "It goes through boards or city planning and then it goes to the City Council, depending on the process.
"A lot of neighborhoods feel they don't really have a say or a voice in the changes that are coming."
Haydel said the need for the charter amendment feels more urgent as the city is nearing the phase of the comprehensive housing strategy process when policy proposals will be on the table, including some that might call for increased density to create more affordable housing, and as the update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan begins.
Boulder planning officials also are in the process of updating development-related fees, and the City Council is considering a commercial linkage fee that would require commercial development to contribute money toward affordable housing projects.
Haydel said he did not believe the need for an election when a project faces objections from neighbors would significantly slow down growth — though that wouldn't necessarily be a bad side effect.
"Something that would take two years to bring forward might take two years and three months," he said.
Growth 'has never paid for itself'
The other charter amendment would require that development "pay its own way."
The measure would require that the city develop level-of-service measurements and not approve new development that doesn't pay or otherwise provide for those levels of service to not be diminished.
New development is defined as any construction that adds additional floor area to a building or site, or any change of use of an existing building or site.
The charter amendment allows a two-thirds majority of the City Council to override the requirement for affordable housing developments and publicly owned projects.
Gwen Dooley, a member of PLAN-Boulder County's advisory committee and of the committee that supporting the "growth shall pay its way" initiative, said asking that development offset its own impacts has been perceived as opposing economic growth.
She doesn't see the ballot measure that way, though.
"They will have to come up with metrics to measure these impacts," she said. "It's time we really started accounting for this."
A minority of City Council members have pushed for metrics to measure the impacts of growth, but they have not been able to prevail over their colleagues who do not feel such measurements would be useful.
Dooley said the charter amendment committee deliberately gave the City Council leeway to develop its own measurements.
"It's up to the city administration and the City Council to fine tune this," she said. "We're not trying to hem them in in certain ways that make life difficult for everyone. But the residents keep subsidizing the growth that occurs. It has never paid for itself.
"Hopefully the impact is that the true costs of development are not passed on to the taxpayer."
'That's why we elect City Council members'
Angelique Espinoza, a spokeswoman for the Boulder Chamber, which has advocated for denser development to provide more housing for people who work in the city, said the comprehensive plan update is the appropriate process to have the broader debate about growth impacts.
"Clearly how we grow and how our community develops into the future is a topic of concern and interest to many in the community," she said. "As the comprehensive plan moves forward, we still think that's the place to have the discussion about how growth pays its own way, what does community benefit mean, what is the value of economic vitality and what is the best suite of tools that should work together to achieve our community goals as we define them."
Will Toor, a former Boulder mayor and co-chair of Better Boulder, an organization that sees denser development as better for the environment, said the charter amendment allowing for votes would "enshrine selfishness" as wealthier, better organized communities would be able to shut out housing for lower-income people.
"Allowing planning to be made by just a few hundred people, I don't know how you would possibly do intelligent planning with that kind of structure," he said. "There are often decisions that have to be made based on impacts and benefits to the immediate neighborhood and impacts and benefits to the city as a whole, and you need to take all of that information into account. That's why we elect City Council members to make those decisions.
"I think the practical effect would be to institutionalize the exclusion of less well-off people from wealthier neighborhoods."

Obama Wants to Pick the Clintons’ Neighbors


Obama Wants to Pick the Clintons’ Neighbors
The administration is forcing low-income housing into wealthy enclaves, whether or not anyone wants it




Bill and Hillary Clinton after moving into their house in Chappaqua, N.Y., in 2000. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS


By


JASON L. RILEY

June 16, 2015 6:44 p.m. ET


655 COMMENTS


Bill and Hillary Clinton are popular with black voters, but that doesn’t mean the couple wants to live around them. And vice versa. This reality troubles President Obama, though his remedy is what’s really troubling.


When the Clintons went house-hunting in 1999, neighborhood diversity wasn’t much of a priority. The family settled on a five-bedroom Colonial in Chappaqua, N.Y., a lush suburb north of New York City where the population is more than 90% white, less than 1% black and multimillion-dollar homes abound. No one has produced evidence of racial discrimination against buyers who can afford homes in Chappaqua and other wealthy enclaves of Westchester County, where the town is located. But monochrome residential housing patterns upset the sensibilities of officials in Mr. Obama’s Department of Housing and Urban Development.


For the past six years, HUD has been hounding Westchester about building more low-income housing in places like Chappaqua. Federal officials have vowed to “hold people’s feet to the fire” and make an example of the county. “We’re clearly messaging other jurisdictions across the country that there has been a significant change in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and we’re going to ask them to pursue similar goals as well,” said a deputy secretary at HUD in 2009.

Opinion Journal Video



Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Jason Riley on the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s plan to dictate where minorities live. Photo credit: Getty Images.


The comment followed the announcement of a settlement in a false-claims suit brought against the county by housing activists who accused Westchester of applying for a HUD grant without doing enough minority outreach to satisfy the federal agency’s “fair housing” goals. Westchester admitted no wrongdoing in the case, but the county executive at the time, a Democrat, cut a deal with HUD that required the county to build 750 subsidized-housing units over the next seven years and “affirmatively market affordable housing within the county and in geographic areas with significant non-white populations outside, but not contiguous with or within close proximity to, the county.” Got that?


In effect, the federal government is forcing wealthy Westchester municipalities to import low-income minorities. By extension, HUD is also compelling low-income minorities to live in overwhelmingly white communities, even though research has shown for decades that large majorities of blacks have no desire to live in all-white or even mostly white neighborhoods and strongly prefer to live where at least half of the other residents are black.


To his credit, Westchester’s current county executive, Republican Rob Astorino, has been pushing back against the terms of the settlement, which is still being litigated. The outcome is likely to have national ramifications. What is at stake is the loss of locally controlled residential zoning, and more such federal relocation edicts are almost certainly on the way.


Last week HUD announced that it was moving forward with new regulations that essentially will force about 1,250 communities nationwide to construct cheap housing units in wealthy, predominantly white neighborhoods and then actively recruit poor minorities to move in. Local governments that don’t play ball will jeopardize federal grant money. What happened in Westchester is a taste of what may be coming to upscale parts of Houston, Dallas, Marin County, Calif., and other places that aren’t racially and economically diverse enough for this White House.


The Obama administration may find color-adjusted communities aesthetically pleasing, but people don’t sort themselves by neighborhood randomly, and government invites trouble with efforts to move poor people—of any color—into areas where they otherwise can’t afford to live. Twenty years ago, HUD nixed a national program that gave public-housing residents in places like Baltimore, Chicago and Los Angeles vouchers that enabled them to move into better neighborhoods that were predominantly white.


“The theory was elegant, the outcome anything but,” reported the New York Times. “The idea was that by scattering one or two poor families in large middle-income areas, they would disappear like salt crystals in a glass of water, quietly integrating themselves into communities where they would find more jobs, better schools and safer streets.” Instead, the effort “unleashed a firestorm of protest” over race and class “before any of these families were moved,” said the paper. Financing for the year-old program was canceled.


Seemingly incapable of learning from its blunders, HUD continues to try to engineer residential integration—even though public attitudes have evolved and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 made housing discrimination illegal and Americans have shown themselves happy to decide where they’d like to live.


Since 1970, segregation has fallen significantly in every decade. In a 2012 paper for the Manhattan Institute, economists Edward Glaeser of Harvard and Jacob Vigdor of Duke wrote that “all-white neighborhoods are effectively extinct” and that the dominant trend in black neighborhoods is population loss. “Particularly in the formerly hyper-segregated cities of the Northeast and Midwest, ghetto neighborhoods have witnessed profound population declines, as former residents decamp for the suburbs or for the rapidly growing cities of the Sun Belt—where segregation is generally very low.”


The Obama administration is acting less out of a need to address a problem and more out of a desire to expand the role of the federal government in yet another area of our lives.

Sunday, October 18, 2015

My Life as a One Man Band

A Housing Solution Gone Awry

See article here:

A Housing Solution Gone Awry


Todd Heisler/The New York Times

Jeremiah Johnson Hierro, 4, plays in Marcus Garvey Village in Brownsville, Brooklyn. His mother sends him away in the summer for his safety.
By
 
In the early 1970s, the architect and city planner Oscar Newman came forth with a book and theory called “Defensible Space,” which relied in part on data from New York City public housing to propose a set of design solutions to the mounting problems of urban living.
The idealism of the ’60s extended to the notion that architecture in itself could engender meaningful social change, a belief now long out of circulation and perhaps never more so than at a time when the city’s civic leaders view development largely as bait for luring foreign capital. Mr. Newman examined public housing and determined that bigger, essentially, was worse; that taller buildings correlated with higher rates of crime and that design that was focused on giving residents a greater sense of ownership over where they lived would help prevent the delinquencies that had taken hold in the projects. The fewer the number of apartments sharing a common entry, for instance, the greater the ability for residents to both feel and exercise a sense of control over their environments.
      
Mr. Newman’s work brought momentum to a movement, here and abroad, for more intimately conceived apartment buildings, especially for the poor, one of the most celebrated examples of which was Marcus Garvey Village, with 625 apartments, in Brownsville, Brooklyn. Visiting Marcus Garvey today, it is nearly impossible to imagine the excitement that surrounded its groundbreaking 40 years ago, but it was born of thrilling alliances, as an exhibit at the Center for Architecture downtown, titled “Low Rise High Density,” illustrates.
      
In the late 1960s, Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller initiated the short-lived Urban Development Corporation, which sought to match the best architectural talent to the creation of low- and middle-income housing. Marcus Garvey resulted from a collaboration between this agency and the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies, an architectural research organization headed by the architect Peter Eisenman. In 1973, three years before the project was completed, the project’s design, realized by the architect Kenneth Frampton, was paid tribute with an exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art. The buildings themselves resembled student co-ops on progressive college campuses. Apartment doors opened to the outside rather than onto hallways; the units had communal mews and private backyards. And yet, ultimately, the distinguishing elements delivered consequences radically different from the grand intentions.
      
The fate of Marcus Garvey Village is not addressed in the Center for Architecture’s show, but the sense of exuberant experimentation that attended the project could not insulate it from the problems of poverty that have troubled Brownsville for decades. As one former official at the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development told me, Marcus Garvey actually makes the ailing towers of the Housing Authority so heavily concentrated in Brownsville “look good.”
About 10 years ago, Susan Saegert, a professor of environmental psychology at the City University of New York and two doctoral students looked at life in the structures and found that the courtyard areas, a hallmark of the design, became a nexus of the drug trade in the ’80s and ’90s precisely because they were shielded from public access and view. What was meant to foster an elevated sense of privacy instead contributed to criminality.
      
Marcus Garvey turned into a home base for the Folk Nation gang. A decade ago, the complex became the target of a joint operation by the Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to combat the problem of drug- and gang-related violence in the residences. Since the construction of Marcus Garvey, the poverty rate in Brownsville has not gone down; it has gone up — to close to 40 percent today from 29 percent in 1970. As Professor Saegert wrote in her analysis, “Development does not end when developments open. This is when the real work begins.” Mindful design can accomplish little divorced from broad, aggressive strategies to fight social inequality.
      
The most dispiriting irony about life in Marcus Garvey Village today is that its residents could not possess less of a sense of control over where they live. Crime has abated but a heavy and oppressive police presence has not, residents told me. Marcus Garvey Village is patrolled by a private security force as well. When I visited several weeks ago with a colleague, guards insisted on following us and tried to claim, inexplicably, that we could not talk to residents on their stoops or in their apartments even if we were invited in.
      
One resident, Jamal Matherson, told of seeing a friend pinned down one evening a few weeks ago by three police officers for no obvious reason when they were talking outside their building. Another resident talked about seeing a little girl on a stoop approached by a police officer who checked her drink to make sure it did not contain alcohol (she was having iced tea). If you happen to be having a glass of wine on your stoop in Cobble Hill, the chances that a police officer will tell you to stop are roughly equal to the chance that a schnauzer will pass on an excellent stock tip. If you are drinking wine on the stoops of Marcus Garvey Village you will most likely be questioned and given a ticket.
Stoops, in the Jane Jacobs sense, are supposed to inspire communality; here they inspire more surveillance. Mews are rarely used anymore, one young mother, Shelecia Johnson, told me.

Barbecues rarely happen. Ms. Johnson has a 4-year-old son; in the summer when things are both dull and more dangerous, she sends him away. Soon, he will be headed to the Carolinas.       
      

Did Marinwood-Lucas Valley lose a Con Game?

TAM's review of the latest scenario for the Plan Bay Area Sustainable Communities Scenario leads some to wonder whether it's math or a con.

 

Is ABAG Playing a Shell Game with Housing Numbers?



"This is not a shell game," declared Tiburon's Alice Fredericks, chairwoman of the Transportation Authority of Marin's Executive Committee during Monday's meeting. The committee was examining the Association of Bay Area Governments' Draft Preferred "Jobs-Housing Connection Scenario," and Fredericks was responding to a statement from an attendee that ABAG was playing a shell game with its allocation of required new housing development for Marin County by 2040.

A number of attendees said they were perplexed and appropriately skeptical, about the latest ABAG allocations, particularly because of the significant shift in the numbers from past iterations to the Preferred Scenario, which was released on March 9. For Mill Valley, that shift was represented by 740 housing units in the Preferred Scenario, a jump of 240 units from the previous iteration.

The committee members voted to send a letter to ABAG Director Ezra Rappaport expressing its dismay over the ABAG's projection of 17 percent job growth for Marin County in the next 30 years.
The letter reads in part: "Marin County lacks the type of developable land associated with traditional business growth, and has limited availability of water resources. It is unlikely that Marin can match the robust job growth of the 1980s."

ABAG originally released its 30-year projection that Marin County would see 19,000 more jobs by 2040, which would require 11,000 new homes. Some leaders choked on the numbers their towns and cities were being asked to bear. Novato complained loudly and Corte Madera announced it would leave ABAG.

The squeaky wheel got the grease — Corte Madera and Novato saw their numbers cut, but their neighbors could be forced to take on a heavier load as a result. [Marinwood-Lucas Valley had housing allocations increase weeks later.]

Fredericks suggested that if other communities have problems with the distribution of numbers, they might have to fight ABAG on their own.

City of Mill Valley officials are trying to come up with a plan to deal with this predicament, hoping to convene a joint session of the City Council and Planning Commission to decide how to respond to the latest numbers.

While Mill Valley saw its housing allocations spike in the Preferred Scenario, those of Corte Madera and Novato shrunk, apparently the result of successful local lobbying efforts with ABAG officials. The discussion is exacerbated in Mill Valley as local developer Phil Richardson has proposed building a 20-unit residential complex on East Blithedale Avenue near Camino Alto.

Some attendees of the TAM meeting wondered aloud if there was really any room for that many new housing units and that many more people in Marin.

TAM's explanation was that "ABAG is a region and the region has a pot that they stir around." Because Corte Madera's predicted increase in the number of housing units and households was decreased, the leftovers went back into the regional pot, were stirred around and landed on someone else's plate.

The explanation did not seem to entirely satisfy anyone, not even Corte Madera Vice-Mayor Diane Furst.

"It looks like there was a shifting of numbers," Furst said.

Be careful what you wish for, Furst was told in a lighthearted warning. You never know how the numbers will add up.

For more..
Is ABAG playing a shell game?

Saturday, October 17, 2015

Early Lucas Valley Family Portrait


Million Dollar Shack-trapped inside the Silicon Valley's Housing Bubble.


Check out this compelling story about the frustration to find an affordable home in the Silicon Valley by an average middle class family.  Will Marin be next?  I can't help but think so.  Google is rumored to have purchased the old Fireman's Fund building in Novato for a satellite office.  Could other tech firms be close behind?

Although this will mean the rise of our home prices, it will also price more middle class families out of the market.  It seems like all we are building in Marin is luxury homes and tax subsidized homes for low income workers.  The middle class has no where to go.  And the moderate and middle class homeowners may be well pushed out of their homes through rising taxes for these massive subsidies to non profit developers.

   $500k investment buys you citizenship in the USA.