By John Mirisch : citywatch – excerpt

LA TRANSPO – TOD is an acronym. As with many acronyms, it has numerous potential meanings. Time of day. Tour of duty. Terms of delivery. For Indiana Jones fans, Temple of Doom. Truth or dare. The other day. Transfer on death. To name just a few.

But for metropolitan hipsters, Urban Growth Machine acolytes, density fetishists, and other developer shills, TOD can mean one thing and one thing only: transit-oriented development…

It is refreshing for TOD advocates to openly admit that transit was always only a “pretense” for “transit-oriented development.”

With that mask now off, Professor Manville continues:…

“Whatever the benefits of TOD are to residents, the benefits to developers all but ensure that state and local programs to promote TOD will stick around.”

So, TOD was never meant to benefit the residents. It was always meant to benefit developers. Transit-oriented development was always developer-oriented development all along. TOD is really DOD…

“It’s [TOD projects] also close to other things. It’s close to groceries, schools, hospitals, senior centers. The transit stops aren’t in the middle of nowhere. They’re around other stuff. So, the benefit of having that stuff is good for more than just people riding trains to get to work.”

So here we have “stuff-oriented development,” or SOD…

The word “Tod” (roughly pronounced “toad”) in German means “death.” TOD is dead. Long live DOD!

(John Mirisch was elected to the Beverly Hills City Council in 2009 and has served three terms as mayor. He is currently a garden-variety councilmember, and a contributor to CityWatchLA.com.)…(more)

By Will Swaim : californiapolicycenter – excerpt
We’ve seen Gov. Gavin Newsom impose questionable — even dangerous and illegal — policies by declaring states of emergency or merely “crisis” with regard to Covid, climate and energy. He’s done it again on the issue of housing. The problems of housing affordability and homelessness constitute a crisis so compelling, the governor says, that they can be solved only by forcing cities to permit the construction of 2.5 million new homes by 2030.

Huntington Beach has refused to go along with the state’s demand that the city approve construction of 13,368 new homes.

In response, on March 9, the state sued Huntington Beach.
“The message we’re sending to the city of Huntington Beach is simple: Act in good faith, follow the law and do your part to increase the housing supply,” Bonta said in announcing the suit. “If you don’t, our office will hold you accountable.”

Within hours of the state’s lawsuit, Huntington Beach fired back. In a federal lawsuit, the city accuses the state of violating California and U.S. constitutional laws through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process…

Huntington Beach says its claims are “novel and complex.” We do our best to offer a summary of those claims here, but there’s no substitute for reading the city’s lawsuit itself, which you can find here.…(more)

1. Violates California Constitution Art. XI (Charter City)
2. Violates the First Amendment speech rights of cities, city officials, and residents
3. Violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
4. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) regulatory process is broken
5. Violates California Constitution Art. XI (Due Process)
6. Violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

By Dan Bacher : kailykos – excerpt

Portions of the Governor’s proposed Trailer Bills that would significantly weaken the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) could be approved as early as this week. Tell the Governor we reject his secretive trailer bill effort, which excludes public input and evades the democratic process. We provide a suggestedphone/email script below but encourage you to use your own words.

TAKE ACTION: You can call the Governor’s office at 916-445-2841 or email through the portal at Contact the Governor. Additionally, please tell your elected representatives in the State Legislature to Keep CEQA Strong. Remind them that a strong CEQA is vital to protecting public health and the environment, advancing California’s urgent climate priorities, and giving disadvantaged communities a voice in local land use decisions. Please find your state legislators and write or call them today.

SUGGESTED SCRIPT
“I’m deeply concerned about Governor Newsom’s infrastructure trailer bills, which include provisions that would greatly weaken the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). They would, as a practical matter, take away the ability of small nonprofits, including those that advocate for environmental justice and protecting clean air and water, to bring citizen suits to enforce environmental laws. Communities that are most heavily burdened by environmental injustice, which are often low-income, could find it impossible to enforce CEQA in court because of the increased costs that could be associated with gathering the administrative record. Endangered species, water in the Delta, and pollution-burdened communities would be damaged by many of the proposals in the Governor’s infrastructure trailer bill package. Finally, I object to this process: there is no need to rush consideration of the Governor’s drastic measures in a budget trailer bill instead of through the normal Legislative process.”…(more)

I belive this news publisher is fairly left of center on most things. The governor is not putting anything over on his environmental or social rights advocates with his tactics. I belive is has managed to bridget he gap between richt and left wing politicians in a way that few have. No one like his manuevers.

SF Mayor London Breed is trying similar tactics that may also backfire on her. Forcing half the city to take the developer remedy pill before the devleoper even asks for it is going outsdie the bounds of reason for most people who are watching the dimise of a once wonderful city under her watch.

GrowSF via email:

San Francisco real estate development is in a weird spot. While San Francisco has been tasked by the State with accommodating at least 82,000 new homes, the million bureaucratic barriers to building housing, slowing demand, and high construction costs are all combining into a perfect storm of total gridlock.

Just 8 new homes have been permitted each month in 2023, writes Marcus White in the Examiner. This is far below the 854 per month required to meet our growth goals.

If San Francisco government can’t repeal the laws blocking housing, we will forfeit local control of land use to the State in about five years. Better get building.

By Gennady Sheyner : Palo Alto Weekly – (via email)

State Sen. Josh Becker also took a position against SB 423, a housing bill that moved ahead Wednesday

With the state Senate hitting its deadline for passing bills this week, Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park, saw his legislation on renewable energy, carbon renewal, data privacy and prison canteen costs all clear the upper chamber over the past week.

But Becker’s support was conspicuously absent on the year’s most contentious housing bill of the current session, Senate Bill 423, which would extend and modify the 2017 law that created a streamlined approval process for housing development in communities that had failed to meet the state’s housing mandate.

Authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, SB 423 is a successor to SB 35, also authored by Wiener. It extends the streamlining provisions until 2036, adds various new provisions pertaining to labor standards and removes exemptions for coastal areas. Palo Alto is among the cities that have formally opposed the bill, which cleared the Senate by a 29-5 vote. Becker, who abstained from voting, said in an interview he did not support the bill because it does not address the true barrier to building affordable housing: insufficient financing.

He noted that most of the cities in his district have met or exceeded their goals for total housing units in the last Regional Housing Needs Assessment cycle, which concluded last year, even as many fell well short when it comes to below-market-rate housing. The key to building more affordable housing is more investment of state funds, he said.

“Instead of removing local control over planning decisions, California needs to provide the financial support needed to ensure that critically needed affordable housing can be built,” Becker said in an interview. “ B 423 doesn’t help get us there.”…

By The Editorial Board : ocregister – excerpt

Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom made an unusually substantive legislative push by unveiling a plan to help speed up infrastructure projects by, among other things, finally taking on the California Environmental Quality Act.

Business groups have responded favorably to the governor’s plan to streamline certain construction projects and speed up judicial reviews.

“For too long, special interest groups have weaponized CEQA to delay, scale back, or halt projects altogether for reasons unrelated to the environment,” said California Chamber of Commerce CEO Jennifer Barrera. “Streamlining CEQA for clean energy, water and transportation infrastructure, as well as more directly for the construction of new housing, can be achieved with environmental protections that help to restore the statute’s original intent.”

But lawmakers weren’t particularly moved to act on the governor’s proposals and environmentalist groups are pressuring lawmakers to halt any action on the proposals for now.

In a letter from a coalition of environmental groups critical of Newsom’s plan dated June 3, the governor is criticized for “short-circuiting the regular legislative process for new significant policy proposals” by trying to get his plan through by way of budget trailer bills.

Incidentally, these groups are right to note the abuse of the trailer bill process. From a simple good government perspective it has been troubling that the state has often preferred to use state budget trailer bills to ram through proposals that should go through the legislative process for public vetting… (more)

Letter to the Editor : marinij – excerpt

I am writing in regard to the recently published article about San Rafael’s downtown business planning (“City approves plan for economic development,” May 23). The elimination of parking meters should be on the list of steps to take.

Parking meters are a 1960s solution to bolster city revenues. The idea that people have to pay to park on city streets is out of date. No one has spare change and trying to navigate dozens of different card-enabled solutions in different locales is frustrating. In addition, the small amount of money collected is likely offset by the cost to enforce the meters and maintain the hardware.

Paying for the privilege to come downtown and see a movie, shop or have a meal puts the city core at a disadvantage compared to businesses outside of that area. Downtown San Rafael is a ghost town and bordering on blight. Getting rid of the meters is a step in the right direction for economic development.

Paid garages can stay as a paid service. Bonds were likely raised to build them and at least they offer some protection from the elements. But let’s keep the idea of the 1960s cars for our wonderful “classic car” shows, not paying to park.

— Edward Zimmerman, San Rafael