All posts by discowk7

American Accelerate Move Away From Density

By Wendell Cox : newgeography – excerpt

For more than 75 years America has been dispersing away from dense urban cores, with nearly all population growth in neighborhoods with a suburban form, whether inside urban core cities (Note 1) or within. This trend could well be accelerating and is now extending into counties that the Census Bureau determined had no urbanization at all in 2020. The trend toward suburbanization has long been opposed by urban planning orthodoxy, and increasingly state governments in California, Oregon, Massachusetts, and the city of Minneapolis. Public officials and key political figures such as California’s last two Governors, Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom have endorsed policies to increase urban density. The dispersion occurring represents a rejection of that agenda.

In just the first three years of the decade, nearly five million US residents have migrated across county borders, according to US Census Bureau population estimates from July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2023. Each year, the Census Bureau estimates net domestic migration (migrating in minus migrating out), which is measured at the lowest level between counties. Only total net domestic migration is estimated by the Census Bureau, not other characteristics, such as income or race. Further, there are no data for areas within counties, such as cities (except where cities and counties have the same geographic boundaries, such as in Baltimore, Washington, Philadelphia, St. Louis and, of course New York, which consists of five complete counties)…

Urban Areas: The Census Bureau defines urban areas after each census. Urban density is calculated by dividing the total urban population by the urban land area. In 2020, the average US overall population density was 94 per square mile (including both urban and rural areas). Among counties, the highest urban density is 74,800 in New York County (Manhattan). Of the nation’s about 3,100 counties and county equivalents, more than 1,000 had no urbanization in 2020. Urban density is a useful measure of urban influence at the county level.

It is notable that this net domestic migration has been overwhelmingly away from more intense urbanization — that is from counties with larger urban densities to counties with lower urban densities. Counties with higher urban population densities are often in or near the urban cores of the largest metropolitan areas.

Urban Density Weighted Net Domestic Migration(more)

The Supreme Court Takes on the Administrative State

By Ellen Brown : via email

In a highly controversial decision, the Supreme Court on June 28 reversed a 40-year old ruling known as Chevron deference, reclaiming the Court’s role as interpreter of statutory law as it applies to a massive body of regulations imposed by federal agencies in such areas as the environment, workplace safety, public health and more. …

The “administrative state” had modest beginnings during George Washington’s presidency, with the formation of the Defense, State, Treasury and Justice Departments. Today it has mushroomed into more than 400 agencies. For the 178 laws passed by Congress in 2020 alone, federal agencies issued an average of 19 rules and regulations for each law passed, for a total of 3,382 such rules. The Federal Register, a common measure of regulatory action, hit an all-time high 95,894 pages in 2016. That’s 75 timesThe Complete Works of William Shakespeare, which contains 1280 pages.

The issues raised by the Chevron doctrine go back to the founding of the country and make for an interesting lesson in civics. But first a look at the fishing case that reversed it.

Read the full article here.

‘Everything rests on this’: Will taxpayers loan Bay Area counties $20B to fix housing?

By Kevin V. Nguyen : sfstandard – excerpt

With state and federal funds drying up, banks lending less, and more cities facing budget deficits, tens of thousands of newly proposed affordable homes have been stuck in limbo, unable to get off the ground.

So come this November, Bay Area voters will not only be weighing in on the next U.S. President, but also, whether or not they should step in and loan the nine-county region a total of $20 billion to move those efforts along.

Last week, the commissioners of the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority—a first-of-its kind agency created in 2020—voted unanimously to put the bond measure on ballots to fund new subsidized housing projects, buy up existing homes to make or keep them affordable, and support housing-related infrastructure.

The bond would be funded by property tax increases, with an estimated tax of $19 per $100,000 of assessed value, which shakes out to about $190 per year for a home assessed at $1 million.

If voters approve this IOU, each city would receive a cut of the proceeds based on how much its jurisdiction pays in taxes. San Francisco, for example, would get about $2.4 billion to invest, while the city of Oakland would get over $720 million. The funds would be dispersed in the form of low-cost loans. …(more)

Is anyone following this story, or should I say media spin on the ballot initiative that has so far been called a Tax, and Bond, and now it is a loan. Which is the most accurate way to describe this? Are any of the titles right or are they all correct? Are the words, tax, bond and loan synonyms?

Coastal Zone Reforms Offer False Choices Between Homes and Protections

By Fred Keely :sanjoseinsider – excerpt

As someone who has had the honor of representing the city of Santa Cruz in a variety of public offices over several decades, I feel called to wade into the current debate over housing production in the coastal zone.

Some members of the Legislature have blamed the state’s high cost of housing (in part) on the California Coastal Act, the landmark law that has made our coastline the envy of the nation. They argue that the law is standing in the way of badly needed new development in beach communities, and the solution is to simply exempt housing projects from the Coastal Act.

But California doesn’t need to sacrifice coastal protection for new housing. That’s a false choice. We can increase density in coastal cities in a way that’s also environmentally responsible.

Santa Cruz is already doing it…

All it takes is imagination and political will.

Fred Keeley is the mayor of Santa Cruz. He has previously served as a state assemblymember, Santa Cruz County treasurer and county supervisor.

This op-ed is part of California Voices, a commentary forum aiming to broaden understanding of the state and spotlight Californians directly impacted by policy or its absence.(more)

Look who’s funding the local Democratic Party

By Tim Redmond : 48hills – excerpt

The right-wing tech barons and plutocrats are now the party’s biggest donor base.

The San Francisco Democratic Party held its annual gala tonight at the Palace Hotel. These posh events raise funds for the party, which is fine—but this year, the major sponsors, who gave more than $25,000, read like a list of the most conservative, almost Republican, big tech donors in the city:…(more)

Candace Roberts — Not My City Anymore (Official Video)
youtu.be

‘Everything rests on this’: Will taxpayers loan Bay Area counties $20B to fix housing?

By Kevin V. Nguyen : sfstandard – excerpt

They want us to pay for our own displacement is they plow down our homes to make room for the millions they claim need housing, in spite of the loss of population in the state.

Voters will decide on this massive new IOU in this upcoming November election

With state and federal funds drying up, banks lending less, and more cities facing budget deficits, tens of thousands of newly proposed affordable homes have been stuck in limbo, unable to get off the ground.

So come this November, Bay Area voters will not only be weighing in on the next U.S. President, but also, whether or not they should step in and loan the nine-county region a total of $20 billion to move those efforts along.

Last week, the commissioners of the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority—a first-of-its kind agency created in 2020—voted unanimously to put the bond measure on ballots to fund new subsidized housing projects, buy up existing homes to make or keep them affordable, and support housing-related infrastructure…

The bond would be funded by property tax increases, with an estimated tax of $19 per $100,000 of assessed value, which shakes out to about $190 per year for a home assessed at $1 million.

If voters approve this IOU, each city would receive a cut of the proceeds based on how much its jurisdiction pays in taxes. San Francisco, for example, would get about $2.4 billion to invest, while the city of Oakland would get over $720 million. The funds would be dispersed in the form of low-cost loans.

BAHFA estimates that paying off the loan would add up to nearly $50 billion after interest. The mayors of San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland all expressed support for the bond measure. …(more)

The MTC who can’t make the trains run on time and splurges on a multi billion dollar building in San Francisco, a the tax payers expense, not wants to sell us on a housing plan that is wants to charge us for by raising property taxes. At a time when property values are receding like yesterday’s tide.

Already people who bought into the ADU concept are shocked by their higher taxes, due to the recent rise in valuation of their property. How many property owners are willing to eat the higher taxes without passing their onto their tenants? Seriously? We are going to trust the MTC with more money when they are refusing to listen to us?

These are the people who removed single family housing from the state, killed the solar industry, want to remove our private vehicles and replace gas stoves with electric that will run on nuclear power and whatever else Big Energy can find to burn. MTC is trying to force us back into the lifestyle we just pulled ourselves out of. They want us to live in tiny homes and commute to tiny office cubicles to keep their computer vehicles working. They call this backward plan their vision of the future?

This is the anti-farm pro-housing gang that seeks to plow over our farms and ranch to build more housing. Who needs fresh food when you can live in tight close quarters and eat who knows what and look cool toting your life in a bag on the Muni on your way to the Mayor’s latest rave?

Newsom is moving this family to Marin but, they will not be living in one of those little units next to the 101 Smart Train station in San Rafael. They will be living on acreage and saving for their children’s future by building equity in their homes. What will we get? Another day older and a another month’s rent.

Silicon Valley politicians give back donations following FBI raids

by Vicente Vera, Silicon Valley Spotlight : kqed – expert

Recent FBI raids into Bay Area properties owned and run by members of the politically-connected Duong family bring to light the yearslong allegations of illegal political donations into Silicon Valley.

Among those alleged to have received illegal donations are Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, whose residence was searched by federal agents last week in connection with an undisclosed investigation. San José Spotlight found David Duong, CEO of California Waste Solutions, a company contracting with San Jose, and another company leader made contributions to the campaigns of San Jose City Council District 8 candidate Tam Truong and South Bay Congressman Ro Khanna.

Truong’s Campaign Manager Manuel Robles confirmed they received a $700 contribution from Michael Duong, a manager at California Waste Solutions, but the campaign now plans to give the money back.

“Given the news raising questions about these contributions to campaigns throughout the Bay Area and beyond, we are in the process of returning this check,” he told San José Spotlight.

Campaign finance reports show David Duong contributed at least $5,800 to Khanna’s congressional campaign committee last year. Khanna, who represents District 17 in Silicon Valley, said he plans to donate the money.

“We plan to donate the contribution to an organization that is helping people in my district struggling with the rising cost of living highlighted by the Silicon Valley Pain Index report,” Khanna told San José Spotlight.

A California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) report from 2021 alleges David Duong and his son Andy Duong were involved in laundering at least 93 political campaign contributions totaling nearly $76,000. The scheme allegedly resulted in the company reimbursing friends for making political cash contributions to candidates across the state, including the South Bay, on their behalf — an illegal practice that uses “straw donors.”

Jay Wierenga, spokesperson for the FPPC, told San José Spotlight their investigation is still open.

David Duong said California Waste Solutions is aware of federal agents executing search warrants at a number of locations in Oakland related to the company.

“The company is fully cooperating with the government’s investigation, and is confident that the government will conclude that it was not involved in any unlawful or improper activity,” David Duong told San José Spotlight…(more)

It seems like the Duong Bros covered all their bases. No one is left out. Interesting that there is no mention of the Mayor of Oakland whose home was searched, supposedly in connection with the Bros. What does that mean?

YIMBY Want to Raise Your Rent

By Marc Salomon : counterpunch – excerpt

Over the past decade, a new political formation has arisen in the US, the YIMBY which stands for “Yes In My Backyard.” YIMBY posit themselves as the antithesis of the NIMBY, “Not In My Backyard,” a constructed political bogey person, who YIMBY claim are responsible for the high cost of housing in the US. Starting in the Bay Area, the YIMBY movement has rapidly expanded to cities nationwide and attracted more funding.

Hardly a spontaneous phenomenon, YIMBY are the latest in a long line of housing and real estate booster political operations that seek favorable regulatory consideration from local governments that have historically regulated land use. From the media campaigns to encourage families to move from the cities to suburban sprawl after WWII to local real estate funded booster organizations that pushed “Transit Oriented Development” in the 2000s, such operators have continually repped for developers. There has always been some background level of pro-development organizing in play…

YIMBY are different, however. As a product of the post-1999/2000 deregulation of Wall Street era, the marriage of funding liberated by deregulation plus a libertarian capitalist housing supply side dogmatism has produced a message that is appealing if only for its simplicity: upzone the cities, deregulate land use approvals, relieve developers of carrying their freight through impact fees and housing prices will fall…

CoreySmith, executive director of the longstanding residential developer booster organization, The Housing Action Coalition, showed YIMBY’s hand at a San Francisco Planning Commission meeting earlier this year:..[when he state] “One of the challenges we face in San Francisco is we need the rent to go back up.”.

It is so refreshing to hear YIMBYs say this stuff out loud. Private developers have no plan for building new housing when rents actually go down. [as they have lately]…

In truth, in order to spur more development, lenders need to see housing prices increase before taking the risk to commit capital to development. Housing production only occurs when housing prices rise. Housing prices only rise during the second half of the up phase of the business cycle when greed eclipses fear.

This shows that the YIMBY are but developer lobbyists who demand housing at all costs, costs which are to be extracted from tenants through higher rents…

There might be good reasons for desirable cities facing torrential demand to entitle some market rate housing. Adding supply to push down price is not one of them. Instead of responding to the flood of shit, YIMBY are best contested by community based grassroots organizing for self determination in comprehensive, not lobbyist directed, land use planning.

The antidote to the shitstorm is “YIMBY want to raise your rents.”

Marc Salomon is a co-founder of the San Francisco Community Land Trust…(more)

A new frontier in ballot measure fights

By WILL MCCARTHY and EMILY SCHULTHEIS : politico – excerpt

TAKE IT TO COURT — The California Supreme Court may have just invited upcoming ballot-measure combatants to put aside television and direct-mail budgets and invest even more in lawyers.

A decision last week to remove the Taxpayer Protection Act from the November ballot represents just the second time in a quarter-century that the court has quashed a measure before seeing if it won voter approval. Constitutional lawyers say the ruling’s enduring legacy will likely be a flood of lawsuits aimed at determining whether the court has set a new standard for culling measures, or simply redefined a longstanding line in the sand.

“That’s too soon to tell,” said Kurt Oneto, a lawyer specializing in statewide ballot measures. “But if you are opposed to a measure and you can beat it in court, it’s a heck of a lot easier than beating it at the ballot box.”…

A highly subjective ranking of the ballot measures getting our attention this week.

1. PROP 47 OVERHAUL: Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislators have all but abandoned the prospect of negotiating the tough-on-crime initiative off the ballot by Thursday’s deadline, instead discussing the possibility of putting forward a competing initiative on the ballot themselves. Either way, crime and retail theft will be a driving issue in the lead-up to November.

2. PERSONAL FINANCE: Negotiations around a new high-school graduation requirement are coming down to the wire. But proponents of the initiative say they “continue to be optimistic,” and Assemblymember Kevin McCarty’s bill, which appears to be the best vehicle for a deal, has been sent to the Senate Committee on Appropriations ahead of Thursday’s deadline to pull qualified items from the ballot.

3. RENT CONTROL: The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is launching a new digital ad campaign that picks up on a theme typically popular among conservatives: the population exodus from high-cost California. The $600,000 buy, which will run for eight weeks on Facebook and Instagram, makes the case for rent control as a solution, in line with the group’s ballot initiative.

4. ACA 1: The California Association of Realtors agreed to take a neutral position in exchange for some tweaks to the constitutional amendment that are slated to pass the Legislature today. The realtors had been expected to be among the biggest foes of the proposal to lower the voter threshold for local public housing bonds.

5. OIL WELLS: Environmental opponents of a referendum to overturn restrictions on oil wells announced a new $1 million ad campaign last week in a last-ditch show of strength aimed at getting the oil industry to pull its measure. The ad, featuring Jane Fonda and other women involved in the campaign, will run until the ballot deadline.

6. CHILDREN’S HEALTH CARE EXPANSION: Just days after officially qualifying their initiative for the ballot, children’s hospitals could be close to a deal with the Legislature to pull it in exchange for passing trailer bill SB 159, which would provide more state money to such facilities.

7. TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT: The California Business Roundtable built a formidable coalition to pass an anti-tax constitutional amendment. Now that it’s been booted from the ballot, leader Rob Lapsley says the group will redirect its energies toward other measures — meaning the Roundtable will still be a player on a pair of tax-related constitutional amendments still headed to the ballot…(more)

URGENT — OPPOSE SB 7

This is an URGENT call to action. SB 7 is a terrible bill, and it needs to be opposed before it’s next heard on 6/26. Letters and calls should be in ASAP. Today if possible.  After a district court ruled against SB9 for Charter Cities, the density dogs have been working on a work around.

RELATED: COURT THROWS OUT PRO-DENSITY LAW SB9

What is the Problem with SB 7? This is a housing bill that makes HCD stronger and RHNA worse. SB7 takes recommendations from a 176 page report — “California’s Housing Future 2040: The Next Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)” — sent to legislators just two months ago, and hastily tries to get them passed into law in the next few weeks.

Through a sneaky process called “gut and amend,” new language has been put into SB 7 — which already passed the Senate in another form — and is now working its way through the Assembly.

No underlying problems of 6th cycle RHNA are addressed. This bill relies on unsubstantiated claims about the state’s housing crisis to justify usurping local control.

The 6th cycle RHNA is not even mid-way through, and all cities are failing its metrics. The solid reasons why are heavily documented — to the point that a housing element audit was recently authorized to examine the process.

The HCD is doing an end run around the audit and any flaws it might uncover; the new language of SB 7 bolsters their powers for 7th cycle RHNA, and they want it done now.

WHAT HCD GETS WITH SB 7:

  • An increase in authority, zero oversight, no transparency
  • Heavier hand against cities, bolstered by new punitive legislation
  • Further control over local zoning control
  • Eliminates the right to appeal RHNA mandates
  • Allows unchecked lobbyist influence
  • Continue to disregard infrastructure costs and other impacts to cities
  • Continue to disregard actual data, including population projections that show California’s numbers flat through 2060
  • Inclusion of open space in their calculation for how much new development a jurisdiction can absorb
  • No requirement to base policy on robust economic theory
  • No requirement to base RHNA mandates on legitimate population projections
  • RHNA allocations will continue to increase market rate housing
  • RHNA will require — but not advance — affordability.
  • Unelected bureaucrats will continue creating policy with no accountability

THIS IS HAPPENING FAST:
SB7 is being rushed through without due diligence.
This “gut and amend” bill bypassed normal deadlines, and showed up at the last minute. In the Senate it was an innocuous bill about group housing.

June 10th: Amended in Assembly
June 18th: Passed Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee
June 26th: Up for a vote in the Local Government committee

your message can be this simple: I OPPOSE SB 7.
Contact for direct representatives are below, they also need to hear from us.

First Last Email Phone
Chair, D Juan Carrillo juan.carrillo (916) 319-2039
V-Chair, R Marie Waldron marie.waldron (916) 319-2075
R Bill Essayli bill.essayli (916) 319-2063
D Matt Haney matt.haney (916) 319-2017
D Ash Kalra ash.kalra (916) 319-2025
D Blanca Pacheco blanca.pacheco (916) 319-2064
D James Ramos james.ramos (916) 319-2045
D Chris Ward assemblymember.Ward (916) 319-2078
D Lori Wilson lori.wilson (916) 319-2011
Chief Cons. Angela Mapp angela.mapp (916) 319-3958

SB 7 Sample Verville letter

Oppose SB 7 or download the editable doc file: Oppose SB 7
Recipients: juan.carrillo@asm.ca.govmarie.waldron@asm.ca.govbill.essayli@asm.ca.govmatt.haney@asm.ca.govash.kalra@asm.ca.gov,  blanca.pacheco@asm.ca.govjames.ramos@asm.ca.govassemblymember.Ward@assembly.ca.gov, lori.wilson@asm.ca.govangela.mapp@asm.ca.gov