Housing

The Next California Migration

Conversations with Dr. Jorge De La Roca, Joel Kotkin, and Marshal Toplansky about the future of business in California.

Capital investments are moving out of California. Young people may come and build new businesses from scratch, but as they mature, California does not meet their needs so they move out.  Maturing people houses and car and good schools to raise children. There are some thoughts about building new cities in less crowded areas of the state and possibly some factories to keep people in the state.

In summary: Regulatory and administrative programs are the main reason many businesses prefer to expand in other states. They do not appreciate the anti-business climate in Sacramento or the constant changes in labor relations legislation either.

There is some interest in preserving existing housing and converting some under utilized commercial spaces to housing and opening up opportunities to move to the less developed non-coastal regions.

Address reality instead of denying it.

Housing

Perspective: California Cities Have Plenty of Room and There’s No Reason to Build New Ones from Scratch

by : sfstandard – excerpt

Hayden Clarkin is the CEO and founder of TransitCon and a transportation engineer who has worked on large-scale transit projects in California.

“It’s been 84 years,” an older and wiser Rose says at the end of Titanic, referring to the time that elapsed between the ship’s sinking and its rediscovery. There’s no better sentiment that embodies the state of capital-transit projects in California. This Friday, the Van Ness Ave Bus Rapid Transit in San Francisco will finally see riders board after a ribbon-cutting that’s now decades in the making…

Nathan J. Robinson’s recent Current Affairs article “Why Doesn’t California Solve Its Housing Crisis by Building Some New Cities?” does just that. It’s a cacophony of competing realities whose central aim is that “the people of California simply need to approve a plan to build some more cities, perhaps in the largely uninhabited northern third of the state.” …

Hayden Clarkin is the CEO and founder of TransitCon and a transportation engineer who has worked on large-scale transit projects in California

 

“It’s been 84 years,” an older and wiser Rose says at the end of Titanic, referring to the time that elapsed between the ship’s sinking and its rediscovery. There’s no better sentiment that embodies the state of capital-transit projects in California. This Friday, the Van Ness Ave Bus Rapid Transit in San Francisco will finally see riders board after a ribbon-cutting that’s now decades in the making.

If a project to put red paint down a street was started at the same time Gmail was created, what makes anyone think that California can meet its monumental housing needs by building new cities from scratch?

Nathan J. Robinson’s recent Current Affairs article “Why Doesn’t California Solve Its Housing Crisis by Building Some New Cities?” does just that. It’s a cacophony of competing realities whose central aim is that “the people of California simply need to approve a plan to build some more cities, perhaps in the largely uninhabited northern third of the state.”

The task is anything but simple. The fatal irony in Robinson’s conclusion is that while he laments the YIMBY (“Yes In My Backyard”) movement, he acknowledges that the state urgently needs more housing, somewhere.

I’ve visited the dense redwood forests with thousand-year-old trees some 96 feet in circumference and removing them is a non-starter in the land of CEQA and common sense. It’s probably best to build housing on the copious amounts of land already connected to the state’s transportation grid, which is primed for infill development.

Robinson’s piece reads like that of a disgruntled architectural critic, surmising that the suburban “wastelands” of many California cities can be corrected by building new ones. But while his characterizations of the suburban built environment are accurate, he doesn’t believe in actually changing them much…(more)

Housing

Catalysts Call w/Tom Campbell talking about the Common Sense Party

Zoom call with Tom Campbell
Monday, February 28, 2022
5:00 pm – 6:00 pm

Are you fed up with the top-down, one-size-fits-all housing legislation coming out of Sacramento? Are you longing for an alternative to government as usual? Want to hear about an alternative?

Join me in conversation with Tom Campbell, founder of the Common Sense Party. Tom is the former 5-term legislator in the US Congress. He represented the 15th District, which includes eastern and southwestern Alameda County as well as part of Contra Costa County.

In addition, Tom has a track record of success using . . . yes, common sense. A partial list of his service includes:

  • Two years in the CA State Senate
  • Finance Director of CA Federal Trade Commission
  • PhD in Economics, University of Chicago
  • J.D. magna cum laude, Harvard
  • White House Fellow and U.S. Supreme Court law clerk
  • Professor of law and economics, Chapman University

The Common Sense Party is committed to enabling all Californians to achieve their highest personal, educational, and economic success, and rely on fact-based decision-making in our state and local governments.

Receive the Zoom link after registering for the Monday night Catalysts Call.

Zoom “doors” will open about 4:55 for starting promptly at 5:00 pm, and the session will be recorded and posted on the Catalysts website.

Uncategorized

Young Turks host AOC re: NY politicians engineering foreclosures for profit.

https://twitter.com/ValerieRoss14/status/1492200995442495491

You don’t get too much more obvious that the parties are out of line when the Young Turks and AOC are talking about NY land grabs by local politicians.

We are betting on a state constitutional amendment to bring back local control to reverse upzoning that is escalating costs in California but we need a lot of help to get this done.
Go to https://ourneighborhoodvoices.com to find out what you can do.

deregulated housing bills, Housing

Court upholds density bonus law

By Bob Egelko Court Reporter : sfchronicle – excerpt

Court upholds density bonus law that exempts certain housing projects from local restrictions

A state appeals court says developers who agree to include affordable housing in their projects can be exempted from zoning rules, height limits and other local restrictions on neighborhood construction. The ruling, in a case from San Diego, has potential statewide impact as tensions over local control and the state’s housing crisis continue to escalate.

California’s 1979 density bonus law “incentivizes the construction of affordable housing,” the Fourth District Court of Appeal said in a decision it certified Wednesday as a precedent for future cases.

Once the developer commits to making a specified portion of the project affordable to lower-income households, “local government must allow increased building density, grant permits, and waive any conflicting local development standards unless certain limited exceptions apply,” Justice Judith Haller said in the 3-0 ruling.

Those exceptions include threats to public health or safety, harm to a historic resource, or conflicts with state or federal laws. None applied to the proposed 20-story project overlooking Balboa Park in San Diego, so it can be built despite opposition from some community organizations, Haller said… (more)

Continue reading Court upholds density bonus law →

Housing

Assemblymember Alex Lee Presents AB 854 to Livable California

Ellis Act Amendment Bill: AB 854

Join Us in Helping Millions of Working-Class and Elderly Californians Stay in Their Homes, if AB 854 Becomes Law. Urgent – AB 854 must pass on the Assembly floor this week or it is dead! Please Take Action!

Please contact these assemblymembers’ offices and ask them to Support AB 854 (bolding the priority targets) Leaving a message on the district office voicemail after hours is also effective:

Assemblymember Arambula (Fresno): 916-319-2031
Assemblymember Burke (Inglewood): 916-319-2062
Assemblymember Calderon (Whittier): 916-319-2057
Assemblymember Cervantes (Corona): 916-319-2060
Assemblymember Daly (Anaheim): 916-319-2069
Assemblymember E. Garcia (Coachella): 916-319-2056
Assemblymember Gipson (Compton): 916-319-2064
Assemblymember Irwin (Camarillo): 916-319-2044
Assemblymember Low (Cupertino): 916-319-2028
Assemblymember Medina (Riverside): 916-319-2061
Assemblymember Muratsuchi (Torrance): 916-319-2066
Assemblymember O’Donnell (Long Beach): 916-319-2070
Assemblymember Ramos (Rancho Cucamonga): 916-319-2040
Assemblymember Rubio (West Covina): 916-319-2048
Assemblymember Salas (Bakersfield): 916-319-2032
Assemblymember Villapudua (Stockton): 916-319-2013
Assemblymember Wood (Santa Rosa): 916-319-2002

Please contact your own Assembly member through their website, unless you live in D-17. We don’t have representation yet. But  you may ask the candidates whether or not they support SB 854.
Find your Assemblymember here. Or use this link from the coalition.   For more help – see the coalition’s Action toolkit here

Housing

Do The Math – SB9 + SB10 Equals More Unaffordable Homes

By Liz Amsden : citywatchla – excerpt

HOUSING WATCH – For as long as California has been a state, local governments have decided where housing will and won’t go and how much to allow.

Last year, despite opposition from multiple interests around the state, after rejection after rejection of similar bills over the years, SB 9 and SB10 were ramrodded through the California legislature by Scott Weiner and President pro tempore Toni Atkins.

The supporters of these bills argued they would alleviate the housing crisis in California by rezoning single family properties to allow multiple units and allowing developers to thumb their noses at CEQA requirements.

The Los Angeles City Council opposed Senate Bills 9 and 10 but Governor Gavin signed these into law last September and eviscerated most neighborhoods’ ability to stand up against the overwhelming power of developers. 

Turning local planning decisions over to developers does not mean more affordable housing, it means more profit for developers.

With the relaxing of existing regulations, they are free not to create the affordable housing Los Angeles desperately needs but to further drive up the value of property in the City by purchasing single family lots, already out of reach of many Angelenos, and replacing one home with three or four units, destroying trees, paving over lawns and increasing demands on our already fragile infrastructure...(more)

Uncategorized

Alhambra’s Measure V Explained

By Editorial Board : coloradoboulevard – excerpt

Two years ago, Alhmabra residents organized to place a series of good government reforms on the local ballot via the initiative process.

They gathered over 8,000 resident signatures to have the reforms appear as a charter amendment on the City’s Nov. 3, 2020, election ballot. Yet, even after the initiative qualified for the ballot, proponents had to overcome a series of setbacks and political roadblocks. Alhambrans will finally get to vote on this citizen-led ballot initiative, officially called Measure V, in less than a month.

Measure V consists of election and campaign finance reforms to improve the democratic process in Alhambra by leveling the playing field so that no one group holds disproportionate sway in Alhambra elections or at City Hall.

The meat of the initiative consists of 1) campaign donor limits, 2) by-district elections, and 3) bans on direct campaign contributions to City Council campaigns from developers, city contractors, and Political Action Committees (i.e. the big money folks). All of the reforms apply to Alhambra City Council races. Below is a list of the reforms in Measure V along with some context…(more)

Alhambra has a ban of donations more than $250/person/candidate. Get that in your city regs ASAP: https://www.coloradoboulevard.net/alhambras-measure-v-explained/  They are seeing results!