Tag: legislation

Tech Villas-Not Your Old Company Towns

California housing bills are increasing in number, clever aggressiveness, and efforts to impose central regional planning.

Scotia a company town
Pacific Lumber Mill company town of Scotia, CA, called “The Last Company Town.”

Nobody likes to pay almost half of one’s wages for housing, but that is what is happening to so many California residents. Reasons for the astronomical housing costs vary according to whom one asks. However, regardless of reason, the situation is now promoted as a “crisis,” and duly exploited as such.

Of concern to the Just Vote No Blog is that the housing crisis is at the heart of today’s central planning, which renders residents and voters increasingly powerless in land use and housing decisions.

A Brief Background

In The Curious Case of Housing Legislation, the Just Vote No Blog noted the history behind today’s network of housing bills. The state’s evolving efforts to remove land use and housing decisions from voters is one of the evident aspects of such history. Here are some reminders:

The seminal Assembly Bill 32, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, started the ball rolling by mandating the reduction of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Climate crisis soon morphed into a land use crisis that required dense job/housing development along narrow corridors throughout the Bay Area, ostensibly to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions produced by workers commuting from homes in the suburbs.

Predictable pushback from neighborhoods, cities and counties not wanting to lose their chosen quality of life encouraged increasingly stronger state mandates. SB 330 and AB 1487 are the latest high-profile bills bent on removing housing decisions from cities and counties.

SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, introduced in February by Senator Nancy Skinner and approved by the legislature September 6, has the general objective to “prohibit a county or city, including the electorate exercising its local initiative or referendum power, in which specified conditions exist, determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development as provided, from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition, as defined…..”  Thus, the electorate is summarily dismissed.

AB 1487, the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Housing Finance Act of 2019, introduced in February by Assembly Member David Chiu is currently active and in desk process.  This bill is a game changer.  Voters, no matter how disempowered by mandates such as SB 330, at present can still vote down tax proposals that finance mandates they do not like. AB 1487 makes that strategy more difficult. This bill establishes a new agency, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority, run by bureaucrats removed from the wrath of voters, with the power to place tax proposals on region-wide ballots, and to determine pass/fail on an aggregate region-wide basis.

Progression Towards Powerful Public-Private Partnerships

The plethora of housing bills in the style of SB 330 and AB 1487 passed into law during the past few years calls for a good deal of cash, perhaps more than the creative financing that could be achieved by the Housing Finance Authority would be able to raise on its own. Thus, enter powerful private players interested in housing development for reasons of their own, willing to forge partnerships with public entities. As one would expect, tech companies like Google and Facebook are becoming major players.

Google, Facebook and other deep-pocketed tech companies are at present investing in housing, a dream come true for housing advocates. They are also encouraging the California legislature to pass legislation that will streamline housing production (more on this later), since investors do not like lengthy bickering over what or where housing is built.

Of course, private influence in public affairs is nothing new. Neither is privately-funded housing developed with government blessings — company towns like Hershey, Marktown, and Pullman are examples. However, today California is witnessing not just tech-towns developed for tech workers, but also the much broader endeavor of using tech money to fund housing for the general population.

Recommended Articles on Public-Private Partnerships

A San Francisco Bay Area publication, 48 Hills, has been deeply concerned about the waning power of voters in land use, housing and transportation decisions. A series of articles by researcher and journalist Zelda Bronstein, published in 48 Hills, explains in great detail how a private entity, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, is poised to affect housing policy. In the first two installments published May 29, 2019 and August 29, 2019 of the series (there might be more to come), Ms. Bronstein zeroes in on Senate Bill 330 and Assembly Bill 1487.

The articles are rich with information that Bay Area residents will find useful in understanding who is becoming in charge of their neighborhoods.

Continue reading “Tech Villas-Not Your Old Company Towns”

AB 1487 is Scheduled for Some Lipstick

Residents need to become aware of how much control they will cede to a regional agency such as the proposed BAHFA. Voters’ intentions to cast NO votes on BAHFA funding proposals might prove more effective than attempting to negotiate patches to AB 1487 with legislators. Putting lipstick on a piggy will not make it any pettier.

Assembly Member David Chiu, author of AB 1487, and his colleagues in the California legislature have removed all hint of what the bill would specifically do if signed into law. Now, in essence, the bill simply says that a new agency is being created with power to raise, administer, and allocate funding as it sees fit for affordable housing in the San Francisco Bay area.

Not much of what was said of Assembly Bill 1487 when it was first introduced in February 2019 applies. “Stakeholders and local leaders” are at present meeting with legislators to re-construct the peripherals of the bill. Of course, the core feature remains: Establishment of the Bay Area Housing Financing Authority, an agency that will initially share staffing with the Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and that will have power to raise tax money from all counties in the Bay Area.

BAHFA as MTC’s Other Self

The proposed new agency will serve as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s other self, with the additional coveted ability to raise funds.

MTC, the Bay Area’s version of a federally-mandated Metropolitan Planning Organization, has what one might call a checkered past. Its major feats are finalizing the construction of a span of the Bay Bridge damaged by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake after years of delays and billions in costs overruns, and implementing central planning via Plan Bay Area (approved in 2013 by MTC Commissioners, but never by voters). Today, MTC doles out considerable sums under its various centrally-planned transportation and housing projects, but it does not have power to raise fund. It will indirectly should AB 1487 pass.

So, now the prospects are excellent for MTC’s other self, the Bay Area Housing Financing Authority, routinely to raise taxes regionally in the fashion of Measure AA.  As the Just Vote No Blog noted in With AB 1487 There is No Opt Out, in 2015 Measure AA passed by the aggregate votes of all counties without possibility of any county opting out.

An Alternative to Putting Lipstick on AB 1487

AB 1487, last amended July 11, 2019, is currently an active bill in Floor process. A third reading in the Senate is scheduled for August 26, 2019.

Individuals and organizations concerned about BAHFA’s undue influence in the operation of their city or county should remember that the agency’s success in raising money depends entirely on the willingness of taxpayers to part with their hard-earned cash.

The possibility of residents becoming aware of how much control they will cede to a regional agency such as BAHFA and deciding to vote “No” on BAHFA funding proposals might give legislators some pause in moving forward with their plans. For those opposed to mandated central planning, aiming for such pause might be more effective than accepting BAHFA as fait accompli and merely attempting to negotiate damage control with legislators.

Putting lipstick on a piggy will not make it any pettier.

Addendum:  The Transformation of NeighborhoodsParkmerced - CopyParkmerced, a traditional privately owned residential community in the heart of San Francisco that houses over 3,000 residents, has developed Parkmerced Vision.  Under the plan, the garden homes surrounding green spaces will be demolished to make room for taller, denser buildings.  Some applaud the plan, others despise it. The transformation of neighborhoods is occurring for good or bad all over the state.  A regional housing agency such as the proposed Bay Area Housing Financing Administration is intended to accelerate the process by injecting public funds for subsidized housing.

 

Time for Congress to Solve the Border Crisis

Taxpayers are paying Congress to bicker. Our legislators are not effectively solving the nation’s challenges, including the tragic situation at our Southern Border.

Are We Paying Congress to Bicker or to Deal With the Nation’s Challenges?

Right after the Mueller Report, the more sanely-inclined among the U.S. population Border Patrolhoped that Congress would go back to work. Unfortunately, that has not happened. Taxpayers are paying Congress to bicker. Congress is not working with the Administrative Branch in developing an effective foreign policy. It is not addressing the nation’s unsustainable level of debt. It is not producing a realistic immigration policy. The latter is the most egregious inattention of the current members of our Federal Legislature.

Theatrics Won’t Help

Tears, fake or real, are not going to solve the problem of what to do with thousands of undocumented people who presented themselves voluntarily at the U.S. border. Mainstream media profiting from the dialog of “caged children” will not address why parents would subject their children to such conditions. Demonstrations and sign waiving will not speed up the process by which the case of each detained individual can be reviewed and decided upon. Constant harangue on the subject of impeachment will not ease the crowding, the unhealthy conditions, the diseases, the tragic deaths. It will not give relief to exhausted border agents.

Such theatrics are useless in remedying the border crisis because none of it offers effective or lawful solutions or contribute to productive dialog.

Disorderly Patchwork is Not Sustainable

Because Congress has failed to develop effective and lawful solutions acceptable to the nation as a whole, the Administrative branch has felt compelled to resort to what has proven to be disorderly patchwork.

Perhaps making undocumented people as uncomfortable as possible and scaring them as relentlessly as possible might discourage more from attempting to enter the country. However, one would need to ask whether such efforts bring desired results, are sustainable, or present the nation in a positive image before the world.

ICE raids on individuals who have lived peaceably in the U.S. for decades might instill enough fear that some of them might leave or advise relatives not to come. But the tactic also results in advocates rallying their forces to protect immigrants, sometimes including the ones who have not lived in peace.

Endless busloads of detainees dropped by Border Patrol agents into various communities certainly serve to show what border agents are going through, but is equally unsustainable:

“They’re catching 3,000 to 4,000 people across the whole southwest border a day,” DeSio [Ralph DeSio, spokesperson for the San Diego office of U.S. Customs and Border Protection] said. “You could fill a stadium with these people in a few days. The enormity of this is flying over many people’s heads.”  Orange County Register, as quoted in GOPUSA, May 27, 2019.

In the progressive mind, and in the mind of many libertarians who believe in freedom of movement, the border crisis could be easily solved by simply not making much of an effort to apprehend those crossing the border without U.S. authorization. Maybe that is what Native Americans did back in the 16th Century when the Pilgrims started to arrive – for a while.

“Now, in Coachella, the places that can offer shelter are at capacity. Meanwhile, the Greyhound station in Indio, where many migrants hoped to catch a bus to get to their families didn’t have enough capacity to transport so many people. After that,” Amaya [Emilio Amaya, executive director of the San Bernardino Community Services Center] said, “agents started taking people further north, to San Bernardino … It’s a capacity issue more than a political issue …”   Orange County Register, as quoted in GOPUSA, May 27, 2019.

Yes, it is a capacity issue.

Time for Voters to Take Action

It is time for the people in each precinct, county, township or parish to hold their legislative representatives’ feet to the fire. Demand Town Halls and demand representation. Once representatives have orders from their constituents and understand their job is on the line if they do not perform, they will start working on solutions based on realistic and amicable negotiation.

Of course, the folks back home need to also remain flexible, and they need to eschew bickering themselves. This nation has ultra progressive areas that stand by their immigrant populations and ultra conservative areas that emphasize the need for law and order. Thus, any effective immigration reform would need to be the result of compromises. But a solution that is not perfect to each taste is better than the unhappy turmoil we have now.

With AB 1487 There is No Opt Out

California legislators are devising a superb way to remove land-use planning from the hands of cities and counties: A regional housing authority that can levy taxes, and provides for no opt out.

What is California Assembly Bill 1487?

Authored by Assembly Member David Chiu (D-San Francisco), this bill enacts the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Housing Finance Act, which authorizes the creation of a region-wide housing authority with powers to “raise, administer, and allocate funding for affordable housing in the San Francisco Bay area.”

Thus, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) would act as a permanent agency, the purpose of which would be to place on the ballot of all nine Bay Area counties concurrently identical ballot measures proposing fees, taxes and bonds to finance construction of affordable housing, preserve existing rent-controlled housing, and to provide tenant protections.  BAHFA would be one more regional agency operating under the wing, and sharing staff with, the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

CA Housing JuntaThe passage by the California legislature of numerous housing-related bills during the past four or so years made it possible for developers to receive ministerial stream-lined approval of housing developments throughout the state – regardless of city or county zoning rules.   (Pictured are Senator Scott Wiener, Assembly Member David Chiu, and Senator Nancy Skinner, the more prolific affordable housing advocates in the California State Legislature.)

Fees, taxes and bonds approved regionally by voters under AB 1487 would help finance development projects regionally – regardless of whether voters in each individual county voted to approve such measures or not.

Examples of the success of such region-wide measures enabled by state legislation are Measure AA (enabled by AB 746) approved regionally by voters June 2016, and Regional Measure 3 (enabled by SB 595) approved regionally by voters June 2018.

AB 1487 is currently housed in the Senate Appropriations Committee. As of today, no hearing date has been indicated. Perhaps legislators are having second thoughts about the viability of AB 1487? After all, the Appropriations Committee was the one that summarily placed Senate Bill 50 (the bill some have labeled WIMBY – Wall Street in My Back Yard) in hibernation.

Highlights of AB 1487

* The findings and declarations in Section 64501, i.e. why the bill’s author thinks his bill should be enacted, follow the by-now required mantra that there is a grand housing crisis due in essence to cities and counties failure to provide “enough” housing, and therefore, legislation needs to be enacted overriding local laws and regulations.

The housing crisis in the San Francisco Bay area is regional in nature and too great to be addressed individually by the region’s 101 cities and 9 counties.

However, the current process is anything but regional; instead each city and county is each responsible for their own decisions around housing …

Regional funding is necessary to help address the housing crisis in the San Francisco Bay area by delivering resources and technical assistance at a regional scale …

* The version previous to amendments made to AB 1487 on July 10, listed in great detail the powers of the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority. The current version does not. In other words, the door is left wide open as to what the Authority would be empowered to do. Here is what is left of the list of powers, in Section 64514, including the bills applicability to any other agency that might replace the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

The board may make and enforce rules and regulations necessary for governing the authority, the preservation of order, and the transaction of business.

In exercising the powers and duties conferred on the authority by this title, the board may act by resolution.

It is the intent of the Legislature that the powers granted to the authority and the executive board under this title shall be transferred to a future regional agency if an agency is established to replace the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments and integrate regional transportation and housing funding and policy decisions within the San Francisco Bay area under one governing board, subsequent to a robust public engagement process at the regional level.

* Because California legislators have labeled the current high-cost housing in the state a crisis – not state and regional land-use policies unbeneficial to the general public – they can enact legislation that overrides any and all local laws and regulations. For example, AB 1487 specifically indicates the bill is not subject to either the orderly reorganization of city and county governments, or the relative independence of charter cities.

The formation and jurisdictional boundaries of the authority are not subject to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Division 3 (commencing with Section 56000) of Title 5).

The Legislature finds and declares that providing a regional financing mechanism for affordable housing development and preservation in the San Francisco Bay area, as described in this section and Section 64501, is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this title applies to all cities within the San Francisco Bay area, including charter cities.

California’s Acme Co.

Acme CoRemember Willie E. Coyote? He tried so hard to defeat the Road Runner, but he consistently used products manufactured by the Acme Co. that failed to operate at all, exploded prematurely, or otherwise caused Willie Coyote the worst of harm. Some folks just don’t learn….

If after half a dozen or so years, say from the implementation of Plan Bay Area, and after numerous state mandates purportedly intended to make housing more affordable, California still sports the most unaffordable housing in the nation, then it would appear the state is facing a Willie E. Coyote vs. The Road Runner struggle.

The main characters in the struggle: On one side homeowners who worked hard to purchase a single-family home in a nice and quiet neighborhood, and wish to keep their neighborhood nice and quiet, as well as their home values astronomical. On the other side newcomers who want to live in those neighborhoods, whether the neighborhoods remain nice and quiet or not, and whether they can afford the market cost of those neighborhoods.

The supporting characters: Legislators at all levels of state government understand that clustering job-creating businesses as well as homes within narrow areas increases the value of both, which translates into higher state GDP and higher revenue from property taxes. Couple that with residents in the quiet nice neighborhoods that do not want job-creating businesses anywhere near them.

So, everybody in California seems to be a fan of the Acme Co. Will AB 1487 reach the finish line and thus change the entire character of city and county land-use planning? Will California residents realize AB 1487 offers no opt out for cities and counties?

The Ballot Box is the Ultimate Decider

AB 1487, as all affordable housing bills, will surely come with a price tag, because somebody has to pay for somebody to benefit.  In the case of AB 1487, the price tag will be in the billions,

The San Francisco Bay area faces an annual funding shortfall of two billion five hundred million dollars ($2,500,000,000) in its efforts to address the affordable housing crisis.  Section 64501 (e)

So far, legislators have not succeeded in doing away with voters’ rights to weigh in on tax proposals. Therefore, the expectedly huge amount of taxes needed to fund AB 1487 would have to be approved at the ballot box.

Since the bill does not offer residents an opt out, the ballot box will become the only venue available to those opposed to the bill to just say no.

Update July 13, 2019

It now has surfaced that on July 9, two days before the scheduled hearing before the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, the sponsors of AB 1487 wrote a letter “To Whom it May Concern” saying they are “temporarily hitting the pause button…” on AB 1487 to allow for more time for feedback from the two main Bay Area bureaucracies deeply involved in land-use issues, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments.  The Marin Post has a good article about the letter.

Good time for voters to use the “pause” to provide their own feedback.

California AB 1054 Says PG&E is TBTF

Assembly Bill 1054 is being called an unfair bailout of PG&E and crucial to the economic well-being of the state.

California is once again divided.  This time it is over state Assembly Bill 1054, which opponents call a bailout of the utility company PG&E and supporters view as necessary if the state is to enjoy stable and increasingly “clean” power.  The bill is presently in committee process and will be heard at the state Senate Appropriations Committee on 07/08/19.

By Way of Background

PGE TruckPacific Gas & Electric is facing liabilities that could exceed $30 billion as a result of law suits arising from California’s devastating 2017 and 2018 fires.  PG&E has been cleared of responsibility for the 2017 Tubbs fire, but residents that suffered losses in that fire can sue PG&E anyway. Conversely, PG&E was found culpable in the 2018 Camp Fire.

As a deep-pocket presence, PG&E is vulnerable when losses of lives and property occur in areas serviced by PG&E; even though other factors today contribute to the intensity and destructiveness of wildfires, mainly, warming due to climate change and housing development increasingly closer to fire-prone areas.

To deal with the onslaught of liabilities, PG&E filed for bankruptcy protection on January 2019.  In June, the bankruptcy judge decided the court has sole jurisdiction over PG&E’s disposition of its contract obligations, including obligations with major clean-power energy suppliers.

Fiscal instability of a major utility company like PG&E places billions of dollars in retirement accounts in jeopardy, individuals and families invested with PG&E stock as part of their savings might see no dividends and maybe no stock, energy suppliers may not get paid, lenders that financed nascent clean power-suppliers might not see repayment.  So, California is facing a too-big-to-fail situation which no doubt was the catalyst for AB 1054.

Highlights of 1054

Assembly Bill 1054 applies to utility companies in California.  Language, however, refers to “certain electrical corporations,” among which PG&E would be included.  The bill is especially convoluted, so here are a few very basic highlights of AB 1054:

*   Creates a California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board consisting of 7 members appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly and Senate Committee on Rules, who would serve 4 year terms and make recommendations related to wildfire safety.

*   Establishes a Wildfire Fund to pay eligible claims arising from a wildfire.

*   Creates a Department of Water Resources Charge Fund, and requires proceeds and revenues from bonds, which the Department of Water Resources are at present authorized to issue, to be deposited the Charge Fund.  Monies from the Charge Fund can be transferred to the Wildfire Fund.

*   The Wildfire Fund will be replenished by money from the Charge Fund, contributions by PG&E, and charges to ratepayers.

Here is Just Vote No Layperson’s View

PG&E is under bankruptcy protection.  All claims against PG&E will be filed before the general bar date of October 21, 2019.  After that date, the Court will sift and mull over those claims and eventually decide who is entitled to what, based on merit of each claim and funds available for payment.

Meanwhile, pretty much nobody gets paid and PG&E has a chance to build some reserves.  Therefore, AB 1054 would seem an effort to make sure everybody gets paid and contractors are not dropped (think the clean energy folks) by spreading the cost of payments.  Taxpayers will pay for the expanded bureaucracy and for servicing the bonds issued by the Department of Water Resources.  Ratepayers will pay a “nonbypassable charge” intended for the Wildfire Fund.

During the proceedings, the Court will decide whether PG&E is to remain a going concern, able to continue its job of providing energy to its customers, or be mortally hobbled by a Court order that it must sell assets to satisfy creditors.  One might expect significant battles between supporters and opponents of either choice.

 

The Curious Case of Housing Legislation

Sacramento has been generating buckets full of high-profile real estate bills (which legislators call housing bills) containing draconian mandates that cities and counties must follow, whether such mandates overrule local land-use laws or not. The latest proposal is Senate Bill 330. Good luck trying to place a voter initiative on a ballot should SB 330 be approved.

California is littered with billionaires, mansions, 2 million-dollar shacks, and the highest number of souls who call the state’s grimy streets their home. Meanwhile, state legislators are on a mission to pass legislation that result in the tearing down of older more affordable buildings, destruction of traditional neighborhoods, out-migration of the middle class, and in-migration of both the well off and the destitute.

A Background Worth Reiterating

Sacramento has been generating buckets full of high-profile real estate bills (which legislators call housing bills) for the last half a dozen years or so. At first, the reason behind the earlier bills was the “climate crisis,” a “matter of state-wide concern” that required the state to implement drastic mandates whether such mandates overruled local land-use laws or not.

The seminal piece of legislation behind these bills was California Assembly Bill 32, The Global Warming Solutions Act, signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. AB 32 mandated a reduction of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

California Senate Bill 375, The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2008, zeroed in on cars as the primary culprits in the imminent demise of Mother Earth. SB 375 mandated 1) the California Air Resources Board set regional emissions-reduction targets from passenger vehicles, and 2) the Metropolitan Planning Organization for each region develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy that integrated transportation, land-use and housing policies.

Bingo! SB 375 earned its spurs by 1) pulling in land use and housing policies into the climate change crisis, and 2) shifting responsibility for land-use policies from cities and counties to state-enabled regional agencies. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (the San Francisco Bay Area region Metropolitan Planning Organization) enshrined SB 375 in recognition of the bill’s stature:

375 Beale St

Headquarters of the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission. From the MTC’s website:   “The building’s address — 375 Beale Street — is a nod to Senate Bill 375, the landmark state law passed to foster a more sustainable future for California’s metro areas.”

After SB 375, transit-oriented development bills, created in the name of reducing green-house gas emissions produced by commuters, encouraged housing clusters within permissible areas and discouraged sprawl.  Housing prices within narrow transit corridors skyrocketed.  Speculators poured in, developers came seeking customers for luxury housing, and construction unions clamored for their piece of the already high-cost pie.

The Enabling Legislation

Recently, three pieces of real estate legislation garnered nation-wide attention:
Senate Bill 827, introduced by Senator Scott Wiener, focused on inserting dense housing in any and all transit corridors, regardless of local zoning. The bill was so ferociously opposed by counties, cities and neighborhoods that it was mercifully killed in the legislation’s Transportation Committee in April of 2018. SB 827 was brazen, but it was also bizarre. The transit mentioned in the bill included bus routes, which could conceivably disappear overnight before SB 827 glommed on to the route.

The demise of SB 827 spawned Senate Bill 50, also introduced by Senator Wiener. SB 50 was even more brazen than SB 827, since it not only mandated density in any and all transit corridors regardless of local zoning, but mandated the same in “job-rich” areas. Job rich meant any neighborhood in any corridor leading to any business cluster that provided jobs. So, a neighborhood of single-family homes adjacent to transit that takes residents to jobs is job-rich and open by mandate to developers that want to build multi-unit housing. Opposition again mounted. SB 50 was tabled by the legislation’s Appropriations Committee on May 16, 2019.

Now Californians have been presented with Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, introduced by Senator Nancy Skinner on February 2019. The bill is currently active and pending referral.

SB 330 consists of 24 pages of minutia that purportedly aims to “temporarily,” until 2025, enhance the ability of developers to obtain building permits regardless of local rules. In the process, SB 330 obliterates county and city land-use and zoning rules enacted since January 1, 2018 that the bill’s authors view as impediments to nearly unfettered housing development.

Like SB 827 and SB 50, SB 330 transfers by edict land-use decisions from cities, counties and neighborhoods to the state, even curbing the ability of cities’ and counties’ electorates from placing initiatives or referendums on ballots.

And, of course, SB 330 contains the obligatory clause featured in legislation that nullifies local rules, including rules enacted by charter cities. Charter cities are protected from outside meddling by the California State Constitution, unless the meddling is a matter of “statewide concern rather than a municipal affair.”

Here are some clauses of SB 330

* Prohibits retroactively from January 1, 2018 any city or county from imposing or increasing any requirement that a proposed housing development include parking in excess of specified amounts, and prohibits any city or county from charging approval fees in excess of specified amounts.

* Prohibits retroactively from January 1, 2018, any city or county from disallowing a proposed housing development project that has been given a conditional use permit if that project would have been eligible under a city’s or county’s general land-use plan and zoning ordinances in effect on January 1, 2018.

* Prohibits retroactively from January 1, 2018, any city or county, or any voter initiative or referendum, from a) changing the land use designation or zoning of a parcel of property to a less dense use or reducing the parcel’s density; b) imposing or enforcing a moratorium on housing development; c) imposing or enforcing new design standards that are not objective design standards; d) establishing or implementing certain limits on the number of permits issued.

* Requires enforcing agencies to grant to owners of substandard housing delays up to 7 years for correction of violations or nuisances if owners submit an application for such delay and if the enforcing agency determines that correction or abatement of the violation or nuisance is not necessary to protect health and safety.

Check out the California Political Review for a more passionate post on the perils of SB 330.

Rules for Radicals

One could almost think that Saul Alinsky’s Rule #10 could be found somewhere in California’s State Constitution, judging by the relentless tsunami of housing-related legislation generated by state legislators purportedly in their effort to fix a crisis they themselves help create. Rule #10 says,

The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

Update on who California legislators work for

California Senate Bill 50 is tabled until at least 2020. That’s a good start in doing away with this bill altogether, since as its author say, “everyone hates SB 50.”

Dogpatch Neighborhood - CopyCalifornia Senate Bill 50, authored by Senator Scott Wiener, was tabled today by the Appropriations Committee until “at least 2020.”  In a previous post Just Vote No asked Who Are California Legislators Working For?  After all, if Senator Wiener states that “everyone hates SB50”, then why, pray tell, would he continue to hawk that bill?  Are legislators not supposed to represent their constituents?

SB 50 has been put to sleep, it has not been done away with.  So, the pressure against it needs to continue.  This is a bill universally despised by just about every city, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, simply because SB 50 shamelessly attempts to remove control of land-use planning from every singly city and county in California.

Here are a couple of articles announcing the news:

California transit density proposal SB 50 on pause until 2020, L.A. Curbed 05/16/19

High-profile California housing bill dies without a vote.  Sacramento Bee 05/16/19

Gentrification: One Way it Happens

“The neighborhood wants to blame somebody else rather than themselves and they want to blame the bad landlord,” said Wilson…The community doesn’t shop here, they love to have it and it makes their houses worth a lot of money but they’re going down to Safeway.”

A neighborhood butcher shop, Avedano’s, in an old and beautiful neighborhood in San Francisco, Bernal Heights, has made news, mostly because its owner, Angela Wilson, gave such a clear and empathetic description of how neighborhoods change.  Her story is happening in countless neighborhoods throughout the nation.  Her story is one variable in the dreaded word “gentrification” that is often left out when politicians, activists, homeowners, and renters talk about fear of being priced out.

According to Wilson, the fact that she has a new landlord with plans for massive construction and renovation isn’t the real problem, though that project would effectively end their access to a kitchen for the foreseeable future. “It has more to do with the demographics of the city and the fact that people buy things online and want to use stores to supplement what they buy online,” says Wilson. “We’ve created two market places for the same amount of people.”

“The neighborhood wants to blame somebody else rather than themselves and they want to blame the bad landlord,” said Wilson. “My old landlord had the building since 1955, so my rent did increase but it’s not the new landlord’s fault. The community doesn’t shop here, they love to have it and it makes their houses worth a lot of money but they’re going down to Safeway.” 

Without a New Plan, Bernal Butcher Shop Avedano’s Will Close in June, Eater, MSNBC, May 10, 2019.

Avedanos Shop 2

In a previous article Just Vote No talked about California Senate Bill 50, which would greatly facilitate the replacement of older buildings with new much more expensive ones.  A reader raised the question, how would a new building take the place of an old one to begin with?

Changes in demographics, lifestyles, and consumer preferences is one way.  When in older times families would shop at the neighborhood butcher shop, now they shop at Costco for several days’ or weeks’ worth of supplies, order whole dinners on line, or stop by their favorite take-out shop on their way from work. So, the butcher shop has difficulty staying open.

Add to that scenario, aging landlords who decide to sell their buildings and retire.  Most likely their buildings will be purchased by deep pocketed developers, who, incentivized by legislation such as Senate Bill 50, might want to tear down old buildings and replace them with denser, more expensive ones that yield higher profits. Rents double and renters already struggling leave unable to afford the new rent.

Just Vote No hopes Angela Wilson’s shop will survive in some manner.

Who Are California Legislators Working For?

In a representative type of government, legislators supposedly represent the majority of their constituents without neglecting the minority. Senator Scott Wiener says “everyone hates SB 50,” yet he is on a mission to get that piece of legislation passed. Who is Senator Wiener working for?

California claims multiple bragging rights – environmental leader, 4th largest economy in the world, highest GDP in the U.S., and lots of sunshine. Astronomical living cost, highest homelessness in the nation, and jewel cities like San Francisco noted for not-so-clean streets all are challenges legislators are working on…and on. However, California has an especially worrisome condition: legislators that do what they determine is good for their constituents, regardless of what those constituents want.

Prime Example: Senate Bill 50

The desire of California legislators to remake the state in their own image is exemplified by Senator Scott Wiener’s proposed Senate Bill 50 which is relentlessly winding its way through legislative committees. The bill claims it aims to fix the state’s notoriously high housing costs by requiring that all cities in California allow developers to build multi-family housing by receiving “communities incentives” in any neighborhood adjacent to transit or adjacent to “job-rich” hubs, regardless of local zoning laws.

This bill would require a city, county, or city and county to grant upon request an equitable communities incentive when a development proponent seeks and agrees to construct a residential development, as defined, that satisfies specified criteria, including, among other things, that the residential development is either a job-rich housing project or a transit-rich housing project, as those terms are defined… Senate Bill 50

Thus if a bus line runs along main street in your single-family neighborhood, multi-family housing – luxury or non-profit, containing any number of subsidized units, and casting whatever shadow it wants onto your yard — shall be built whether you like it or not. The same will occur if your neighborhood is considered by the state to be in an area that offers jobs, such as Silicon Valley or Walnut Creek.

As an aside, SB 50 is a remake of SB 827, which went down in flames at its first committee hearing in 2018. However, this time around the bill offers some tenant protections in an effort to pacify residents that fear being priced out of their neighborhoods; and it requires “labor protections,” such as prevailing (union) wages.

Everybody Hates SB 50

CDogpatch Neighborhood - Copyalifornia is home not only to a lot of homeless and housing insecure people, but also home to rich people. Recent statistics say California is #1 in the nation in the number of resident billionaires. Also, the state boasts some lovely single-family and/or low-density neighborhoods – seaside, suburban, and urban – that few would want to give up.

Thus, there is a nearly universal aversion for SB 50.

Local governments across the state have lined up against SB50, including the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and Los Angeles City Council. There is widespread opposition along the Peninsula and in the South Bay, in Palo Alto, San Mateo, Cupertino and Sunnyvale, which like the East Bay suburbs could see their zoning rules upended because of their designation as “jobs-rich areas.  Wealthy Bay Area Suburbs Could Have a Whole New Look Under California’s Housing Bill, San Francisco Chronicle, May 10, 2019

“Everyone hates SB 50—everyone hates it,” said California state Sen. Scott Wiener at a recent forum on the state’s housing crisis. “You hear people getting upset about it, yelling about it, coming down to City Hall and yelling.” Flanked by real estate developers and housing rights advocates, Wiener, a Democrat who represents San Francisco, had come to discuss his ideas for solving the problem—which meant talking about the heated reaction to his signature piece of legislation, Senate Bill 50—the housing bill Californians seem to love to hate.  Everyone Agrees California Has a Housing Crisis. Trying to Fix It Has Become a Battle, Mother Jones, May 3, 2019.

Who Does Your Legislator Work For?

In a representative type of government, legislators supposedly represent the majority of their constituents without neglecting the minority. In California, legislators increasingly ignore their constituents’ wishes in favor of determining on their own what is best for those constituents.

Senator Scott Wiener says “everyone hates SB 50,” yet he is on a mission to get that piece of legislation passed. Who is Senator Wiener working for?

Tax Cuts: Rising Tide That Lifts Some Boats

The 2017 tax cuts gave a boost to the U.S. economy. Workers are finding jobs. Lower-income folks take home a little more on pay day than they did before the tax cuts. U.S. companies have more after-tax money that could trickle down to workers once stockholders are appeased. The bad news is that all this is really a band-aid that leaves underlying problems untouched.

On December 22, 2017, President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act after approval of the bill by the Senate and the House of Representatives on December 20, 2017. Thus the most significant tax changes since the Reagan years were enacted. Ever since, the “tax cuts” have joined the growing list of subjects that elicit a great deal of hand wringing from just about everybody.

Rather than post yet another laundry list of what the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act says, here is a brief review of what has happened since the bill became law that might interest workers.

* Job Creation:

At the beginning of May 2019, the unemployment rate stood at 3.6%, lowest level since the 1960s, indicating that companies are creating jobs and hiring workers. The long-term trend since well-paying manufacturing jobs vanished continued, and most growth occurred in low-paying sectors. A lot of hand wringing from our legislators culminated in Senator Chuck Schumer’s sudden concern about “income inequality” as associated with the tax cuts, when the rich have been getting a lot richer for years.

* Wage Growth:

January 2019 posted a real wage gain of 1.7%, and a nominal gain of 3.2%. Real wage figures are adjusted for inflation, while nominal wage figures are not. Lower-paid workers saw the highest gain, around a quarter to a third of that gain probably due to new minimum wage laws and the rest due to job growth that requires employers to pay more to attract workers. The 1.7% figure is a nice gain from 2018, but not much different than year-over-year figures since the 1960s. In other words, in-spite of astronomical rises in the prices of goods in major U.S. cities, real wages have been downright stagnant. The hand wringing comes in again when legislators so concerned about the rich getting richer want interest rates to remain low, which means stock prices remain high, creating wealth mostly for those who can afford stocks (of course, low interest rates “benefit” the poor and middle class, since low rates facilitate more consumption based on a sea of debt).

Pew Research Center:  For Most U.S. Workers, Real Wages Have Barely Budged in Decades.  August 7, 2018.Real and nominal wages

* Company Profits:

The tax cuts lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, in hopes employers would make capital investments, hire more workers, and increase workers’ pay. That is not what usually happens. Blessed with a windfall such as the 2017 tax cuts, major corporations usually benefit their shareholders first with investments such as stock buybacks and generous bonuses. Capital improvements that can increase productivity and worker benefits trickle down eventually, though. Such facts did not prevent major hand wringing from the mainstream media when the usual corporate behavior occurred after the 2017 tax cuts.

* Growth of Gross Domestic Product:

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the total value of all end-product goods and services in the country, including personal consumption, business investment, and government spending on goods and services (welfare payments and interest on the national debt are excluded). The U.S. real (adjusted for inflation) GDP growth rate for 2017 was 2.27% and estimated for 2018 2.80%. For comparison, the real GDP of our two neighboring countries are: Canada 3.05 for 2017 and 2.00 estimated for 2018. Mexico 2.04 for 2017 and 2.10 estimated for 2018.

A healthy GDP is thought of as the tide that lifts all boats. However, sometimes the rise is perilous enough to endanger the people in the boats or uneven enough that some boats get lifted more than others.

At present the U.S. national debt to GDP is hovering on the perilous. That is because legislators, in their effort to get re-elected, want to make the U.S. economy look good, regardless of underlying financial land mines. Deficit spending that keeps adding to the national debt is the financial land mine of our time.

Debt to GDP

Theoretically, as GDP grows so does the wealth of a country’s citizens. However, wages of lower and middle-income workers are stagnant, while the asset-based wealth of the rich is growing. Nobody dares talk about the growth of monopolies – they are too big to annoy.  Nobody dares do much about the “plantation” into which lower-income folks have been assigned – keep the plantation denizens dependent and they will deliver the vote.

In Summary:

The 2017 tax cuts gave a good boost to the U.S. economy.  Workers are finding jobs.  Lower-income folks take home a little more on pay day than they did before the tax cuts.  U.S. companies have more after-tax money that could trickle down to workers once stockholders are appeased.  To the ire of profligate states like California, federal deductions for astronomical state and property taxes are now limited (as an aside, most workers in expensive states like California rent their home, and thus do not have property tax deductions).

The eye-popping downside of the tax cuts is that they will add to the already significant national deficit (the U.S. spends more than it takes in revenues).  By October 2018, the deficit grew to $779 billion, a 17% increase over 2017.  Deficits end up being paid by borrowing, just like in any household.

The unfortunate downside is that tax cuts — any tax cuts — act like a band-aid.  The economy gets a boost and the political faction that brought about the cuts can hope for votes if all goes well.  Meanwhile the underlying variables that support monopolies, stagnant wages, income inequality, and perilous government borrowing remain untouched.