Forbes says Densification will make Americans more unhappy, less familial, and likely poorer

How Can We Be So Dense? Anti-Sprawl Policies Threaten America's Future.

Excerpt:
"The density agenda need to be knocked off its perch as the summum bonum  [greatest good] of planning policy. These policies may not hurt older Americans, like me, who bought their homes decades ago, but will weigh heavily on the already hard-pressed young adult population. Unless the drive for densification is relaxed in favor of a responsible but largely market-based approach open to diverse housing options, our children can look forward to a regime of ever-higher house prices, declining opportunities for ownership and, like young people in East Asia, an environment hostile to family formation. All for a policy that, for all its progressive allure, will make more Americans more unhappy, less familial, and likely poorer."
...
"Some have suggested that the Obama administration is conspiring to turn American cities into high-rise forests. But the coalition favoring forced densification — greens, planners, architects, developers, land speculators — predates Obama. They have gained strength by selling densification, however dubiously, as what planner and architect Peter Calthorpe calls “a climate change antibiotic.” Not surprisingly, there’s less self interest in promoting more effective greenhouse gas reduction policies such as boosting work at home and lower-emissions cars."

Read More...

The Myth of Urban-bound Baby Boomers

Over the last decade, Americans have been given the narrative that Baby Boomers are eager to downsize and move into urban centers in higher-density, multi-story, "walkable" centers.  We've felt that the impetus for such 'talk' was probably more about stakeholders, regional agencies, and monied interests attempting to lead people into such conclusions; what would be more of a boon to the housing industry but convincing A to move to B, while developers lobby for massive densification projects and are helped in their ventures by their friends in local government and regional agencies.  Alas, we digress.  Contrary to the narrative, it appears Baby Boomers are actually fleeing the urban core.  Here's some solid analysis that supports this idea. 

Excerpt:
"First of all, according to US Census Bureau data, the areas within 5 miles of the urban cores of the 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population lost 66,000 residents between 2000 and 2010 (See Flocking Elsewhere: The Downtown Growth Story). It is implausible for 1,000,000 boomers to have moved into areas that lost 66,000 residents." (Figure above)

"Secondly rather than flock to the city, as the Journal insists, baby boomers continued to disperse away from core cities between 2000 and 2010, as is indicated by data from the two censuses. The share of boomers living in core cities declined 10 percent. This is the equivalent of a reduction of 1.2 million at the 2010 population level (Note). The share of the baby boomer population rose 0.5 percent in the suburbs, the equivalent of 175,000. Outside these major metropolitan areas, the share of baby boomers rose three percent, which is the equivalent of 1,050,000. All of the net increase in boomers , then, was in the suburbs or outside the major metropolitan areas, while all of the loss was in the core cities."

Read More...

Study Shows High-Density Leads to Increase in Violent Crime

Excerpt:
"There seems to be something about (high-density residential) units that is associated with all types of serious violent crime, even controlling for the other factors in the model," the authors write. "Apparently, high-density housing units promote serious violent crime."
...
"The study found higher rates of all types of violent crime in areas of high-density residential land use, even after controlling for overall population. The correlation was more pronounced in disadvantaged areas but held true in other areas as well."

Read More...

The One-Plan-to-Rule-Them-All — Or the Chinafication of the Bay Area

Source: Pacific Legal Foundation

Excerpt:

"Emerging for the horrors of the planned economies of the Soviet Union and Germany, Friedrich von Hayek wrote his classic “Road to Serfdom” in the early 1940s.  His thesis was simple: for a planned economy to operate it must operate by force through the power of the state.  In China, the peasants have moved from feudal serfdom to the serfdom of totalitarian communism and now to the serfdom of new urban planning.  In the Bay Area, we’re moving from free market housing development shaped by supply and demand to what?"

Read More...

SB1 Calls Lamorinda Life a "Blight"

SB1?  Blight? Ummm...what is that?

Senate Bill #1 (Steinberg and DeSaulnier) is one of the most dangerous bills we have in ahead of us and we believe it needs to be stopped.  SB1 is the funding mechanism for One Bay Area and will enable cities and counties to declare areas with inefficient land-use patterns as blight (i.e., suburban neighborhoods and rural areas).  That includes us, Lamorinda!

Why should we care?

SB1: 
-        permits and encourages the creation of new redevelopment agencies that will not be controlled by cities and towns.  They will be little mini-ABAGs, created from collections of cities and towns who will “agree” to have their tax revenues siphoned off, and will agree to have housing decisions made by these mini-ABAGs, which will have eminent domain powers and funding power to assemble and fund the massive high density housing projects in suburban downtowns—and our city will have no say in the matter.  Existing landowners will be forced to sell their land, and existing small businesses providing goods and services to our residents will be displaced, as will any residents.

-        Darrell Steinberg’s biggest donors are big finance, big developers, and big labor.  Does anyone wonder why . . .

-        Mark DeSaulnier, our local state Senator, not only was co-author of SB 375 with Steinberg, but also is co-author of SB 1.  Please contact this “man of the people” here to share your views about SB 1.

-        Declares suburban and rural lifestyles—which it terms “inefficient land use patterns—a “blight.”  Declaring suburban and rural land use a “blight” has appalling and stunning legal and political implications.  Blight should and must be eradicated.  How does it feel to have a target on your back from these people?

-        ABAG and MTC staff are on the record (March 8, 2013) as stating that new regional redevelopment agencies were essential to the success of Plan Bay Area’s mandate that 80% of all new housing units be built in high density units in suburban and urban city centers.  This is an implied admission that these projects, even the market rate units, will be uneconomic without massive new public subsidies.  ABAG and MTC staff also claim Plan Bay Area will not succeed without these redevelopment agencies “special tools for parcel assembly”—code words for eminent domain on an epic scale, coming to your suburban downtown, whether you want it or not if this bill passes.

-        ABAG’s Executive Director Ezra Rapport stated at that March 8, 2013 meeting, “[o]ne thing that’s good about SB 1 is that it expands the definition of blight.”  Isn't it time we considered withdrawing from ABAG?

When will this be reviewed and voted upon?  

Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will listen to SB 1. The staff there is pushing for a YES vote on July 18th at 1:30pm at 651 Pine St., Room 108...right when most hard-working citizens are in the middle of their work day, coming out of their lunch-induced food coma.  

We need citizens to attend for opposition.  Orinda Watch will be there voicing opposition on behalf of the citizens.

Also, the Assembly Committee on Local Goverance is hearing SB 1 on Aug 14. I uncovered two other bills which are part of SB 1. Mark DeSaulnier sponsored a benefit assessment district to extract money from property owners for public transit projects(SB 142). Also, another SB 133 is regarding redevelopment. 

What can we do about it?

Please read this and forward to your friends.   This bill has already passed the Senate and is going to Assembly.  Call your state Assembly member and ask them to oppose this bill.  Here’s the full text of the bill
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_1_bill_20130502_amended_sen_v97.pdf

Contact Info for Gov. Brown’s office: Ask him to VETO 
California Governor Jerry Brown
State Capitol, 1st Fl., Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax:(916)558-3160
Tel:(916)445-2841 
email: governor@governor.ca.gov 

Complete list of all Assembly Members and their contact info here: Ask them to vote NO
http://assembly.ca.gov/assemblymembers

Orinda Watch Response to City Manager Keeter

While neither the staff nor the Council have responded yet to the issues raised in Orinda Watch’s July 11 letter, City Manager Keeter did take the unprecedented, remarkable step on Thursday of sending a SPECIAL EDITION of the City’s newsletter that goes to the City’s entire email list to share what she characterized as “misstate[ments] in various forms of communication circulating in the Orinda community regarding the City of Orinda’s housing allocation.”

The City Manager here appears to be using innuendo to refer to what we consider the legitimate concerns raised by Orinda residents, without referring specifically to those legitimate concerns as detailed in Orinda Watch’s July 11 letter. We urge the City Manager to refer to the specific issues raised in Orinda Watch’s July 11 letter in her next communication to the City’s email list. But we must insist that the City Manager also send to the City’s email list a copy of Orinda Watch’s July 11th letter to the Council when she does so, and also give Orinda Watch an opportunity to reply to her responses to Orinda Watch’s letter when she does so. A one-sided presentation on City staff’s part advocating for their point of view on issues of public concern is not conducive to informed public debate—especially when the staff is taking upon itself the role of characterizing and framing the issues and concerns raised by Orinda residents rather than letting them simply speak for themselves and allowing the public to make up their own mind on whom and what to believe here.

We do agree, and emphatically, with the City Manager with one key statement she made in her SPECIAL EDITION of the Orinda Outlook this past Thursday, and that’s her assertion that “[m]any of the comments made at recent City Council meetings and in written materials contain factual errors.” However, as you will see from the following, we appear to disagree with the City Manager as to whose comments and written materials may have been misleading or inaccurate.

Just as we encourage you to share the attached copy of Orinda Watch’s July 11 letter to the Council with your family members, neighbors, and friends, we’d encourage you to share our thoughts we’ve entitled “Clarifying the ‘Clarification’ of Orinda’s Housing Requirements – Pt 1,” which we’ve not only included below, but have also attached as a separate document you can distribute as you wish.  HERE.

---

Clarifying the “Clarification” of Orinda's Housing Requirements – Pt 1 
by Your Neighbors at Orinda Watch (July 13, 2013)

A recent SPECIAL EDITION of the Orinda Outlook went to every household in town entitled “Clarifying Orinda’s Housing Requirements.” In it, City Manager Janet S. Keeter shared her reasons for taking this unprecedented action:

"We hope this information helps to clarify what has otherwise been misstated in various forms of communication circulating in the Orinda community regarding the City of Orinda's housing allocation and plans for meeting the State requirements. Many of the comments made at recent City Council meetings and in written materials contain factual errors."

Orinda Watch agrees with the City Manager, wholeheartedly. We agree that with Ms. Keeter’s statement that “[m]any of the comments made at recent City Council meetings and in written materials contain factual errors.”

Ms. Keeter’s initial and thus most important cited example of a “misstate[ment] in various forms of communication circulating in the Orinda community” in her July 11, SPECIAL EDITION of the Orinda Outlook was when she said “[i]t has been stated that the Orinda City staff is quietly planning on updating the General Plan to include high-density, subsidized housing in the downtown area.” In the spirit of open and transparent debate on issues of concern in the City, let’s examine this statement by Ms. Keeter.

City staff has assured Orinda residents that the City has no plans to initiate a General Plan update at this time. The City Planning Director told a group of Orinda Watch members during a meeting on May 6, 2013 that the City did not need to update its General Plan to comply with state housing laws or to meet the City’s needs at this time, and thus had no plans to do so.

The Planning Director made similar statements to the Council and public at the May 13, 2013 Special Meeting of the Council:

"We have reviewed [Plan Bay Area] and find that that document is consistent with the growth projections from the 1987 General Plan that the City had adopted.  So there’s no change that would be required . . . [a]nd even if there were such a mandate as drafted, the Plan Bay Area Plan, as it relates to downtown Orinda and the City of Orinda overall, is consistent with our existing General Plan." (emphasis added)

And the City Manager’s SPECIAL EDITION of the Orinda Outlook on July 11, 2013 suggests, by implication, that the City’s draft Housing Element update is simply that—an update of the Housing Element portion of the City’s General Plan—and further implies that the City has no plans to initiate an overall General Plan update at this time.

But what about the Summary of City of Orinda Edits to Housing Element in Response to HCD Comments sent to HCD on June 4, 2013 by the Planning Director? “An area of non-residential sites at the north end of Orinda Village is discussed at length in the text [of this Housing Element and s]tudies of this area are proposed in anticipation of a future General Plan Update.” Response to HCD Comment 9. (emphasis added)

And what about this? “[Rezoning the Downtown to permit high density housing] will likely be an outcome of the City’s General Plan Update, which will be initiated during the timeframe of this Housing Element.” Id., Response to HCD Comment 25. (emphasis added)

But these are just the City’s commitments to HCD in its responses to HCD’s comments that the Planning Director submitted to HCD when he submitted the draft Housing Element for formal review on June 4, 2013. Surely the draft Housing Element doesn’t commit the City to a General Plan update?

Perhaps it does. In fact, according to the Planning Director’s staff report the City Council June 18, 2013, quoting the draft Housing Element itself, the Housing Element commits the City to “initiate an update of the Orinda General Plan to continue the public dialogue about the appropriate mix of uses and densities in the Downtown area.”

And the draft Housing Element the Planning Director sent to HCD on June 4, 2013 included provisions like the following:

"The [Planning Process Review Task Force] PPRTF identified numerous sites in and around the Downtown area where housing could be considered. These recommendations will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council as part of a future General Plan Update"

                          -Draft Housing Element, June 3, 2013, p. 4-9

And the following:

"As the City updates its General Plan, it may consider modifying development standards throughout the Downtown area, based on community input and discussion. . . . [Z]oning that is more amenable to mixed uses would help achieve a desired balance between housing and employment opportunities, while also creating a stronger market for Downtown businesses."
                Id. at p. 4-10

And the following:

"The City has been exploring alternatives for a [General] Plan Update, with a focus on the Downtown area. . . ."

"From 2007 to 2009, the City convened a Planning Process Review Task Force (PPRTF) to evaluate possible changes to land use designations and allowable densities in and around the Downtown area. While the PPRTF discussions were focused on zoning, any substantive changes to zoning densities would have triggered parallel changes to the General Plan for internal consistency. These changes (discussed below) will continue to be evaluated during the time horizon of this Housing Element."

Whom are we to believe? The City Planning Director and his representations to Orinda Watch during a meeting on May 6, 2013, the Planning Director again to the Council and public at the Special Meeting of the Council on May 13, 2013, and the City Manager in her SPECIAL EDITION of the Orinda Outlook yesterday? Or the Summary of City of Orinda Edits to Housing Element in Response to HCD Comments and the revised Housing Element sent to HCD on June 4, 2013 by the Planning Director?