Unregulated land development

Right there with you Lisa

In many other areas Lisa seems to be quite opposed to government intervention - she wants lower taxes, her organization opposes rent control, and she wants a lower level of public services.

So it is quite interesting - and hypocritical - to see Lisa encourage local government to take a heavy hand in regulating what her neighbors can and can't do with the property that they own.

I guess the underlying principle is "government shouldn't be involved, unless it is in my personal and financial interest for them to do so."

Kevin, since you oppose me when I say the sky is blue, I expected this kind of response from you. We've never met, so let me correct your assumptions: "Lisa seems to be quite opposed to government intervention - she wants lower taxes, her organization opposes rent control, and she wants a lower level of public services." I believe that regional governance is bad - so yes, if forcing change through a regional push or threatening legislation, rather than city by city or county by county votes, I would be opposed to that kind of government intervention because it goes against the People having a real voice/vote. In regard to taxes, my feeling is that if our tax dollars are not going where they are supposed to be going, especially if more taxation is merely to fund the regional push for forced growth, then, yes, I am heartily against it! I have no organization, so along with misunderstanding most things about me, Kevin, you also fail here with facts. Rent control is a hot button. I haven't seen a measure I feel I can support as yet, because none have been put together with compromise and participation by both renters and landlords. I do not support landlords purging their buildings of people in the name of greed. I do not support further gentrification by building only for tech workers, thereby driving up market rents, and displacing people. We must stop this kind of development. I have heard you, Kevin, be very vocal for more housing, but I have yet to see you or any of your friends at the rallies I attend for displaced renters. Two weeks ago, at the last rally, the renters wondered aloud where all the YIMBYs were since they purportedly care about people who need affordable housing. Finally, I don't know what I could have possibly said to have you assume I want lower levels of public services. Nothing could be further from the truth. With forced growth and seemingly no concern for infrastructure (CASA certainly does not take it into consideration), I worry about the ability to keep services to the level we will need. I also worry what housing we can offer emergency personnel and teachers when we are clearly not building for them. We are clearly building for the almighty dollar - and that will be our downfall. Finally, I would never, ever call someone a hypocrite based on assumptions - even if it were to promote my own agenda. It's time to separate the wheat from the chaff, move beyond the special interests' stranglehold on our cities - and ignore YIMBYs who fail to compromise at every level. Back to work, people!

This area is turning into tech worker housing whether we build more housing or we don't.

If we don't build the housing tech workers will still move here they'll just outbid lower income residents for the existing housing supply. This is why teachers in San Mateo schools now need to commute from Pleasanton and city staff commutes from Antioch.

More housing or more displacement, your pick.

Excellent analysis of what is happening, Lisa Tanner.

SB 50 begins with various assertions - including that California already has a deficit of two million housing units and needs to accommodate additional imported workers (mostly for corporations) at a rate of 180,000 per year. There may be no evidence to support either figure but plainly CA corporate execs have big plans to use California and the Bay Area to increase profits. And that much is to be expected. Corporate execs work for corporations - not the public. . Based on this purported housing "crisis," the proposed legislation would strip cities and counties of the authority to limit new housing (currently up tp 4-5 stories) except in areas reserved for agriculture or resource preservation. Neighborhoods zoned for single-family homes are prime targets for the new high-rise or "mid-rise" housing but commericial and industrial zones would also be available. This year, the corporate execs have lined up supporters - including some politically ambitious local government officials. Campaigns for higher office require MONEY. The corporations (including housing developers) have the MONEY. And apart from what SB 50 would itself enable, its passage would establish the political precedent that politicians in Sacramento can and will alter or eliminate local government control of land use. Real local leaders should get ready to launch a statewide REFERENDUN PETITION to put SB 50 (or any other horrible housing law that passes) on the statewide ballot. At the same time, real local leaders should circulate an INITIATIVE PETITION (probably a proposed provision to be added to the California Constitution) to protect against the State government some authority to make local land-use decisions. Such an initiative should be formulated without further delay so it will be ready for circulation (signature gathering) along with the referendum petition. And one more point. Corporate execs are not just working on changing state law. They have agents in regional and local governments throughout the state. The San Diego City Council, for example, just rezoned California's second largest city to accommodate the high or "mid" rise condos and apartments contemplated by SB 50. Yes, my friends. The Russians are coming. But self-serving corporations are already here.