If you take a moment to click on the link to check your city's housing numbers below, it's quite interesting to see what the central planners are up to. To "equalize" things between rich and poor cities, look at the variances for Very Low Housing to Very High Housing. Note especially the very significant variances for Atherton, Woodside, Los Altos, Hillsborough, and Richmond. "We're all in this together," if ABAG/Plan Bay Area gets its way.
There is no stopping this without repealing SB375. This is wasting everyone's time putting out fires, when 375 is the matches.
We can't be this stupid and win. Tax money is paying the planners to do this with police authority. It's like a vagrancy law for property. and the police will treat the vagrant property no better than a bum.
You will comply or you will go to jail.
Thank you for this post, Aubrey. This whole plan boggles my mind.
Plan Bay Area refers to SB375 as its mandate; however, if we read the bill, we will see that SB375 is a modification of "Existing Law," seemingly the source of the "low, low-low, moderate" stuff, as in the paragraph below. So, we do not seem to have any one target to abolish, but a whole lot of them, including the brand new San Francisco Housing Trust.
"Existing law requires the housing element, among other things, to contain a program which sets forth a 5-year schedule of actions of the local government to implement the goals and objectives of the housing element. Existing law requires the program to identify actions that will be undertaken to make sites available to accommodate various housing needs, including, in certain cases, the rezoning of sites to accommodate 100% of the need for housing for very low and low-income households." http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf
How are the central planners planning to control the movement of folks in and out of regions? Control would be needed to prevent "flight" as mixed housing is imposed. But, I suppose if all regions, and possibly many states, implement the plan at the same time, where you gonna go?
The Citizens for Property Rights organization is doing its best to try to defeat mandates as they come up -- a more realistic approach than trying to repeal just one aspect of the situation (such as SB375).
Speaking of mandates, the new earthquake retrofitting mandate which went before the SF Board of Supervisors yesterday might serve as one example of how central planners intend to shoo away private property to replace it with public property.
If SB 375 is just a tentacle, then we must find the head of the octopus. It is probably redevelopment legislation.
Whatever it is, its repeal is the ONLY solution. Otherwise the number of fires to extinguish is endless.
It may serve to attack publicly, a sacred cow, while going after the real problem in the background. In any case, we MUST improve strategies beyond the usual rabble rousing.
As I said, we are dealing with several independent pieces of legislation. That was my point.
Yes, specific strategies would be most welcome.
Who would know the anatomy of the beast? ...somebody working on the redevelopment issuer for a long time...
The overall strategy forming is to focus big-city resources on small town battles, until we have enough small-town resources, aligned with us to take-on the big-city.
Interesting strategy, but a bit unclear.