New studies show that building more market-rate housing for rich people doesn't bring down rents for everyone else.

It is not a good week for the Yimby argument.

In a series of reports, studies, and articles, the claim that building more housing for rich people will bring down prices as been challenged, if not debunked. The new evidence suggests that the only falling rents are at the very top of the scale – for the rest of us, that new housing is not bringing any relief at all. 

See the rest on 48hills.com: 

Summertime, and the living is easy. I’m back from a week in the ever-interesting East, mostly the environs of the District of Columbia, and can reliably report, in the words of yet another classic song, that it’s Too Damn Hot. Otherwise, it’s fine.

The first couple of days were devoted to a family reunion of sorts, what started out as a memorial picnic for my aunt, who died this year in her late 90s. Something like 44 of us turned up, and those were just a subset of my 15-cousin generation and their descendants. I’m proud to report that every one of them more than met my standards for political correctness and right livelihood, and many of them had a sense of humor to boot. This includes both those born into the family and those who simply married into it, though there was a nasty rumor that one spouse had Republican relatives.

I’ve often heard anguished musings about Thanksgivings in other families marred by heated disputes between Trumpoids and Liberals, but I’m happy to say that we don’t seem to have any of the former. This causes me once again to wonder who those other people are, and how they got that way.

I did hear a few hints in my crowd that some had wished for a flashier candidate than Hillary in 2016, but if so they kept it to themselves this week. There’s a remarkable unity of purpose these days among anyone who’s ever voted for a Democrat: Just hold your nose, and pull the Democratic lever. 

My several hundred accumulated emails on my return were a good half of them appeals for funds from Democratic candidates for every November office. Most of what we can do for national candidates here in good ol’ Berkeley is send money, though a respectable number of us are also going to swing districts to ring door bells or making calls from home.  

It’s hard to choose amongst them to allocate my modest favors. I had intended to draw the line at supporting candidates who disavowed Nancy Pelosi, a stupid and even juvenile attitude toward a woman who’s a stone genius regardless of her age. But one of them is the guy who’s running against Devin Nunes, and as much as I deplore lesser-of-two-evil-ism, I can tell the difference between those two. 

Also in my inbox were various items relating to the last stand of the Derriere Garde, the die-hard Bernie-istas who are now enjoying the Jill Stein administration. I lived through the Ralph Nader administration, and I hope to survive this one, but I’m really, really tired of people who can’t do simple math and boast about it. This does not include the ones who concluded that in California a vote for the dippy doctor wouldn’t hurt, but many of those also gave money and encouragement toward contests in states where it did matter, like Michigan. 

Nevertheless, I can also sympathize with those who are pretty fed up with the Democratic National Committee. I did vote dutifully for the DNC presidential candidate in 2016, and I enthusiastically supported Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. That’s why I’m disappointed that he’s seen fit to reach all the way down into California Assembly District 15 and tell us how to vote.  

Really? 

The candidate the former President decided to bless is opposed by all the other local Dems who ran against her. I understand that she was a very effective cog in his machine in those two previous elections, and I respect effective political operatives, particularly if they’re on my side, but at some point, sooner rather than later, the national Democratic Party should show some respect for the wisdom of the locals.  

Their relentless top-down style is one reason they lost in 2016. While I think those Michiganders were foolish to vote for Jill Stein, I have no doubt that the ham-handed national Democratic party alienated many left wing voters, as they traditionally have. 

(It probably isn’t as bad as it was when I lived there in the late 60s and early ‘70s, when as I remember a bunch of union thugs who dominated the party then locked a key leftish official in a hotel room to avoid an anti-war vote at the state convention. ) 

California’s insane top-two primary system was promoted by the same bunch of rich libertarian-leaning white guys whose private PAC is now endorsing Obama’s horse in AD15. Top-Two is going to go on wreaking havoc if it’s not changed, not easy to do since it was passed by a ballot initiative.  

What would work a whole lot better is ranked choice voting, which gives those who have a sacramental view of the importance of their personal vote an outlet for their passion. They could flourish their Nader/Stein/Whoever creds with their number one, and then go on to make a real choice that would actually matter with number two.  

It’s hard to imagine a post-November world, and even harder to imagine a post-Trump world, but life will go on here at the bottom regardless of what’s happening in DC. We still need the best government we can get at the local and state levels, and RCV is one tool that’s working in Maine and elsewhere. The time to start trying to change the voting system for this state is now.  

Meanwhile, Berkeley’s already got RCV for the November city elections, so check out all the candidates before you fill out your ballot. All your choices will make a difference. 

 

 

Ten Bay Area mayors signed the No on AB 2923 op-ed in the East Bay Times. Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín wasn’t among them. Why not?

On August 5, the East Bay Times published a powerful critique of AB 2923, the bill that would remove zoning authority over BART stations in Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties and land within a half-mile of those stations from the host cities and counties and give that authority to BART.

The signers included Fremont Mayor Lily Mei, Lafayette Mayor Don Tatzin, Albany Mayor Peggy McQuaid, Concord Mayor Edi Birsan, Danville Mayor Newell Arnerich, Dublin Mayor David Haubert, Hayward Mayor Barbara Halliday, Livermore Mayor John Marchand, Richmond Mayor Tom Butt, and Antioch Mayor Sean Wright—plus Alameda County Supervisors Scott Haggerty and Karen Mitchoff, Pittsburg Councilman Salvatore Evola, and Pleasant Hill Councilman Michael Harris.

Why didn’t Mayor Arreguín join the other mayors? After all, the question of zoning authority over BART stations is presumably of great interest to the Berkeley public, given the huge turnout at the March 15 community meeting about development at North Berkeley BART; the substantial attendance at the August 2 community meeting about development at Ashby BART; and the heated public comment on AB 2923 at the Berkeley City Council’s May 29 meeting. 

At the May 29 meeting, the Mayor voted with the majority to oppose AB 2923 unless amended. The current text of the bill, which will be heard by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday, August 13, does not contain any of the amendments proposed by the council. Presumably, then, Arreguín opposes the bill—and all the more so, because the original item on the council’s May 29 agenda, which he co-sponsored with Councilmember Maio, opposed unamended AB 2923. 

During the council’s deliberations, Arreguín cited his record of opposition to recent state legislation eroding local say in land use. “I was against SB 35 last year, I was against SB 827,” he stated, “and I’m against AB 2923, because it is going to take the power away from Berkeley to decide as a community what our built environment is going to look like.” The record shows, he said, that he and the council strongly support affordable housing and transit-oriented development. But AB 2923 “will shut the city out of the [planning] process” for housing at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations. “I think the state has overreached way too far…” 

Arreguín’s remarks jibed with points made in the East Bay Times op-ed: “As written, AB 2923 has numerous flaws”: 

• Offers no guarantees that housing will be built faster or better
• Reduces local input.
• Ignores the success of recent transit-oriented development. Cities and BART already cooperate to build housing.
• Expands BART’s “job” beyond transportation
• Allows BART to acquire property using eminent domain and purchases—and invites speculation.

(These are the bullet points; for the full argument, read the piece). 

But Arreguín did not sign the statement. Was that because the other mayors go further in their opposition than he did? Their op-ed marked AB 2923’s additional flaws: 

• Allows BART to eliminate parking
• Prioritizes developer profits and BART revenue from land ownership over current riders.
• Fail to address the East Bay’s need for more jobs.

The council has approved an August 25 public “visioning” event about development at the North Berkeley station. If AB 2923 becomes law, the city will be required to follow BART’s TOD Guidelines, which specify for North Berkeley BART a building or buildings at least seven stories tall, and the removal of all or most of the parking. So much for community input. 

Last Sunday evening, I emailed the Mayor’s office asking if Arreguín had been invited to sign the statement (it’s hard to believe that he wasn’t). If so, did he decline? And if he did decline, why? 

So far, no reply. 

The Berkeley public deserves to know where Mayor Arreguín stands on AB 2923, and why. All that talk about community empowerment—was it just hype? 

The time is now for voters to think about voting for candidates who have developed social skills and those who respect the humanity in every person. In today’s chaotic world of despair and inequality, we need those in government who have the ability to hear people’s voices. It is very sad that we are watching the game of power play in all the three branches of our government. 

Democratic views are not cared for any more. Our government has divided us all on the basis of our race, religion, culture, language and economic status. 

I don’t know if the public is getting the correct message through media outlets like Fox News.  

Even in the year 2018, middle class and low-Income people are suffering. Even today, when “America becoming great again” slogan is chanted, human suffering is increasing. There is increased gun violence, increased prices for over the counter medicines and daily use household items. Transportation fees, health insurance and apartment rental charges are too high for ordinary citizens. This has become a real problem for both the poor and for seniors. And ordinary people who seek to have a roof over their head.  

I wonder when the Congress will stop supporting the private business-like of behavior of the current head of this great nation. 

What magic happened? Where did America get tons of dollars to give a “tax exempt” status to most of our richest citizens, but had ordinary people pay more into the government purse in taxes? Do we still need to trust more in today’s policies and dealing? 

We need to wake up from the dreamland of prosperity and success to the reality of the issues before us, else we would sadly have to accept the demise of our democracy.

In case you missed it, California is beset with an unusual number of intense wildfires; the state is covered by smoke. In response, on August 5th, Donald Trump tweeted: "California wildfires are being magnified & made so much worse by the bad environmental laws..." Hmm, so California "environmentalists" are responsible for the fires? Or is someone else to blame?

Twelve years ago, I wrote "Global Warming? Not in My Back Yard" (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/global-warming-not-in-my-_b_19380.html ), pointing out that while most Americans are concerned about global warming (climate change), in general, they don't get excited about it, in particular, until there's evidence at the local level -- because they have a lot of other issues to worry about such as the cost of their healthcare or housing or jobs.

Two years of extreme wildfires has gotten Californians' attention. Waking up each morning worried about air quality -- because of the smoke -- or worse yet, wondering if you will be forced to evacuate, has made everyone in California aware that we have a problem. The issue is what to do about it. 

In Trump's full tweet, he said: "California wildfires are being magnified & made so much worse by the bad environmental laws which aren’t allowing massive amount of readily available water to be properly utilized. It is being diverted into the Pacific Ocean. Must also tree clear to stop fire spreading!" Even by Trump standards, this was an incredibly ignorant tweet. The wildfires are not being caused by lack of water or the absence of tree clearing. Most experts agree they are the result of dryness -- due to the state's prolonged drought, high temperatures -- July was the hottest month ever recorded, and -- in many cases -- ferocious winds. 

As a native Californian, I've learned a lot about wildfires. (If you've lived here for more than a couple of years, you have fire stories to tell.) In October of 1991, the Oakland Hills Firestorm occurred about 12 miles from my Berkeley residence. This fire killed 25 people, injured 150, and destroyed 3280 residences. It covered an area of approximately 3 square miles. In October of 2017, the Tubbs fire occurred about 15 miles from my west Sonoma County property. This fire (spanning Lake, Napa, and Sonoma Counties) killed 22 people, injured more than 100, and incinerated 5643 structures. The Tubbs fire covered a much larger area than the Oakland Hills fire; on its northern edge the Tubbs fire stretched 12 miles. 

Both fires were similar. They occurred in hot, dry conditions and were fed by intense winds from the northeast. The blazes started small and quickly became conflagrations; people in the path of the firestorms literally ran for their lives. (In both cases I knew folks who lost their homes.) 

In neither case was California water policy an issue. (Sorry, Donald.) A recent article by Alice Hill and William Kakenmaster (https://www.hoover.org/research/new-normal-californias-increasing-wildfire-risk-and-what-do-about-it ) reported: "Many factors contribute to [California] wildfires, but two in particular greatly contribute to increasing risk: climate change and growing development in the wildland-urban interface (WUI)." 

Many Californians attribute the violent wildfires to global climate change. (Last year, California Governor Jerry Brown called extreme fire conditions “the new normal” under climate change.) The most recent California poll (http://www.ppic.org/publication/californians-views-on-climate-change/ ) found that two-thirds of respondents believe the effects of climate change "are already occurring" and 81 percent believe it to be "a serious threat" to the state's future. Not surprisingly, the attitudes about climate change split along Party lines: only 24 percent of Republicans view climate change as a threat. 

One of the ongoing wildfires is the Carr fire, northwest of Redding, adjacent to Lake Shasta. It's the most Republican congressional district in Northern California, represented by Doug LaMalfa. a climate-change skeptic, who says he "doesn't buy" human-made climate change: "The climate of the globe has been fluctuating since God created it." (A recent Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/31/california-wildfire-climate-change-carr-fire ) observed: "Like LaMalfa, the citizens of Redding are far more skeptical about climate change than the average American is. In 2016, a team from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that only 35% of Redding residents believed that global warming would harm them personally.") 

Notwithstanding climate-change skeptics, most Californians agree that we need to take action to mitigate climate change. One of these is to reduce fossil-fuel emissions. Notably the Trump Administration has just taken steps to reduce California's ability to do this; On August 2nd, Trump's EPA revealed plans to strip California of its right to set air-quality rules (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/climate/california-auto-emissions-trump.html ). 

Hill and Kakenmaster noted that in addition to climate change, where homes are placed greatly impacts the destruction wrought by wildfires; they pointed out the destructive potential of placing houses adjacent to wildland vegetation, the wildland-urban interface (WUI): "In 2010, California had more people and homes located in the WUI than any other state in the continental United States—close to 4.5 million homes and 11 million people... [according to] the U.S. Commerce Department, 'Fires within communities surrounded by natural areas [the WUI] are the most dangerous and costliest fires in North America.'" (The WUI was a factor in the Tubbs fire, but not in the Oakland Hills fire -- there the primary issue was housing density.) 

The catastrophic impacts of climate change aren't confined to wildfires on the West Coast, each state has its own unique disaster profile ranging from drought to megastorms. Each state, and each community, will have to develop their own particular response. 

At the national level, it's time to take climate change seriously. Trump isn't going to do this. It's time for Americans to elect leaders who have the intelligence and the resolve to deal with "the new normal." 

---

Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and activist. He can be reached at bburnett@sonic.net;