Al’s Corner – Late March 2024 – It’s not April yet, fools!

Comments

64 responses to “Al’s Corner – Late March 2024 – It’s not April yet, fools!”

1. Apr 21, 2024 9:32 AM

   Ron O

   Here’s what happens when you build housing for an imaginary population, in a city with already-declining rental prices:
   “S.F. prioritized building homes for the ‘missing middle.’ 80% of units sit empty”
   https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/missing-middle-class-housing-19408027.php
   Folks, here’s my suggestion: First, decide if you want cities (and California itself) to continue expanding. If not, then say so – and stop meddling in the market as it will work itself out. It already has been, as evidenced by the net exodus to other states.
   (With the possible exception of rent control, if one “feels bad” for those who stake a claim to a given locale for their entire lives.)
   Probably half of the folks in Davis came here from a more-expensive location, rather than insist they had a god-given right to remain wherever they came from.

   Reply
2. Apr 21, 2024 12:57 PM

   R Keller

   ACM wrote “Personally I think, given Greenwald’s track record over the last nearly 20 years, it seems difficult to imagine that the Vanguard would prevail in a legal fight.”
   ^ I came here to say this, but you beat me to it!
   Here are the procedures that the Vanguard will have to follow to appeal the IRS findings against them for violating their nonprofit status.
   https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charity-and-nonprofit-audits-appeal-rights-and-procedures
   The first level is administrative to the IRS Independent Office of Appeal. That does require that “Only attorneys, certified public accountants or enrolled agents are allowed to represent a taxpayer before Appeals”. But it wouldn’t be hugely expensive. Given the large amount of money that Greenwald is trying to grift, that appeal was probably already rejected and he has to now file a lawsuit in U.S. federal court.
   Given the extremely low percentage of nonprofit violation cases that the IRS actually pursues for enforcement, they only go after cases when the evidence is overwhelming. So, yes, it is VERY difficult to imagine the Vanguard will prevail.
   I wonder why Greenwald has tried to characterize the federal government going after him for his illegal activities and the tax money that he owes the public as “dark anti-democratic forces”? He is the one who had tried to subvert democracy by publishing advocacy for/against candidates and ballot issues, which violates what nonprofit organizations are allowed to do to continue to receive their publicly-bestowed tax-exempt status.

   Reply
3. Apr 21, 2024 2:30 PM

   Ron O

   I would think that it’s actually more accurate and appropriate for the Vanguard to be reclassified as a “for-profit” entity. It’s not the end of the world, for them. The Enterprise is a “for-profit” entity.
   The only thing that the Vanguard has to lose are some taxes (welcome to the club), and its claim as the “people’s guardian” (or however David describes it).

   Reply
4. Apr 22, 2024 9:27 AM

   Ron O

   The developer listed in the article below (Tsakopoulos) is the same developer who essentially/indirectly threatened Measure J, when abandoning his proposal adjacent to Davis. (My interpretation, at least.)
   I understand that this is the same developer would have benefited from the Woodland floodwall, as well. As he did in Natomas.
   https://www.davisvanguard.org/2024/04/akt-pulls-preliminary-application-for-pioneer-community-mast-plan-letter-questions-how-city-of-davis-will-comply-with-state-housing-laws/
   So, here’s what he’s up to now:
   “Why is this influential Sacramento developer pushing for sprawl south of Highway 50?”
   “Angelo Tsakopoulos already has an ownership interest in thousands of acres of adjacent ranch land. The 87-year-old father of California Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis is pushing for a 2,800-acre, 8,000-home complex that is not in any existing government-approved growth plan and is beyond Sacramento County’s urban services boundary.”
   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/why-is-this-influential-sacramento-developer-pushing-for-sprawl-south-of-highway-50-opinion/ar-AA1nrDSZ?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=af0ff9a14b44431ab9163330368c45b9&ei=15

   Reply
5. Apr 23, 2024 5:07 PM

   Ron O

   I believe this is the same development as the one described above (sprawl). And yet, described quite-differently in the article below.
   So apparently, UCD is a promoter of sprawl?
   Also sounds like a “done deal”, to me. Good luck regarding the “workshop”.
   “Staff recommends that the city council consider the preliminary project review request from AKT and UC Davis for their ‘Community for Health and Independence’ conceptual annexation proposal and provide initial feedback,” city documents say. “This workshop provides an opportunity for early vetting of a potential future project currently located outside (the) city of Folsom boundaries and sphere of influence.”
   https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/folsom-el-dorado-county-consider-8-000-unit-housing-proposal/ar-AA1nx5DQ?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=3eab0420e34c44d6850b645f937d77b3&ei=19

   Reply
6. Apr 23, 2024 5:30 PM

   Ron O

   Just thought that the following article was note-worthy. A substantial office building in San Francisco, which sold for a price equivalent to maybe 6-8 upper-end Davis houses:
   https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/s-f-tower-sells-90-discount-19418186.php?

   Reply
7. Apr 24, 2024 8:54 AM

   Ron O

   Why is it that a social justice blog like the Vanguard isn’t covering the widespread protests in support of Palestinians on campuses throughout the U.S.?
   As well as elsewhere – such as on the Bay and Golden Gate bridges (resulting in their shutdown), and even at Google’s headquarters?
   https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/google-layoffs-israel-19418256.php

   Reply
8. Apr 24, 2024 10:29 AM

   Alan C. Miller

   I can guess. My guess is that the deal that Mr. G-wald made with the devil (his housing funders) is that he will write a pro-housing article everyday trying to brainwash people with front-loaded terms such as “housing crisis” where the issue is already settled before any argument is even made by the use of a term that already assumes that there is one, and what one is doesn’t even need to be defined.
   It’s similar to people who use the word “genocide” is the Israel-Hamas/Iran crisis. The issue is already settled before any argument is made, by the use of the term. Housing Crisis. Genocide.
   In exchange for his deal with the devils, Mr. G-wald can write all he wants on social justice and incarceration, funded by satan. It may be controversial, but it isn’t a f**king landmine like taking a side on Israel-Hamas/Iran, which would alienate half his pro-housing audience one way or another, and therefore make him not valuable to his funders.
   D-wald can of course always come here and counter my guess and clear things up, and/or start covering Israel-Hamas/Iran issues. Unlike me, who ain’t welcome on his blog, because I committed commenticide there.
   The other possibility is he doesn’t care much about the war or the protests and considers them irrelevant 😐

   Reply
9. Apr 25, 2024 8:13 AM

   Alan C. Miller

   From today’s Vlinplird, 2nd verse same as the first. (In other words I used to cite which housing article, but they are all the same):
   But I think the approach was right—have a public fact-finding session. This is something the city should consider. But of course on housing.
   But of course! On housing!
   I think some believe that the public is well aware of pressure coming down from the state—but I’m not sure they are. As I have previously reported, I have seen long debates on NextDoor, for instance, that indicate much of the public isn’t aware of a lot of the changes to state law.
   As you have previously reported, hardy har har. As you have previously ad naseum spewed more like.
   While this doesn’t have to be city led, I think there would be an important level of gravitas if it were some sort of formal subcommittee of the council. Holding the meetings at various times and various locations would be helpful.
   Deja vu: that feeling that you’ve been somewhere, or done something, before . ……
   It could be used to jumpstart a General Plan update and also direct a public discussion over a possible Measure J amendment as well as a pre-discussion on the two remaining peripheral projects.
   Deja vu: that feeling that you’ve been somewhere, or done something, before . ……
   Here are some key issues that should be discussed:
   State housing laws—including the Housing Element, the roll of HCD, RHNA, and of course changes to things like parking minimums
   . . . and of course changes to things, like city policy-fed subsidy of developer profits at the expense of quality of life, increased traffic, and the inability to find a parking space.
   The Housing Crisis—(a) statewide, (b) local, (c) Measure J and its 25-year impacts
   Housing Crisis. Genocide. Housing Crisis. Genocide.
   The issue of limited infill space along with the estimates for the 7th RHNA Housing Cycle
   “The issue of limited infill space” –> Read this as “how to find more infill space – in YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD” And believe me, when they find this ‘new’ infill space, it won’t be in any of the rich neighborhoods in Davis, just like the ‘respite center’ was originally proposed to be near a neighborhood with homes about $100k more per lot than where it ended up, adjacent to Huntwood and Davis Manor neighborhoods. I’ll bet any Councilmember $1000 that the ‘new’ infill space ends up in a similar place, rather than ‘equitably distributed’ into Stonegate Lake, North Davis Farms, College Park, Willowbank, etc. How do I know this . . . because that’s what always happens.
   Possible considerations for Measure J amendments
   There is no such thing as an amendment to Measure J. There is only the simultaneous dismantling of Measure J, and the passing of a new Measure in its place. Good F**cking luck. (Note: I am in favor of ending Measure J.)
   Discussion over the two proposed peripheral projects
   meh

   Reply
10. Apr 25, 2024 8:25 AM

    Ron O

    Seems that other states have similar issues (housing activists have apparently infiltrated state governments, and are attempting to force sprawl under the guise of affordable housing). In this case, the proposal contained 15% “affordable housing”.
    “Tiny N.J. town wins fight to keep 286 acres of farmland from becoming housing development
    The Van Wagoner farm is part of what local officials called a “carefully planned farm belt” in Burlington County that has remained intact due to countywide efforts of acquiring farm easements. Those efforts helped preserve nearly 6,000 acres, they said.
    The township currently has a population of about 3,200 people and has not grown in the last two decades. The number of employed residents has also steadily declined, according to court documents.”
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/tiny-n-j-town-wins-fight-to-keep-286-acres-of-farmland-from-becoming-housing-development/ar-AA1nEmfF?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=dd83fdfe0b9b4b3ca0e6724845c81d06&ei=41

    Reply
11. Apr 25, 2024 8:33 AM

    Ron O

    Meanwhile, in Marin county – I received the following notification:
    Today we have crossed another milestone in the protection of our local agricultural land: the Marin County Board of Supervisors approved $2.9 million in grant funding from the Farmland Preservation Grant Program (Measure A), advancing the conservation of Hicks Mountain Belvedere Ranch and the Corda Family Ranch.
    By securing the funding for two more agricultural conservation easements, we will soon have protected 58,739 acres of local agricultural working lands. Conservation easements are voluntary, legal agreements that protect the land from development and ensure it remains as open space and in agricultural production in perpetuity.
    Large expanses of open spaces like this are essential, not only for biodiversity conservation and climate resilience, but for sustaining the local agricultural economy and the rural way of life for West Marin communities.
    https://malt.org/land-protection/corda-family-ranch/
    Does Scott Wiener, Governor Newsom, and Rob Bonta know that government money is being used to “keep other people out”? 🙂

    Reply
12. Apr 25, 2024 3:20 PM

    Ron O

    The latest from Richard McCann:
    “Leaving bald, uninformed decision to voters without any type of intervention will lead to undesirable outcomes. As Keith points out, we’ve delegated complex and/or mundane decisions to representatives.”
    Right, it’s an “extremely complex” decision to ask voters if they want to turn a given plot of farmland into more sprawl. You need a degree in rocket science to figure that out – like those on the council have.
    “We don’t vote on where to put stop signs, nor on how to finance new capital additions to the water system.”
    Don’t need either one, if a plot remains farmland.
    “Our discussion focal point should not be on what outsiders my desire as demonstrated in their market purchases but rather in what we desire for our community composition. This means that we cannot leave this decision to the marketplace, unless we just want to have the wealthiest people buy in here.”
    I’ve got “news” for Richard – all new housing accommodates “outsiders”. That’s its primary purpose. Those living in a given community ALREADY HAVE homes.
    (My degree in rocket science degree probably which enabled me to figure that out.)
    “That’s why we are trying to house 3 demographic groups (not 2) who have lower incomes while meeting desirable traits for the community, mostly with maintaining vitality.”
    What “desirable traits” (other than low-income, for some unexplained reason)? And what the f*ck does “vitality” mean, and does it require a prescription?
    “This means that we cannot leave this decision to the marketplace, unless we just want to have the wealthiest people buy in here. And increasingly the wealthiest are also the oldest who bring the least economic vitality (reducing further our tax revenues) and higher costs for services. That’s why we are trying to house 3 demographic groups (not 2) who have lower incomes while meeting desirable traits for the community, mostly with maintaining vitality.”
    No evidence for that statement. If anything, those with more money and higher incomes put MORE money into the community (e.g., via property taxes), and need FEWER services (fewer schools, libraries, etc.).
    There’s that “vitality” reference again, as well. Pretty sure I saw a commercial for that product.

    Reply
13. Apr 26, 2024 3:54 PM

    Ron O

    Some good news (for now, at least):
    LA court strikes down controversial California law abolishing single-family zoning
    “Five Southern California cities — Redondo Beach, Carson, Torrance, and Whittier and Del Mar — sued the state in 2022, claiming the law was unconstitutional because it interfered with their local authority over land use and zoning.
    The Los Angeles County Superior Court judge’s ruling, issued on Monday, means that SB 9 can’t be applied in these five cities. It remains unclear for now whether the law remains valid in other cities.
    “The writing is on the wall for this particular court ruling to upend future SB 9 processing,” said Rafa Sonnenfeld, policy director at the pro-housing group YIMBY Action.
    UC Davis law professor Chris Elmendorf called it “the most ridiculous opinion that any court has issued in a housing-related case.”
    But the judge, Curtis Kin, ruled that the legislature’s intention — housing affordability — didn’t match up with the design. Because SB 9 doesn’t require any of the units constructed to actually be below-market-rate, it was not “reasonably related and sufficiently narrowly tailored” to ensuring access to affordable housing — and therefore unconstitutional.
    The judge’s opinion echoed critics’ doubts that increasing supply actually boosts affordability.
    “The decision confirms that most of these so-called housing affordability laws are a sham, and won’t result in much-needed affordable housing,” said Susan Candell, a Lafayette city councilwoman and proponent of the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative, which seeks to return local land use decisions back to cities.”
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/la-court-strikes-down-controversial-california-law-abolishing-single-family-zoning/ar-AA1nGjyL?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=3c415d297b7a4362a92078d0ac40aea6&ei=79

    Reply
14. May 1, 2024 12:39 PM

    Ron O

    From article in today’s Vanguard:
    “Contrary to popular belief, slavery was not abolished by the 13th amendment. Hundreds of thousands of people are still living in involuntary servitude due to an ‘exception clause’ that allows free labor for punishment of a crime (and) enabled the modern re-enslavement of Black people, who’ve been overcriminalized by our nation’s criminal legal system for centuries,” the ACLU of California stated.”
    Does this sound like an outright lie, to anyone else? Prisoners being “forced” to work as part of their punishment?

    Reply