NBLC 2022 Endorsements

North Bay Leadership Council is pleased to endorse the following candidates for their respective offices as follows.  We are supporting these candidates because they are balanced in their approach to the issues, not beholding to any special interest group, and committed to economic vitality and more housing.

NBLC is proud to endorse:

Novato- By District

Rachel Farac #3

Petaluma- By District

Karen Nau #3

Dylan Lloyd  #1

David Adams  #2

Kevin McDonnell  — Mayor

Rohnert Park- By District

Susan Hollingsworth Adams #5

Samantha Rodriguez  #1

San Rafael – By District

Maribeth Bushey #3

Eli Hill  #2

Santa Rosa- By District

Mark Stapp #2

Dianna MacDonald #3

Terry Sanders #4

Jeff Okrepkie #6

Napa County Supervisors:

Suzanne Truchard – Supervisor – District 1

Anne Cottrell – Supervisor – District 3

Community College Governing Boards: Sonoma County Junior College

District Trustee Areas 1 (East):  Ezrah Chaaban

District 2 (South County): Maggie Fishman (Inc.)

District 5 (Central Santa Rosa): Dorothy Battenfeld (Inc.)

District 7 (West County): Michael Valdovinos (Inc.)


NBLC members also support the following Ballot Measures:

SUPPORT: Proposition 1: Would make California’s existing rights to abortion part of the state’s constitution.
SUPPORT:  Prop 31: Gavin Newsom signed a bill banning the sale of all flavored tobacco products, whether smoked, chewed or vaped. The tobacco industry gathered enough signatures to ask voters to overturn the law with this referendum. (A reminder: Voting “yes” is to keep the law; voting “no” is to get rid of it.)

Please make sure that you are registered to vote. If you are voting by mail, remember to mail your ballot very early so the slowdowns in mail delivery do not delay your ballot being received by the Registrar of Voters in a timely manner.  Your vote counts!

The New “Housing Rich” Millionaires

In the Public Policy Institute of California’s report, California’s High Housing Costs Have Created a Million “House Rich” Millionaires by Hans Johnson (Link) we learn that while California’s high housing costs are out of reach to many potential homebuyers, there are also many who are benefitting from the increase in housing costs.  Johnson says, “rapidly rising home prices have led to unprecedented levels of wealth among homeowners, including a growing number who have record amounts of home equity. In 2020, more than 700,000 California households had at least one million dollars in equity in their homes, according to American Community Survey data. With rapid price appreciation between 2020 and 2022, we estimate that approximately 1.2 million California households are now home-equity millionaires.”

Johnson goes on to detail who “these house-rich Californians” are:

  • Most have paid off their mortgages. In 2020, 58% of the state’s equity millionaires owned their homes free and clear. Statewide, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of Californians who have paid off their mortgages, from 1.6 million households in 2000 to 2.4 million in 2020. The share of all owner-occupied homes that have no mortgage increased from 25% to 33% over that same time frame.
  • Most have lived in their homes for a long time. About half have lived in their current home for more than 20 years. Those with no mortgage have stayed put the longest, with about one-third living in their homes for 30 or more years, compared to 11% of those with a mortgage, and 2% of renters. These long tenures are a testament to the important role that long-term homeownership plays in building household wealth.
  • Because so many of them bought their homes decades ago, high-equity homeowners partly reflect the demographics of the state’s past rather than the California of today. The most common age group for high-equity owners is 65–69, compared to 55–59 for other homeowners, and 30–34 for renters.
  • Equity millionaires are more likely to be white or Asian compared to other homeowners or renters. White and Asian homeowners make up the vast majority of high-equity homeowners (87%). In contrast, only 13% of high-equity homeowners are Latino, Black, or Native American. These differences reflect and exacerbate other kinds of inequality in California, including income inequalityand educational inequality.
  • On average, high-equity homeowners with no mortgage are more educated and have higher incomes than renters, but they tend to be less educated and have lower incomes than those with a mortgage. This partly reflects the older ages of high-equity homeowners with no mortgage, many of whom are retired and became homeowners many decades ago when college enrollment and completion were less common.
  • High-equity homeowners who own their home outright pay less in property taxes than those with a mortgage, largely because of Proposition 13, which limits increases in property valuations for the purpose of taxation. High-equity owners without a mortgage have an annual median payment of $7,100, compared to over $10,000 for those with a mortgage.
  • The vast majority of California’s high-equity homeowners live in coastal metropolitan counties. Even though homeowners with no mortgage are more likely to live in inland metropolitan and rural areas, where homeownership rates are higher and housing prices are lower, those with the highest equity tend to live in expensive coastal metropolitan areas, especially the Bay Area and coastal Southern California.

“Homeownership has been key to wealth creation for generations of Californians,” says Johnson. He explains, “Residents who came of age in the 1950s and 1960s did so in an era of rapid expansion of homeownership. After World War II, new transportation infrastructure coincided with the massive construction of new suburbs with abundant housing, loans became more accessible for many, and housing prices in California were only somewhat higher than in the rest of the nation. Over time, many of those homeowners became California’s equity millionaires.”

But Johnson cautions, “… redlining and discriminatory lending practices during that period kept many people of color from homeownership.  Today, high housing costs limit young adults’ access to this means of wealth creation. In 1960, over half (54%) of 30-to-34-year-olds in California owned a house, compared to about a third today. Finding ways to improve homeownership among young adults is central to housing stability and future housing equity.”

Some solutions to the housing crisis are clear—we must build more housing, especially workforce housing.  Others are being explored by the Legislature and housing advocates like help for first time homebuyers.  The building industry is exploring new construction methods and materials in hopes of bringing down the cost of building.  All possibilities should be considered and those that are worthy should be implemented if we are to make our state’s economy and workforce vibrant and resilient and keep more people from falling into poverty.

Housing Increasingly Out of Reach for the California Workforce

In California’s Housing Divide – Public Policy Institute of California (ppic.org), we learn that our housing crisis is worsening, especially for African Americans and Latinos.  Authors Marisol Cuellar Mejia, Hans Johnson, and Julien Lafortune write, “The housing crisis in California affects residents of all races and ethnicities, but the lack of affordable housing is particularly acute for African Americans and Latinos. Skyrocketing rents in many California metro areas impose growing financial burdens, limiting opportunities for savings. Combined with rising home prices and interest rates, owning a home has become harder to afford over the past year, even as many saw growth in wages. Given the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on households of color, disparities in homeownership are expected to widen. To address these gaps, policy actions that target the causes of these longstanding inequities are necessary.”

The authors state, “Before the pandemic, the racial homeownership gap in California was large, but it appeared to be narrowing. In 2019, the Latino homeownership rate stood at 44.1%, or 19.2 points below that of white households. The Black homeownership rate was even more worrisome at 36.8%, or 26.4 points below the rate for white households. However, Latino and Black households also saw large gains in homeownership between 2014 and 2019 (2.2 and 2.3 percentage points, respectively). Meanwhile, homeownership among Asians grew the most in this period (2.5 percentage points) and, at 59.8%, was only 3.4 points below the white homeownership rate in 2019. Because home equity makes up the majority of wealth for low- and middle-income families, gaps in homeownership rates magnify wealth inequality.”

“Most homeowners start as renters who then save their way into buying a house—but when rents are high, chances to save are low” say the authors. “African American and Latino renters are more likely to pay a sizable share—30% or more—of their household income on gross rent, making the prospect of saving for homeownership daunting. (Even among homeowners, African Americans and Latinos are more likely to spend a high share of their income on mortgages.)”

Dan Walters in A Solution that Won’t Fix California’s Low Homeownership (Link) says, “California is the land of dreams and extremes and nowhere is that more evident than in the state’s very low rate of homeownership. Just 56% of California’s families live in homes they own, very slightly higher than New York’s lowest-in-the-nation 55% rate and nearly 10 percentage points behind the 65% national rate, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.”

Walters explains, “That so few Californians live in their own homes should not be surprising. After all, the state has the nation’s highest rate of poverty and when the near-poor are added, more than a third of the state’s nearly 40 million residents live with financial distress, PPIC has calculated.

He says, “Moreover, the state’s median home price of $834,000 — nearly twice the national figure — means that only a quarter of California families can afford such a home, those with incomes of $160,000 and above.  In other words, homeownership is another of the many indices of California’s highly stratified society — one infinitely ironic for a state whose political leaders, particularly Gov. Gavin Newsom, tout it as a model of egalitarianism and social mobility that should be emulated elsewhere.”

What can be done to improve the housing situation in California?  Unfortunately, Walters doesn’t think much of President Pro Tem Toni Atkins proposal.  His critique is, “Under her California Dream for All, the state would partner with some families to make down payments on home purchases and then recoup its investment when homes are later refinanced or sold. Atkins’ program would join other state programs that already offer homeownership assistance. And while her sincerity is genuine, at best her proposal would help only an estimated 8,000 families in a state where about 7 million families are renters.”

Walters says, “It’s typical of politicians’ approaches to social and economic disparity — create a new program with a catchy title that has little impact, if any, and sidesteps core issues. California’s low rate of homeownership results from high levels of poverty and sky-high home prices. Throwing a few dollars at it doesn’t solve the problem and could even make it worse by enticing some families to buy homes they really cannot afford.”  That’s what went wrong in 2008 when the housing bubble burst.

Walters advises what the real solutions are, “California’s homeownership rates will rise when the state improves its economic fundamentals — when it removes impediments to housing construction, makes itself more welcoming to investment in middle-income jobs and improves educational outcomes of poor children.”

When the budget is finalized, we will see how much money is going into new housing and after that, which housing bills get the Governor’s signature.  It is encouraging that there are efforts being made, even small ones, but we need serious action taken to address the dire housing needs of our state.

Alarmingly Low Voter Turnout for Primary – Please Vote!

In Q&A: What California’s low voter turnout so far means for primary  (Link) we learn that “Political Data Intelligence has been tracking voter turnout for decades. Newly released numbers on Wednesday shows of the 21.8 million ballots mailed out to voters, just over 2 million people have returned their ballots so far, which equals out to about a 9% turnout statewide. The numbers broken down by party affiliation equates to 53% of returned ballots belonging to Democrats, 26% coming from Republicans, and 21% from independent and other parties.”

“When turnout drops, it doesn’t drop evenly for all groups. You’ll have seniors and homeowners, people in more affluent areas, voting at a real high rate. And you’ll have minorities and younger people, college students, and independent voters voting at a very, very low rate. And as a result of that, like if we look today, only a quarter of our state’s registered voters are seniors, but they comprise 51% of the people who’ve returned a ballot. Latinos are 27% of registered voters, and they comprise only 15% of people who have returned a ballot.“

It’s not too late to vote and NBLC urges you to get your ballot turned in.  It is important that all voters’ voices are heard and all groups are represented.  To see how you can still vote either by dropping off your ballot at a drop-off box or going to a voting center, please read below.

NBLC has endorsed the following candidates:

Marin County

Mary Sacket – Supervisor – District 1

Eric Lucan – Supervisor – District 5

John Carroll – County Superintendent of Schools

Sonoma County

David Rabbitt (Inc.) – Supervisor – District 2

James Gore (Inc.) – Supervisor – District 4

Amie Carter – County Superintendent of Schools

Napa County

Suzanne Truchard – Supervisor – District 1

Anne Cottrell – Supervisor – District 3

In Advanced in-person voting underway for June 7 election (Link), we learn more about casting ballots before and on Election Day.

Registered voters in Sonoma County who have not already voted by mail in the June 7 statewide direct primary election, may begin voting in person on Saturday, May 28 at one of seven vote centers located throughout the county. Each vote center will be open for 11 days from May 28 to June 7, which is Election Day, including Saturdays, Sundays and Memorial Day. Hours of operation for the vote centers will be 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., except on Election Day itself, when the hours will be 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

The seven vote centers opening on Saturday are as follows (listed in alphabetical order by town/city/place):

Cotati Veterans Memorial Building
8505 Park Ave., Cotati

Healdsburg Community Center
1557 Healdsburg Ave., Healdsburg

Petaluma Veterans Memorial Building
1094 Petaluma Blvd. S., Petaluma

Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Building
1351 Maple Ave., Santa Rosa

Sonoma County Registrar of Voters
435 Fiscal Drive, Santa Rosa

Sebastopol Center for the Arts
282 S High St., Sebastopol

Sonoma Veterans Memorial Building
126 1st St. W., Sonoma

Twenty-four additional vote centers will open for four days leading up to Election Day starting on June 4.

Unlike most prior elections in Sonoma County, voters who want to cast their ballots in person can go to whichever vote center they choose; they are not assigned to a single location. This is due to the fact that this is the first countywide election in Sonoma County to be conducted under the Voter’s Choice Act election model. Named after the law on which it is based, the objective of this model is to give voters more flexibility regarding how, when and where to cast their ballots.

Vote centers also offer a variety of other services, including serving as drop-off locations for vote-by-mail ballots, issuing replacement vote-by-mail ballots (for example, if a voter’s first ballot never arrived or was lost/spoiled, etc.), providing accessible ballot-marking devices to those who need or prefer using them, and language assistance. Registered voters may also update their voter information and citizens who are eligible to vote but missed the standard voter registration deadline can register and vote “late.”

Voters preferring to vote via vote-by-mail ballot that was mailed to them can return it in one of three ways:

1) By mail. In order to count, it must be postmarked on or before Election Day, June 7 and received in the Registrar of Voters Office by June 14.

2) Drop it off at one of 21 official ballot drop boxes throughout Sonoma County, which are open 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week until 8 p.m. on Election Day.

3) Bring it to any vote center during its hours of operation.

For a list, map and other details of all vote centers and official ballot drop boxes, please visit sonomacounty.ca.gov/where-to-vote.

For more information about the June 7, statewide direct primary election (or any other election-related topics), please visit the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters website at socovotes.com, call (707) 565-6800, email rov-info@sonoma-county.org, or visit the Registrar of Voters Office in person at 435 Fiscal Drive, Santa Rosa. The office is open 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays (excluding holidays). In addition, due to the June election, the office will also be open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays (May 28 and June 4), Sundays (May 29 and June 5), and Memorial Day (May 30), as well as 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Election Day itself.

Similar to Sonoma County, Marin County has early voting centers open through Election Day and drop boxes throughout the county.  Go to this link to find those locations:


And here is the same information for Napa County:  https://www.countyofnapa.org/396/Elections

Remember – your voice matters and voting is your superpower!

Leaders Recognized for Contributions to the San Francisco North Bay

Thank you to all attendees, honorees, sponsors, and guests who participated and attended the 2022 Leaders of the North Bay Awards Luncheon. This wonderful article by the North Bay Business Journal was written for those who were unable to attend.

“In a virtual and in-person event Friday, the North Bay Leadership Council recognized the recipients of its 2022 Leaders of the North Bay Awards.

The council is made up of people and businesses through the area.

Award recipients

As its United We Stand, Community Building honoree, Keith Woods, a current member of the advisory board of Santa Rosa-based Exchange Bank and former executive director of the North Coast Builders Exchange, was recognized for “work helping rebuild after the devastating fires in the region; partnering with the CTE Foundation, SCOE, and SRJC to launch the North Bay Construction Corps; implementing CHOICES, a high school dropout prevention program; and serving as “Sonoma County’s MC,” where he has volunteered hundreds of hours helping nonprofits raise money,” the NBLC stated.

Paint the Community Green, Environmental Stewardship was the honor this year given to The Climate Center, a citizens group focused on climate issues and based in Sonoma County.

Among its efforts, the center “played a key role in the tremendous growth” of community choice aggregation agencies (CCAs) in the state over the past six years, the council said. There are now 24 CCAs providing on average 88% greenhouse gas-free electricity to over 11 million residents in more than 200 cities and counties.

Recognized for Empowering the Latino Community, Leadership Within the Latino Community was the Canal Alliance in Marin County.

Noting that the Canal area of San Rafael has relatively poor internet connectivity, the council honored the alliance for its collaboration with government and other community groups to gather financial support to provide “a free outdoor wireless network and community COVID-19 website for e-learning services and for residents accessing critical information and services. With the leadership of the core group, design, communication, installation and digital literacy was combined to provide not only access, but also Chromebooks and digital literacy training.”

The From Red Tape to Red Carpet, Leadership in Government award went to Dr. David Wain Coon, superintendent and president of College of Marin since 2010.

Coon has overseen expansion and modernization of facilities at the community college, tackled diversity issues at the institution and “worked extensively to engage with the local community and businesses including supporting numerous nonprofits,” including the leadership council.

As recipient of the Murray Legacy Leadership, named for current NBLC CEO Cynthia Murray, the group tapped Steve Page, who served as president and general manager of Sonoma Raceway for three decades.

“The raceway has raised nearly $7 million for charity. Food drives, blood drives, charity rides, training grounds for disaster response — the track has been made available to help better the community,” stated, adding “Steve Page is known for his inclusive leadership style, sharp wit and big heart. Whether it be taking the raceway through all kinds of innovations and improvements, helping local charities, leading community efforts or embracing change, Steve is the ‘go to” guy in the North Bay.'”


Remember to Vote: North Bay Leadership Council Announces 2022 June Primary Candidate Endorsements

North Bay Leadership Council is pleased to endorse the following candidates for their respective offices as follows.  We are supporting these candidates because they have shown as incumbents, or in their campaigns, that they are balanced in their approach to the issues, not beholding to any special interest group, and committed to economic vitality and more housing.

Candidate Endorsements:

Marin County

Mary Sacket – Supervisor – District 1

Eric Lucan – Supervisor – District 5

John Carroll – County Superintendent of Schools

Sonoma County

David Rabbitt (Inc.) – Supervisor – District 2

James Gore (Inc.) – Supervisor – District 4

Amie Carter – County Superintendent of Schools

Napa County

Suzanne Truchard – Supervisor – District 1

Anne Cottrell – Supervisor – District 3

Please make sure that you are registered to vote and then cast your ballot.  It is imperative that the voice of the voters is heard loud and clear.  If you are voting by mail, remember to mail your ballot very early so the slowdowns in mail delivery do not delay your ballot being received by the Registrar of Voters in a timely manner.  Your vote counts this year more than ever!

Now Is Not the Time to Give in to Climate Fatalism

With April being this month, we celebrate Earth Day and the reports on the acceleration of climate change, we are sharing an article that urges we don’t give into climate fatalism and continue to do all we can to stop global warming.  Susan Joy Hassol and Michael E. Mann say in Now Is Not the Time To Give in to Climate Fatalism (Link), “We are at an agonizing moment in world history. The combined stresses of the war in Ukraine, the climate crisis, and economic troubles stemming from spiking oil and gas prices, inflation, and growing global inequality have pushed us to our limits— geopolitically, environmentally, and psychologically. After centuries of colonialism, intensive resource extraction, and narrow, short-term thinking, the chickens have come home to roost. But what if we could feed three birds with one scone?”

The authors note, “Following the release of climate reports, such as the recent IPCC assessments, we often observe a surge of doomism. When headlines proclaim it’s ‘now or never’ to limit warming, some assume we won’t do what’s needed in time. And if you think there’s nothing we can do, why bother trying? Some well-meaning people can be weaponized by those who stand to benefit if we throw up our hands in surrender rather than challenging the fossil fuel industry’s social license. We must stress the urgency. There is clearly no time to waste. But there is agency too. The problem with ‘now or never’ is that it implies a hard threshold at 1.5°C that if we fail to achieve, it’s game over. But this game will never be over. There is no point beyond which we shouldn’t keep trying to limit warming. Every fraction of a degree matters to the level of suffering climate disruption will rain down on us.”


“With so many crises competing for our attention and concern, how can we prioritize the greatest threats when the more immediate ones so often displace the most important?” the authors ask.  “Someone needs to be thinking about the future, and fittingly, those who will inherit it, are. More than 80 percent of young people are worried about climate change. And they are angry, as well they should be. Greta Thunberg, Alexandria Villaseñor, Vanessa Nakate, and other leaders of the youth climate movement are fueled with righteous anger against those who have stood by and watched as the world burned.”


And Hassol and Mann reveal new insight:  “Interesting thing about anger; turns out it’s a more useful emotion than anxiety or depression when it comes to climate action. It engages and empowers. There is good cause for righteous anger. There is a villain in this story. The fossil fuel industry, the richest in human history, has known for decades the climate damage its products would do. Its own scientists told them decades ago. But instead of releasing the scientific findings and charting a different course, it bankrolled a massive disinformation campaign designed to thwart action on climate change. The industry, and the politicians it supports to do its bidding, have been largely successful in blocking effective measures to rein in climate change.”

And reining in climate change is doable.  According to the IPCC’s latest report, on climate change mitigation, “reducing future climate change by cutting heat-trapping gas emissions or increasing their uptake from the air, tells us that this is entirely possible, using current technologies. Many such actions are on the so-called ‘demand side,’ because they reduce energy demand rather than increasing its supply. The IPCC found that demand-side strategies could reduce 40 to 70 percent of heat-trapping gas emissions across all sectors by 2050. A pretty astounding finding, and as investigative journalist Amy Westervelt bemoans, why wasn’t this a headline in every paper?”

“Let’s return to our three birds: war in Ukraine, climate change, and the economy,” they say. “A broader and more integrated approach sees these not as three separate crises but as one with a single win-win-win solution. Now is the time to tackle these related crises and seize the opportunity to move with determination into the clean energy future. The U.S. is in a good position to do so; we’re not starting from scratch. The U.S. is second (to China) in both wind and solar. Fossil fuel companies can use their expertise, work force, and other resources to become broader energy companies. Their experience in geology can be turned to geothermal energy, which has tremendous untapped promise. Their experience in offshore oil can be turned to offshore wind, a resource with enormous potential, and in which the U.S. lags far behind a dozen other nations. Peabody coal owns extensive lands that can be used for solar farms and other renewable energy development.”

“The only path to lasting security is to get off fossil fuels, once and for all. Let this be the moment that the U.S. takes the lead in solving the related challenges before us, helping propel the world toward a climate safe, politically secure, and economically prosperous future.” Hassol and Mann issue a call to action:  “It is in our hands.”  Let’s hope we can achieve this win-win-win!

NBLC Joins Climate Safe California and Supports SB 833 (Dodd): The Community Energy Resilience Act

In LiveScience’s Alarming heat waves hit Arctic and Antarctica at the same time (Link), by Harry Baker, we learn temperatures peaked at least 50 degrees higher than average in both polar regions.  Baker says, “Both of Earth’s polar regions recently experienced unprecedented simultaneous heat waves that caused temperatures to briefly skyrocket to never-before-seen heights in some areas. While experts say such extreme temperatures cannot be solely attributed to climate change, the unusual phenomenon is nonetheless ‘dramatic’ and ‘alarming.’”

Baker says, “Individual extreme weather phenomena are difficult to attribute directly to climate change. However, experts predict that such events will become more frequent and extreme in the future if current greenhouse gas emissions are not drastically reduced. ‘The warming of the Arctic and Antarctic is cause for concern, and the increase in extreme weather events — of which these are an example — is a cause for concern as well,’ Michael Mann, a climatologist at The Pennsylvania State University, told The Guardian. ‘The models have done a good job projecting the overall warming, but we’ve argued that extreme events are exceeding model projections. These events drive home the urgency of action.’”

The acceleration of climate change indeed increases the urgency of action required.  NBLC has taken two steps to help be part of the solution in addressing global warming.  We are pleased to announce that NBLC has joined Climate-Safe California, a unique and comprehensive campaign to remove more climate pollution from the atmosphere.  Led by The Climate Center, NBLC joins hundreds of businesses, elected officials, and nonprofits and more than 1,000 individuals in this campaign. Climate-Safe California offers climate solutions at the speed and scale that science demands. It’s a set of policies that would allow California to remove more climate pollution from the atmosphere than we emit by 2030 while creating thousands of jobs and building a more equitable clean energy economy. Working together, we will ensure California leads once again toward a climate-safe future for all.

We believe in thriving, healthy communities. We envision a future where everyone in California enjoys equal access to climate solutions, from clean air to renewable energy, healthy food, and more.

California has the tools and know-how to make this vision a reality — if our elected leaders act with the urgency the climate crisis demands. California must put policies in place by 2025 to accelerate equitable climate action.

Existing state policies call for achieving 80% below 1990 levels of GHGs by 2050 (Governor Schwarzenegger Executive Order S-3-05 2005) and maintaining net-negative emissions after achieving carbon neutrality by no later than 2045 (Governor Jerry Brown Executive Orders B-55-18 2018). The Climate-Safe California campaign calls for an executive order and/or legislation signed into law by no later than 2022 mandating that California accelerate these existing state policy timelines to 2030. Per the increasingly dire warnings of the world’s climate scientists and policy experts, 2050 and 2045 are simply too late. The time is now to put the policies in place that will secure a safe, vibrant future for all.

Link to graph

And here is a link to more information about this exciting campaign if you would like to join, too: https://theclimatecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Platform-Climate-Safe-CA-May-2021.pdf

NBLC also endorsed SB 833 (Dodd) – the Community Energy Resilience Act. Climate-fueled wildfires and heat waves are disrupting lives and businesses across California as the state struggles to keep the power on. The Community Energy Resilience Act (SB 833) — sponsored by The Climate Center and introduced by Senator Bill Dodd (D-Napa) — would create a new state program to assist communities in developing energy resilience plans based on clean energy instead of diesel back-up generators.

Recent power outages have cost California billions of dollars. Emissions from backup generators are polluting our air and fueling the climate crisis. Over the past three years, purchases of toxic diesel generators jumped by 34 percent in the Bay Area. In 2021 alone, similar purchases increased by 22 percent in the Los Angeles area. It’s time to prioritize clean energy, especially in lower-income and frontline communities, to keep the lights on without compromising on health and air quality.
The Community Energy Resilience Act enables local governments to collaborate with utilities in planning community-level energy infrastructure, such as solar panels and battery storage, so that communities decide what facilities stay powered during a crisis.

More than 1 million California homes and businesses already benefit from small-scale solar power, including 2,500 schools. These sites only need to add storage to enhance community resilience. The Community Energy Resilience Act also complements Governor Newsom’s Zero Emissions Vehicle Executive Order, which sets the course for California to end sales of internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035. With proper planning, an expansion of electric vehicles could enhance grid resilience with energy storage in car and truck batteries.

This bill has unanimously cleared the Senate Energy Committee. Now it goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee.  We look forward to seeing the Legislature pass it and the Governor sign it.

Portrait of Sonoma Reveals Inequities

The recently released Portrait of Sonoma has revealed where we need to do more work to have equity.  Writing in 2021 Portrait of Sonoma County: Well-being study finds new successes, ongoing challenges along race, ethnicity, gender and geographic lines (Link), Nashelly Chavez says, Since the 2014 Portrait of Sonoma County was released, local residents’ median earnings have increased by about $7,000 and life expectancy rose by 1.2 years to 82.2 years. The rate of Sonoma County adults who are at least 25 years old and who hold bachelor’s degrees also increased 6 percentage points to 37.8%, the new 44-page report finds.  But a breakdown of those well-being scores by race, ethnicity, gender and geography reveals disparities in several areas, the newest Portrait of Sonoma County shows.”

Chavez says, “Those issues are compounded, according to the report, by both long-standing and new challenges within the county, such as an affordable housing shortage, recurring wildfires and the COVID-19 pandemic. Those issues also disproportionately harm residents who are Black, Latino, or members of other racial minorities, inequities that are the result of local policies, the report adds.”

“The inequalities that exist today are not natural or inevitable, nor are they a product of chance; they are the result of policy decisions made by people in power,” the report states. “Different decisions, made through different, more inclusive decision-making processes, can lead to better, fairer outcomes.”

Pointing out the inequities, Chavez says, “While men and women in Sonoma County have similar well-being scores, despite women earning $11,500 less than men, metrics used to evaluate the health, wealth and education of local racial and ethnic groups vary, the portrait finds.

One of the most glaring changes is in the Black community.  Chavez says, “The most notable change is in Sonoma County’s Black community, whose Human Development Index (HDI) score dipped to 3.99 in 2021, down from 4.68 in 2014.This group has a life expectancy of 71 years, which is 10 years shorter than any other racial and ethnic group in the county, according to 2021’s findings. In the 2014 report, the life expectancy of Black residents in Sonoma County was 77.7 years.”

She adds, “among local adults 25 years or older who have a college degree, only 32.1% of Black community members have undergraduate degrees compared to the county average of 37.8%.

“Asian residents continued to have the highest HDI scores among the largest racial and ethnic groups locally, though their scores dropped from 7.10 to 6.86, the latest report finds. The well-being of white and Latino residents, overall, has improved slightly since the 2014 report. The data from the 2021 Portrait of Sonoma County noted, however, that Latino residents still have significantly lower educational attainment rates. More than a third of all Latino adults age 25 or older are without a high school diploma,” says Chavez.

Another key finding in the report is “While 52% of all renters in Sonoma County use 30% or more of their income to pay rent, that average is higher in some minority communities — 59% of Latino renters and 68% of Black renters use 30% or more of their income to pay for housing.”

To begin to address the inequities revealed in the report, the Board of Supervisors will consider how to invest roughly $35 million in federal COVID-19 relief funds allocated for community investments later this year.