In NPR’s 2020 Census Could Lead To Worst Undercount Of Black, Latinx People In 30 Years, by Hansi Lo Wang, June 4, 2019, (Link), features a new report by the Urban Institute that found that “challenges threatening the upcoming 2020 census could put more than 4 million people at risk of being undercounted in next year’s national head count. Based on the institute’s analysis, the 2020 census could lead to the worst undercount of black and Latino and Latina people in the U.S. since 1990.”
“Miscounts of this magnitude will have real consequences for the next decade, including how we fund programs for children and invest in our infrastructure,” says Diana Elliott, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute who co-wrote the report released Tuesday.
Nationally, black residents could be undercounted by as much as 1.7 million people (3.68%); 2.2 million Latinos (3.57%); and 1.3 million children (6.3%).
“All of these projections are based upon what the Urban Institute considers a “high-risk” scenario. Still, John Thompson, a former Census Bureau director who reviewed the report, says that these estimates “may be a little bit on the conservative side. It could be as bad as 1990. It could be worse.”
“Census Bureau researchers have warned that including the citizenship question would very likely scare households with noncitizens into not responding to the census. In a separate study, the bureau concluded the question was a “major barrier” to full participation in the head count, especially at a time of increased immigration enforcement and rising anti-immigrant rhetoric around the U.S.”
“The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June on whether the Trump administration can include the citizenship question. Newly disclosed documents belonging to a major GOP redistricting strategist involved in the administration’s push for the question are complicating the legal battle.
Regardless of how the court rules, the Urban Institute researchers say all of the public attention on the question has created a chilling effect on census participation among Latinx and immigrant groups — a factor they included in their projections for a “high-risk” scenario.”
“The report also points out new ways of conducting the U.S. census that have not been thoroughly tested and could pose another risk to the count’s accuracy. These methods include allowing all households to complete an online form and expanding the use of existing government records to help complete questionnaires for households that don’t respond themselves. Uncertainty in funding in recent years has led the Census Bureau to cancel field tests for the 2020 census, including test runs designed for rural and Spanish-speaking areas.”
“Not only are these new additions insufficiently tested in a decennial census environment,” write the report’s authors, “but the best evidence suggests they will disproportionately improve the count of those who are already easiest to count, leaving the hard-to-count population a lingering challenge.”
“At the state level, these trends mean that states with more historically undercounted groups — including people of color and renters — are more likely to have inaccurate population counts in 2020. While California, Texas and Nevada face high undercount risks, states with older populations that are more likely to be white and owning homes — including Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and West Virginia – have the greatest potential for being overcounted, according to the institute’s analysis. In the 2010 census, for example, white homeowners were overcounted because some with multiple homes were counted incorrectly at multiple addresses.”
“Whether it’s an overcount or undercount, the concern is that political representation and federal funding will not be fairly shared after the 2020 census. The new population numbers will determine how many congressional seats and Electoral College votes each state gets, as well as guide the distribution of around $880 billion a year in federal tax dollars for schools, roads and other public services.”
“Despite their report’s dire warning about potential undercounts, the Urban Institute’s researchers emphasize there is still an opportunity to overcome these challenges by driving up public interest and participation in next year’s count.”
California is expected to face many of the challenges outlined in the report. The Public Policy Institute of California (Link) says, “An undercount could affect California’s political representation in Congress: The decennial census is the sole basis for reallocating the 435 seats in the US House of Representatives. Given recent population trends, California is likely to maintain its 53 seats. But if the census does a poor job of reaching hard-to-count populations and immigrant communities, it could miss more than 1.6 million residents—and the state could easily lose a seat. The census will also be used to redraw district lines; its accuracy is essential to correctly representing local communities.”
The 2020 Census will realign political representation based on areas of population growth.
“The US government uses the census count to distribute billions of dollars every year: The census count lays the foundation for many federal programs to deliver resources on a per capita basis or to specific populations, such as young children in poverty. In fiscal year 2016, California received an estimated $115 billion in federal funding tied to the state’s population count. For some programs, such as Medi-Cal (the state’s Medicaid program), California’s base federal funding allocation is subject to a strict minimum level. But for others, like the Children’s Health Insurance Program, an undercount could put funding at risk.”
“Large segments of California’s population are historically hard to count: In 2017, about 72% of all Californians (29 million) belonged to one or more groups that the census has historically undercounted, including renters, young men, children, African Americans, and Latinos. Those living in nonstandard housing—conditions exacerbated by the state’s housing crisis—may also be hard to reach. Meanwhile, adding a question about citizenship status may make immigrants and others more reluctant to share information with the government. A number of states, including California, have taken legal action to prevent the addition of this question, with arguments now headed to the Supreme Court.”
“State and local partners are essential in ensuring an accurate count: To prepare for the census, state and local governments help verify the Census Bureau’s address lists, an effort that will conclude by summer 2019. These agencies also play a critical role in encouraging participation. California’s budget for census outreach—$100 million in 2018–19, with another $54 million proposed for 2019–20—exceeds that of any other state. These funds are allocated according to the location of hard-to-count communities, with options for local governments, community-based organizations, media, and schools to receive funding. Community and philanthropic organizations are also contributing to outreach efforts.”
Getting an accurate count in California is critically important for our future. NBLC appreciates the Governor and State Legislature’s commitment to funding the Census and has high hopes that Attorney General Becerra’s court challenge of the addition of the citizenship question prevails in the Supreme Court.
Change the Zoning, Change the Housing Crisis
in UncategorizedAs the housing crisis continues, with no end in sight, it is time to look at why it is so difficult to build new housing and what can be done to change that situation. There are many reasons proffered on why new housing is being built in the North Bay (and much of California) such as the abuse of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); lack of construction workers; increase in building materials; neighborhood opposition — the list goes on. But one thing that has been getting more attention is the fact that current zoning makes building the housing we need illegal.
Let’s look at the arguments that if you change the zoning to allow for higher densities, taller buildings and reduced parking, you will be on the right path to build the much needed housing needed to end this crisis.
Some housing advocates are calling for an end to single-family zoning, meaning allowing only apartments and townhouses to be built, and no detached, single-family houses. This push to “upzone” is a response to years of communities “downzoning” the land in their jurisdiction, reducing the development potential and “converting land that allowed courtyard apartments to just fourplexes, fourplexes to duplexes, large-lot single-family homes to even larger-lot single family homes,” said Emily Badger (The Upshot) Link.
“It was death by a thousand cuts,” said Greg Morrow, executive director of the Real Estate Development and Design program at Berkeley. “You’re just taking a little bit out each time. If you look back at early attempts to downzone, they really were almost driven by this naïve belief that if you just downzoned, you could stop population growth.”
But downzoning didn’t stop population growth. The population kept growing while new housing did not keep up with that increase. At the same time, the cost of housing, due to the scarcity, also skyrocketed. Rents increased forcing many renters to pay well beyond the one third of their income for their monthly rent. The UCLA – Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies (Link) found that zoning restrictions triggered these increases. The Lewis Center also found that conversely low-density zoning “excludes multi-family housing with due to higher rents so low and middle-income families are not able to live in neighborhoods with quality public services, particularly high-performing schools, as well as amenities such as parks. Barring families from high-opportunity neighborhoods entrenches inequality and reduces social mobility in the long run.”
The Center’s research showed that “low density zoning also hurts the regional economy. Less housing makes it harder for workers to find a place to live. The city, unable to house workers, becomes less appealing to firms that rely on a local labor pool. Pushing people elsewhere incentivizes firms to locate elsewhere. A city that can’t house workers stunts its own potential for economic growth and dynamism.”
So who benefits from keeping the zoning low-density? Existing property owners, who are able to reap the returns on their properties’ increasing value. Another researcher, urban economist William Fischel (Link) has studied the homeowner voter or home voters and developed the home-voter hypothesis.
Fischel predicted that California homeowners’ opposition to new housing is consistent with their desire to “prevent any development that might devalue their homes, which are usually a household’s primary source of wealth. For example, if a multifamily building is proposed in a municipality otherwise characterized by single-family housing, we may expect a homeowner to resist the development on the premise that an influx of new families could overburden public schools or worsen traffic congestion, or express fears that the new rental housing might threaten “community character” – thereby lowering home values.
Which brings us to the reaction to upzoning. Sen. Scott Weiner’s SB 50– Homes for All bill – was killed in committee by suburban homeowners pressuring their representatives to not not allow change to their neighborhoods that they feared would threaten their property values. Local governments also opposed the bill fearing that it would diminish their “local control.” Weiner’s bill would have upzoned land near public transit and in job-rich areas to allow high density, taller buildings with less parking. Polling indicated that the public supported key provisions of the bill.
In looking to gain support for upzoning, there is recognition that there is a lack of political will at the local level to take on these development fights. Some people like Christopher Elmendorf (Link) have proposed a “compact between state and local governments in which the state would set quotas for housing growth, but the municipalities would choose their own zoning reforms to meet them. Once a municipal plan gets certified by the state, it would supersede the adoption or enforcement of any contrary zoning provisions. Any municipality that fails to comply with its own plan would face financial penalties.
Other proposals also look at shifting land use decisions away from the local agencies to the regional or state governments. The Lewis Center found that decisions made at the regional or state level were “less exclusionary and reduce socioeconomic segregation. Housing markets, like labor markets, operate at the regional level, yet land use decisions are made at the city level. As a result, each municipality is incentivized to limit its housing supply to exclude new residents of the region even as that municipality reaps the collective benefits created by the region’s dynamism. “
The proposed Housing Alliance of the Bay Area that would be formed if AB 1487 (Chiu) is passed, is an example of housing advocates trying to jumpstart that process in the Bay Area. This new housing authority would be authorized to raise money to build new housing, provide rental subsidies and finance planning by local jurisdictions for new housing development
Fuller and Gray say, “in the end, SB 50 is no more dead than its predecessor bill, SB 827, which similarly sought to permit multifamily housing near transit lines. Neither the coalition built by Senator Weiner, nor the crisis that it aims to address are going away. But if housing reformers are serious about addressing the root causes of the home-voter impulse, they’ll need to plan for contingencies. SB 50’s foes are already rallying to introduce a ballot initiative aimed at entrenching local control of land use in the state constitution – an amendment that would all-but ensure that California’s housing crisis becomes permanent.” After decades of failing to build housing to keep up with the growing jobs and population in California, one wonders if the crisis isn’t already permanent.
Census 2020 – Undercount Could Be Worst in 30 Years
in UncategorizedIn NPR’s 2020 Census Could Lead To Worst Undercount Of Black, Latinx People In 30 Years, by Hansi Lo Wang, June 4, 2019, (Link), features a new report by the Urban Institute that found that “challenges threatening the upcoming 2020 census could put more than 4 million people at risk of being undercounted in next year’s national head count. Based on the institute’s analysis, the 2020 census could lead to the worst undercount of black and Latino and Latina people in the U.S. since 1990.”
“Miscounts of this magnitude will have real consequences for the next decade, including how we fund programs for children and invest in our infrastructure,” says Diana Elliott, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute who co-wrote the report released Tuesday.
Nationally, black residents could be undercounted by as much as 1.7 million people (3.68%); 2.2 million Latinos (3.57%); and 1.3 million children (6.3%).
“All of these projections are based upon what the Urban Institute considers a “high-risk” scenario. Still, John Thompson, a former Census Bureau director who reviewed the report, says that these estimates “may be a little bit on the conservative side. It could be as bad as 1990. It could be worse.”
“Census Bureau researchers have warned that including the citizenship question would very likely scare households with noncitizens into not responding to the census. In a separate study, the bureau concluded the question was a “major barrier” to full participation in the head count, especially at a time of increased immigration enforcement and rising anti-immigrant rhetoric around the U.S.”
“The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June on whether the Trump administration can include the citizenship question. Newly disclosed documents belonging to a major GOP redistricting strategist involved in the administration’s push for the question are complicating the legal battle.
Regardless of how the court rules, the Urban Institute researchers say all of the public attention on the question has created a chilling effect on census participation among Latinx and immigrant groups — a factor they included in their projections for a “high-risk” scenario.”
“The report also points out new ways of conducting the U.S. census that have not been thoroughly tested and could pose another risk to the count’s accuracy. These methods include allowing all households to complete an online form and expanding the use of existing government records to help complete questionnaires for households that don’t respond themselves. Uncertainty in funding in recent years has led the Census Bureau to cancel field tests for the 2020 census, including test runs designed for rural and Spanish-speaking areas.”
“Not only are these new additions insufficiently tested in a decennial census environment,” write the report’s authors, “but the best evidence suggests they will disproportionately improve the count of those who are already easiest to count, leaving the hard-to-count population a lingering challenge.”
“At the state level, these trends mean that states with more historically undercounted groups — including people of color and renters — are more likely to have inaccurate population counts in 2020. While California, Texas and Nevada face high undercount risks, states with older populations that are more likely to be white and owning homes — including Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and West Virginia – have the greatest potential for being overcounted, according to the institute’s analysis. In the 2010 census, for example, white homeowners were overcounted because some with multiple homes were counted incorrectly at multiple addresses.”
“Whether it’s an overcount or undercount, the concern is that political representation and federal funding will not be fairly shared after the 2020 census. The new population numbers will determine how many congressional seats and Electoral College votes each state gets, as well as guide the distribution of around $880 billion a year in federal tax dollars for schools, roads and other public services.”
“Despite their report’s dire warning about potential undercounts, the Urban Institute’s researchers emphasize there is still an opportunity to overcome these challenges by driving up public interest and participation in next year’s count.”
California is expected to face many of the challenges outlined in the report. The Public Policy Institute of California (Link) says, “An undercount could affect California’s political representation in Congress: The decennial census is the sole basis for reallocating the 435 seats in the US House of Representatives. Given recent population trends, California is likely to maintain its 53 seats. But if the census does a poor job of reaching hard-to-count populations and immigrant communities, it could miss more than 1.6 million residents—and the state could easily lose a seat. The census will also be used to redraw district lines; its accuracy is essential to correctly representing local communities.”
The 2020 Census will realign political representation based on areas of population growth.
“The US government uses the census count to distribute billions of dollars every year: The census count lays the foundation for many federal programs to deliver resources on a per capita basis or to specific populations, such as young children in poverty. In fiscal year 2016, California received an estimated $115 billion in federal funding tied to the state’s population count. For some programs, such as Medi-Cal (the state’s Medicaid program), California’s base federal funding allocation is subject to a strict minimum level. But for others, like the Children’s Health Insurance Program, an undercount could put funding at risk.”
“Large segments of California’s population are historically hard to count: In 2017, about 72% of all Californians (29 million) belonged to one or more groups that the census has historically undercounted, including renters, young men, children, African Americans, and Latinos. Those living in nonstandard housing—conditions exacerbated by the state’s housing crisis—may also be hard to reach. Meanwhile, adding a question about citizenship status may make immigrants and others more reluctant to share information with the government. A number of states, including California, have taken legal action to prevent the addition of this question, with arguments now headed to the Supreme Court.”
“State and local partners are essential in ensuring an accurate count: To prepare for the census, state and local governments help verify the Census Bureau’s address lists, an effort that will conclude by summer 2019. These agencies also play a critical role in encouraging participation. California’s budget for census outreach—$100 million in 2018–19, with another $54 million proposed for 2019–20—exceeds that of any other state. These funds are allocated according to the location of hard-to-count communities, with options for local governments, community-based organizations, media, and schools to receive funding. Community and philanthropic organizations are also contributing to outreach efforts.”
Getting an accurate count in California is critically important for our future. NBLC appreciates the Governor and State Legislature’s commitment to funding the Census and has high hopes that Attorney General Becerra’s court challenge of the addition of the citizenship question prevails in the Supreme Court.
Housing Crisis Must Mean Something Different in Sacramento
in UncategorizedNorth Bay Leadership Council sent a delegation to our State Capitol on May 22nd to advocate for more housing and the bills that would enable us to achieve that goal. It was very dismaying to see that our urgency about building new homes was not apparent in the Legislature. The Senate Appropriations chair killed the most important housing bill of the year, SB 50 (Wiener) More Homes for All, without even giving it a vote in the committee. Without even a vote in the committee, made up of senators who would have passed the bill out of that committee and moved it forward.
The response in the Capitol gives you a sense that the legislators don’t feel there is a housing crisis. They say, “Let’s just make SB 50 a two year bill and look at again in 2020.” How could this be an acceptable response when our state is underhoused for decades, when we are generating lots of jobs without adding new housing, and when we are experiencing housing losses from fires? How could the Senators not do their part to enable more housing to be built THIS YEAR? Do they not care about the increase in greenhouse gases from more commuters having to commute greater distances to work? Or homelessness is growing throughout the state? Or companies are leaving because they can’t hire workers who can afford to live here? Or the increase in poverty due to the high cost of living caused mostly by the high cost of housing?
NBLC members left Sacramento shaking our heads, but with renewed fervor to keep pushing our housing agenda. We are part of a large coalition pressing Senate Pro Tem Atkins to move some kind of major housing bill this year. We told the Governor’s staff that we want him to push harder for action this year. All the elected officials and their staffs were given an earful about our housing concerns and urged to treat this housing crisis as the crisis it is.
NBLC will keep working with other housing advocates to keep the support we need at the state, regional and local levels so that new housing of all types is built at the earliest possible opportunity. SB 50, or a bill akin to it, needs to pass. The future of the North Bay depends on it.
Leaders of the North Bay Awards Luncheon Call for Nomination
in UncategorizedDo you know an outstanding leader in our community? Please nominate them today!
Nomination form link Link
Millennials, Gen Z and the Coming “Youth Boom” Economy
in UncategorizedWhile there has been a decline in women in the workforce, Morgan Stanley predicts that will soon change. Morgan Stanley reports in Millennials, Gen Z and the Coming “Youth Boom” Economy (Link), that “as Gen Z joins Gen Y in the workforce, the two cohorts could deliver a sizable jolt to U.S. GDP, consumption, wages, and housing—and put the U.S. well ahead of its G10 peers.”
It’s well-known that Generation Y, often called the Millennials, will overtake Baby Boomers as the largest cohort in the U.S. this year. Less discussed, but arguably more important: Gen Z, born between 1997 and 2012, will overtake Gen Y as the country’s largest cohort by 2034, ultimately peaking at 78 million. As Gens Y and Z combine in the workforce, these two outsized generations could power higher consumption, wages and housing demand, all pillars of GDP growth.
For the U.S. economy, the demographic tailwinds created by these high-population cohorts could be significant, delivering the kind of “youth jolt” that the Baby Boomers were famous for. However, according to a recent report from Morgan Stanley Research, the implications of these demographic shifts aren’t baked into current Congressional Budget Office forecasts, in particular, the projections for labor-force growth.
Work by the firm’s economic team, along with an in-depth survey of Generation Y and Z consumers, uncovered a significantly brighter outlook for the U.S. in the coming decades than previously thought. As Gens Y and Z combine in the workforce, these two outsized generations could power higher consumption, wages and housing demand, all pillars of GDP growth.
In addition, these new projections on labor-force growth could also mean a rosier outlook for Social Security and Medicare solvency, offering investors an overall bullish view for the U.S. between the 2020s and 2040s—and policymakers a different perspective on the road ahead.
Working to Bring More Housing to Sonoma County
in UncategorizedAs the North Bay continues to rebuild following the devastating 2017 fires, the Bay Area Council recently led a group of real estate developers and investors on a tour of potential development sites in the Santa Rosa area. The Council partnered with Bay Area Housing Advocacy Coalition on the tour, which attracted almost 60 developers and investors. Cynthia Murray, CEO, North Bay Leadership Council, provided an economic snapshot of Sonoma County and Santa Rosa, in particular, to the attendees and participated in the tour.
The tour included meetings with Santa Rosa Mayor Tom Schwedhelm, Council member Chris Rogers, Supervisor David Rabbitt, Director of Planning and Economic Development David Guhin and other city planning and economic development officials. The group visited sites that would be eligible for various incentives as part of Santa Rosa’s strategy to promote more fire resilient patterns of growth by encouraging development of prime sites in transit-served urban centers in the downtown Opportunity Zone. The Council led a similar tour in Oakland several years ago that helped spark a wave of new investment and building that has continued to expand.
The North Bay tour also comes as the Bay Area Council Economic Institute works with leaders to provide policy analysis and recommendations to help guide rebuilding efforts. A key part of the work is ensuring that these counties maintain a vibrant economic environment, especially for small locally-owned businesses. A Profile of Sonoma County: Building a Resilient and Inclusive Economy will be released in October on the second anniversary of the fires. The report will highlight various policy goals and indicators for tracking progress on fire safety, emergency response, housing affordability, economic and ethnic inclusion, and public health.
North Bay Leadership Council Focuses on Climate Change
in UncategorizedAs we end February, current events make it evident that the year ahead will be filled with turbulence, change and challenge. In this issue, we tackle one of the most compelling challenges, not just of 2019, but of this century: climate change and how we prepare and adapt for all that it promises to impact in our lives, economy and environment. We are getting more data from scientists that action needs to be taken now as the accelerated timeline requires our urgent attention. Please read this issue for a deep dive into what we know, what we can do now and going forward, and the need to build strong coalitions to make change happen to minimize the damage of inaction.
Climate change adaption can be a unifying force to bring all the factors that matter into a collective response. We need to look with a new lens that provides a cohesive, integrated approach to ensure that what matters lasts and thrives. New construction, infrastructure improvements, the future of work, healthcare, equity, energy and emergency preparedness all must be guided by the imperative of addressing climate change.
NBLC looks forward to being a part of that coalition and working together to ensure the future prosperity and resiliency of the North Bay!
To read our most recent newsletter on climate change go here: Link
California Economy In For Bumpy Ride in 2019, But North Bay Likely to Fare Better
in UncategorizedIt will be the best of times; it will be the worst of times (apologies to Charles Dickens).
In 2019, we can expect a worsening housing crisis as construction fails to keep up with demand, shrinking labor pool, lengthening commutes, economic slowdown and accelerating climate change. But we can also expect our new governor and state legislature to make progress on providing more children with preschool, enacting new laws that make building housing less onerous bringing back some form of redevelopment, and doing more to fight climate change and disaster preparedness.
Also on the plus side, the baby boomers are finally moving out of the way of the millennials’ taking over the leadership roles, and Gen Z is rising, which should lead to more diversity in the workforce, an increase in working remotely and greater practice of corporate social responsibility.
Changes in permitting at the city of Santa Rosa and county of Sonoma will also help keep the builders moving forward with new construction as the improvements in timing and costs become more manageable. While interest-rate increases are expected to occur, the pent-up demand for homes should still have a significant number of buyers who qualify to purchase, especially if wages increase due to the tight labor market.
Employers are also stepping up to provide more housing benefits to their employees. The purchase of a new apartment building by Sonoma State University bodes well for modelling what other employers need to do: invest in housing for their employees. With top talent in short supply, the best way to attract and retain the workforce is to remove the high cost of housing from being a barrier to employment.
Many other major employers are looking at building or purchasing housing for their employees which could be a very positive trend for 2019.
In the North Bay, the growing problem with attracting and retaining workers in several industries, is exacerbated by the lack of affordable housing for lower wage employees. Hard hit is the hospitality industry, with restaurants like the Shed in Healdsburg closing and others on the bubble in 2019.
We also haven’t solved the need for more skilled workers in advanced manufacturing, but efforts are being made to boost interest in the field. An example is MFG Day for high school students who tour advanced manufacturing companies and hear from people who are employed by these companies. This is a collaboration of the Sonoma County Economic Development Board, CTE Foundation, Sonoma County Office of Education, Santa Rosa Junior College, North Bay Leadership Council and the manufacturers.
Employers will look for other ways to keep their employees happy as they try to retain top talent and attract new skilled workers. We can expect salary increases in competitive positions, a faster hiring process, and more programs to make the younger, diverse employees feel appreciated and part of the community.
And research from Indeed shows that the skills mismatch between job opportunities and job seekers has stayed level since 2017, perhaps helped by a rapidly changing mix of jobs.
Companies should be looking at paying down debt, incorporating more technology to reduce costs and focusing resources on core competencies and core customers. Hiring more contract workers is also one of the lessons learned from the last recession.
There is also the likelihood that the new federal tax laws that penalize Californians by capping their deductions for state and local taxes at $10,000 will trigger more company relocations out of state.
The days are past when companies are the magnet for talent. In this tight labor market, the talent is the magnet for the companies. Companies are following the talent out of California to states that have lower taxes and a quality of life some people no longer find available in the Golden State. This exodus could really grow if the state legislature decides to make changes to Proposition 13 on how commercial property is treated, split roll, ahead of the ballot measure to do that slated for the 2020 election. We will need to step up working with our local businesses to keep them here.
And 2019 promises to continue the roller coaster ride of the Trump administration. The chaos will play havoc with the economy, given there could be possible trade wars and other shocks to economic growth.
So fasten your seat belts; we are in for a bumpy ride in 2019. But with great hope that some of the rough patches will be eased in the North Bay as we work together to minimize the negative impacts and resolve to make the North Bay more resilient and economically competitive.
Link to Article: https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/opinion/9084405-181/california-north-coast-economy-2019
Housing Crisis – Taking a Regional Approach May Be the Solution
in UncategorizedIn Drafting a blueprint for a better Bay Area, San Francisco Business Times (Link), the authors call for a Grand Bargain on housing in the Bay Area. The authors are Fred Blackwell, CEO, San Francisco Foundation; Leslye Corsiglia, Executive Director, SV@Home, an affordable housing advocacy group in Silicon Valley; and Michael Covarrubias, Chairman and CEO, TMG Partners, a development firm focused on urban infill projects in the Bay Area. Together, they “are co-chairing a new initiative called CASA — The Committee to House the Bay Area. With support from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the nine-county Bay Area’s transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency, CASA is bringing together nearly 50 leaders from across the region to, in plain terms, figure this thing out.”
What is this “thing?” It is “getting the Bay Area on the right track out of this housing crisis. This is because the Bay Area has not one but many crises – not nearly enough housing production, a ‘missing middle’ of market-rate affordability, gentrification and displacement disproportionately affecting low-income residents and communities of color and not enough affordable housing for our most vulnerable neighbors, among others. Rather than minor policy changes, or limited funding infusions, they are asking our CASA partners to propose bold, groundbreaking actions that will move the needle on these difficult, seemingly intractable problems.”
The Compact addresses the three primary concerns of CASA, known as the “3 Ps,” for how to increase the production of housing, particularly affordable housing, how to ensure the preservation of the existing affordable housing stock and how to ensure the protection of current residents against displacement pressures that arise from new construction.
The Compact has recommendations for increasing new construction and protecting existing housing stock, especially for renters.
The Compact calls for the establishment of a regional leadership entity, Regional Housing Enterprise, to implement the CASA Compact, track and report progress, and provide incentives and technical assistance. The entity must be governed by an independent board with representation for key stakeholder groups that helped develop the Compact. The housing entity would not play a regulatory/enforcement role.
The CASA Compact will set a bold region-wide agenda for addressing protection of existing tenants, preservation of existing affordable units and production of both market-rate and subsidized units. To implement this agenda, a broad coalition of stakeholders, who have helped shape the CASA Compact, must stay engaged with state legislative advocacy, building support for raising new revenue and financing programs, tracking and monitoring progress, keeping the public engaged, and taking a regional approach to challenges such as homelessness. A regional approach can balance inequities and imbalances across multiple jurisdiction that have to contend with varying market strengths, fiscal challenges and staff expertise.
The Regional Housing Enterprise would have the authority to gather and disperse $1.5 billion per year, primarily for production. It is proposed that 60% goes to housing production (new housing), 20% to acquire and preserve housing, 10% for tenant protection services, and 10% to local jurisdictions for lost revenue due to caps on impact fees. Of the money collected through a new proposed regional tax measure, 75% will be spent in the county of origin and 25% will go to regional revenue sharing.
This regional approach is good news for the North Bay which needs a regional strategic housing plan. The workforce for the North Bay is shared by the three counties and the need for housing that workforce will best be met by addressing the housing needs regionally, rather than by any one city or county. Let’s hope this new approach gains traction and helps ease the shortage of supply here in the near future.
How to Help Victims of the Camp Fire and Woolsey Fire
in UncategorizedThe horrible Butte Fire is a now the worst fire in California history. I am sure I am not alone in feeling despair that more communities are suffering from devastating fires. One thing we know from experience is that the victims need support and to know that someone cares. Organizations including the American Red Cross and the Humane Society say victims need cash more than anything else. If you would like to donate to them, you can do so as follows:
Camp Fire:
North Valley Community Foundation’s Fire Relief Fund: https://www.nvcf.org/
United Way of Northern California: Text BUTTEFIRE to 91999 to contribute
Red Cross: Text CAWILDFIRES at 90999 to make an automatic contribution of $10
Sacramento-based nonprofit RedRover has a list of resources for helping animals affected by the California wildfires here.
Cotra Costa-Solano Food Bank: https://www.foodbankccs.org/
California Community Foundation – Wildfire Relief Fund
North Valley Community Foundation – Camp Fire Evacuation Relief Fund
Ventura Community Foundation – Fire Relief Funds
https://www.worldcentralkitchen.org/
Baby2Baby is working to get high-need items to children affected by the ongoing Camp, Hill, and Woolsey fires in California. Help them supply diapers, wipes, blankets, and other basic baby essentials to families in need by purchasing from their registry.
California Volunteers, a state office that manages volunteer programs in California, has created a list of services and donation options to help victims affected by the Camp, Woolsey, and Hill fires. Use this list to find information about making donations and volunteering.
For the Woolsey Fire (Southern California):
United Way of Greater Los Angeles is partnering with United Way of Ventura County to collect donations for its its Disaster Relief Fund.: https://www.unitedwayla.org/en/give/disaster-relief-fund/
As we go into the holidays, please keep those who have lost everything in mind. And remember how much it meant to have the support of the world in our recovery.