Travis AFB: Hypocrisy meter hits 100

My hypocrisy meter pegged at 100 yesterday reading the SF Comicle article about possibly using Travis AFB near Sacramento as an ICE detention center.  Forget about the proposed use, who proposed it or where it is and all the other stuff that people will endlessly disagree about in the political realm without changing anyone's mind.  My H-meter spiked because of this:

Federal officials have been looking for months for detention facilities in Northern California and other Western states that could have 850 to 950 detention beds.  Reps. John Garamendi, D-Fairfield, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Mike Thompson, D-Napa, told Hegseth in a May 5 letter that they were “deeply frustrated” and “gravely concerned” about using Travis as a migrant detention center.

Why might you ask?

They want the Pentagon to explain how building a detention center would affect Travis’ water and energy infrastructure.

Sure, filling 950 beds in an established major facility that has housed people since 1942 kicks off concerns about water and electricity.  But building thousands of units that have 2-4 beds in every city and town up and down the state?  Don't worry, there will be plenty of water, sewer capacity, electricity, parking, school capacity, police and fire--fergettaboutit.  Just don't use natural gas.  If you are a big-time Federal politician, you can just throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks.  Try that as a regular resident and you are a NIMBY using zoning codes and CEQA as a weapon.  Want to avoid big residential construction on the B'game Bayfront because it lacks said infrastructure?  Too bad.  From the DJ:

New and proposed state housing laws could mean housing on the Bayfront without specific city standards, despite the city’s intent to limit such development there in its general plan.  New housing was zoned for the north end of Burlingame, near Bay Area Rapid Transit, not on the Bayfront — though proposals for changing zoning there have been floated several times over the years.  The Burlingame City Council and Planning Commission, meeting April 29, in a joint session expressed that the laws will severely undermine the city’s ability to effectively plan its own new housing and undercut its environmental and safety goals.

Councilmembers expressed frustration that the state was continuing to remove local control from the city’s development process, citing its recent endeavors to meet its state-mandated housing requirements by building out housing in the North Rollins Road area.

The hypocrisy needle is pinned to the top of the meter.

Comments

[George Washington]

My troops at Valley Forge would have savored bedding down anywhere half as nice as this post.

[Fugit All]

Joe, did you considered that Garamendi and Thompson chose a method to slow roll the building of a "detention center" and used an argument most likely to be effective with this regime and least likely to engender the wrath of the Whiskeyleaker and his feckless, cruel, addled boss?

I'm not surprised you'd want to strip the subject of its political meaning and just use it as an example to rail about your local grievances. It will be harder to do that if internment camps return to California; I hope the Congressman use whatever tactics they have available to shut the project down.

[Joe]

Sorry Fugit All, I'm not taking the political troll bait. I am glad you are "not surprised" that this tiger seldom changes his stripes.

Are you in favor of 500 or 800 new residential units on the Bayfront? Do think Sacramento ought to be able to dictate that to us?

[Man Up Burlingame]

When are we going to Man Up Burlingame?

[resident]

hollyroller did you change your screen name?

[Peter Garrison]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/05/21/economy-tech-san-jose-oakland-bay-area-office-property-jobs-develop/

25% of office space in San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco empty.