The Burlingame Voice

Office Growth Drives Housing Demand, Duh.

It's generally fun to poke fun at EssEff politics, but this Election Day brought a rare instance of sanity out of EssEff voters.  As the Chronicle reported

Also winning was Proposition E, which will limit the amount of office space San Francisco can allow each year if the city fails to build enough affordable housing, based on targets set by the state.  The measure, which needed a simple majority to pass, was leading 54.54% to 45.46% — 130,736 to 108,983.

Prop. E was sponsored chiefly by Todco, an organization that operates and advocates for affordable housing in San Francisco, and its executive director, John Elberling.  Jon Jacobo, Todco’s policy director, said in a statement that voters “have shifted the paradigm of San Francisco. They have declared that we prioritize affordable housing before office development, and that is now the new norm in San Francisco.”

This move won't be a panacea nor will its impact be felt immediately.  In fact, a number of other crosswinds like the macro-economy, availability of leading edge skills, and the perception of quality of life in the Bay Area will all drive the influx or exodus of people.  Over the course of the last 20 years of my professional career I hired, or attempted to hire, dozens of professionals and admin staff into the Bay Area.  It's always been expensive and attractive, but re-balancing the availability of commercial space with residential space should help just a bit with the cost.  One wonders why it took a Proposition to do this in SF and why it isn't happening in other hotbeds like Mountain View or RWC instead of the futile rent control measures?

"Nimby's" Win One

I am enjoying the gnashing of teeth I hear from the SF Comicle and various other development addicts and so-called affordable housing advocates over the recent court ruling in favor of the city of San Mateo and its well-established building code.  Judge George Miram is leading the race for Person of the Year as the Daily Journal reported

An effort to take legal action against San Mateo for the City Council’s decision to reject a proposal to build a 10-unit condominium building off El Camino Real in 2018 hit a stumbling block earlier this month when a judge ruled the city did not violate the Housing Accountability Act when the council denied the project’s approval based on height differences between properties.

City Attorney Shawn Mason has alleged the city’s decision regarding the project near El Camino Real and West Santa Inez Avenue is defensible because the proposed development objectively violated the city’s multi-family design guidelines aimed at smoothing height differences between properties with transitional features, such as setbacks.

“This court finds that the city of San Mateo is a charter city whose charter fully incorporates the home rule doctrine and that the approval of the instant residential housing project is an appropriate exercise of municipal affairs,” wrote Miram in the denial. “Furthermore, this court finds that to the HAA is unenforceable to the extent the HAA conflicts with or purports to disregard otherwise enforceable portions of the city’s Municipal Code regarding review of housing development projects.”

That ruling has set off a firestorm of criticism from the housing fascists who want the biggest, cheapest, densest buildings built the fasted wherever some developer can acquire a lot.  The Gavinor is apparently one of them now along with all of the usual suspects.  The SF Comicle followed up its "news" piece titled "Ruling may undercut law on housing: Judge says San Mateo can ignore California statute" with an editorial today that starts and ends with some gibberish about "objective standards" that show a crisis--one that they help manufacture with a steady stream of name-calling, narrowly-edited statistics and a refusal to admit the basic economics of bad policies like rent control.  And yes, I do realize I am fighting fire with fire on the name-calling.  Bottom Line:  We should be thankful there is at least one judge willing to reinforce the obvious and stand up for local control.

P.S. If Laura's comment on the Lyon Hoag Emergency post is accurate (I have no reason to doubt her) and the developer has scratched that approved project at Bayswater and Myrtle  perhaps the development addicts will realize over-in-filling the Peninsula is even more complicated than they think.  Anyone care to speculate on whether the latest rent control statewide law or the return of even more stringent ones next election may have played into the decision?  Here's the now empty Hower Auto lot.

Renters Are Screwed

There have been a number of crazy rent control proposals floating around California and now five of them have actually been passed into law.  Rather than me describe the Unintended Consequences, let's let a Berkeley professor (in the actual subject matter being discussed) lay it out.  The Comicle buried the lead at the bitter end of today's article

Kenneth Rosen, chair of the Fisher Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business and a real estate consultant, said California was making a mistake by adopting a cap on rent increases.

Research on local rent-control ordinances has found they reduce the supply of rental housing, Rosen said, by encouraging landlords to convert apartment units to condominiums or other uses and diminishing the incentive for developers to build new housing.  The rent cap will become a floor for many landlords, he added, who will raise prices by the maximum amount allowed each year — which is far higher than annual rent increases recently.

“From a housing policy point of view, nothing could be worse,” Rosen said. “It’s going to make housing less affordable.”

There you have it.  I'm guessing empty units are being pulled off the market as we speak in buildings more than 15 years old.  Next up?  A ballot measure to break down Prop 13 by going to "split rolls" separating commerical property from residential treatment and raising rates.  If this passes you can plan on much more pain for brick and mortar retailers and restaurants on B'way and the Avenue as the rents jump.

Scott Weiner Comes to Burlingame

Two weeks after state senator Scott Weiner’s visit to Burlingame I am still marveling at how smoothly he can speak out of both sides of his mouth in a single meeting.  Weiner was invited to the Lane Room by Thrive which is a consortium of non-profit organizations.  He was invited to discuss the problems non-profits are having retaining staff as the cost of housing rises.  Weiner’s Senate Bill 50, discussed here and here, appeared to be popular with some in the audience of about 60 people.

In an interview by Samaritan House CEO, Bart Charlow, Weiner comes off as a tall, skinny, somewhat geeky attorney with a heart of gold.  He’s a man on a valiant mission.  Yet I saw in him a streak of progressive fascism interested only in consolidating power in Sacramento by any means necessary.  After describing the “carnage” that is happening in California and is “hollowing out even the middle class”, he excoriated the “No Growth” people for “adopting progressive talking points” such as “we need to build only affordable housing”.  He believes that will never happen without market-rate housing to subsidize it, but others think differently.  To him, it is better to demolish the concept of R1 zoning in the six most populous counties in the state via SB50 thus hurting the middle class homeowners who rely on their single-family homes as their largest investment.  Weiner’s claim that “this is not about getting rid of single-family homes” rang hollow after he said “single-family homes are a ban on affordable housing”.

When asked about SB50 excluding less populous counties, particularly Marin County, Weiner spoke “bluntly” about needing to do that to get the bill through a Senate committee headed by a Marin senator.  So much for principles of “fairness” that one hears so much about from progressives.

When asked about the housing quotas cities have been given (known as the RHNA formula), Weiner complained about how the formula has been gamed by some cities and two-thirds of cities don’t meet their low-income targets.  It didn’t seem to occur to him that perhaps that state-imposed process should be fixed by the state Legislature.  Better to scrap the whole idea of city zoning and let anyone build anything anywhere.  Nice leadership.

Someone other than me asked Weiner where all the water will come from?  He responded that “we have a structural deficiency” on water infrastructure and then made the ridiculous claim that “building housing doesn’t drive population growth” or water consumption.  He really said that.  After the obligatory comments on low-flow toilets and water reuse (“we are way behind Australia and Israel”), one was left to wonder how he would keep the middle-class in California without consuming more water.  It must be nice to live in the fairyland of the state senate and not have to worry about fixing “structural deficiencies” before plunging ahead with massive growth laws.

When asked about the impact that AirBnB and VRBO have on permanent rental housing and whether something should be done to limit those businesses, Weiner magically turned into a private property rights advocate.  He didn’t even seem embarrassed by the switch.  He then proceeded to say that “cities have ample tools to ban or restrict” AirBnB, yet he’s quite comfortable completely overriding these same cities’ zoning ordinances.  I almost had to admire such blatant hypocrisy spilling out in a single meeting.

The most revealing comment of the 90-minute session was buried in one of Weiner’s asides about Area Median Income (AMI) ranges and which income range was most “deserving” of subsidies.  He noted that this was a problem until we tackle “the long-term project to realign our capitalist society and socialize housing”.  There you have it.

Part 4 -- BHS Politics in the Classroom

We have been following the long-running story of Mr. Nelson's transfer from the BHS faculty to the Aragon faculty for some time.  Here are three prior posts (Parents Uniting for Nelson Parts 1, 2, and 3) here, here and here.  There is extensive commentary on each that would take you an hour or more to catch up on, but in the interest of not having to scroll through it all to see the latest (a platform "feature" that I really dislike), here is Part 4.  I'll quote KRN's comment that reignited the political angle of the issue

Since my Involuntary Transfer from BHS, the enrollment in AP Government and AP Economics has dropped from 188 students to 124 students.  A loss of 64 seniors which translates to two full sections! (BHS WASC Report)  I know, it was the conservative students who were threatened in class and left on their own.

I would love a link to that report since that sort of reduction in AP Anything is cause for concern.  He goes on to elaborate at someone's request by noting (and I have edited it down and added some emphasis and links)

There is (and has been) a real fear of grade and college admissions retaliation by BHS teachers against students and/or families who dared to challenge the "reign of error." (citation to a former closet conservative at BHS)

When high school students are put down, shamed, or threatened because they hold a conservative and/or right wing political position on a school campus by teachers, then there is a problem. Students and parents should not live in fear of immature teacher retaliation for any reason.

Tax dollars support all political positions in a high school classroom.

Students have the right to hold and articulate positions conservative positions on: Rent Control, Minimum Wage, Unions, Immigration, Right to Arms, and a variety of other issues that are in opposition to a majority of students (and faculty) at BHS.

I get that names of students cannot be named - certainly not here and hopefully not elsewhere.  I also worry that the longer Mr. Nelson is gone from BHS the less pressure there is to have him return as parents who do not know him replace those that do.  He was an asset to my kids' education and as you could see from the news article in Part 2, there are plenty of other students and parents who feel the same.  Playing a waiting game is not really playing and certainly doesn't provide a good example to kids.

SB50: The 'Drop Zone' in B'game

Yesterday's SF Chronicle piece "SF supervisors oppose Wiener's new housing-near-transit bill, but there's wiggle room" captures some of the many concerns about SB50.  We started the discussion here noting that another SF politician, David Chiu, decided it was good politics to point fingers at Burlingame.  One SF Supervisor, Vallie Brown, joined the "ruin other people's backyard" movement by saying “We need bold proposals, and not just here. We need to have the rest of the Bay Area and California get into gear around housing".  Talk about exceeding one's authority.  But most of the SF supervisors appear ready to vote for a resolution opposed to SB50.  Now if only our own San Mateo County supervisors had as much backbone.  But so far they haven't demonstrated it.  Today's Comicle editorial tries to paint even the SF supervisors as some sort of "reactionary" body--good luck with that laughable assertion:

In the long fight to keep California’s wealthy, homogeneous, exclusive suburbs just the way they are, Palo Alto and Beverly Hills have an ally they might not have expected: San Francisco.  The city’s Board of Supervisors — thanks to its purportedly progressive faction, no less — is poised to reiterate its reactionary resistance to legislation that would legalize higher-density residential development near mass transit amid a crushing housing shortage.

For many locals the threat is still abstract, so here is a map showing the affected sections of B'game should SB50 become law--I call it the SB50 Drop Zone

Lest you think it is bad enough that some hack politicians from the city who cannot even manage their own streets in a first-world fashion want to co-opt approval of development in more than half of B'game; the last part of SB50 says a city that is "employment rich" can't stop development anywhere in town.  Don't get too comfortable up in the hills.  Our City Council has taken a clear stance against SB50 and should be encouraged as they have been by two letters in today's Daily Journal here and here.  To buttress their good instincts, they should consider starting a legal reserve fund since this is likely to end up in court if it passes in Sacramento.  It might also be time to reconsider whether SamTrans should be allowed to operate on our section of El Camino Real.  That sounds crazy to say about a state highway, but it's not any crazier than Weiner, Chiu and Brown telling us we have to build five-story tall high-density housing everywhere in town.

SB50: Mi CASA no es tu CASA

Senate Bill 50 is the latest in a long line of bad ideas put forth by myopic politicians who cannot stand that some communities have different priorities than others.  That myopia is compounded by feelings of envy over perceived "inequality" and the self-righteous do-gooder, YIMBY mentality.  It's further compounded by politicians who have no qualms about reaching for Other People's Money (OPM).  Current case in point is Assemblyman David Chiu and his bill AB1487 that would create yet another regional agency to search for OPM to fund affordable housing.  As the SF Chronicle piece about the bill notes:

But the notion of a new agency and more taxes infuriates some city leaders who say the government is running roughshod over local control.  Residents often object to new development, saying it mars the look and feel of their communities.  The region is tightly interconnected, Chiu said, so a city council obstructing development in Burlingame puts pressure on Oakland and San Francisco. And, ultimately, the effects ripple, creating a severe economic split between homeowners and renters, and older and younger generations.

The finger-pointing at Burlingame might be because of Mayor Colson recent piece on local actions and the importance of local control which was much better thought out that anything Chiu has ever proposed.  You won't see the Burlingame reference in the on-line piece, but it was right there in the March 8 print edition.  Perhaps some editor thought better of stirring up this 'burb too much?  Here are some points from Donna Colson's Daily Journal piece:

Last month the Metropolitan Transit Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments presented the CASA Compact, a 15-year policy package to confront the Bay Area housing shortage. The compact presents a 10-point plan for housing production, preservation and renters’ protections that was developed by a group of mainly non-elected, self-interested housing industry and policy advocates.

San Mateo County communities had no voice in the CASA Compact process. Not a single elected from San Mateo County was included on the leadership team, steering committee or technical committee which is frustrating as many small cities were already taking the initiative to craft viable housing solutions for their communities. Some cities are allowing teacher housing, others are embracing renters protections to limit gentrification, while some, like Burlingame, are updating their general plans to allow for up to 20 percent more growth near transit while protecting the character of existing single-family neighborhoods.

So where is all of this headed.  Going back to the Chronicle article:

It’s still unclear what will happen if cities refuse to build. Right now there is no real mechanism for the state to override local land-use authority. When Newsom proposed withholding transportation dollars from cities that don’t meet their housing targets, he ignited a political flame war.

It comes down to what the build-build-build politicians think they can get away with using OPM and political pressure.  Small minds like Chiu have no problem attributing their failure to manage growth to other communities, but cannot see that they are most of the problem.  Any one who thinks we can build our way out of costly housing without real restraints on commercial development doesn't understand economics or the intrinsic attractiveness of the Bay Area for businesses in our predominant industries of high-tech and biotech.  Build it and they will come, especially if the government is subsidizing the housing cost equation.  Here is the print version calling out B'game.

Affordability Problems Explained

The former CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, T.J. Rodgers, has been an outspoken critic of much of what goes on it Sacramento for decades.  His latest pointed critique of brand spanking new Guv. Gavin brings some well-known statistics together in one place in reply to Gavin telling the business community I should (must?  will?) do more about affordability.

When I was CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, I chose Round Rock, Texas, over San Jose, Calif., for Cypress’s second wafer-fabrication plant, and I chose to locate our third plant in Bloomington, Minn. Other CEOs made similar decisions. Silicon Valley barely has any silicon left; there are now zero state-of-the-art wafer-fabrication plants here. We had to move because government has made Silicon Valley uncompetitive for manufacturing.

Despite boasting the second-highest gasoline tax in the U.S., California’s roads are so potholed it actually pays to buy tire insurance. California power costs around 15.7 cents a kilowatt-hour, compared with 11.2 cents in Oregon and 9.7 cents in Washington state. But even those state-regulated windfall rates aren’t enough: Pacific Gas & Electric is about to go bankrupt again.

California took in record tax revenue in 2018, beating estimates by $1 billion according to the Los Angeles Times. But Mr. Newsom demanded even more: “I want to see the [companies in Silicon] Valley step up and match our contributions,” he said.

Rodgers also invokes the dreaded NIMBYs but doesn't dwell on that aspect of the housing supply equation.  Nice to know our electricity is 62% more expensive than the State of Washington's juice.  Anyone know where you can buy good tire insurance for those trips on El Camino?

 

Happy New Year from the Voice

Russ and I wish all you intrepid Voice readers a very happy New Year.  During the course of 2018 we surpassed one million views, approached the 5,000 post milestone (4,790 to be exact) and almost 30,000 comments have been added over the last 15 years.  The themes have stayed consistent and will continue on in 2019 because, well, the issues pretty much stay the same.

For starters, as outgoing mayor Michael Brownrigg said during his speech at the council rotation, we have to guard against "asphyxiating on our success".  I'm as worried about dehydrating from our success as asphyxiating, but that is a topic for another post or two...or three.  At one holiday party this past week, I had a chat with a long time Silicon Valley exec who does not pay much attention to local politics--he's focused on growing his latest start-up.  As I described the prevailing politicians' view that we can build our way out of the "housing crisis" he looked at me like I was joking.  "Don't they understand that the more they build, the more we will build?"  The we is the biotech, information tech and whatever-is-next tech industry.  I told him "no".

You can peruse the right hand frame of this page to see all of the categories of interest.  Locals bemoan the quality of our local restaurants, but I think they are improving...slowly.  And maybe there will be some improvement in SFO runway noise as it garners more attention.  At last night's NYE party, without any prompting from me, five B'gamers just ripped the new roundabout.  And I could not agree more with two of the Daily Journal's Jon Mays New Year's resolutions:

• Perhaps someone can build something that actually improves traffic with the increase in bridge tolls and sales tax for transportation. Perhaps there could be some paving work done on El Camino Real with our gas tax revenue as well.
• If you are a politician advocating for mass transit, take it semi-regularly, not just on occasion.

I'm hoping for more Best of Burlingame postings about locals who add to our quality of life and here's hoping for some developments that move us in that direction--like getting Top Golf going on the bayfront and hearing more live music on B'way and the Avenew.  I'm working on the live music dream myself, so if you know of any venues (mostly restaurants) that might be interesting in hosting, please let me know.  Have a safe and happy 2019.

The Un-American Way

I appreciate that the person who lives at the corner of Dwight and Peninsula Ave decided to leave this sign up after Tuesday's election for all to see.  Now that Prop. 10 which meant to gut long-standing landlord protections has taken a beating at the polls - 62% to 38% - we are left with this reminder of the types of people who are in favor.  This isn't the first time they have vandalized campaign signs in B'game and it probably won't be the last.  Remember this the next time it comes around, because what comes around will go around too.

It might be the same spray paint as in October of 2016.  With all of the Ring video floating around town they better be careful.