In a Marxist society, government decides where and how you live. In California the Democrats, Newsom and special interests will decide how and where you live. The difference between Marxism and Californaism? None.
“Were these Progressive’s put in the place of the losing football coach, they would likely be running the Marxist Single Left Wing Housing Formation. This strategy has had wretched results whenever tried as indicated with the old Soviet Union and other failed dictatorships.
In California the Democratic dominated legislature does not currently have to concern themselves with push back from their horrible policies. Republican opposition is virtually nil. Because of this they can go forward passing garbage laws intended to control people’s lives. Their latest misguided attempts are SB-9 and 10.
SB-9 Allows without consent of local Planning Commissions or City Counsel’s allows for single family homes in residential areas to be subdivided into up to separate residences. Yards or garages would not be required. How such construction impacts neighbors, traffic congestions, schools, law enforcement, etc. is not taken into account.
SB10 is even worse. According to non-partisan housing organization Livable California, this piece of legislation allows city councils, without public hearings or CEQA, to approve construction of 14-unit luxury projects on single-family, business, or apartment-zoned streets. Any restrictions passed by voters can be overturned without their approval.”
Like people fled East Germany while under communist control, are we watching Californians fleeing the State, due to Marxist control? It appears that way. Thanks to Rich Eber for clarifying the issue.
Marxist single left wing housing formation by Richard Eber
Richard Eber, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views, 8/12/21
We all know the story about the football coach whom everyone likes who after two years ended up with a losing record of 1-23. Even though the man in charge was recognized for doing an excellent job building leadership and good character with his players, would you extend the coaches contract?
Hell no! Get rid of the bum and find a new guy who can win.
A similar situation exists in the California Legislature with the so called “housing team”. They have been responsible for passing bills promising new affordable dwellings. Despite the efforts of Governor Newsom , Lorena Gonzales, Scott Weiner, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, Nancy Skinner, Senate leader Toni Adkins and the rest of their Progressive cohorts, the housing shortage is getting worse each year.
The group that has brought us a series of bills including SB-375, AB-2923, SB-828, and SB-35.have strangled the ability developers to meet the demands of the State and still make a profit. Despite this dismal record, the legislature continues to provide new ways to destroy the housing market in California.
Were these Progressive’s put in the place of the losing football coach, they would likely be running the Marxist Single Left Wing Housing Formation. This strategy has had wretched results whenever tried as indicated with the old Soviet Union and other failed dictatorships.
In California the Democratic dominated legislature does not currently have to concern themselves with push back from their horrible policies. Republican opposition is virtually nil. Because of this they can go forward passing garbage laws intended to control people’s lives. Their latest misguided attempts are SB-9 and 10.
SB-9 Allows without consent of local Planning Commissions or City Counsel’s allows for single family homes in residential areas to be subdivided into up to separate residences. Yards or garages would not be required. How such construction impacts neighbors, traffic congestions, schools, law enforcement, etc. is not taken into account.
SB10 is even worse. According to non-partisan housing organization Livable California, this piece of legislation allows city councils, without public hearings or CEQA, to approve construction of 14-unit luxury projects on single-family, business, or apartment-zoned streets. Any restrictions passed by voters can be overturned without their approval.
If these proposals seem to be obtuse and crazy, consider the reasons behind them. The sponsors of SB-9 and 10, contend that single family homes and zoning are racist by definition. As such, they create a lifestyle of white privilege. Progressive legislators feel it is their duty to get involved with social engineering matters to make things right.
They contend the best way to achieve their goal is to switch urban planning decisions from local control to that of the State. This one size fits all approach pits Legislators from urban population centers in the Bay Area and Southern California versus the rest of the state.
Typical is SB-1120 from 2020. The bill’s author, state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), called it a way to increase density and produce “naturally affordable housing options” without public subsidies, while “keeping the character of neighborhoods intact.”
It insisted new housing starts be at least duplex’s to increase housing inventory. Mercifully it died in committee. Unfortunately many of its elements to kill single family homes in California were incorporated with SB-9 this year
If the truth be known SB-9, and 10 create a duo of doom that institutionalizes Critical Race Theory. Apparently the non discriminatory nature of the past including the Rumford Fair Housing Law is not considered to be strong enough. This legislation, passed back in 1964.prohibited discrimination based on skin color or renting of selling property. Because of alleged systemic racism and White Supremacy in the suburbs, Toni Adkins and Scott Weiner believe the State needs to take over urban planning decisions from local governments.
SB-9, 10 and are so bizarre, many racial minorities object to them. Some people of color feel insulted that legislators assume that they don’t desire to live in a single family home in a safe neighborhood with a backyard and good schools. We might ask how the geniuses in Sacramento came up with the theory that the residence of choice for lower income folks is stack and pack projects that provide little privacy or decent family life for those who reside there.
Many of these concerns were brought up last Saturday at a Zoom meeting conducted by a coalition of several non-partisan groups including Catalysts for Local Control, Livable California, CALE, United Neighbors, and California Cities for Local Control.
Minus any input from lobbyists representing developers, almost 1100 people participated in the Statewide Town Hall on Housing and the fight to protect single family homes. Speakers included Dan Carrigg, former deputy Director of the California League of Cities, Marcia Kalgan, founder of United Neighbors, and Lynette McElroy, a leader in the Los Angeles Black Community.
One of the organizers of the event, City of Rolling Hills Mayor Beatriz (Bea) Dieringer cautioned “these bills provide a huge gift to developers and real estate investors.” Susan Kirsch founder Catalysts for Local Control and Livable California commented,
“It’s bad enough that these bills will permanently destroy neighborhoods in both urban and suburban cities. It’s equally unforgiveable that legislators would contribute to global warming by giving developers the unbridled freedom to remove trees and shade and replace water permeable surfaces with concrete. But most dangerous of all is the elimination of laws that assure the public the right of public notice and due process regarding land use decisions.
It is obvious that battle lines are being drawn between tone death Progressives in the legislature versus those who want to preserve the single family home which has been a staple in California life for over 100 years.
It is hoped by the pressure put forth at last week’s Zoom Town Hall and other lobbying efforts, that a tedious coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans can stop SB-9 and SB-10 from being enacted.
If public opinion polls matter, both of the proposed new housing laws, according to Democratic pollster David Binder are opposed by over 71% of the electorate. Such figures are likely meaningless as the Progressive ideologues in the legislature seem intent on operating their failed Marxist Single left wing offensive housing policies, regardless of what anyone else might think.
