Author: ACE21

Categories
Democracy Positive Change

Ballot Harvesting

😈

What is Ballot Harvesting? What does it do to our vote? Who is practicing ballot harvesting? Why does ballot harvesting do to our local community? Is this practice ethical?

You will be surprised that a local pastor practices ballot harvesting in the Chino Area. This pastor pushes right extremist views and participated in the January 6, riot insurrection in Washington DC. Even to call the Pope the Anti-Christ and the President and Vice President socialist and communist. The pastor influences not only local city councils but, people, residents, the Chino school board, firefighters, PD, and other local religious pastors.

The pastor brags on YouTube and to his followers about his views and that he indeed participated in the riot insurrection on January 6 in Washington DC. This pastor is wanted by the FBI.

If you recognize this pastor report him to the FBI.

FBI – Tips

His photo is number 70 and 153.

YouTube. https://youtu.be/2zD7dtx0BuY\Y

Ballot collecting is the gathering and submitting of completed absentee or mail-in voter ballots by third-party individuals, volunteers, or workers, rather than submission by voters themselves directly to ballot collection sites.[1][2][3] It occurs in some areas of the U.S. where voting by mail is common, but some other states have laws restricting it.[1] Proponents of ballot collection promote it as enfranchising those who live in remote areas or lack ready access to transportation, are incapacitated, or are in hospital or jail. Critics of ballot collection highlight the possibility of increasing the potential for vote misappropriation or fraud. These critics sometimes use the term ballot harvesting to refer to the practice.[2]

California[edit]

California changed its rules before the 2018 midterm elections to allow people other than family members to collect and submit ballots. Last-minute submissions of votes in the election delayed results and some pundits and Republican politicians suggested that it influenced the outcome of several elections.[8][9]

While the Los Angeles Times editorial board rejected claims that any elections were affected by the new ballot harvesting law in the 2018 midterms, which is unsubstantiated, it did call for the law to be fixed or repealed, saying the law “does open the door to coercion and fraud.”[10] Republicans, in turn, are seeking to improve their own use of the practice, according to The Washington Post.[11]

Categories
Infrastructure Positive Change

Water Crisis-Septic Tanks Pollution

This is serious information. What can be done? Contact your elected city council and your mayor. The mayor has the authority to do something for all of us, we must hold the council and mayor accountable for their lack of action.

Very little has been done about +/- 20,000 old septic systems that have begun leaking and contaminating the groundwater supply in the Chino Basin and surrounding area. And now the problem is threatening to become a crisis.

Groundwater Contamination and Septic Systems

By Bob Bowcock

There are approximately 21,800 septic systems within the Chino Basin, many of the systems are concentrated in the unincorporated areas of the region. Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) provides sewage utility services under the Chino Basin Regional Sewage Service Contract to the following cities: Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Upland, and Cucamonga Valley Water District in Rancho Cucamonga. Unincorporated area property owners pay taxes to IEUA for sewer service yet, remain on septic systems, not permitted to connect to the regional facilities.

Drip-by-drip, septic systems, both failing systems and those that pass inspection, are nurturing an undesirable gang of bacteria, parasites, viruses, nutrients, and other contaminants in local groundwater, streams, and soil locally. The number is unknown because there are few requirements to report the data that would help researchers understand the links between septic waste, failing septic systems, and disease, and fewer studies that trace illnesses back to the source of contamination.

In 2001, major groundwater contamination treatment systems producing over 8 billion gallons of water per year were commissioned to treat contaminated groundwater in the southern portion of the Chino Basin, and to help the Chino Basin Watermaster achieve “hydraulic control” of the Basin to stop the flow of contaminated groundwater into the Santa Ana River.

In 1927, Monte Vista Water District (MVWD) was established to provide water service within the City of Montclair, portions of the City of Chino and the unincorporated San Bernardino County areas in between. At the time, MVWD was charted by the State of California to provide water services and was also permitted to provide sewer services. Recently, MVWD has been asked to provided sewer services by property owners within the unincorporated area. MVWD’s Board of Directors has authorized the necessary studies, engineering and the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission mandated procedures required to provide the services presently denied. Unfortunately, there are those who seek to weaponize water and sewer services as a means to control potential development activities regionally, outside of their control.

In 2018, IEUA’s Sewer Master Plan was examined to determine which interceptors might be impacted by converting existing septic parcels to sewered parcels. In general, IEUA’s collection system is expected to have more than adequate capacity to convey existing peak wastewater flows for its entire service area. The Sewer Master Plan states that buildout flow projections (year 2060) were developed using population, employment, and land use information. Using the factors in the study indicate that projected buildout flows assume that all existing septic parcels are converted to sewered parcels and generate flow conveyed by the IEUA interceptor system to the wastewater treatment plants.

MVWD should not only be authorized to immediately provide sewer services within its existing jurisdiction boundaries… it should be encouraged and thanked by the entire region.

Bob Bowcock is the Water Resources Manager for Integrated Resource Management, Inc. His prior work includes Water Utility Manager in Azusa and Huntington Park. He was also a team leader for water treatment and distribution systems for various federal branches of government. He is a licensed California Grade V Water Treatment Operator and maintains various other water industry licenses.

Categories
Transportation

Transportation and Infrastructure

down angle photography of red clouds and blue sky
Photo by eberhard grossgasteiger on Pexels.com

How our tax money is being spent?

Categories
Digital Divide

Digital Divide

What is the Digital Divide? Rural communities lack WIFI, what can be done? Students lack WIFI for education!

Digital Divide

As Stanford students, we are in the heart of Silicon Valley — site of the largest and fastest creation of wealth ever recorded. By pursuing degrees in Computer Science, we are expressing our belief that technology will guide society and business into the 21st century. Why do we believe so strongly in computers when, for the vast majority of society, computer access is not a reality? Many communities throughout the United States and the world lack adequate technological knowledge and equipment. Even in close proximity to Stanford University, East Palo Alto lacks the quality of teaching and resources that many of the surrounding communities enjoy.Definition Factors Solutions Goals Programs
To combat this, an organization entitled Plugged In began giving the community access to the future. Through their computer cluster and teaching programs, they are turning people on to the importance of technology. Our project will explore the current state of the “Digital Divide” and its related causes. We will focus specifically on the East Palo Alto community by examining its technical literacy, identifying the areas of greatest need and implementing a program to aide the community’s development. Our hope is that this project will further Plugged In’s tremendous success and help spread the benefits of technological change throughout the community.
Defining the “Digital Divide”
Interaction between human and computers has greatly increased as we embark on the twenty-first century. The ability to access computers and the internet has become increasingly important to completely immerse oneself in the economic, political, and social aspects of not just America, but of the world. However, not everyone has access to this technology. The idea of the “digital divide” refers to the growing gap between the underprivileged members of society, especially the poor, rural, elderly, and handicapped portion of the population who do not have access to computers or the internet; and the wealthy, middle-class, and young Americans living in urban and suburban areas who have access.
Factors Attributing to the Digital Divide
Although the number of Americans with access to computers and the Internet continues to soar on a yearly basis, the digital divide also continues to grow at an alarming rate. On the one hand, sections of society already connected – such as higher income, educated White and Asian Pacific Islander households – are adopting newer technologies faster and are connecting even more. On the other, groups with traditionally lower rates for Internet and computer usage continue to lag far behind. Unfortunately, according to a study conducted by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), entitled Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide, the gap is widening along already strained economic and racial lines. Education
Widening levels of education seem to magnify the digital divide; households with higher levels of education are increasingly more likely to use computers and the Internet. It has been observed that those with college degrees or higher are 10 times more likely to have internet access at work as than those with only a high school education. A study conducted by the NTIA from 1997 to 1998 determined that the gap in computer usage and Internet access widened 7.8% and 25% respectively, between those with the most and the least education. Income
Not surprisingly, and in direct correlation to education, the levels of household income also play a significant role in the widening gap. Again, the study by the NTIA stated, “In the last year, the divide between the highest and lowest income groups grew 29%” (NTIA Falling through the Net 99). It has been observed that households earning incomes over $75,000 are 20 times more likely to have home internet access than those at lowest income levels and 10 times more likely to have a computer if living in the city or suburban area than in the rural area. Due to lower income levels, poor neighborhoods lack the infrastructure available in affluent areas. Telecommunication facilities are more readily available for wealthier communities and are more attractive for developing companies to establish themselves. As a result, poverty in less fortunate neighborhoods make it less appealing for investments by outside companies, further aggravating the divide. Race
At the same time, the digital divide continues to widen along very specific racial lines. The difference in computer usage grew by 39.2% between White and Black households and by 42.6% between White and Hispanic households in the period between 1994 and 1998. Hispanic households are roughly half as likely to own computers as White households. Interestingly, race affects the amount of computers in the school. Schools with a higher percentage of minorities have fewer computers whereas those with a lower percentage of minorities have a greater number of computers. As would be expected, the gaps between racial groups narrow at higher income levels, but widens among households at lower economic levels. With regard to Internet access, Black and Hispanic households are falling even further behind: access by White households grew by 37.6% between 1997 and 1998. Hispanic households are nearly 2.5 times less likely to use the internet than White households. The NTIA study also demonstrated the racial disparities in Internet access exist irrespective of income. In a cultural study to determine reasons for the divide other than income, the Hispanic, African-American, and Asian-American communities were studied. In the Hispanic community, it was observed that computers were a luxury, not a need; computer activities isolated individuals and took away valuable time from family activities. In the African-American community, it was observed that African-Americans, historically, have had negative encounters with technological innovations. Asian-Americans, on the other hand, generally emphasize education, resulting in a larger number embracing rising technological advances. Percent of U.S. Households Using the Internet by Race/Origin Chart, bar chart, waterfall chart Description automatically generated
Something Must Be Done
With the technology continually advancing, the issue of the “digital divide” cannot be ignored. In our society, where the distribution of wealth is already heavily unbalanced, access to computers and the Internet is unbalancing the situation even more. Those with computers and access to the Internet are becoming even richer through the power of information, while those without them are becoming even poorer in comparison. According to William Kennard, the Chair of the FCC, “In a society where increasingly we are defined by access to information and what we earn is what we learn, if you don’t have access to technology, you’re going to be left in the digital dark ages. That’s what the digital divide is all about.” The digital divide will not close unless there is an initiative to seal the gap. With socio-economic divisions already present in today’s society, the digital divide is compounding the effects. It is not just the cost of computers that results in the digital divide, but also the presence of widespread illiteracy among overlooked populations. One out of four adults in the U.S. is illiterate or has limited literacy skill. Technological literacy cannot be promoted if basic literacy skills are lacking. Rectifying the digital divide, according to President Bill Clinton, “is the greatest opportunity the U.S. has ever had to lift its people out of poverty and ignorance.” As statistics have shown in the past few years, the gap is continuously expanding. Chart, bar chart Description automatically generated Note: Asterisk (*) indicates p<.05. All significance tests were obtained using Research Triangle Instituteās SUDAAN software and incorporate sampling weights. Sampling weights provided by Nielsen Media Research specified the probability of a respondent being selected into the sample. These sampling weights were adjusted for number of phones in the household and number of people aged 16 and older in the household, and were also adjusted for nonresponse by post-stratification adjustments to equate sample race, education, age, and gender distributions to Census data (Nielsen Media Research 1997)
Overcoming the Digital Divide: What Needs to Happen?
The digital divide, as a whole, remains an enormous and complicated issue – heavily interwoven with the issues of race, education, and poverty. The obstacle, however, is by no means insurmountable if broken down into specific tasks that must be accomplished. Aside from the obvious financial barriers, the following would help narrow the gap: Universal Access
As the use of computers and the Internet increases, so does the necessity for access. In the public sector, policy makers and community members must recognize the importance of such resources and take measures to ensure access for all. While increased competition among PC manufacturers and Internet Service Providers has substantially reduced the costs associated with owning a computer and maintaining a home connection, for many households the costs remain prohibitive. Like basic phone service, the government should subsidize Internet access for low-income households. At the same time, the private sector must commit to providing equal service and networks to rural and underserved communities so that all individuals can participate. More Community Access Centers, Continued Support of Those Already Existing
Community access centers (CACs) are a critical resource for those without access to computers and the Internet at school or work; such programs should continue to receive funding in order to expand and strengthen. According to data collected in 1998, minorities, individuals earning lower incomes, individuals with lower educations, and the unemployed – the exact groups affected most by the digital divide – are the primary users of CACs. In fact, those using the CACs “are also using the internet more often than other groups to find jobs or for educational purposes” (NTIA Falling through the Net 99). Community access centers, therefore, are clearly worthwhile investments. Additional, Well-Trained Technical Staff
Computers and other technologies alone are not enough. Communities and schools must train and preserve additional, and more qualified staff, alongside new technologies to promote the best application of resources. In addition to understanding the new technologies, the staff must be able to teach others. Change of Public Attitude Regarding Technology
At the same time, much of society needs to change its attitude concerning technology. Rather than perceiving computers and the Internet as a superfluous luxury, the public should view them as crucial necessities. The public must come to realize the incredible power of new technologies and embrace them as tools for their future and the future of their children.
Current Programs
Given the wide scope of the still expanding digital divide, help of any kind truly makes a positive impact. Fortunately, the government, nonprofit groups, and private foundations have started programs aimed at narrowing the gap. While the following list of programs and sites by no means covers all the programs in existence, it provides a mixed sampling of the types of initiatives currently underway. Government The Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC)
Enables schools, libraries, and rural health care providers – that could normally not afford them – with network wiring and access to both telecommunications and Internet services. Otherwise known as the “E-rate” program, requires telecommunications companies to provide services to those eligible at rates discounted from 20 to 90 percent. The highest priority and discounts are given to the most economically or geographically disadvantaged schools and libraries, based on the household incomes of student’s families. Congress and the FCC approved $2.25 billion in annual funding. In the first year of funding, the program helped connect 80,000 schools and 38 million children. The Community Technology Center’s program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education
Promotes the development of programs aimed at increasing and demonstrating the value of technology in “urban and rural areas and economically distressed communities.” The program awards three-year grants on a competitive basis to fund Community Technology Centers. The Neighboorhood Networks Program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
As a community based initiative, encourages the development of resource and computer learning centers in privately owned HUD-assisted and HUD-insured housing in order to make technology more accessible. Each community independently plans, manages, and funds their Neighborhood Networks center, but HUD often provides grants, loans, and volunteer service. The centers mainly offer computer access, computer assistance and training, GED certification, health and social services. The program currently contains 608 active centers, and plans on establishing 705 more with the help of business and community partners.
Categories
Infrastructure

California Transportation and Infrastructure

This affects all cities to upgrade roads and bridges. Should cities apply?

Transportation and Infrastructure: League analysis of the 2020-21 Proposed State Budget

 League of California Cities announces. 

Why does this matter to residents?  What is transportation and infrastructure?  How does this affect cities?

 
The Governor’s 2020-21 State Budget proposal outlines a $53 billion five-year infrastructure plan, which includes $45 billion for transportation and high-speed rail from ongoing revenue sources such as the Road Repair and Accountability Act, general obligation bonds, and Cap-and-Trade funds. The plan includes $22 billion for maintenance and $3 billion for capital improvements to the state highway system, $5 billion for public transit and rail infrastructure, and $1 billion for active transportation projects, not including the ongoing investments in local streets and roads funded primarily through the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) and the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program (RMRP).
 
Revised city transportation funding estimates for the remainder of the current 2019-20 fiscal year and the following 2020-21 fiscal year from HUTA and RMRP revenue sources will be available online later in January.
 
The $53 billion five-year plan includes:

  • $45.2 billion for transportation and high-speed rail
  • $2.6 billion for general government (state government facilities)
  • $2 billion for judicial branch
  • $1.4 billion for natural resources
  • $1 billion for education (facilities upgrades, notwithstanding potential school bond funding)
  • $1 billion for corrections
  • $250 million for health and human services 

The following represents the five-year funding forecast for the state’s key transportation programs:

  • $22 billion for the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP)
  • $3.3 billion for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
  • $5 billion for public transit and rail infrastructure
  • $1.1 billion for active transportation
  • $1.1 billion for local projects in northern and southern California that benefit high-speed rail system projects
  • $1 billion for the Local Partnership Program 

The state anticipates approximately $18 billion in total funding for transportation in 2020-21 from the following sources:

  • $10.5 billion from vehicle fees (including the Vehicle License Fee, Weight Fees, and SB 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) Transportation Improvement Fee)
  • $8.8 billion from fuel taxes (including diesel and gasoline) 

Major program changes in this year’s transportation budget over previous years include:

  • $31 million increase for litter abatement
  • $5.4 million for Phase One of the transportation system network information technology project
  • $5 million for ongoing Proposition 1B administrative support
  • $2.5 million transfer from the local airport loan account to the Aeronautics Airport Improvement Program Grant
  • $2 million for bicycle and pedestrian safety investigations
  • $1.7 million for wildfire litigation
  • $1 million for American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Caltrans infrastructure accessibility for pedestrians
  • $95 million fund conversion from federal resources to the State Highway Account 

Categories
Housing Laws Opinion

AB 101

What is AB (Assembly Bill) 101? Do residents have a say in this building? When was this established?

A Brief Summary of AB 101
 
Housing Element
 All residents must understand that there is a housing crisis in California. These housing laws were established years ago. Many Cities have ignored AB 101 and have not established a plan to address this crisis.

City councils have the authority and are obligated to make plans for affordable housing. People cannot afford buying and renting housing. This affects students, Seniors, single parents, veterans, and the homeless.

Without affordable housing, there will be an increase of homelessness from all walks of life.

Yes, and cities that do not comply with the mandated laws will be fined anywhere from $10,000 to $600,000 a month. With this fine, many cities will go bankrupt very quickly.

The old days of large lots are over, too costly. How many people can afford large lots?


AB 101 requires HCD to publish an annual list of cities that have failed to adopt a HCD certified housing element. If HCD puts a city on the list, the city has an opportunity for two meetings to discuss its housing element and HCD must provide city written findings supporting its determination. A city may also request de novo review of its last element. HCD must issue written findings in response to the de novo review. A city may challenge HCD’s findings in a court to determine whether a city’s housing element substantially complies with the law and that determination carries the same weight as HCD certification.
 
If the Attorney General sues a city, a court finds that its housing element does not substantially comply with state law, and the city fails to bring the housing element into compliance, a court may impose fines ranging from $10,000 to $600,000 per month with the generated revenue deposited into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. The State Controller may intercept state and local funds if the fines are not paid. Additionally, extra points and other preferences will be awarded for certain state funding programs for cities that have adopted undetermined “pro-housing” policies.
 
Local Government Planning Support Grants Program
 
AB 101 makes available $250 million to regions, cities, and counties for planning activities to accelerate housing production and facilitate implementation of Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). $125 million will be available to councils of governments and other regional entities, with the remaining $125 million available to cities and counties. These dollars may be used for:

  • Rezoning and updating planning documents.
  • Completing environmental clearance to eliminate need for project-specific review.
  • Infrastructure planning; and
  • Developing or improving accessory dwelling unit ordinance. 

Infill Infrastructure Grant Program of 2019
 
AB 101 makes available $500 million for competitive funding for a “qualifying infill project” or “qualifying infill area.”  A qualifying infill project is a residential or mixed-use project located in an urbanized area in a city with an HCD-compliant housing element. Grant funds can be used for “capital improvement projects” to facilitate the development of a qualifying infill project or area such as:

  • Water, sewer, or other utility improvements.
  • Streets, roads, transit.
  • Project site preparation; and
  • Sidewalk or streetscape improvement. 

Homelessness: Funding and Programs
 
AB 101 makes $650 million available for one-time grants to cities, counties, and continuums of care to support regional coordination, expand or develop local capacity, and address immediate homelessness challenges. All awards will be based on the applicant’s proportionate share of the state’s total homeless population.

  • $275 million will be available to cities or a city and county that has a population of more than 300,000.

$175 million will be available to counties. 

  • $190 million will be available to continuums of care.

Low Barrier Navigation Centers
 
AB 101 would require a low barrier navigation center be permitted as a “use by right” if it meets specified requirements. Within 30 days of receiving an application for a center, a city must notify the applicant whether the application is complete. Within 60 days of a completed application, the city must act on the application.
 
State Low Income Housing Tax Credit
 
AB 101 also increases the state low-income housing tax credit to $500 million for the 2020 calendar year.

Categories
Housing Laws

Exploring New Housing Laws & Ordinances

What does this all mean? Sit down, listen and have a bag of popcorn

Categories
Housing Laws RHNA

RHNA

What does RHNA mean for all Cities?  What are the plans for the City of Chino to implement RHNA and positive change for all the residents?

The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is mandated by California State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements of the General Plan. RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods. SCAG adopted the 6th cycle RHNA allocation plan which covers the planning period October 2021 through October 2029.

The City of Chino is required to use RHNA in land use planning, prioritizing local resource allocation, and in deciding how to address identified existing and future housing needs resulting from population, employment, and household growth. RHNA has the collective objective for the region and subregion to grow in ways that enhances quality of life, improves access to jobs, promotes transportation mobility, and addresses social equity and fair share housing needs.

To meet the RHNA requirements the City of Chino needs to update their Housing Elements and local zoning to show how they will accommodate their share of the RHNA allocation over the 2021-29-time frame.

Responsibility of the City of Chino with respect to RHNA are:

  • Specify goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and constraints for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels.
  • Identify sites for housing and provide an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment.
  • Analyze special housing needs, such as those of the elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter.
  • Demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints that hinder locality from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters.
  • Analyze existing affordable units at risk of converting to market-rate due to expiring subsidies or affordability contracts.
  • Assess existing fair housing issues and strategies for affirmatively furthering fair housing.

So, what are the consequences of a community not meeting RHNA requirements:

  • State Housing Element Law requires that jurisdictions plan for all types of housing based on the allocations they receive from the RHNA process by planning, in the form of having a compliant housing element, and submitting housing element annual progress reports, as a threshold or points-related requirement for certain funding programs (SB 1 Sustainable Community Planning Grants, SB 2 Planning Grants and Permanent Local Housing Allocation, etc.). Late submission of a housing element can result in a jurisdiction being required to submit a four-year update to their housing element.
  • HCD may refer jurisdictions to the Attorney General if they do not have a compliant housing element, fail to comply with their HCD-approved housing element, or violate housing element law, the housing accountability act, density bonus law, no net loss law, or land use discrimination law. The consequences of those cases brought by the Attorney General are up to the courts but can include financial penalties.
  • In addition, as the housing element is one of the required components of the general plan, a jurisdiction without a compliant housing element, may risk legal challenges to their general plan from interested parties outside of HCD.
  • Local governments must also implement their commitments from the housing element, and the statute has several consequences for the lack of implementation. For example, failure to rezone in a timely manner may impact a local government’s land use authority and result in a carryover of RHNA to the next cycle. Failure to implement programs can also influence future housing element updates and requirements, such as program timing. HCD may investigate any action or lack of action in the housing element.
  • For jurisdictions that did not issue permits for enough housing to keep pace consistent with RHNA building goals, a developer can elect to use a ministerial process to get project approval for residential projects that meet certain conditions. This, in effect, makes it easier to build housing in places that are not on target to meet their building goals.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=7.&part=&chapter=3.&article=10.6.

GOVERNMENT CODE – GOV

TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 – 66499.58] (Heading of Title 7 amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536.)

DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING [65000 – 66301] (Heading of Division 1 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536.)

CHAPTER 3. Local Planning [65100 – 65763] (Chapter 3 repealed and added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1880.)

ARTICLE 10.6. Housing Elements [65580 – 65589.11] (Article 10.6 added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.)

Early attainment of goals 

  • time is of the essence
  • Is there a shortage of housing in California?
  • Special attention to low- and moderate-income households

Availability of housing: 

  • decent housing, 
  • suitable living environment, 
  • for all economic levels

Local government focus:

Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community

each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs

Designating and maintaining a supply of land and adequate sites suitable, feasible, and available for the development of housing sufficient to meet the locality’s housing need for all income levels is essential to achieving the state’s housing goals and the purposes of this blog.

Categories
Housing Laws RHNA

Housing/RHNA

What are the mandated housing laws? What is the cost to cities that do not follow the mandated housing laws?

Only 3% of California’s cities and counties are fully on track to meet state goals to build sufficient housing —and 30% are failing to issue permits at all for affordable housing. 

The Southern California News Group used that data to create its second annual housing permit report card for all 539 cities and counties in the state.  Only 33 were doing well enough to earn an A, while 96 got an F.  The average grade was a C-.  Of the more than 116,000 permits that jurisdictions reported issuing in 2019, the year cover by the most recent state data, 78% were for above-moderate income housing. A mere 13% were for moderate-income housing and 9% for low and very-low-income housing.  Chino needs to build 6974 affordable dwellings.

Here are the RHNA numbers for Chino and Chino Hills:

Total: 6974                            

Very Low-Income, Low-Income, Moderate-Income, Above-Moderate Income

Chino 2113   1284  1203 2378 

Chino Hills 3729   1388   821  789  731

Each jurisdiction’s total is divided into four categories:

–Very-low-income housing that would be affordable for people making less than half of the area’s median income

–Low-income housing for people making 51-80% of median income

–Moderate-income housing for people making 81-120% of median income

–Above-moderate-income housing for people making more than 120%of median income

The low and very low categories are what the state considers “affordable housing”

All Cities and Counties are required by law to adopt land use plans and zone enough land to accommodate their RHNA goals, but not to ensure homes are built—that’s up to developers.

Many cities lack the political motivation to build affordable housing, and residents like the way their hometowns are already like.  The residents argue, “We do not want those kinds of people in our city.  Or we do not want our city to look like South Chicago.  Some residents go on to say, “The character of our city will change if we let Asians, Blacks, and more illegals into our city, we need to stop allowing those people from moving into our city, we need to close our city border”.  City councilmembers, likewise, openly state that their city does not want those people moving into the city”.  This is clearly against the law and un-American.

The lack of requirements to ensure affordable housing is built makes it easy for city councilmembers “to take the easy way out and deny development that might cause community concerns and their seat on the council, votes. Just pass the Buck and Blame, Blame, Blame!

Affordable housing, as part of a full spectrum of housing opportunities, helps support the local economics and workers—there’s no city that shouldn’t be concerned with nurturing their local economy, especially after COVID-19, and housing should be a part of that.

The city of Chino received a C- in fulfilling its RHNA obligations.  And still with no plan.  The entire city council seems to blame everyone including Santa Claus.  The City Councilmember of Chino needs to work with the State and developers and look at their outdated zoning for the City to make changes.  Chino is planning to build affordable housing on the borderlines of the City limits, like the saying goes, “Out of sight…Out of Mind”.  The question arises, “Where will our children live?”  Many individuals, between 18 and 41, young and old cannot afford rent and are living with their parents.  I believe the city of Chino needs to embrace the 21st century and collaborate with the experts.  The housing crisis is real according to the NLC (National League of Cities), LOCC (League of California Cities, National Core, and other organizations.

In a recent SOI (Sphere of Influence) meeting residents were given facts and figures from the city’s consultant and planning division.  But not once did the city council mention any of the mandated affordable housing laws. 

Now let us look at the San Bernardino County RHNA numbers:

What do the numbers tell us?  If the City of Chino cannot annex county land, what happens to the SOI (Sphere of Influence), and Protect Chino group? Will the SOI and Protect Chino group tell the county what to do? Will the city of Chino tell the county what to build or what not to build? 

Yes, the county of San Bernardino has its own obligation to meet RHNA. In my next blog, I will discuss these questions.  Stay tuned. 

SCAG 6TH CYCLE DRAFT RHNA ALLOCATION BASED ON FINAL RHNA METHODOLOGY & FINAL CONNECT SOCAL
9/3/20
County         Total                Very-low     Low income      Moderate       Above
                                           income                              income       moderate
                                                                                                      income
San Bernardino 137,786          35,575          21,855          24,087          56,269
Unincorporated    8,813             2,174           1,357            1,520            3,762

Categories
Opinion

Indecisions Make Wrong Choices

After viewing the March 16, Chino Council meeting, it was business as usual. Honors were recognized for contributions and service from a long time Chino resident of the City, Home beatification, promotions for police and firefighters, and the number of prayer meetings, breakfast and luncheons attended.

No discussion and explanation were offered by the Councils’
leadership for the mandated RHNA housing elements the City of Chino must meet. One councilmember mentioned that residents do not want high density, or the city wants to keep as close to its general plan. There are also many residents that do not want streetlights. We should ask how many residents were surveyed, and when were these residents surveyed to determine if the survey has validity. In so thinking, this councilmember does not understand that the general plan for Chino is not written in stone, the general plans are not the Ten Commandments, but a guide that changes with time to meet the needs of the residents. Likewise, the general plan has not been updated in over fifteen years. At that time there were more cows than people. The entire council meeting is simple with no substance and follows the same pattern for each council meeting. It reminds me of the old saying, “Monkey See, Monkey Do.”

Blaming the state, SCAG, county, and others would change the
‘character of the city’ and as the leadership of the council specified,
‘we will not let that happen’. The council in one council meeting
affirmed, “Chino will not become another South Chicago.” The state
Supreme court of California has outlawed ‘redlining’, stereotyping
individuals by ethnicity, religion, gender identity, language, and race.
The old days of creating ghettos, barrios, Asian Pacific islanders (AAPI), communities, and separate living areas for minorities is over. People of all cultural backgrounds need to be included in all communities: E Pluribus Unum.

A closer look at the demographics of Chino, reveals that Chino is very
diverse, and rich with numerous composites, beliefs, and customs.
The council does not review with the residents the consequence that
AB101 enunciates that the city is closer to being fined by the state
anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000 a month for not complying with
the affordable housing law. The city of Huntington Beach recently lost
their case against conforming to the state laws for building affordable
housing. The city of Huntington Beach was fined a large amount of
money. This precedence puts the city of Chino in the crosshairs of not
winning in a court case. The housing crisis is valid and needs to be
addressed.

The housing crisis is a national crisis as scrutinized by the National
League of Cities, NALEO, HELO, League of California Cities, SCAG and many more well-thought-of organizations.

The city attorney was given the task to update the leaders of the
council when any word on the RHNA numbers comes up. That seems
to throw the responsibility to the city attorney to eventually blame.
The actual responsibility lies on the city council leadership to make
the right pronouncements and comply with the law, for the sake of
equity and change.

The city leaders prefer to put their heads in the sand and not tell the
resident the consequences of not complying with the RHNA numbers.
The situation seems best that the council leaders simply say the truth.
Now the city leaders are asking state officials Senator Leyva and
Assemblyman Rodriguez to intervene. Wow, if that could be so easy to
change the state laws. However, why not discuss and inform the
residents that Chino’s final appeal to the state have already been
reviewed and without any altering, with no change. It may be best to
come up with a plan and smart solutions rather than hope the RHNA
numbers will magically transform and disappear. Dr. Jay Prag’s recent
article articulates the fiscal loss and Russian roulette maneuvers the
city has put themselves in quite a predicament for their obstinateness
for positive change.

As history has taught us, human beings will continue to show
culpability of others and reiterate mistakes for their incompetency to
not lead with the facts and truth, to not follow the laws, and make
wrong choices. The council has a way out by putting the guilt on the
Devil. The leaders of the city council can always fall back on and
point out that “The Devil made us do it.”