Connect with us

News

California Environmental Quality Act delays new home build in San Diego even without an environmental reason

Published

on

I grew up in California, and I’m the last member of my family to live here. One of my sisters and her family moved to Oregon. For her family, it wasn’t an economic issue as much as a quality of life issue. In a recent ranking of states, California ranked the worst state for quality of life.

My parents recently bought a home in Las Vegas, and my eldest sister already lives out there. In the past two years, my family has moved out of California because of taxes, cost of living, quality of life, traffic, and a whole host of other issues.

California’s middle-class is leaving because California isn’t the “Golden State” it once was.

One major issue we are facing in California is a housing crisis, and it isn’t due to lack of developers wanting to build more housing. One main reason is overbearing government regulations.

The Building Industry Association recently commissioned a study that found that up to 40 percent of the cost of a new home is attributable to the 45 regulatory agencies that govern home building in California.

As a candidate for California State Controller, I will not have any legislative ability to address this issue, but I plan to introduce Trickle-up-Taxation to voters with a ballot initiative in 2020. Trickle-up-Taxation will indirectly help to solve our housing crisis because with Trickle-up-Taxation, regulatory reform and realigning of regulatory agencies will be necessary, and those reforms will not only help with the housing crisis but a myriad of other failed state governmental policies and structures.

Trickle-up-Taxation isn’t just about bringing much-needed tax dollars into your community to address the needs of your community. Trickle-up-Taxation will give greater flexibility to your local elected officials to streamline new development and cut down costs.

A perfect example of overbearing government regulation is the halting of a dilapidated California Theatre building in downtown San Diego. A theatre that has been closed since 1990 has fallen into disrepair and was scheduled for demolition for a new 40-story residential tower.

The new construction has been halted because the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a city’s environmental report includes several alternatives for the site including at least one preservation alternative.

Since the city’s report did include several alternatives, it did not consider at least one preservation alternative. Thus the court ruled that a new report had to be issued and at least one preservation alternative must be considered.

My question is, why should one preservation alternative even be considered? The building is from 1927, in disrepair, and its contaminated with lead and asbestos. Cleaning up asbestos and lead is very expensive, and no developer in their right mind would spend the millions necessary to remove that and preserve a building that will not bring in a reasonable rate of return or even a profit.

CEQA and the State of California should have no say in what happens to this building. We already have codes on how to properly clean up and dispose of asbestos and lead, and those codes are needed but spending thousands of dollars to consider preserving a building the owner and the city do not want, is utter nonsense.

Does regulatory reform that Trickle-up-Taxation ensure your city will do the right thing?

No, it doesn’t. San Francisco has proven that its local elected officials can delay development for over five years and require the owner to pay over a million dollars and doing study after study and still delaying the new housing development with nonsense that a building that was built in 1924 and was gutted when it was turned into a laundromat may have, but weren’t not sure, have some historical significance because neighborhood groups used the land once upon a time.

Government regulations are necessary for the protection of residents and the environment. I’m not arguing government doesn’t play a role, what I am arguing is that in the San Diego case, CEQA and the State of California have overstepped their bounds and are medlying in what should be a local issue, not a state issue. If San Francisco wants to make it difficult for their developers then so be it, they have that right.

My opinion is CEQA, and the State of California is delaying housing that is desperately needed and due to their government overreach, are adding millions of dollars of cost to new home build projects and thus will result in more expensive homes and years of delays.

Therefore, fewer people will be able to afford decent housing, and if they can’t find housing they will do what my family and many other Californians are doing; they are leaving the state for greener pasture elsewhere.


Konstantinos Roditis is a candidate for California State Controller. You can learn more about his campaign at cacontroller.com, and you can follow him on Twitter & Facebook.

Entertainment and Sports

Man who identifies as transgender woman wins Cycling World Championships

Published

on

Man who identifies as transgender woman wins Cycling World Championships

Rachel McKinnon. a transgender woman who was born male and possesses all the physical advantages of a man, won the 2018 UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championships in Los Angeles. It’s the latest event that draws questions about the fairness of biological males competing in female events.

Despite outcry by biological females and men alike, it is being billed by some as a victory for the LGBTQ community and transgender men or women around the world. Critics point out that biological males have an unfair advantage over biological females when it comes to activities that require physical strength, speed, or endurance. That doesn’t seem to deter those competing in these events.

Biological Male Wins World Championship Event in Women’s Cycling

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/14/biological-male-wins-world-championship-event-in-womens-cycling/McKinnon celebrated the victory on Twitter, writing: “First transgender woman world champion … ever.” Later, the professor responded to criticism from “transphobic bigots” by tweeting:

Allowing biological males who identify as transgender women to compete in women’s athletic events has been a controversial subject, as critics argue that it puts female competitors at an inherent disadvantage.

My Take

Unlike some of my colleagues, I have no problem with transgenderism. What I have a problem with is the unfairness of women’s competitive sports being infiltrated by those who have clear and scientifically demonstrable biological advantages over their competitors.

If performance enhancing drugs are frowned upon in sports, what could be more performance-enhancing than growing up with the musculature and hormone advantage of a man, then competing in women’s sports?

Continue Reading

Media

There’s one glaring difference between 60 Minutes’ interviews with Presidents Obama and Trump

Published

on

Theres one glaring difference between 60 Minutes interviews with Presidents Obama and Trump

Anyone who expected the 60 Minutes interview with President Trump to be anything like their interviews with his predecessor was likely very disappointed. Mainstream media might pretend like they treated the two Presidents the same, but the differences in interviews on 60 Minutes may be the most stark evidence their claim on being unbiased is an absolute lie.

Here’s a portion of the interview with President Trump, which aired tonight:

“Journalist” Lesley Stahl spoke over the President multiple times. If you watch the entire interview, you’ll see that this happened throughout. She would ask a question, most of which were attempts at “gotcha” responses, then would interrupt the President any time he didn’t give the answer she was wanting.

Now, compare that to the interview in the early days of the Obama administration.

Steve Kroft was the embodiment of politeness and civility. He sat aptly silent as President Obama gave his answers.

Mainstream media has given up on pretending they don’t hate President Trump. It no longer behooves him to do these interviews, giving higher ratings to leftist media outlets that simply don’t deserve it.

Continue Reading

News

Is Defense Secretary Mattis out after the midterms?

Published

on

Is Defense Secretary Mattis out after the midterms

We already know two major players in the Trump administration are leaving after the midterm elections. U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley announced her resignation last week and Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been given everything other than his walking papers. Now we can add Defense Secretary James Mattis to the list of likely exits.

President Trump said on 60 Minutes, which airs tonight, that Mattis is “sort of a Democrat” but that he gets along with one of the most popular members of his cabinet.

“He may leave,” the President said. “I mean, at some point, everybody leaves. Everybody. People leave. That’s Washington.”

There has been speculation the President has been unhappy with Mattis for two reasons. The first is a quote attributed to Mattis in Bob Woodward’s book that says the President’s mentality is comparable to a “fifth- or sixth-grader.”

The second is the popularity of Mattis which some claim threatens the President’s ego.

Trump says Defense Secretary Mattis could leave administration: ‘He’s sort of a Democrat’ | Fox News

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-defense-secretary-mattis-could-leave-administration-hes-sort-of-a-democratThe president also called reports that the White House is in chaos “so false” and “fake news.” He added, “I have people now on standby that will be phenomenal. They’ll come into the administration.

“Yeah, other people will go, sure,” Trump told Stahl. “We have a great Cabinet. There are some people I’m not happy with. I have some people that I’m not thrilled with. And I have other people that I’m beyond thrilled with.”

My Take

The love affair many on the right have had with Mattis is silly. He has been adequate, but for a Republican administration to have a Defense Secretary that conspicuously stays out of the news is strange. With so much happening in the world, it has never sat well with me that Mattis seems to be much more passive than his legend dictates.

Exits often happen after midterm elections, but there seems to be an awful lot of them this time around.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report