Driven by rising out-migration and falling birth rates, California’s population growth has stalled, leading analysts to consider a possible forecast of a so-called “no-growth” period in the future.

Although Americans nationwide have been flooding south and west for years, the Golden State has become an exception. Nearly 62 percent of Americans lived in the two regions, Justin Fox observed from Census figures. “That’s up from 60.4 percent in the 2010 census, 58.1 percent in 2000, 55.6 percent in 1990 — and 44 percent in 1950. The big anomaly is California, which is very much in the West, yet has lost an estimated 383,344 residents to other states since 2010.”

“The state’s birth rate declined to 12.42 births per 1,000 population in 2016 — the lowest in California history,” the San Jose Mercury News noted, citing a state Department of Finance report. “In 2010, the last time figures were compiled, the birth rate was 13.69 per 1,000 population.”

Changing habits

Cultural and economic changes — familiar to Californians who have followed the debate around jobs, families, adulthood and the millennial generation — were responsible for the dip, Finance Department demographer Walter Schwarm told the Mercury News. “There are a lot of people who could be having children but are choosing to do something else,” he said. “People want to establish careers. They’re looking to pursue degrees, they’re getting out there and finding their place in employment,” and, in the case of couples hoping to start families into their 30s, it becomes “harder and harder to conceive.”

Relatively speaking, however, California’s figures have remained strong. The state hit its in-state birth low at a time when the United States experienced “the lowest rate of population growth of any year since the Great Depression,” the Washington Post recently reported, referencing other Census figures that show deaths reaching a 16-year high. “The nation grew by 0.695 percent between 2015 and 2016 to 323.1 million, down from 0.732 percent the previous year — the lowest increase since the 1937-1938 period, when it was 0.60 percent,” according to the paper. 

“Immigration also declined, though for the past three years immigration levels have been higher than they were since before the recession of 2007-2009. But the fall in the natural increase, from 4.07 to 3.84 per 1,000, reflecting fewer births and more deaths, is the lead cause — and the trend is likely to continue, Frey said.” 

Global ripples

But the immigration issue has not abated politically as flows of labor and patterns of conflict have morphed over the years. In a reminder of California’s place at a nexus of increasingly global migration, Mexico’s own authorities have strained in recent months to cope with an influx of African and Caribbean migrants to borderland cities. Baja state governor warned last month that the situation in Tijuana was “becoming overwhelming. Just in the last two weeks a large group of people from Haiti arrived, at the same time that the United States reduced the number of interviews for asylum,” he lamented, according to Mexico News Daily.

An uncertain balance

Taken together, the large demographic trends of the past several years have changed the impact of California’s population on social services budgets, with benefits for the elderly increasing in demand but others sinking in the aggregate. “The state’s public schools are seeing no growth in their overall student population, and some districts are seeing declines,” Dan Walters observed at the Sacramento Bee. “Were we growing at a 1980s clip, we’d need three times as many new housing units.” 

But the uneasy balance could be upset by a sharper slowdown in the immediate future. The state’s current growth rate, Walters added, “is scarcely a third of the nation’s fastest-growing state, Utah, which posted a 2.03 percent gain between 2015 and 2016. It’s also less than half of the rate in rival Texas.”

A small fence separates densely populated Tijuana, Mexico, right, from the United States in the Border Patrol’s San Diego Sector.

The face of immigration in California has become more complex than the political debate would suggest, with Roma, or gypsies, coming to the state in small but significantly increased numbers. The trend hearkens back to the old days of the controversy in the U.S., when Europeans fleeing adverse conditions at home sparked divisions over how many, and how much, to welcome. As Latin American immigration, lawful or not, recedes from its recent peak, current residents have begun to transition into more established roles, leaving openings for more newcomers. 

“This year, almost 1,800 Romanians have been apprehended at the southern U.S. border, up from fewer than 400 in all of last year and just a few dozen in 2008, according to government statistics,” Bloomberg reported. “They are propelled by an anti-immigrant wave sweeping Europe and pushing the Roma across the Atlantic Ocean.”

“The traditionally itinerant group, persecuted for centuries, is facing less-tolerant governments as more than 1 million migrants and refugees from Syria and other countries overwhelm the region. A resurgence of neo-Nazism from Romania to Italy has seen their camps demolished, businesses firebombed, neighborhoods walled off and children beaten.”

Times of transition

Although still vastly outnumbered by migrants and immigrants from Latin America, the number of Europeans seeking refuge in California could swell substantially if the political and cultural outlook in their homelands continues to sour. Syrian immigration, all but an asterisk until the war in that country displaced millions, became a hot-button issue as Californians split on how warily to treat incoming Muslims after the San Bernardino terror attack. “Since October, about 1,060 Syrians have landed in California — largely in San Diego and Sacramento, but also in Los Angeles and Orange County,” noted Southern California Public Radio.

“Even in California with a long history of welcoming immigrants, Gov. Jerry Brown said the state can help maintain America’s traditional role as a place of asylum, but he would work closely with Obama to ensure the Syrians arriving in the state were fully vetted. Brown’s comments came just days after coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris put people on edge and amid the rising rhetorical heat of the presidential campaign.”

Nationwide, shifting patterns of unlawful immigration have echoed developments in California. “Mexico still ranks as the leading source country for unauthorized immigrants, with a population of 5.8 million in the U.S. as of 2014, but it has declined since peaking in 2007,” KPCC observed, citing a new report from the Pew Research Center. “Meanwhile, unauthorized immigration from Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and Central America has been rising. India, for example, accounted for about 130,000 unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2009. By 2014, an estimated 500,000 lived here illegally.” In California, the station added, the unauthorized population “has declined slightly, from an estimated 2.5 million in 2009 to a little more than 2.3 million in 2014, according to the report.”

Pushing benefits

In Sacramento, both lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration have worked to extend a growing list of benefits to undocumented residents once restricted to citizens. “California on Wednesday became the first state to require that undocumented immigrants be told of their right to an attorney before being interviewed by federal immigration authorities while in custody,” as BuzzFeed reported. “The Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds Act, parts of which goes into effect in 2017, was sign by Gov. Jerry Brown, who called it a ‘measured approach to due process and transparency principles.'”

Health care has become another targeted area on state Democrats’ agenda. Last year, the Los Angeles Times recalled, Brown “allocated funding to allow 170,000 undocumented kids sign up for Medi-Cal at an annual cost of about $143 million. Earlier this month, he signed a bill making California the first state to ask federal officials to allow immigrants here illegally to buy insurance through its state health exchange, without providing them with subsidies.”

With a little luck at the ballot box, Republicans in the Legislature are set to expand on their increasingly diverse delegation, a far cry from the “Party of Old White Men” it’s been thought of by some for years.

And while Republicans have the primary goal of holding the relatively few seats in the Legislature they already have, increased diversity would show a modernizing party that could expand is electoral appeal. 

“Our party does not engage in the identity politics of the left, but we have placed an emphasis on recruiting and supporting the best candidates for every district,” said CAGOP Vice Chairwoman Harmeet Dhillon. “In our culturally rich state, that candidate is often someone with a minority background.”

Diverse candidates

In a district that includes much of Bakersfield, termed-out Republican Shannon Grove appears set to be replaced by Vince Fong, of Chinese descent. Fong won the primary with 60.8 percent of the vote in the largely Republican district.

Dante Acosta is poised to replace termed-out Republican Scott Wilk in a Republican-leaning district that includes Simi Valley and much of north Los Angeles County.

Acosta, of Mexican descent, came in second in the primary behind Democrat Christy Smith, who won 44.8 percent to 35.9 percent. However, Acosta split a majority of votes among two other Republican candidates.

In a largely Republican Orange County district, termed-out Don Wagner may be replaced by Harry Sidhu, who came to the United States in 1974 from India. Sidhu split a 67 percent majority of the vote among six Republicans and came in second behind the lone Democrat.

Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang, who was born in Taiwan, is running to replace Bob Huff, the only termed-out Senate Republican, in a competitive district that straddles Orange and Los Angeles counties. Chang faces longer odds than the others, as she advanced to the general with two Democratic candidates splitting a 55 percent majority of the vote.

If Chang does win, she’d increase diversity in the Senate Republican caucus. And filling her seat in the Assembly could be Philip Chen, of Chinese descent. Chen, like Acosta and Sidhu, was the second-place finisher in the primary behind a Democrat, splitting the vote with four Republicans in the Republican-leaning district.

“As an immigrant myself, I am proud to see more and more Republican candidates that other Californians with diverse backgrounds can identify with when they visit the polls,” said Dhillon, who was born in India. “This trend increases voter turnout and enthusiasm.”

Does it even matter?

California is a huge state, filled with diverse pockets. It’s often said that as the demographics of the state changed, the Republican Party failed to keep up.

Since becoming CAGOP chairman in 2013, Jim Brulte (along with Dhillon and other party leaders) has tried to change that trend in candidate recruitment. As he said in 2015: “In a neighborhood election, the candidate who most looks like, sounds like, has the shared values and shared experiences of the majority of the people in the neighborhood tends to win.”

In 2014, California Republicans sent a relatively large delegation of women to the Legislature, with a large Asian bloc that included Chang. In 2016, they’ll aim to expand on that with Acosta, Chen, Sidhu, Fong and Chang. 

“Under the leadership of Jim Brulte, California Republicans have done yeoman work in recruiting candidates who look like their constituents,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a Roy P. Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College. “It’s a smart move: monochrome does not fit California, and in the long run, this strategy could help the party rebuild its strength.”

But, Pitney cautioned, the effect Trump — the presumptive nominee who has a tendency to say things sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly viewed as racist — will have at the top of the GOP ticket is unclear.

“The problem is that people tend to see political parties through the prism of presidential candidates,” Pitney said. “Trump could ruin much of California GOP’s progress.”

The Census Bureau estimates that 23 percent of state residents meet its alternative definition of impoverished. A 2011 study done by the Public Policy Institute of California and the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, which also took into account cost of living, put L.A. County’s poverty rate at 27 percent. With the cost of rent ballooning since then, that figure may be low. But the established data suggest that at least 2.7 million of the county’s 10.2 million residents are in poverty. That’s about the same number of people as the population of Chicago — America’s third-largest city.

Now a new study by the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, with the help of public opinion research firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, has come along that puts a face on this poverty and what it means to have so little money in a place as expensive as Los Angeles County. (Here’s the UCLA summary; here’s a slideshow.) It’s based on interviews with 1,401 county residents.

Perhaps the harshest finding was the extent of economic insecurity among Latinos, the largest ethnic group in the county. Some 44 percent of Latinos, and 54 percent of Latino men (including those of all incomes) worried about going hungry, more than double the rate of any other ethnic/racial group. Also, 44 percent of Latinos worried about going homeless, much higher than any other group, including a majority of men.

Economic fears extend to households making $90K

Other findings:

• 29 percent of all those surveyed feared becoming homeless and 31 percent worried about not having enough money for food. Almost one in four households making $60,000 to $90,000 a year — 24 percent — worried about going hungry.

• Latinos were far more concerned about the cost of living, especially housing, than any other ethnic group. Satisfaction with housing costs was highest among people over 65.

• Unhappiness with the quality of life is highest in the inland area stretching from the San Fernando Valley south through central Los Angeles to the communities surrounding Interstate 5 in south Los Angeles.

Former Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky told the Los Angeles Times that the survey findings were a stark reminder of “the clear differences by class, by economic standing, even more so than the racial divide. … Economic differences seem to be the fault line in our county. It really paints a picture of a Los Angeles that is two worlds.”

Blacks, whites most likely to be upset with public schools

On racially tinged questions, the UCLA study had some results that may surprise.

• Despite years of reports about problems with English-language learner programs, Latinos were far less likely than African Americans to be upset about the quality of public schools. Blacks, whites, college graduates, people with post-college degrees and people with household incomes more than $150,000 were most consistently critical. High school dropouts were most satisfied with public education.

• Despite a perception of racial gaps on the state of race relations, the UCLA study showed, on a scale of 1 to 100, “almost total agreement … [among the] county’s whites (78), Latinos (75), African Americans (77) and Asian-Americans (74)” about the quality of their relations with other ethnic and racial groups.

• African Americans and whites are most worried about the negative effects of immigration.

The rivalry is sure to heat up over a report that the California High-Speed Rail Authority is reconsidering running the bullet train route north to San Jose before heading south to Burbank as was originally planned, while efforts intensify to stop the tunnels and prevent more water flowing south.

In the Los Angeles Times account of the possible switch of the rail plan, reporter Ralph Vartbedian noted, “With the project already behind schedule and facing estimates of higher costs, the Bay Area option could offer a faster, less risky and cheaper option. Getting even a portion of the project built early would help its political survival.”

The key phrase here is “political survival.” The train is facing mounting pressure from citizen lawsuits, financial uncertainties and flagging support from the general public. Suggested routes for the train from the Central Valley to the San Fernando Valley have run into hot resistance. There is urgency for the authority to get something done, to get the project up and running so that it would seem imprudent and unreasonable to stop it.

Yet, the threat to undo the project is there. A ballot measure redirecting bullet train money to water projects is in the offing and the idea enjoys some support in a recent poll — certainly more support than the train itself has seen in polls.

While plenty of Californians — north and south — object to the bullet train being built at all, Southern California transportation advocates are incensed at the possible change in plans favoring the north.

Meanwhile, the other big Jerry Brown legacy project, the delta tunnels, to bring water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta to the central and southern parts of the state is also facing opposition.

An initiative already qualified for the ballot would require voter approval of revenue bonds over $2 billion. There is no secret the proponents of this measure are taking aim at a major revenue source to build the tunnels. Revenue bonds, unlike General Obligation bonds that are backed by taxpayers, do not require a vote and are paid by the users of a development. Revenue bonds are considered to be part of the financing structure for the delta tunnels.

Some northern California legislators propose having voters decide if they want the tunnels. Many supporters of the idea think a statewide vote would scuttle the project.

Nearly 35 years ago an effort to construct a peripheral canal to bring water from the delta south was defeated at an election. Southern voters supported the canal but it was overwhelming rejected by voters in the north.

Which brings up important differences in the north-south rivalry.

Despite Southern California being the home of a larger proportion of the electorate, northern Californians vote in greater percentages. That gives the north a political advantage. One reflection of that advantage can be seen in those who hold statewide offices. Of the eight statewide elected constitutional offices, all are filled by northerners except for Treasurer John Chiang.

Like professional sports teams — think Giants and Dodgers — public policy too can produce bitter rivalry and loyal supporters by dint of geography.

The fact that about 23 percent of state residents are barely getting by has helped fuel the push for a much higher minimum wage and prompted renewed interest in affordable housing programs. It’s also put the focus on regional economic disparities, especially the fact that Silicon Valley and San Francisco are the primary engine of state prosperity.

While the tech boom and the vast increase in housing prices it has triggered in the Bay Area are national news, prompting think pieces and thoughtful analyses, the poverty picture in the state’s largest population center isn’t covered nearly as fully. Although the fact is plain in Census Bureau data, it’s not commonly understood that Los Angeles County is the capital of U.S. poverty. A 2013 study by the Public Policy Institute of California and the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality based on 2011 data found 27 percent of the county’s 10 million residents were impoverished, the highest figure in the state and the highest of any large metro area in the U.S. The study questioned long-held assumptions about poverty being worst in rural areas.

But there are reasons to think the rate in Los Angeles County is significantly higher than the 27 percent reported in 2013.

The first is that many surveys of poverty struggle to account for undocumented immigrants, who often work for cash and don’t show up in wage surveys. The Pew Research Service in 2009 estimated that undocumented individuals face poverty rates “nearly double” those of Americans in general. Los Angeles County has by far the most undocumented immigrants, estimated by PPIC to be 815,000 in 2013.

The second is that the cost of housing has surged in Los Angeles County over the past four years even as wages have stagnated. The average rent of an apartment countywide is expected to be $1,800 by year’s end, with the biggest percentage jump in poorer communities in the San Fernando Valley.

Poverty-related stress takes heavy toll

A summer report by Southern California Public Radio laid out a grim picture of the toll this mass poverty takes on the young.

New research shows the mere fact of being poor can affect kids’ brains, making it difficult for them to succeed in school.

 

Los Angeles public schools — where more than 80 percent of students live in poverty — illustrate the challenges for these students. …

 

Children living in poor neighborhoods are more likely to suffer traumatic incidents, like witnessing or being the victims of shootings, parental neglect or abuse. They also struggle with pernicious daily stressors, including food or housing insecurity, overcrowding and overworked or underemployed, stressed-out parents.

 

Untreated, researchers have found these events compound, affecting many parts of the body. Studies show chronic stress can change the chemical and physical structures of the brain.

 

“You see deficits in your ability to regulate emotions in adaptive ways as a result of stress,” said Dr. Cara Wellman, a professor of neuroscience and psychology at Indiana University.

 

Dendrites, which look like microscopic fingers, stretch off each brain cell to catch information.  Wellman’s studies in mice show that chronic stress causes these fingers to shrink, changing the way the brain works. She found deficiencies in the pre-frontal cortex – the part of the brain needed to solve problems, which is crucial to learning.

 

Other researchers link chronic stress to a host of cognitive effects, including trouble with attention, concentration, memory and creativity.

SCPR had a follow-up report that showed Los Angeles schools simply didn’t have the resources to help affected students in a comprehensive way.

A populist wave

In a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll, conducted online by SurveyMonkey, Californians disagreed on why they worried about the future, but agreed that it was worrisome. “By more than 2 to 1, voters both nationally and in California say they are more worried than hopeful about changes in the country’s morals and values,” the Los Angeles Times reported. “By nearly the same margin, more worry than express hope about the changing national economy. And by 5 to 1, they say they are worried about how the nation’s politics have changed.”

The concerns reinforced the strong impression that Donald Trump has made on Golden State Republicans. Trump ranked first among their preferences for the presidential nomination, winning 20 percent support to Ben Carson’s 19 percent. Trump’s campaign success has largely been attributed to the rise of a populist and nationalist strain on the right.

“Pessimism is particularly profound among white voters, especially those without a college education,” the Times noted. “In California, fewer than 1 in 4 non-college-educated whites say the country is on the right track, and 70 percent say they are worried about the way the economy has changed. Nationally, the worried share among the group is even higher, 74 percent.”

White woes

Some analysts have pointed to data suggesting that the demographic group faces severe challenges. A new study making waves in the national press has revealed an unprecedented, sharp decline in the health and welfare of middle-aged white Americans.

“The mortality rate for white men and women ages 45-54 with less than a college education increased markedly between 1999 and 2013, most likely because of problems with legal and illegal drugs, alcohol and suicide, the researchers concluded. Before then, death rates for that group dropped steadily, and at a faster pace,” according to the Washington Post. “Half a million people are dead who should not be dead,” one co-author, a Nobel laureate, told the Post. “About 40 times the Ebola stats. You’re getting up there with HIV-AIDS.”

Data from the Dornsife/LA Times poll suggested that inland Californians stood closer to that precipice than those gathered along the coast. “In coastal regions, 44 percent of voters were satisfied with California’s economy; inland, just 30 percent, the Times noted. “Thirty-three percent of voters with a college education said they were getting ahead financially, while just 13 percent of those with a high school degree or less said they were. Conversely, just 12 percent of college-educated voters said they were falling behind financially, but 25 percent of those with no more than a high school degree said they were sliding backward.”

The politics of government

Many respondents singled out the role of government as a problem. While almost two thirds said “unfairness in the economic system that favors the wealthy is a major problem in the United States,” about 40 percent “cited over-regulation of the free market as a bigger issue in the country” and “said that the government gets in the way of their opportunities,” USC observed.

Yet while Republicans have not been able to translate that unease into widespread change in their party’s fortunes, Democrats focused on economic anxiety have used that issue to tug their party to the left. As key activists on the left recently told The Guardian, “a key gathering of activists in California in 2013 laid the groundwork for the transformation now reverberating through the party.” Frustrated by president Obama’s willingness to trim the growth of social security, their “meeting in a San Jose hotel room of groups also including MoveOn.org, Working Families, Progressives United and Social Security Works was an informal spin-off from the annual Netroots Nation conference.”

“Having successfully fought their own president and defended the pension rights of millions of Americans, the activists decided to go on the offensive and try to convince other Democrats to begin talking about expanding social security instead.”

A

But opponents say it will have the opposite effect.

Proposition I would forbid the city from issuing permits for 18 months for the demolition, conversion or construction of Mission District housing projects with five or more units. It places a similar ban on certain Mission commercial properties, including wholesalers and auto repair shops – unless the business is replaced with a 100 percent affordable housing project.

The measure’s proponents are concerned that long-time residents can no longer afford to stay in San Francisco as rents and housing prices skyrocket.

Evictions on the Rise

There were 2,120 eviction notices filed in San Francisco from March 2014 through February 2015, according to the latest San Francisco Rent Board Annual Eviction Report. That represents a 67 percent increase from 2010. In 16 percent of the latest evictions, tenants were replaced by building owners or their relatives, up from 9 percent in 2010.

Supervisor Eric Mar, speaking at the June 2 Board of Supervisors meeting in which a moratorium ordinance was debated, said he is concerned that too many minorities are being pushed out of the Mission District.

Seven of the 11 supervisors voted for the moratorium, falling short of the nine votes needed to pass. After the moratorium failed before the board, activists gathered enough signatures to place it on the ballot.

During the debate, Mar warned that if the moratorium is not put into effect, “we will see an ethnically cleansed, racially cleansed Mission District that Latino and Chicano people are pushed out of, low-income families and seniors are pushed out of as well.”

It would be a repeat of the displacement of Filipinos from the city’s Manila Town in the 1970s, he said, and of blacks from the Fillmore District in the 1950s and ‘60s due to urban renewal.

“I call this ethnic cleansing because we know that in the past decades the African American population has been pushed out with unchecked out-migration that’s left us with the lowest number of African Americans of any large city in the country,” said Mar.

“We are facing the same cleansing with Latinos and Chicanos, and we have to learn from those mistakes. This is about saving the Mission District, saving San Francisco and saving the heart and soul of our city.”

‘Shooting ourselves in the foot’

But the supervisors who voted against the moratorium argued that it would actually result in the opposite of its intended effect by further limiting housing supply and driving up prices. The city would forego certain fees on new development that boost affordable housing.

“Whether or not we like it, market-rate housing right now in San Francisco is directly tied to the production of affordable housing,” said Supervisor Mark Farrell. “By stopping market-rate construction, the facts are that you are directly taking away from one of the primary resources the city has, over $100 million in the next few years, to create affordable housing in our city.

“We are literally going to be shooting ourselves in the foot.”

Farrell blames the city’s regulatory policies for causing the housing crisis.

“It’s the consequences of the policies that we have had for decades here in San Francisco,” he said. “From my perspective, it’s simply not building enough housing to deal with the crisis that we have in front of us today. This crisis didn’t start just a few weeks ago; our housing crisis started quite a while ago.”

The city’s population was 852,469 last year – a 5.9 percent increase since 2010. During the same period the number of housing units increased at less than half that rate, 2.5 percent, according to census data. The Mission District has added about 100 units annually in that time.

The Mission, which is a short bus or BART ride from jobs in the financial district and Giants games at AT&T Park, is known for its ethnic restaurants and lively music and arts scene.

It’s “arguably the area to watch,” according to the San Francisco Association of Realtors, and “one of San Francisco’s most promising, up-and-coming areas to invest in real estate.”

Housing Prices Exploding

As with all of San Francisco, housing prices and rents have exploded in the Mission District in recent years. The median price of a Mission District home was $1.3 million as of March 31. That’s nearly double the $700,111 median price five years ago, according to a legislative analyst’s report.

The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the Mission District is $4,500 per month, according to Supervisor David Campos, whose district includes the Mission.

The median household income in the Mission District is $60,156, according to the realtors association. If that household were living in an average two-bedroom apartment in the Mission, it would have just over $6,000 for all other expenses, including food, utilities and health care, over the course of a year.

“Middle and working class people, the very people who have made the Mission what it is today, are having a hard time staying in this community,” Campos said. “They can no longer afford to live here. Housing is no longer affordable to the very people who made the community the unique and wonderful place that it is.

“People are terrified – terrified that the culture and the diversity of this neighborhood will be lost forever.”

The board room, the hallway outside the chambers and an overflow room were packed with Mission residents and anti-displacement activists, who frequently disrupted the meeting with applause, hissing and chanting. The public comments portion of the meeting lasted seven hours.

Initiative on the Ballot

Proposition I states that the moratorium could be extended an extra year with a majority vote of the supervisors. It also requires development of a plan to ensure that at least half of new housing in the Mission is affordable for low, moderate and middle-income households. As part of that plan, Campos has said he would want the city to increase fees on developers and target for affordable housing the remaining 13 sites in the Mission where buildings with 40 or more units can be built.

Developers of housing projects with 10 or more units are required to reserve 12 percent of their units for affordable housing or pay in-lieu fees for the city to build affordable housing projects. There are currently 1,574 units slated to be built in the Mission District, according to AnMarie Rodgers, a senior policy advisor in the San Francisco Planning Department. If built, those projects would bring the equivalent of 189 new affordable housing units to the market, or $2 million in fees.

In addition to providing affordable housing, the fees on new development also help pay for other city projects. The moratorium would eliminate nearly $125 million in funding slated for improvements in Mission area rapid transit, an aquatic center, park, playgrounds and a recreation center, according to Rodgers.

Several measures are underway to increase affordable housing in San Francisco.

Affordable Housing Measures

Last year voters passed Proposition K, which makes it city policy to help construct or rehabilitate at least 30,000 homes by 2020.

More than half must be affordable for middle-class households, or 120-150 percent of the area median income. The median income is $61,160 for a family of four.

At least a third must be affordable for low-income households, or 50-80 percent of median, and moderate-income, 80-120 percent of median.

Proposition A, a $310 million affordable housing bond measure, is on this November’s ballot.

Mayor Ed Lee is working to recapture $500 million of the city’s dissolved redevelopment funds. That would increase the affordable housing budget to $1.6 billion over the next six years, according to Olson Lee, director of the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development.

The mayor’s staff is also looking at administrative measures to speed up approval of affordable housing projects. The administration is considering incentives such as allowing higher density or taller buildings in exchange for more affordable units.

Proposition I appears to have a good chance to pass if a poll taken in February is accurate. It showed 65 percent support for a ballot measure halting new project approvals in the Mission District for one year, according to the San Francisco Examiner. Only 26 percent were opposed.

Courtesy Sen. Kevin de León’s office

As many as 7,000 low-income Los Angeles residents could eventually take part in a state-funded electric car sharing program that rolled out last week.

State and city officials celebrated the soft launch of the endeavor — which aims to improve air quality by cutting carbon emissions — at an L.A. affordable housing complex.

City officials hope to establish as many as 100 vehicles as part of the pilot program, which the state is partially funding through a $1.6 million award. The city expects to use an additional $8 million “in in-kind city resources and private operator investment in equipment and operations,” according to L.A.’s  Sustainable City plan.

The state money comes from California’s controversial cap-and-trade program, designed to curb the state’s reliance on fossil fuels. Critics call it a pollution tax that unfairly burdens large industries.

State Senate leader Kevin de León speaks at roll out of electric car sharing program in L.A.
Photo courtesy de León’s office.

“Fighting smog and climate change so that our kids can breathe clean air requires more transportation options that don’t rely on dirty fossil fuels,” state Senate leader Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, said in a press release. “This electric car-sharing pilot project offers a glimpse of the future, and represents the type of shift in policy, infrastructure, and behavior that we need.”

Officials say the project will educate residents about car sharing and transportation alternatives, install electric vehicle charging stations and introduce an electric car sharing fleet.

Specifically, it will “provide affordable last mile/first mile solutions for low-income families and other residents who do not own a car or need a second car for trips requiring a light duty passenger vehicle,” according to L.A.’s  Sustainable City plan.

“Our EV car sharing pilot is a perfect example of how our state’s cap-and-trade dollars should be put to work: providing transportation options for Angelenos in need, and helping us achieve our clean air goals outlined in my Sustainable City plan,” Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti added in the news release.

The program is formally called the Car Sharing and Mobility Options in Disadvantaged Communities Pilot Project. It is run by the California Air Resources Board, and originated last year after the Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown signed two of de León bills, SB1275 and SB535, according to the Senate leader’s office. Those laws direct CARB to invest the state’s cap-and-trade revenue into programs that bring clean air and jobs to communities heavily impacted by climate change and poor environmental quality.

Contact reporter Chris Nichols at chris@calwatchdog.com or on Twitter @ChrisTheJourno

The Safe and Responsible Drivers Act was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2013 to allow qualified unauthorized immigrants to drive legally. It went into effect Jan. 2 after a long preparation period.

Supporters say the goal of the law, also known as AB60, is to make roads safer by insuring more drivers.

Critics, meanwhile, have said AB60 condones law-breaking. Some have said the licenses could be used to commit fraud and that it could increase security risks.

The nearly 400,000 licenses for applicants who are in the country illegally represent more than half the total number of original licenses issued by the DMV from January through June.

“The latest numbers reflect the continued successful implementation of AB 60,” said DMV Director Jean Shiomoto, in a recent press release. “The DMV was determined to develop a process that would not only meet the stringent requirements of this new law, but also the unique needs of our newly expanded customer base.”

Applicants must prove their identity and California residency, as well as meet all other licensing requirements such as passing the knowledge and behind-the-wheel exams.

The governor’s budget has estimated AB60 will cost $141 million over three years, according to the DMV. The majority of costs cover new agency staff.

The state expects to process as many as 1.4 million applications for the new licenses over the next three years. The state’s Motor Vehicle Account, which receives money from DMV license fees and other charges, will be used to pay for the program, the agency has said.

Wait times ballooned at DMV offices across the state after the program started in January, attributed by the agency to a larger-than-expected surge in applicants.

The average wait time in January for walk-in customers was 90 minutes statewide, according to the DMV. It was down to 60 minutes in February.

Altogether in the first six months of 2015, the DMV issued 759,000 original driver licenses. That includes approximately 397,000 for applicants through the new program, according to DMV figures.

The distribution of licenses is on pace to surpass the number of original licenses issued in recent years. Those figures are as follows: 902,028 in 2014; 863,196 in 2013; and 803,567 in 2012.

The state says there are more than 25 million current driver licenses issued in California.

Contact reporter Chris Nichols at chris@calwatchdog.com or on Twitter @ChrisTheJourno