In the ensuing 27 years, PBC has revised its plan innumerable times only to have state regulators or local government bodies block the company from breaking ground on any construction project on any of the undeveloped land it owned.

There was a breakthrough in 2012 when PBC cut a deal with the California Coastal Commission that allowed the company to build 90 homes (as well as a 100-room hotel) in exchange for permanently preserving 635 acres of forest land it owned.

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors also approved the development plan, with the stipulation that PBC build a small affordable housing project (as opposed to paying an “in lieu” fee of $5 million, with which the county could build the affordable housing itself).

Two years later, PBC still hasn’t built the affordable housing project the county ordered. Not because the company has not acted in good faith. But because a citizens group – Del Monte Neighbors United – is determined to keep the 24-unit rental townhouse project from being built anywhere near their backyards.

It’s not that the citizens group is opposed to affordable housing, its members insist. It’s just that PBC’s townhouse project “is not in keeping with the single-family zoning and rural-lane, forested character of adjacent neighborhoods,” they explain.

And there’s one other issue, they say: The complex “will have a negative impact on property values of adjacent properties to the detriment of individual property owners and the community.”

Least affordable

This is why California has the least affordable housing on the United States mainland, according a recent report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition. It’s why an average household here in the Golden State requires annual earnings of $54,168 to afford a two-bedroom rental home.

Land use restrictions and mandates by both state and local government grossly inflate the cost of market-rate housing. And nimbyism by activist neighborhood groups limits the supply of affordable housing available to households with yearly income less than $54,168.

Yet the state’s population continues to grow at 1 percent a year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and now stands at 38 million. (Click on the chart above.)

Monterey County has an opportunity to break that vicious cycle when Pebble Beach Company’s planned affordable housing project comes up for consideration by its Board of Supervisors.

In January, the county’s Housing Advisory Committee recommended that board members give PBC its long-awaited go-ahead to break ground on the modest 12-unit development.

It remains to be seen if the board backs up the affordable housing mandate it imposed on PCB or if the majority of supervisors bow to the obstructionist citizens group Del Monte Neighbors United.

By Katy Grimes

Surprise! Sacramento is on another list of ‘worst run cities’ in the nation.

The website 247wallstreet.com ranked the best and worst run cities in the U.S.

Ranked number 18, Sacramento is sandwiched between Reno and Chicago.

Sacramento’s population is 472,169, has a credit rating of Aa2, which is under review for downgrade, high violent crime per 1,000 people at 7.11 (38th highest), and a high unemployment rate of 14.1 percent (tied- 9th highest).

The rankings were based on population, city’s credit rating, violent crime rates and unemployment.

But that’s not all folks… there are more ‘worst run cities’ in California.

Santa Ana made the list at number 15, with high unemployment at 13.7 percent.

Riverside is number 12, also with a 13.7 percent unemployment rate.

Fresno is number 7, with a credit rating of Baa2, under review for downgrade, and a high unemployment rate of 15.6 percent.

Modesto is number 6 with a 14.6 percent unemployment rate and still suffering under one of the highest home foreclosure markets in the country.

Stockton is number 3 after filing for bankruptcy. It has a credit rating of Caa3, (negative outlook), the 8th highest violent crime rate, and the highest unemployment rate of 20.2 percent.

And San Bernardino made the number 1 position, “where the median home value declined by 57.6% between 2007 and 2011, more than any other large city in the U.S.” The unemployment rate is the third highest, at 17.6 percent.

Seven cities on the national ‘worst run cities‘ list does not bode well for California.

Read the report here. And weep.

Best run cities

The good news is that San Francisco (gasp) made the ‘best run cities‘ list, coming in at number 11, with a balanced budget despite the state’s chronic budget issues.

Fremont is ranked at number 5, with a highly educated population, highest median income of all of the cities, and a large manufacturing base.

Irvine is ranked number 3, with the lowest violent crime, and the most educated population.

Even in California, some city leaders understand the importance of economics.

By Wayne Lusvardi

When will California’s population “pop” at 50 million persons?  Two recent studies conducted by the Population Dynamics Research Group at the University of Souther California and the Public Policy Institute of California differ widely in their conclusions.

The main conclusions of the two studies differ as to the timing that new roads, electric grids, sewers and telecommunications infrastructure may be needed.

USC: “The population slowdown may bring reprieve to a fiscally strapped state under pressure to keep up with infrastructure needs.”

PPIC: “Growth will put pressure on infrastructure.”

PPIC forecasted California would reach 50 million people by 2032. That’s 20 years from now. Its numbers were based on California Department of Finance data from 2007 and updated in 2010.

USC’s forecast is for California’s population to reach 50 million by 2046. That’s 34 years from now. The USC forecast is the first to use data from the 2010 U.S. Census.

The USC forecast sees California reaching 50 million people 14 years later than PPIC.  This would put less time pressure on planners and decision makers to finance and build out public improvements needed to serve a population of 13 million million people.  That is about four mega-cities the size of the city of Los Angeles.

Where Would They Live?

The PPIC forecast sees the growth being spread out mostly in the inland areas of the state. That’s different from the central planning policies of the state Legislature in tandem with regional planning agencies that want to steer that growth mainly toward “urban infill” locations in already highly populated areas to alleviate “urban sprawl.”  These agencies include the Association of Bay Area Governments in northern California and the Southern California Association of Governments.

Central planners foresee putting one-half to two-thirds of this new population in apartments and condominiums around existing population centers. Historically, California growth has been about two-thirds from single family homes in the suburbs and inland counties.

The USC study does not contain a forecast of the locations where population growth would be the greatest. However, the USC study indicates that most new growth would be from “California born” residents rather than those “foreign born” or “born in other states.”

As suburbs and inland areas are where there are a greater proportion of families, this presumes that growth would be in suburbs and inland areas.  Once again, this would run against the mandates of central planners and SB 375, the “anti-urban sprawl” bill passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2008.  Diverting population growth to “infill” areas of highly populated cities will put greater pressure on water supplies than allowing population to spread to suburbs and inland areas.

Fewer Immigrants?

Concurrently with the release of the USC study, the Pew Hispanic Center issued a report concluding that foreign immigration has come to a standstill, and may even be reversing  The USC study likewise sees the major reason for slower population growth as a leveling off of foreign immigration.

The PEW study claimed that about 900,000 fewer immigrants have come to the U.S. since 2008 than were expected. That is about 225,000 fewer immigrants per year in the.   In the last 40 years, about 12 million people came here, reflecting about 300,000 per year. Half of those foreign born coming to the U.S. were illegal.

But Where Would They Get Water?

The 14 more years to build major infrastructure forecasted by USC would not apply to California’s water situation. California has only about one-half year of water storage in its combined state and federal water systems, compared to about four to 10 years of water storage along the Colorado River water system. Since 2000, environmentalists have diverted five “waterless” water bonds — Propositions 12, 13, 40, 50 and 84 — totaling $18.7 billion mainly for open space acquisitions and environmental studies.  That would be enough to build about four to eight major water reservoirs.

Where California’s future population is going to get its water is still in question.