The quote that sums up that page: “And the results in California are representative of the results in much of America: an economy that sacrifices growth for exclusion, that draws battle lines in a fight over a pie that’s no longer growing.”
Exactly right, and that apt quote is demonstrated almost to perfection by the comments from certain CA parents on this forum.
1 Like
But when you think about it, that quote is exactly backwards. If the Bay Area (“pie”) was not growing, there would be little need/demand for new housing. Indeed, the opposite is happening. The BA is booming. The CA pie is growing. State revenues, which are primarily income taxes, are the highest they’ve ever been, and so man billions in surplus, the Governor can’t find ways to give it away – that is clearly a result of rising taxable income, i.e, a larger “pie”. CA’s state GDP grew 84% in real terms from '98 thru 2020.
This part is correct: “an economy that sacrifices growth for exclusion…” (Yes, the NIMBY’s want no growth in their backyard, and many want no growth anywhere.)
This clause is not: “a pie that’s no longer growing” (But the growth is still there, regardless.)
2 Likes
Agreed. California has been fabulously lucky with natural resources (back to the gold rush), climate (some of the best farming land in the world and a place lots of people want to live) and the economy (Hollywood was effectively an accident and Silicon Valley was helped in no small part by the accidental banning of non-compete agreements in the state constitution which enabled the Traitorous Eight to found Fairchild).
Places that haven’t had the same degree of good fortune have to work a lot harder to encourage economic development and to persuade their young people to stay. Often it seems like a significant percentage of Californians want the opposite.
Hoping we get a ruling on this court action this week. I could see this delaying Cal’s sending out of decisions. The case docket is pretty quiet.
Question for lawyers and other legal experts: Does the California Supreme Court judge this case on the merits of the arguments or on the procedural deficiencies of lower courts? In other words, if the appellate court ruling did not have any procedural violations, will the California Supreme Court have any reason to reverse it?
i asked my dad, retired attorney, (i am trying to relay this as best as i can) and he says the Supreme Court can approach this however they want to, but there is a standard that CA courts use in deal with requests for stays(below). They could 1) point to the way UC handled the timing of court requests and say “sorry you blew it. you should’ve asked for this 4 months ago. request denied.” 2) they could agree with the ruling of the lower (alameda) court and say “request denied”. 3) they could look at the merits of the decision as it stands (2020 enrollment numbers) and determine that a lot of harm will come of it to certain groups, then grant the stay to UC for a year.
here is some of the language
CA Courts 2022 3.515(f) Determination of motion for stay order**
In ruling on a motion for a stay order, the assigned judge must determine whether the stay will promote the ends of justice, considering the imminence of any trial or other proceeding that might materially affect the status of the action to be stayed, and whether a final judgment in that action would have a res judicata or collateral estoppel effect with regard to any common issue of the included actions.
1 Like
My guess is that the Cal SC will stay the enrollment freeze pending the appeal of the lower court ruling. Leaving the enrollment freeze in place will cause immediate and potentially irreparable harm to Berkeley - which is the crown jewel of the UC system. Staying the freeze isn’t going to cause any irreparable harm.
Also, it’s interesting to see the hostile reaction of prominent California officials and politicians to the court rulings. Ordinarily, these folks have no problem with CEQA lawsuits when it’s some developer or farmer getting squeezed. Different story when it’s Cal Berkeley.
4 Likes
Indeed, I found it fascinating to see the Berkeley council member lead off his criticism of the CEQA as “signed by Ronald Reagan”. Convenient rallying cry perhaps, but makes about as much sense as saying the EPA is a bad idea because it was established by Richard Nixon.
But it’s good to see a movement to push back against the overreaches of NIMBYism to try and make sure we will have more affordable housing for our kids, whether they are students or new graduates.
2 Likes
A rallying cry is needed to persuade people who don’t think deeply. If the Berkeley residents thought about it, they would realize that a good part of the reason that their homes are worth so much today is because of the success of Silicon Valley, and a good deal of credit for that belongs to UC-Berkeley (and of course Stanford).
5 Likes
Looks like a legislative solution (categorical exemption from CEQA for public universities) is now on the table. Unclear whether action will happen quickly though:
https://twitter.com/scott_wiener/status/1496165326589132802
4 Likes
So this was on NPR today. Residents reported former single family homes with 15 students in them. I guess my question is….why isn’t the town putting resident limits for non-family members like other locations where there are colleges. IIRC, Brighton MA doesn’t allow more than 3 or 4 not family related folks to share one rental.
If these homes really are turning into mini dorms, why isn’t the city regulating this? And I DO understand that the city pulled out of the lawsuit when Cal gave them $80 million dollars….
Exemption from CEQA would certainly help big landowners like universities. I know Stanford and SLO have a lot of open land to build on and would love to build it out.
I have my doubts this “solution” will pass, and if it it does, then it will certainly be challenged or put up for a referendum on the ballot at some point.
Living near Stanford, they sure seem to get a lot accomplished with the various local municipalities.
1 Like
CA Supreme Court is supposed to start hearing this case today, per NBC Bay Area, but there is no update on CA Court website as of right now.
“The court on Wednesday could decide to review the case, deny a review and let the lower court’s ruling stand, or take other action such as referring the case back to the lower court with instructions on how to proceed.”
1 Like
midway through Friday, and there is no word from the CA Supreme Court. Probably nothing until next week, unless all parties decide to knock it out after lunch.
FYI - Santa Cruz decisions started rolling out earlier today.
2 Likes
Thank you for alerting us regarding UC Santa Cruz. My son was just admitted!
9 Likes
The court has been remarkably silent. Is this typical for a case with such time sensitivity?
Yeah, a whole lot of nothing. On the case docket page, the last entry is from Feb 18th. Looks like some kind of logistic entry. Nothing since.
2/18/22 “Reply to answer to petition file Defendant and Appellant: The Regents of the University of California Attorney Nicole H. Gordon”
We think they need a decision right away, but they may not see it as that pressing. If the court doesn’t issue a stay or a decision, what does the school do? It issues fewer acceptances. If the court later changes that, the school can issue more admissions. Will the same 5100 students still be available? Probably not but others will willingly take their places.
I don’t think the University has asked for a temporary injunction, so the court is looking at the whole case. That takes time.