I got involved in housing advocacy in 2018. Since then, I've attended hundreds of municipal meetings across the state.
In all those meetings, I have never seen a governmental body lie as brazenly and shamelessly as the Cupertino City Council does about its housing record.
I'll have more to say on this tomorrow, but listening to virtually every member of the council gaslight housing advocates, claim the city is being unfairly bullied by requiring them to follow fair housing laws, etc., was a truly insane experience.
Earlier tonight, Mayor Paul called their actions honest and brave, then said the city was being persecuted.
In reality, they spent the last 5+ years fighting 1,200 100% affordable housing units and have repeatedly flouted state housing laws.
The audacity is just gobsmacking.
A councilmember claimed it was anti-democratic for people living outside Cupertino to want to "interfere."
The Vice Mayor asked if it was really reasonable to expect people of all incomes and races to be able to live in Cupertino.
There was honestly too much to process.
Anyway, my final assessment is that Cupertino is beyond fixing, even via disincorporation.
Send in the 101st Airborne instead.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's infuriating and embarrassing that @GavinNewsom vetoed #AB339 today, a bill by @alex_lee to expand access to governmental meetings by allowing the public to continue making comments remotely even after the pandemic ends.
This is a huge blow to equity and transparency.
Prior to the pandemic, governmental meetings in California had traditionally been highly inaccessible.
Meetings are often held during the day, with those wanting to speak being required to attend in-person, shutting working-class people out of the process.
As a result of in-person speaking requirements, input received at public meetings is often entirely unrepresentative of Californians at large.
The pandemic changed this, and for the first time, simply having a telephone allowed you to participate in local government.
Last week, a lawsuit was filed against SB10, which allows cities to more quickly rezone neighborhoods for multifamily housing.
Today, at NIMBY group Livable California's biweekly meeting, attorney Stu Flashman will provide an analysis of the suit. 🧵
For those of you unfamiliar with Stu, he's a well-known attorney all over the state, mostly for losing lawsuits.
He famously (and unsuccessfully) sued to stop high-speed rail in California on behalf of Atherton, the 3rd wealthiest town in the country.
The lawsuit against Scott Wiener's SB10 was filed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, known for fighting new housing and for being regarded as a slumlord by its tenants.
Earlier this week, the state of California ended single-family zoning. This morning, statewide NIMBY group Livable California gathers for their biweekly meeting.
Grab some 🍿and your favorite beverage, because the copefest is about to begin! 🧵
Meeting starts off with Rick Hall saying that "many bad bills that don't do anything to make housing more affordable" have passed.
And while that's bad, he says that "for a while" they're turning their focus to affordable housing.
Rick also touts a constitutional initiative to return all control of land use to cities. Says this would "solve all our problems."
Author's note: not sure how that furthers affordable housing, Rick!
Happy Saturday, folks! In what may be the shittiest crossover event of all time, NIMBY groups across California are hosting a town hall meeting this morning to fight state housing legislation to legalize duplexes statewide.
🧵 starts here!
Unfortunately, it looks like the "town hall" is in webinar format, and there isn't a chat function, just q&a.
We'll see how this goes.
The meeting starts with Bea Dieringer, mayor of Rolling Hills (median home value $3,700,000) claiming that all cities are unique and zoning must be left to them.
She then makes the outrageous claim that if SB9 passes into law, people in her community will die.