Climate Change Prep and High Density Housing – Just Say NO!

President Barack Obama signed an executive order on 1 November to “prepare the nation” for the dire consequences of global warming . . .   California has been preparing for the dire consequence of global warming since 2006, even thought we have not had any significant warming for at least 16 years.

The former Union Publisher, Jeff Ackerman, once told me that global warming was not a local issue of concern.  Now the folks in Penn Valley and the other communities in Nevada County are finding out that global warming mitigation is a local issue. The State’s push for high density housing is a direct result of AB-32, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and the environmentalist wackos desire to reduce CO2 emissions.  In their mind high density housing, like they have in Europe, reduces the need for people to drive and emit CO2 and Ozone producing gases.

In the Cities these high density developments are suppose to be build along light rail and commuter bus corridors, thus reducing the need for cars and commuting via the freeways. All designed to reduce CO2 and Ozone. In rural areas the environmental wackos see high density housing as a way to reduce urban sprawl, and the need to drive to survive.  In their minds high density housing is a mitigation twofer, less driving and fewer trees cut down to make room for houses and to build those houses.

During the campaign for the Prop 23 Initiative to mitigate AB-32 our local lefties were convincing voters that AB-32 was good for them. Now the folks in Penn Valley are having some second thoughts. We tried the warn them that keeping AB-32 on the books would have long term consequences for everyone. According to an article in The Union:

The county has selected 18 sites — nine in the Grass Valley sphere of influence, five in proximity to Lake of the Pines and four near Penn Valley.

In addition to solutions for global warming, high density housing fills some of the UN Agenda 21 requirement for moving people out or rural area and concentrating them urban locations,  in high density housing developments.  Storing people like rabbits and chickens.

It maybe too late for the County now, they should have supported Prop 23. Our Supervisors refused to support Prop 23. They were afraid of angering some of their lefty constituents if they supported Prop 23. Plus, they seem to buy into the anthropogenic causes for global warming.   This is a problem that they helped to create by their inaction on Prop 23, now lets see who they try to blame for screwing the pooch.

They might redeem themselves if they just say NO! Stand up and tell the State they have no authority to demand high density rezoning, and then not do it. It is time for the County to stand up for our Constitutional rights to be free of State mandates. Especially mandates that are based on bad science.

About Russ Steele

Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.
This entry was posted in AB-32, Agenda 21, Climate Change, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Climate Change Prep and High Density Housing – Just Say NO!

  1. Stu says:

    Always remember that those who seek to control use incremental steps, once you get people in to 200 square foot “homes” the next steps will be plumbing and kitchens – after all, you don’t use either most of the time, its wasteful of resources to have individual ‘loos and its more efficient to cook for many than for one or two


    • Russ Steele says:


      We have two of those developments in Nevada County, one in Nevada City and one in Grass Valley. These cooperative homes have a central kitchen facility.


  2. Sean says:

    I will play a bit of a contrarian here. I live in the Maryland suburbs and I’ve noticed that a lot of the new housing over the last 5 years has been for over 55 residents. This was done to limit the impact on schools and other infrastructure. Most of these communities are condominium type buildings, several stories tall and often house 15 to 20 households per building and there are clusters of a dozen or so buildings. I have mixed emotions about these but a lot of folks when they get close to retirement age, they don’t want to keep up single family homes. They move out of single family homes making room for younger families where a yard is more important. The ones that are the most successful are the ones which are co-located with a strip type shopping center for groceries, prescriptions and some household items as well as a few restaurants. That by itself reduces the amount of driving even if residents are not retired yet. These places by the way are not cheap and most people probably spend 60-70 percent of the proceeds of they single family residence they sold to be able to afford to buy these condos and then they have condo fees to pay as well. If I had one desire for these types of places is that they could also be co-located with a park or undeveloped wilderness areas for people who want to get out and walk for exercise. So done right, these can be a good thing.


    • Dena says:

      You are missing the point. If a person wants to live in a condo or an apartment, more power to them. The problem is when the government makes the decision for us. My starter house was a condo because it was all I could afford. I wouldn’t have bought it if it didn’t fit a need however it was not what I really wanted.
      I have a aunt who at 90+ just sold her house an moved into a retirement village and couldn’t be happier. There is a reason for each form of housing as long as the free market decides.


  3. Dena says:

    After living in Orange County CA for almost 40 years I can state that high density housing is not the solution to reducing travel time. When two people live together and both work, the location of housing is a compromise between the two work locations. I also had jobs that I held for as little as a year and even though it was over 10 miles to work, it wasn’t worth moving. As for public transportation, when it take 2-3 hours in order to get to work on public transportation, you drive.
    The secondary factor is the example of what high density housing did when LBJ used it as part of his great society program. The buildings became centers of drug dealing,crime and vandalism. The government has finally admitted the high rises for the poor were a big mistake and are taking them down faster than they put them up. There is something about owing your own property that makes you want to take good care of it.


Comments are closed.