Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning, but will it create more housing?

City councils in Berkeley and San Francisco met last week to discuss the steps needed to end single-family zoning, with Berkeley promising to end the issue in the year and the San Francisco representatives initiating a study as a part of their elimination plan. Single-family zoning, also known as R1 zoning, restricts a community to building single-family homes in a specific area. The R1 zoning policy was adopted by suburban areas and major cities such as San Francisco, LA, and Seattle. The percentage of single-family houses makes up over 30 percent of the residential land in the area, resulting in an imbalance throughout the housing market of that area. Essentially, many families who wish to live in those areas have to choose between either purchasing a single-family home or an expensive home, making the policy a discriminatory one. Over different studies that have been done, the collected data shows that single-family zoning has many consequences such as a) damaging the environment by encouraging car reliance and unorganized housing structure, b) worsening affordability of housing by restricting the housing market, c) inclusion by keeping low-income families out of high-end neighborhoods, and etc.

One of the proposed solutions from the San Francisco council was to build fourplexes (the building in the image above), a type of building with four units, to provide a sustainable and affordable choice for housing. However, there are concerns about this proposal because of the overall lack of vacant land in SF and high construction costs. Creating fourplexes, apartments, or any type of stacked housing is a small project that requires a lot of work and financial support. It’s a project that can’t be streamlined, so experts have also been debating about whether it would actually help make housing more affordable. 

While I do understand that there are concerns about the financial cost and impact of beginning a project like this, I believe that the long term benefits of doing this project will outweigh the short term consequences. It may require a lot of manpower, but from the bigger picture, persistence to create more affordable housing will allow the city’s environment to improve, ease class differences, and allow more people to seek opportunities in the city.

Article Link

1. Do you think that single-family zoning is an issue that ought to be addressed right now? 

2. Do you think the solution of building fourplexes or apartment units is effective and should be used?

3. What are some alternative solutions to address the single-family zoning issue? 

A Surge of anti-Asian Violence is Forcing Another Racial Reckoning in the Bay Area

 

       In the outbreak of Covid-19, there has been a wave of hostility towards the many Asian Americans living in the Bay Area. Many people have blamed the pandemic on faces of the Chinese, going as far as to beat down the elderly Chinese citizens in San Francisco. While they have absolutely no reason to blame Asian Americans, the hate speech and violence only go up as the cases of Covid-19 do. Kelly Yang, an author who moved from China at the age of six, has been in the Bay Area her whole life and now meets the wave of anti-Asian sentiment. It began with one of her students in her online writing course calling her the "Chinese virus" as well as seeing her child get picked as "it" in "Coronavirus tag" for being Chinese. This hate speech would eventually escalate into a woman without a mask using racial slurs and telling Yang to "go back to where [she] came from." This event left Yang with a fear of returning to the park where she was called those words as well as the need to protect her crying child from those who she runs into. So what is being done about this? For a start, over 10,000 people have signed a petition calling on Mayor London Breed of San Francisco to step up against the violence, many have also began to protest, calling upon fellow Asian Americans with the same experiences. While the history of Asian scapegoating can be traced back to the days of the formation of Chinatown, it is more than prominent today. 

    Being an Asian American, this is extremely disheartening to hear as many of the people in America haven't done anything to cause the outbreak of Covid-19. I believe that a lot of it has to do with past history as well as the need for releasing anger for the current situation. I get that this situation is tough but it gives people no right to use racial slurs, resort to violence or even make a joke about the Asian community. We need to spread awareness of the situation, inform people of what is happening because this simply isn't correct. The fact that younger generations are experiencing the hate as well, is disappointing because we are taught the troubled history of the Chinese American and should have awareness about it. 

1. What do you think we should do in order to prevent the spread of anti-Asian sentiment?

2. Why do you think people are acting this way?

3. Are there any other stories you have heard about this? Share them for awareness of the situation.

Article Link

NASA’s Perseverance Rover Lands on Mars to Renew Search for Extinct Life

 

The first of two images sent by Perseverance after its successful landing on Mars.

article link

On February, 18, 2021, NASA successfully landed Perseverance, a rover, on the surface of Mars. Decades have passed since the last time NASA attempted to directly study whether there was ever any life on Mars, so the successful landing of Perseverance is a big win for NASA. With its ability to look for complex carbon molecules, Perseverance can help scientists find compositions that may have the organic molecules, elements, and minerals that we associate with life. Part of its mission is to also make Ingenuity, a small experimental helicopter, fly in Mars' atmosphere, something that has not been attempted before. I believe that the tools and capabilities of Perseverance will allow for greater knowledge on Mars, and help scientists make educated hypotheses of whether or not there was life on Mars, should it succeed in its mission. I think its success would also aid NASA with any other future space endeavors, as Perseverance explores new methods of researching on the Martian surface. All that being said, I am not sure whether Perseverance will succeed in its mission. With the rover experimenting with new methods of research and exploration, there is no definitive answer to its success. Overall, I was really impressed by this accomplishment and look forward to hearing more about Perseverance in the future. What are your thoughts on Perseverance and its landing on Mars? Do you think Perseverance will succeed in its mission? How do you think Perseverance's work will impact our future with Mars, and space in general?

Seniors Seeking Vaccines Have a Problem: They Can’t Use the Internet

 Article Link

Seniors wanting to sign up for the vaccine are having difficulties with the technology required to book an appointment. Understanding the internet can be unfamiliar and daunting, made even worse with the confusing registration websites, text alerts, and email notifications. 

I hadn't realized the technological disadvantage for elderly. My grandma was able to sign up for the vaccine with the help of my aunt, but I forgot that not everyone has access to someone who can readily help. A lot of elderly live on their own, and are not in close contact with family members in order to stay safe. I think outreach to the elderly could be made better if there were organizations with young volunteers who would make house calls to these seniors to walk them through the process of booking an appointment. I also think that when younger individuals can get vaccinated, there will be more in-person outreach and solutions.

Did you know that this was an issue? What are some ways you think this problem could be solved?

Texas Blackouts Point to Coast to Coast Crises Waiting to Happen

 

article link

The recent Texas storm that devastated people’s lives and left thousands without access to food, water, or warmth has revealed the effects of ignoring the climate crisis. Most of the nation’s infrastructure was built decades ago, and can no longer keep up with the damage that extreme floods, wildfires, and heat waves have been causing in recent years. Roads, railways, electrical grids, power plants, sewage systems, and homes are all cracking under the stress of weather events that they weren’t designed to support and withstand. This past week alone, for example, has left tons of people without power, broken pipes, and shut down drinking water systems. Although “it’s not always possible to say precisely how global warming influenced any one particular storm,” scientists say that an overall rise in extreme weather creates sweeping new risks.” 

Being from California, this topic is especially relevant to all of us, since our state has been heavily impacted by intense wildfires that cause poor air quality, loss of property, and deaths. I think that all of these extreme weather events are a clear sign that climate change is an urgent issue that cannot be ignored any longer. Hopefully, the storms and power outages in Texas will be a wakeup call for lawmakers to take action against climate change- either way, if we don’t act soon I believe it will be too late to reverse the effects of climate change. During President Biden’s campaign he outlined a plan to reverse the effects of climate change, which includes taking steps to “Ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050”. Despite this promise, some fear that the Biden administration’s plan does not reflect the urgency that the climate crisis demands. The issue of funding is also prevalent, as tackling climate change will be very expensive, but I think there really is no other choice.

Questions:

1. What struck you most about the Texas storms? Is it reasonable to blame climate change and poor infrastructure for the devastating impact of the storms, or are there other reasons why the situation became so bad?

2. Do you agree with the Biden administration’s plan to tackle climate change? Is 2050 too lofty of a goal, or will climate change be too devastating by then?

Redwood Forest now Under Protection in Mendocino County

 

Article link

Secondary article link

Save the Redwoods League, an environmental protection group from the Bay Area, just bought land for $24.7 million in Anderson Valley from the Mailliard family, who has privately owned the forest for 90 years. The deal doubled the amount of land that Save the Redwoods is protecting in Mendocino County. The land that the group bought will permanently protect 1,000 acres of forest, including 28 miles of streams, from being cut down and turned into properties such as vineyards or small ranches. This land is also part of the ancestral lands of some of the Central Pomo tribes and protecting it is a priority for Sam Hodder, Save the Redwoods' president. The forest is home to animal species such as black-tailed deer, Coho salmon, golden eagles, northern spotted owls, and steelhead trout. It also has almost 160 native species of plan in its diverse ecosystem.

I believe that this new deal is a great thing as it not only protects nature, but also history. I wish that there were more groups like Save the Redwoods that seem to be doing their best to help preserve our environment. Hopefully, the group Save the Redwoods will be able to keep this forest thriving and make sure that it will be a safe home for many plants and animals in the future.

Discussion questions:

    1. What do you think about this new deal?

    2. How do you think preserving forests will affect the future?

    3. Do you believe that forests should be able to be privately owned?

The Electric Vehicle Revolution Critics Can't Dispute

 

https://thedriven.io/2019/08/01/in-depth-electric-vehicles-horizon/

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/539623-the-electric-vehicle-revolution-critics-cant-dispute

    Electric vehicles (EV) are becoming more and more popular and affordable. People are opting for EVs because it has "lower fuel and maintenance costs, and dramatically less pollution and carbon emissions." Critics however are against this because cars going electric would mean less dependence and need for oil, and while this may be true, there are many benefits to electric cars. 

    Efficiency: EVs cleaner than gas-powered cars and "will only get cleaner as our electricity generation does the same." Although the construction of the cars is not 100% carbon-free, there is no tailpipe emission. Overall, however, "EVs generate up to 67 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) ... than their gas-powered counterparts." Electric car manufactures are also figuring out new ways to increase efficiency and decrease prices, meaning that the industry will only be growing. 

Ethical Supply Chains: Another argument against EVs is "unethical mining practices for critical materials," however "the global demand for lithium, cobalt and other critical materials is set to grow whether or not a single additional EV is produced." Devices such as phones and computers rely on these materials and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Manufactures of EVs are also working on recycling up to 95% of old batteries. Though EVs would decrease the size of the oil industry, it would also create more, new jobs such as manufacturing and the mining of crucial materials. 

Affordability & Equity: Though the first EVs were on the pricier side, the prices have been steadily going down as the technology gets more developed and accessible. Now, there are EV cars that are at or even below the price of gas-powered cars. 

Charging Buildout: Charging stations for EVs must be placed around the world, as it serves as the "gas station" for electric vehicles. Some are afraid that dependence on utility companies would make utility bills go up, but it has not been "rooted in fact." In actuality, "widespread vehicle electrification increases grid efficiency, which instead applies downward pressure on rates over time."

    In my opinion, I think we're taking the right steps to help climate change and reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Not only is the upfront cost going down, which was what a lot of people were concerned about, but the long-term cost is also less as well. Gas prices are more than double how much it costs to charge an EV. I also think this transition is necessary since fossil fuels are a finite resource and once we use them up we can't get any more. Though building charging stations in lots of areas would be difficult, I believe it's achievable since Tesla has started doing that already. They have 17,000 superchargers in the world, but it would require lots of charging stations if each car brand had to build their own rather than universal chargers. I also wonder what will become of gas stations when all the cars go electric since cars take time to charge and it's time-consuming to park and wait at a gas station for your car to charge.  

What aspect of electric vehicles in your opinion is the most beneficial? 

Is there anything you're worried about for the future of electric vehicles? 

What further steps should we take to help the issue of climate change? 

U.S. Prosecutors Investigating how Cuomo Administration Handled COVID-19 in Nursing Homes

WSJ, main source

Comparison of deaths during COVID with averages (NY Times)

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has long been praised for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, including frequent promotion from mainstream news outlets and even a book titled “Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic” being published. His example is one that has long been upheld as the gold standard response to the COVID-19 pandemic despite many critics pointing out the large death rate caused by Gov. Cuomo’s policy (60% above average in NYC, 25% above average in the rest of NY, according to the NY Times). 

Recently however, things have taken a turn for the worse for Gov. Cuomo’s administration. As part of a series of federal investigations into the state’s handling of nursing home patients ordered by President Donald Trump, it has been discovered that the state’s Health Department has obscured real statistics from the public eye. Compared to earlier reports concerning state nursing home fatalities, last week’s newly-released records added more than 50% to earlier death tallies, bringing the total up to 15,000 persons. Shockingly, Gov. Cuomo’s top aide Melissa DeRosa stated that the full death tally was withheld from public purview to avoid the numbers being ‘politicized’ by President Trump against New York’s lockdown policy - members of both parties and many families are frustrated with this. As for the causation of said deaths, it is sometimes directly attributed to policy decisions, such as a directive issued in March that prevented nursing homes from refusing to admit COVID-positive patients. Gov. Cuomo and his supporters, however, continue to maintain their stance that the order was justified in order to free up hospital space. 

With that summary out of the way, we can get to my opinion - this is absolutely egregious. At such a turbulent time when we look to our nation’s leaders for guidance, especially those publicized by mainstream media, transparency is key. This purely political play is a bad cover-up for bad policy concerning the elderly that undermines our trust further in a system already plagued with problems. Despite Gov. Cuomo’s protestations that his policy is sound, it is clear that sending the sick back into nursing homes full of vulnerable people is a bad idea - Belgium also did this, and as a result has the highest deaths per capita in all of Europe. To progress against the pandemic, we must depoliticize virus response.

Questions…

1. Is Governor Cuomo “overrated,” for lack of a better term? Has his virus response been commendable (is there any information you can bring to the table that would make his response, in general, look good)?

2. What is the most effective way to fight against virus politicization? We see this constantly with masking, lockdowns, and so on and it is a major problem.
   *There are absolutely two sides to the argument, I would appreciate it if you do your best to avoid the presumption that anti-lockdown supporters are not simply ignorant or malevolent.

Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/25/us/politics/tubman-20-dollar-bill.html?

https://time.com/5933920/harriet-tubman-20-bill-joe-biden/

    The Treasury Department under President Biden's administration is planning to speed up the process of replacing the image of Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the $20 dollar bill. This was originally planned at the end of the Obama administration, which was not carried out by former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and was later opposed by President Trump. This process has been slow-walked until now that Biden has become President. White House Press Secretary says that "The Treasury Department is taking steps to resume efforts to put Harriet Tubman on the front of the new $20 notes," and that "It's important that our money reflect the history and diversity of our country."

    However, all of this has been quite controversial. In an article written by TIME, the author expresses that putting a black woman's face on the $20 bill may seem like a great honor, but when exchanging it may bring out uncomfortable images or scenes of enslaved people and their experiences to people's minds. President Andrew Jackson is also quite the controversy. Many argue that people should look up to Andrew Jackson as the hero of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, a man of the people protecting the common man; others condemn him for owning hundreds of slaves and his harsh policy towards Native Americans that forced them off their homeland. People have long debated on the controversies of Andrew Jackson I'm sure it will continue.

    I personally do not care that much who is on the $20 bill. After all, having a different portrait on the bill does not change the value of the bill, and I've never memorized who and what buildings are on which bill. But I do agree that black history is American history and that representation does matter. People of color are just as qualified to be in positions of leadership and decision-making, and being portrayed as such. I am unsure if putting a black woman on the $20 bill is the right way to do so, but it never hurts giving it a try. 

     

Questions: 

1. What are your thoughts on the legacy of Andrew Jackson? Good or bad president? 

2. Do you support the efforts to put Harriet Tubman being on the $20? Should it be someone else? Should it stay Andrew Jackson?

3. Does it matter who is on the $20? If yes, how much does it matter? Does having a specific figure make you feel a certain way?

    

Republican Leaders Divided Over Trump’s Future Influence after Senate Acquits Trump In Impeachment Trial —Again

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/02/14/us/trump-impeachment

https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/13/967098840/senate-acquits-trump-in-impeachment-trial-again

    A historic event took place last Saturday on January 13, as former President Trump became the first president in U.S. history to be impeached, for the second time. Trump was

officially acquitted of the impeachment charge for his actions in inciting the Capitol Hill Insurrection on January 6, 2021. The official tally votes were 57 to 43, with 7 votes coming from the Republican party, in favor of convicting former President Trump. Despite the majority of the Senate that voted in favor of impeaching him, the total count still fell ten less than the 2/3 majority needed for conviction. Many agreed that Trump was guilty, including Senator Minority Leader McConnell who opposed the conviction, yet later called out Trump for his actions in provoking the violence in the Capitol riots. In addition, the outcome of the impeachment trial has strongly divided the Republican Party as they debate over Trump’s role in the future of the party.

        

    In my opinion, I think it will be difficult for Trump to win the election if he chooses to run for President again one day, as the events that took place on January 6th, have forever tarnished his reputation and image. In addition, the potential criminal charges that he faces in Fulton County, Georgia and other civil cases, will most likely prevent him from holding political office in the future. In relation to the current state of the G.O.P, Trump’s actions have certainly split the party, as the tally votes have been the highest number against a President from his own party during a Senate trial, in American history.

Questions:

1) What do you think of Senator’s McConnell hypocrisy in opposing the conviction yet later addressing that Trump was “morally responsible for provoking” the actions that took place on January 6th?

2) What would you say to the Republican senators who voted against the impeachment charges?

3) Do you think that Trump could be voted for President again?

4) What do you think will happen to the G.O.P going forward, with the current divide in the party?

Covid-19 Vaccines Aren’t Yet Luring Workers Back to the Office

Article Link

    Despite Covid-19 vaccines now being administered across the United States, the number of people returning to the workplace has not increased lately. Surveys conducted on the workforces in 10 large cities show that back in October, slightly over 27% of the workforces had returned on site and were no longer working from home. Now in February however, that number has dropped roughly 4%, and is in fact currently following a decreasing trend. There are many complications with returning back to working onsite, the primary one being concern over the health of employees and the inability to ensure their total safety. Employers don't want to be held responsible for premature returns to work and the potential consequences of those returns, thus creating a major atmosphere of uncertainty and hesitancy with regards to a timeline for when to come back. While the statistics currently don't instill much confidence in the amount of people coming back to work in person, a survey done by the National Association for Business Economics showed that roughly 50% of respondents stated that policies for staying at home would be suspended in the second half of 2022, meaning that there most likely will be a much larger increase in people returning to work in person by around the summer. 

    I currently think that working from home is by far the best option for employees if their businesses allow it, since vaccination has been largely limited to healthcare/frontline workers, and elderly individuals. It really is not yet safe to fully return, and I think that waiting until the vaccine is given to the majority of the population (most likely around summer) is the safest and most responsible plan and timeline for coming back to work. With that being said, there are countless businesses that really require being in person and many smaller private businesses that are struggling immensely during this time, so maybe finding a way for people who own or work in such businesses to receive vaccines slightly earlier in order to be able to open up and resume as best they can is something that should be proposed. 

Questions:

1) If you were/are employed, would you feel comfortable returning to work under the current circumstances?

2) Should everyone be required to get the vaccine before physically returning to their jobs?

3) Are there some ways in which people can safely return to work in person despite them and others not being vaccinated?

The Defense Production Act and What it Means for COVID-19 in the U.S.

Link to Article

The Defense Production Act was a law first passed in 1950 as a response to the Korean war. This act was recently invoked, "and it means our work is ongoing with companies to ensure that we are expediting the manufacturing of materials to ensure that we can get 100 million shots in the arms of Americans," says Jen Psaki (White House press secretary). 

The Defense Production Act has three sections, each pertain
ing to its higher goal—allowing the government quite a bit of control and regulation in directing industrial production during emergency periods. Essentially, the government, depending on which sections they choose to take advantage of, could have control of a large part in the industry of material production. This act's purpose is to allow Americans the fastest and most efficient method of obtaining resources in the interest of "national defense". The three sections of the act are Priorities & Allocations, Expansion of Productive Capacity and Supply, and General Provisions. Pieces of this act have been used before, especially the "Priorities" part of the first section, requiring companies to prioritize materials needed for national defense, although "Allocations", requiring companies to provide materials that may have otherwise been shipped somewhere else, have not been used since the Cold War.

Nobody is sure what President Biden will and will not use from this act, although it does seem like the federal government is extremely passionate about distributing vaccines as quickly as possible. Theoretically, under the DPA, President Biden could control distribution of any material he deemed necessary, offer economic incentives to companies, block foreign corporate mergers, and many other actions and powers he would not normally have (Congress may have a small say in the agreements, but it's not clear). Realistically, I believe that President Biden would only use this to start letting other companies (not just Pfizer and Moderna) produce the vaccines for more Americans, without these companies worrying about economic losses. This would be extremely helpful in my opinion, in creating more production of the COVID vaccine. I think that its use is justified, and even though many clauses have not been used in quite a long time, we're in a state of emergency that has not been seen in 100 years. I don't think that this act is an abuse of power if used correctly and with good judgement, and with oversight of the Congress I believe it is secure and would help many Americans.

Discussion Questions

1. Do you believe that this act is fair?  Do you think that there is too much regulation of businesses allowed within this act, or that it is necessary for the health and safety of others?

2. What do you predict President Biden will do? What may be his strategy in tackling this issue, and do you think it would be justified?

3. Do you think President Biden has any other options in distributing vaccines quickly, or would this be the best option because medical distribution companies are not government owned and regulated?

Chicago Public Schools reaches tentative agreement with teachers union, mayor says

 Article link

    With Covid vaccines out, the return to any sense of "normalcy" draws closer. In Chicago, city officials and the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) have created a framework for Chicago Public Schools (CPS) returning to in-person learning in the coming weeks. However, the CTU emphasizes that the is not yet an official agreement. According to Mayor Lightfoot and other officials, it is safe for students and teachers to return to school so long as Covid safety mitigations are met. The proposed plan involves a phased return, starting with pre-K students and staff as soon as this week, followed by K-8 teachers, then students in March. Staff living in "medically vulnerable homes" are to be offered vaccination, with a hopeful 1,500 CPS employees receiving vaccinations per week. The plan also includes measures for returning the district back to fully online learning should things worsen.

    I'm cautiously optimistic about this plan. Returning to in-person learning would be great (especially for these kids in elementary school), but safety still comes first. I'm honestly surprised that Chicago is expecting to get students back in school this week. To me, it feels like they're trying to move too fast, but if doctors are saying it's safe to return, that's better than nothing. Teachers' concern for their own safety is likely the biggest reason they haven't agreed to this plan just yet, and I think they're entitled to that. If the teachers don't feel safe returning to school, then they shouldn't have to.

1. What is your reaction to seeing that people may return to school this week? Is it good? Is it too soon?

2. Do you think there's any hope for our school to return to in-person learning this year (similar to this plan or not)? Would you rather play it safe and continue online learning through the rest of the school year?