By Warren Duffy

Opposition is growing to government plans to squeeze Californians into high-rise apartments and mass transit.

The March 2012 issue of “Western City,” published by the League of California Cities, included an article authored by Gary Gallegos titled, “Trailblazing a Sustainable Path.”  He said a lack of state funding was thwarting “the progressive plans” of SANDAG, the San Diego Association of Governments, one of four large regional planning agencies in California.

SANDAG had been working on a program to implement a 40-year transportation plan for the region that was environmentally friendly, complying with SB375, which was passed in 2008. SB 375 mandated state planning for “sustainable development,” which mainly means encouraging people to move into high-rises and take public mass transit.

Gallegos’ article begins by explaining, “In October 2011 the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), one of the four largest metropolitan planning organizations in California, became the first to adopt a transportation plan with a sustainability component.”  That component was outlined in Senate Bill 375 and a very comprehensive element to SANDAG’s 2050 Regional Transportation Plan.

Lawsuit

Although it is reported the plan was not done in haste, but took more than two years to design and gather “extensive public output,” there are those who disagree.  A group normally known for a more radical approach to environmentalism, the Sierra Club, joined other environmental activists to sue SANDAG and successfully delay any further action for the 40-year regional transportation plan.

As more Californians are getting educated to the 20-, 30- and 40-year green sustainable long-term regional planning goals for their communities, statewide opposition is growing.

The most recent comes from OneBayArea, a joint authority of four regional governments. Located in Northern California, this planning group was recently successful in passing a 20-year plan, the Bay Area Prosperity Plan, impacting nine counties, 101 cities and 7.5 million people.

The plan merges cities, abolishes county lines, authorizes the closing of some roads and the building of residential “stack and pack” housing in lieu of new construction of single family homes.  The impact of this plan has created such an outrage among concerned citizens that funds are being raised to file a lawsuit against the plan.

In the Los Angeles area that includes Orange County, the Southern California Association of Governments is a similar umbrella planning group.  In March 2012, this group unanimously adopted a “2012 to 2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy”.  SCAG’s $524-billion program promises to expand housing near public transportation by 60 percent and fund public biking and walking improvements by 350 percent in the next 23 years.

A Southern California city with long term green planning push back is Aliso Viejo, located in Orange County. After spending $400,000 on consultants, the city’s 104-page “Green City Initiative” has encountered not just opposition from its residents, but a well informed and newly elected council member, Mike Munzing.  The council vote on this initiative has been postponed twice, with businesses and private citizens demanding the council return to the drawing board.

Scrutiny

As city planners are falling under more and more scrutiny by an increasingly well informed public, the American Planning Association (those leading the parade nationally and locally) has put a happy face on their long range, green plan with a newly revised “Glossary for the Public”.

In my recent book, “The Green Tsunami”, I cited a talking point memo from APA’s CEO Paul Farmer to hundreds of regional planners arming them for a debate. The memo read, “As planning and planners have become targets of suspicion and mistrust, it is more important than ever to avoid polarizing jargon, to focus on outcomes important to local citizens and to maintain a fair, open and transparent process.”

More suspicion and mistrust is rising among the people concerning the goals of “stack and pack” housing, public vs. private transportation, and a debate on “the collective good” superseding individual freedom. It would appear public hearings and lawsuits on long-range, green, regional development plans in California will be contentious for years to come.

Warren Duffy is president of Friends for Saving California Jobs and author of “The Green Tsunami – A Tidal Wave of Eco-Babble Drowning Us All.”

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.