Beyond
Sprawl: New Patterns of Growth to Fit the New California
by
the Green Belt Alliance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
California is at a unique and
unprecedented point in its history-a point at which we
face profound questions about our future growth that
will determine the state's economic vitality and quality
of life for the next generation and beyond.
One of the most fundamental questions
we face is whether California can afford to support the
pattern of urban and suburban development, often
referred to as "sprawl," that has
characterized its growth since World War II.
There is no question that this pattern
of growth has helped fuel California's unparalleled
economic and population boom, and that it has enabled
millions of Californians to realize the enduring dream
of home ownership. But as we approach the 21st century,
it is clear that sprawl has created enormous costs that
California can no longer afford. Ironically, unchecked
sprawl has shifted from an engine of California's growth
to a force that now threatens to inhibit growth and
degrade the quality of our life.
This report, sponsored by a diverse
coalition of organizations, is meant to serve as a call
for California to move beyond sprawl and rethink the way
we will grow in the future. This is not a new idea, but
it is one that has never been more critical or urgent.
Despite dramatic changes in California
over the last decade, traditional development patterns
have accelerated. Urban job centers have decentralized
to the suburbs. New housing tracts have moved even
deeper into agricultural and environmentally sensitive
areas. Private auto use continues to rise.
This acceleration of sprawl has
surfaced enormous social, environmental and economic
costs, which until now have been hidden, ignored, or
quietly borne by society. The burden of these costs is
becoming very clear. Businesses suffer from higher
costs, a loss in worker productivity, and underutilized
investments in older communities.
California's business climate becomes
less attractive than surrounding states. Suburban
residents pay a heavy price in taxation and automobile
expenses, while residents of older cities and suburbs
lose access to jobs, social stability, and political
power. Agriculture and ecosystems also suffer.
There is a fundamental dynamic to
growth, whether it be the growth of a community or a
corporation, that evolves from expansion to maturity.
The early stages of growth are often exuberant and
unchecked-that has certainly been the case in post-World
War II California. But unchecked growth cannot be
sustained forever. At some point this initial surge must
mature into more managed, strategic growth. This is the
point where we now stand in California.
We can no longer afford the luxury of
sprawl. Our demographics are shifting in dramatic ways.
Our economy is restructuring. Our environment is under
increasing stress. We cannot shape California's future
successfully unless we move beyond sprawl.
This is not a call for limiting
growth, but a call for California to be smarter about
how it grows-to invent ways we can create compact and
efficient growth patterns that are responsive to the
needs of people at all income levels, and also help
maintain California's quality of life and economic
competitiveness.
It is a tall order-one that calls for
us to rise above our occasional isolation as individuals
and interest groups, and address these profound
challenges as a community. All of us-government
agencies, businesses, community organizations and
citizens-play a role. Our actions should be guided by
the following goals:
To provide more certainty in
determining where new development should and should
not occur.
To make more efficient use of land
that has already been developed, including a strong
focus on job creation and housing in established urban
areas.
To establish a legal and procedural
framework that will create the desired certainty and
send the right economic signals to investors.
To build a broad-based constituency
to combat sprawl that includes environmentalists,
community organizations, businesses, farmers,
government leaders and others.
Californians are already taking some of
these steps. We have attempted in this report to not
only point out the obstacles to sustained growth, but
also to highlight the positive actions that are
occurring to better manage growth. Our fundamental
message is that we must build on these early successes
and take more comprehensive and decisive steps over the
next few years to meet this challenge. To build a
strong, vibrant economy and ensure a high quality of
life for the 21st century, we must move beyond sprawl in
the few remaining years of the 20th century.
INTRODUCTION
California is at the crossroads of
change.
Our economy is emerging from its worst
downturn in 60 years-a downturn that has required nearly
all of the state's major industries to retool for
greater competitiveness in a global marketplace. Our
demographic profile is changing dramatically. New racial
and immigration patterns are rapidly producing a truly
multicultural society, creating a variety of related
social and economic issues. At the same time, California
has emerged as one of the most urbanized states in the
union, as our metropolitan areas continue to grow in
population and scale.
In the face of this change, California
remains shackled to costly patterns of suburban sprawl.
Even as our economy and our society are being reinvented
daily, we continue to abandon people and investments in
older communities as development leap-frogs out to
fringe areas to accommodate another generation of
low-density living. And we continue to create
communities that rely almost exclusively on automobiles
for transportation. In short, the "new"
California-with 32 million people and counting- is using
land and other resources in much the same fashion as the
"old" California, with only 10 million people.
We cannot afford another generation of
sprawl. As the Governor's Growth Management Council
stated in a recent report: "What may have been
possible with 10 or even 20 million people is simply not
sustainable for a population of twice that much in the
same space." Continued sprawl may seem inexpensive
for a new homebuyer or a growing business on the
suburban fringe, but the ultimate cost-to those
homeowners, to the government, and to society at
large-is potentially crippling. Allowing sprawl may be
politically expedient in the short run, but in the long
run it will make California economically uncompetitive
and create social, environmental and political problems
we may not be able to solve.
At a time when economic growth is slow
and social tensions are high, it is easy to dismiss an
issue like suburban sprawl as superfluous. Yet it lies
at the heart of the very economic, social and
environmental issues that we face today. Rapid
population growth and economic change are occurring in a
state increasingly characterized by a limited supply of
developable land, environmental stress at the
metropolitan fringe, and older communities in
transition. With the onset of economic recovery, the
next few years will give rise to land-use decisions of
fundamental importance. They will help determine whether
our state can succeed in re-establishing the economic
and social vitality that have made it such a successful
place to live and work for more than 140 years.
Suburban Sprawl and the
"Old" California
In the decades after World War II,
California emerged as an economic and political
powerhouse, providing jobs, housing and prosperity for
most of its rapidly growing population.
Underlying this success was a
development pattern that emphasized expanding
metropolitan areas, conversion of farmland and natural
areas to residential use, and heavy use of the
automobile. In the postwar era, this way of life worked
for California. With a prosperous and land-rich state,
most families were able to rise to the middle class and
achieve the dream of home ownership. Government agencies
and private businesses were able to provide the
infrastructure of growth-new homes, roads, schools,
water systems, sewage treatment facilities, and
extensions of gas and electric distribution.
Within the last generation, however,
this postwar formula for success has become overwhelmed
by its own consequences. Since the 1970s, housing has
become more expensive, roads have become more congested,
the supply of developable land has dwindled, and,
because of increasing costs, government agencies have
not been able to keep up with the demand for public
services.
Since the late 1970s, several efforts
have been initiated to address the question of how to
manage California's growth, but all have failed-some for
lack of consensus, some for lack of engaged
constituency, some simply because of bad timing.
The Challenge of the
"New" California
In the 1990s, California is undergoing
change of such scale and significance that it will
literally redefine the state. To succeed, the new
California must recognize and build upon the following
changes in positive ways.
Population Growth
California's population continues to
grow at a remarkably fast pace. Today's total of
approximately 32 million people represents a doubling of
the population since the mid-1960s, when California
became the nation's most populous state.
During the boom years of the 1980s,
California added more than 6 million new residents, a
population larger than all but a few of the 49 other
states. Even during the bust years of the early 1990s,
the state's population grew at a rate of almost a
half-million people per year-in effect, adding another
Oakland or Fresno every year-even as we have suffered a
net loss in the number of jobs.
This continuing surge in population
puts pressure on both existing communities and on the
remaining supply of undeveloped land, making it
extremely difficult for traditional suburban patterns to
accommodate more people.
Changing Demographics
While growing rapidly, California's
population is also changing in significant ways. The
demographic changes are well documented. Latinos-whose
roots extend to Mexico, Central America, South America,
and the Caribbean-are growing rapidly in number and may
outnumber Anglos a generation from now. Californians of
Asian ancestry now make up almost 10 percent of the
population. African-Americans remain an important racial
group, and the state's mosaic is rounded out by Native
Americans, immigrants from South Asia and the Middle
East, and others who bring great diversity to the state.
California is truly one of the world's most
multicultural societies. Underneath the racial diversity
lies another important change in the state's population
patterns that will have a profound effect on
California's attitudes toward growth over the next
generation.
Traditionally, the popular perception
has been that California's population grows because of
migration from other parts of the United States. However
popular, this perception is no longer true. Most new
Californians now come from other countries, principally
in Latin America and Asia.
The birth rate is also an increasing
source of population growth. During the 1990s recession,
"natural increase"-the net total of births
over deaths-has accounted for almost 400,000 new people
each year. Tomorrow's California will include-for the
first time-a vast pool of people who are Californians
from birth. They will want what Californians before them
have wanted-education, jobs and housing. Most will
expect the state to find a way to accommodate them. But
their numbers are so huge that they probably cannot be
sustained by traditional suburban development patterns.
Economic Change
During the recession, California has
undergone an unprecedented economic restructuring. The
state has lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs since 1990,
causing businesses and workers alike to rethink old
assumptions about how to ensure prosperity.
Traditional foundations of the state's
economy, such as aerospace and defense, have been
drastically reduced and will probably never return, at
least not in their previous form. Others-such as
entertainment, technology, the garment industry and
agriculture-remain just as important as ever. But they
too have undergone tremendous change, becoming leaner
and more efficient in response to global competition.
And small businesses remain the largest source of new
job creation. In the near future, the impact of the
North American Free Trade Agreement will begin to be
felt.
These economic changes are also
putting pressure on the state's land-use patterns. The
loss of manufacturing jobs is emptying out the state's
long-established industrial areas, usually located in
older communities. Downsizing and technological change
in other industries is also rendering older buildings
obsolete and creating a demand for new buildings-often
in new suburbs-that are both inexpensive and flexible.
The closure of many military bases is bringing a huge
amount of land to the real estate market that will
either extend sprawl or encourage new development
patterns, depending on how that land is used.
Spreading Urbanization
In response to both demographic and
economic pressure, California has become the most
urbanized state in the union. According to the 1990
Census, more than 80 percent of all Californians live in
metropolitan areas of 1 million people or more, with 30
percent of the state's population living in Los Angeles
County alone.
This large-scale urbanization means
that California's people and businesses compete
intensely with each other for space to live and work.
The edges of metropolitan areas continue to grow to
accommodate expansion of population and economic
activity, while some neglected inner-city areas are left
behind. These patterns increase the stress of daily life
while, at the same time, put more pressure on land and
environmental resources at the metropolitan fringe.
SPRAWL AND ITS CAUSES
All of these factors-a growing
population, a changing economy, and increased
urbanization-have been present in California for many
years. But they have accelerated in the 1990s, while
traditional suburban development patterns have
continued. In a state with such powerful growth
dynamics, the results are astonishing. The following
trends are typical of the effects of sprawl over the
last 10 to 20 years:
Employment centers have
decentralized dramatically. While jobs used to be
concentrated in central cities, most are now created
in the newer suburbs. For example, the complex of
office centers around John Wayne Airport in Orange
County-built on land that was, until a generation ago,
cultivated for lima beans-recently surpassed downtown
San Francisco as the second-largest employment center
in the state.
New housing tracts have pushed deeper
into agricultural and environmentally sensitive areas.
Job centers in suburban San Jose and the East Bay area
have opened up Tracy, Manteca, Modesto, and other
Central Valley towns as "bedroom suburbs,"
while job growth in the San Fernando Valley has
stimulated housing construction 40 miles to the north
in the Antelope Valley. This development has created
metropolises virtually unmanageable in size.
Dependence on the automobile has
increased. According to the California Energy
Commission, between 1970 and 1990 the state's
population grew by 50 percent, but the total number of
miles traveled by cars and trucks grew by 100 percent.
Isolation of older communities,
including central cities and "first wave"
suburbs built in the 1940s and 1950s, has increased.
Easy mobility for the middle class has caused them to
abandon many older neighborhoods, disrupting social
stability and increasing the economic disparity
between older communities and newer suburbs. The
decentralization of jobs has hit older neighborhoods
especially hard, because new jobs are now virtually
inaccessible to the poor and the working class. Also
left behind are infrastructure investments, which are
tremendously expensive to replicate in new suburbs.
Even though the consequences of sprawl
have been understood for at least two decades, attempts
to combat it have been fragmented and ineffective. The
engine of sprawl is fueled by a mix of individual
choices, market forces, and government policies, most of
which have only become more entrenched over time. These
forces include:
A perception that new suburbs are safer
and more desirable than existing communities. Many
people believe that suburbs provide them with good
value-safe streets, neighborhood schools, a
"small-town" atmosphere, close proximity to
their local governments, and new (though not
necessarily better) community infrastructure.
A perception that suburbs are
cheaper than urban alternatives. Owning a starter home
in a distant new suburb is still within the financial
reach of a typical family, despite the increased
commuting costs. The family's financial equation,
however, does not take into account the larger cost to
society of far-flung suburbs-a cost the family will
eventually share in paying.
A belief that suburban communities
will give businesses more flexibility to grow.
Businesses welcome the tax incentives and freedom from
heavy regulation that are often provided in newer
suburban communities trying to develop a strong
business base. Businesses also view suburban locations
as safer-a view reflected in the cost of insurance-and
they perceive they will have access to a
better-educated work force.
Technological changes that have
decentralized employment away from traditional
centers. This phenomenon permits dispersal of both
jobs and houses across a huge area. The emergence of
the "information superhighway" may
accelerate this trend.
Highway and automobile subsidies
that have traditionally fueled suburban growth remain
in place today. Since the 1950s, automobile use has
been encouraged by government-financed road- building
programs, and for the most part the "external
costs" of automobile use (i.e., air pollution)
have not been the direct financial responsibility of
the individual motorist.
Local land-use policies that
inadvertently cause sprawl. In many older suburban
communities, "slow-growth" attitudes
restrict new development, pushing employment and
housing growth to the metropolitan fringe. With a lack
of regional planning, each community pursues its own
self-interests, regardless of costs imposed on other
communities.
Fiscal incentives that encourage
local governments to "cherry- pick" land
uses based on tax considerations. Under Proposition
13's property-tax limitations, there is little fiscal
incentive for many communities to accept affordable
housing-and when such housing is built, developers
must usually pay heavy development fees. Meanwhile,
because communities must raise revenues to provide
mandated services, auto dealers and retailers, both
big sales-tax producers, receive subsidies to locate
in communities.
The result of all these factors is a
severe regional imbalance. Housing, jobs, shopping, and
other activities are scattered across a huge area and
long auto trips are often required to connect them. Such
a development pattern imposes a considerable cost on all
who use it, though the costs are often hidden and those
who pay them are not always aware of it.
THE COST OF SPRAWL
The cost and consequences of sprawl have
been documented among academics and planning experts for
more than two decades. In the early 1970s, planning
consultants Lawrence Livingston and John Blayney
produced a landmark study showing that in some cases, a
California community would be better off financially if
it used a combination of zoning and land acquisition
instead of permitting development of low-density
subdivisions. A few years later, the U.S. Council on
Environmental Quality produced its landmark report, The
Cost of Sprawl-the first comprehensive analysis of
sprawl's true expense to society. As fiscal and
cost-benefit analysis techniques have become more
refined, the true cost of sprawl has become much more
apparent.
Today, no one in California is
unaffected by the cost of sprawl. Its consequences
spread across all groups, regardless of geography, race,
income, or political status.
Taxpayers
Sprawling suburbs may be cheaper in
the short-term for individuals and families who buy
houses in new communities, but their "hidden"
costs may ultimately be passed on to taxpayers in a
variety of ways.
The cost of building and maintaining
highways and other major infrastructure improvements
to serve distant suburbs.
The cost of dealing with social
problems that fester in older neighborhoods when they
are neglected or abandoned.
The cost of solving environmental
problems (wetlands, endangered species, air pollution,
water pollution) caused by development of virgin land
on the metropolitan fringe.
Taken together, it is clear that all
these costs have contributed to California s dire
fiscal situation during the 1990s, which has strained
state and local government budgets to the breaking
point.
Businesses
Many businesses benefit from suburban
locations. But all businesses, both small and large,
also bear many of the following costs.
Adverse impacts on the state's business
climate. By reducing the quality of life, sprawl has
made California a less desirable location for business
owners and potential employees. By increasing suburban
resistance to further growth, sprawl has made it
difficult for businesses to relocate and expand in
California. Both these trends increase the
attractiveness of neighboring states such as Arizona,
Nevada, and Utah. For example, a major film studio
recently decided to relocate its animation facility to
Arizona, principally because of lower housing prices
and less traffic congestion.
Higher direct business costs and
taxes to offset the side-effects of sprawl. This can
include the cost of new business infrastructure or of
mitigating transportation and environmental problems.
For example, in many metropolitan areas, air-quality
regulators have forced businesses to take the lead in
fighting air pollution by initiating carpooling
programs for their employees.
A geographical mismatch between
workers and jobs, leading to higher labor costs and a
loss in worker productivity. Many workers must now
commute long distances to their jobs, which takes a
significant toll on their personal, family and
professional life. Many other workers are removed from
large portions of the job market simply because they
cannot get to where the new jobs are.
Abandoned investments in older
communities, which become economically uncompetitive
because of sprawl and its associated subsidies. This
is especially true of the state's utility companies,
whose investments in gas, electric and water
infrastructure are literally rooted in established
communities.
Residents of New Suburbs
There is no question that new suburban
residents are, in many ways, the principal beneficiaries
of suburban sprawl. They often live in new and
affordable neighborhoods which they perceive as safe and
prosperous. Yet many suburban residents are becoming
increasingly aware that they pay a high price for these
benefits in the following ways.
The cost of automobiles. The average
Californian spends one dollar out of every five on
buying and maintaining their cars. As a consequence
they have less to invest or spend on other items.
Time lost commuting to work and
other destinations. A huge number of Californians now
spend an hour or more per day in their car, and the
number continues to rise. A recent survey by the
Walnut Creek-based Contra Costa Times showed that the
commute times for residents of 10 cities in Alameda
and Contra Costa counties had increased an average of
13 percent between 1980 and 1990.
The cost of new suburban
infrastructure. Suburbs are often perceived as
"low-tax" locations, when, in fact, most new
suburban homebuyers in California must pay additional
taxes (usually Mello-Roos taxes) to cover the massive
cost of new roads, schools, and other infrastructure
required in new communities. These additional taxes
often have the effect of doubling a new homeowner's
property tax bill.
Residents of Central Cities and Older
Suburbs
Residents of central cities and older
suburbs are among the biggest losers in the sprawl
process. Once they were among the most fortunate of
metropolitan dwellers, because their central location
provided access to jobs, shopping, and other amenities.
However, sprawl has penalized them by creating or
accelerating the following trends:
Loss of jobs and access to jobs.
Residents of older neighborhoods no longer have
convenient access to most jobs. This is especially
difficult for poor and working-class citizens who must
rely on public
transportation, because it is difficult to commute to
most suburban jobs without a car.
Economic segregation and loss of
social stability. By luring middle-class residents
from older neighborhoods, sprawl creates destructive
economic segregation and robs those neighborhoods of
the social stability that will keep them viable. The
distribution of income becomes more skewed, and it
becomes increasingly difficult for low-income people
to escape poverty.
Underutilized or abandoned
investments. Businesses are not the only entities
whose investments can become stranded when city
neighborhoods decline. Individual homeowners and small
shopowners can also see a stagnation or decline in
property values. And this trend is not only visible in
the inner city. Huge investments in older suburban
shopping centers, for example, are now threatened
because these centers are perceived as uncompetitive.
Shifts in political power and
government services. By removing the middle class of
all races from older communities, sprawl makes it
easier for that middle class to ignore the political
and social problems left behind. Thus, revenues fall
and it becomes more difficult for older
neighborhoods-urban or suburban-to maintain government
services, and the incentive for home ownership
required to provide the foundation for prosperity.
Farmers
Agriculture remains one of
California's leading industries. Yet sprawl continues to
take a heavy toll on California agriculture in the
following ways.
A permanent loss of agricultural land.
Between 1982 and 1987, the Central Valley-
California's leading agricultural region-lost almost a
half-million acres of productive farmland. Some of
this land can be replaced by bringing new land into
agricultural production, but often at a high economic
and environmental cost. Also, many of California's
micro-climates support unique agricultural products
that cannot be replaced by land in other areas. Highly
productive coastal agricultural lands lost to sprawl
cannot be replaced at any cost.
A loss in productivity due to
pollution. Sprawl-induced ozone pollution alone can
reduce crop yields by as much as 30 percent. According
to the Agricultural Issues Center at UC Davis,
pollution-induced costs to agriculture exceed $200
million per year.
A decline in farm communities. As
sprawl has eroded agricultural production, the effect
on farm communities has been devastating. In some
cases, rural communities have been transformed into
bedroom suburbs, creating destructive commuting
patterns while destroying agriculture infrastructure
and productivity.
Long-term uncertainty. Sprawl
destabilizes agriculture by creating the temptation to
"sell out." The prospect of eventual sale to
a developer reduces incentives for farmers to make
long-term capital investments. In many cases, farmers
stay afloat financially only by borrowing against the
speculative value of their farm for development-
creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of sprawl. Another
uncertainty for farmers arises from increased demand
for water for urban uses driven by sprawl patterns.
The Environment
Traditional development patterns have
taken a massive toll on all three basic elements of the
natural environment: land, air, and water.
Land: After 50 years of sprawl,
California's metropolitan areas are enormous, reaching
deep into natural ecosystems that were thriving even a
generation ago. Some 95 percent of the state's
wetlands have been destroyed over the last 200 years,
and the few wetlands that remain are threatened. Also,
California now has the highest number of candidate and
listed endangered species of any state-partly because
sprawl is affecting the state's unmatched diversity of
biological systems. Sprawl makes it more difficult to
resolve these land conservation issues by putting
tremendous development pressure on the supply of
remaining open land. Finally, sprawl compromises one
of the most essential assets of California-the beauty
and drama of its landscape. Far from being just a
luxury, this value of open space is an important
component in the state's ability to attract and hold
workers and investors.
Air: California has the worst
air quality in the nation, and air pollution experts
estimate that a third of all air pollution emissions
are traceable to car and truck emissions exacerbated
by longer commutes and higher auto use. The South
Coast Air Quality Management District, which has the
strictest air-pollution regulations in the country,
estimates that air pollution in the four-county Los
Angeles area costs $7.4 billion per year, or about
$600 per resident. Dramatic gains in pollution
technology are likely to be offset by further sprawl.
According to air pollution expert J.V. Hall, "The
benefits of pollution-reduction technology can easily
be overwhelmed by our choices about where to live and
work, about modes of travel, and about how many miles
we drive."
Water: Sprawl takes a serious
toll on California's water supply. Forty of the
state's 350 groundwater basins are seriously
overdrafted, and water planners predict that by 2020
the state will face a water supply deficit of between
2 million and 8 million acre-feet. Though not the sole
cause, fringe development does make the water issue
more expensive and complicated to manage.
BEYOND SPRAWL
In the postwar era, the continuous cycle
of suburban sprawl-counter-productive as it was in many
ways-actually helped to fuel California's prosperity, as
consumption of new houses and new cars became one of the
bases of our prosperity. It is clear, however, that the
new California cannot sustain old patterns of urban
development, if the state is to prosper in the future.
The sponsors of this report-Bank of
America, the California Resources Agency, Greenbelt
Alliance, and the Low-Income Housing Fund-firmly believe
that California cannot succeed unless the state moves
beyond sprawl. Strong policy direction from our
political leaders on both the state and local level is
essential. But government policies alone will not help
California move forward. Our businesses, our community
groups, and our citizens must also take the initiative.
We must understand how sprawl affects each of us
individually, how it impedes the state's progress, and
how it could make a prosperous future more difficult to
achieve.
Population growth will require some
degree of development on the suburban fringe. The
question is whether we will be able to use existing
urban and suburban land more efficiently in order to
minimize sprawl and protect valuable open spaces. The
answers will lie in our ability to attract housing and
businesses to older urban and suburban areas and to
channel development on the fringe to achieve the desired
protection and economic benefits.
California businesses cannot compete
globally when they are burdened with the costs of
sprawl. An attractive business climate cannot be
sustained if the quality of life continues to decline
and the cost of financing real estate development
escalates. People in central cities and older suburbs
cannot become part of the broader economy if sprawl
continues to encourage disinvestment, and the state can
neither afford to ignore nor fully subsidize these
neglected areas.
California must find a new development
model. We must create more compact and efficient
development patterns that accommodate growth, yet help
maintain California's environmental balance and its
economic competitiveness. And we must encourage everyone
in California to propose and create solutions to sprawl.
A do-nothing approach, in effect,
constitutes a policy decision in favor of the status
quo. This, in fact, has been the de facto direction for
the last generation. While the state and the regions
have created a leadership void in this area, many local
governments have stepped in with their own policies,
which often have served to promote sprawl rather than
prevent it. Recent research has shown that individual
local growth-control policies do not stop development,
but merely deflect it- often to another area further out
on the metropolitan fringe, where the cost of
development is even greater. The question is not whether
to address sprawl. The question is how to address it.
In the early 1990's, the California
Legislature convened a consensus project on growth
management, and in 1991 Governor Wilson formed a
cabinet-level council charged with developing a plan on
how the state should address the challenge. A great deal
of good work was done and agreement was reached in some
areas. These processes did not result in legislative
action, but a good foundation of understanding has been
established.
As was stated at the outset, this
report is not meant to be a manual or a tactical
"how-to" on changing development patterns in
California. Rather, it is meant as a wake-up call to all
Californians that the sprawl issue has a new urgency in
the state, and that all of us can play a role in
addressing the problem.
To succeed, we will have to set aside
individual interests, build on the foundation that has
been laid, and work for the good of the whole. We need
to address sprawl through community action, public
policy, private business practices, and individual
behavior. It is our intent that the ideas and examples
that follow will be used as a basis for further
refinement and concerted action.
First, more certainty is needed in
delineating where new development should and should not
occur. Sprawl occurs partly because current policy
constrains the real estate market by rewarding
"leapfrog" development driven by cheaper and
more easily developed land on the metropolitan and
suburban fringe. The alternative is to be more explicit
about conservation and development priorities, targeting
actions and policies for better integration of the two.
Using this approach means utilizing
land at the suburban fringe more efficiently and
encouraging the reuse of land and other development
opportunities in already developed areas. It does not
mean stopping growth at the fringe, but doing it at
density levels that will not promote further sprawl. To
succeed, this approach needs more effective public
policies encouraging such compact growth and removing
barriers to it.
However, the other side of certainty
for developers requires commitments to conserve
ecologically important habitats and other open space.
Accelerating statewide planning efforts such as Natural
Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP), which involves
voluntary action at the local level and requires
consensus among development, environmental, community
and local government interests, will enhance our ability
to provide greater environmental and economic certainty
regarding new development. With its emphasis on
biological assessment, ecosystem protection and
compatible economic development, NCCP can provide much
greater certainty to both those who want to develop
their property and those who want to protect the natural
environment. Broader use of mitigation banks can
facilitate market-based compensation to landowners who
choose to help protect ecologically valuable land.
Conservation of other habitat and open
space, such as prime agricultural land, will also
require us to find creative approaches like the NCCP
process. The newly established California Environmental
Resources Evaluation System (CERES) will help this
process by expanding access to data about important
resources in the state.
Regardless of the methods used, much
of the leadership for providing greater certainty for
conservation and development must come from the state,
regional agencies, and local governments working
together. But private businesses also have a critical
role. Especially in difficult economic times, real
estate developers and their lenders know that certainty
of approval and availability of infrastructure, rather
than speculative leapfrogging, will reduce costs and
reduce processing time. Thus, new real estate
developments can be brought to market more quickly and
cheaply within areas where effective consensus plans for
conservation and development have been created.
Second, we should make more efficient
use of land that has already been developed. Older urban
and suburban neighborhoods should be reinforced as good
places to live and do business, and the process should
take place without displacing low-income residents.
Sprawl occurs partly because of the perception that
older neighborhoods are dangerous, expensive, obsolete,
unpleasant, or otherwise unacceptable to those who have
the option of leaving. The result is a tragic neglect of
both people and capital investments.
Older neighborhoods must be maintained
and improved so they are again desirable places to live
and work. Old Town Pasadena, the South of Market area in
San Francisco, and the train depot reconstruction in
Sacramento are all prime examples of successful
restoration projects. Better school systems, job
training and access to capital for small businesses are
prerequisites. These efforts require a combination of
government policy initiatives, active business
investment, and special efforts by individuals and
community groups.
Attracting jobs is absolutely
critical. State and local governments should adopt
land-use and transportation policies that reinforce
investments in older neighborhoods. Incentives must be
developed for job- creating businesses, homebuyers, and
others willing to invest in older neighborhoods. For
example, Superfund laws can be made more sensible so
existing industrial sites can be recycled into new uses.
Investors can make more aggressive use of low income
housing tax credits. Wider use can be made of Enterprise
Zones. And tax credits or other incentives can be
established for lending and equity investments that
support small businesses and job growth. Development on
the fringe imposes infrastructure, pollution and social
costs well in excess of assessed development fees. If we
rationalize development and control the costs of sprawl,
it will free up capital that can be reinvested into
existing cities and suburbs.
Older communities themselves need to
make their neighborhoods attractive to job creating and
housing investments. Individuals and community groups in
those areas should redouble their efforts to improve the
quality of urban life in small ways, for example, by
forming community- based crime prevention groups and
supporting local community development efforts that will
enhance their neighborhoods.
Home ownership at all income levels
needs to be encouraged. In general, those who own homes
have the greatest interest in maintaining neighborhood
vitality. Public policy should support methods of
keeping low-income people from displacement through
development of affordable housing (both home ownership
and rental) and provision of supportive services. Also
if developers are to provide quality housing in existing
neighborhoods, they need protection from frivolous
environmental and product liability suits.
The closing of military bases in
California offers interesting potential for development.
Bases have substantial potential as alternatives to
building houses and job centers on the suburban fringe.
While there are problems associated with redeveloping
many bases, they also have excellent potential for
showcasing how to resolve difficult urban rebuilding
strategies.
Third, a legal and procedural
framework should be established to create the desired
certainty and send the right economic signals to
investors. Four elements are needed.
(a) Where development is
allowed, state and local permitting should be
streamlined. This is critical to encouraging development
in urban and older suburban areas. It may require
changes to legislation that relates to permitting.
(b) Development at the
metropolitan fringe should be required to pay the full
marginal cost of development. Housing and business space
on the metropolitan fringe is often inexpensive because
those developments pay for local infrastructure, but do
not pay the full cost of constructing roads, developing
water supplies, mitigating environmental problems, and
creating regional imbalances. Imposing such costs on
those developments would discourage sprawl. For example,
the city of Lancaster adopted an innovative program that
requires new development to pay capital and operating
costs of infrastructure. Development further out pays
its full cost, while development that is closer to the
city's center pays much less, since it is tied in to
existing city services.
Again, this is a task that requires
the active participation of both government and
business. For example, many government agencies, such as
water suppliers, subsidize development on the
metropolitan fringe by spreading the cost of their
infrastructure across all users, new and old. Changing
such policies would discourage sprawl.
Failing to levy the full marginal cost
gives leapfrog development an unfair competitive
advantage over projects in existing urban areas, where
transactions are made more difficult and expensive by
toxic waste and other environmental liability issues.
Expanding environmental audits to include wetlands,
endangered species, and other issues-a practice that is
already beginning-would also discourage sprawl by
including the full assessment of environmental cost in
private real estate transactions.
(c) California's local
governments should encourage more efficient and
coordinated local land-use policies. Sprawl has been
encouraged by tax revenue competition among local
governments for some land uses, such as retail centers,
and by slow-growth policies that discourage other land
uses, such as housing.
Development patterns that are now
truly regional are being created almost completely by an
accumulation of local decisions. But some local
governments are beginning to show that it is possible to
work together toward consistent land-use policies when
given the incentive to do so. In planning for the reuse
of closed military bases, for example, local governments
are forming "joint powers authorities" in
which many jurisdictions work together toward a common
goal.
The vast majority of Californians
choose to locate in large metropolitan areas. But most
of these people live in small, politically independent
suburban jurisdictions. These local governments must
work together toward a consistent set of land-use
policies-such as discouraging development on the
metropolitan fringe and reinforcing investments in
transit systems-that will enhance economic opportunity
and quality of life across the entire metropolitan area.
Joint powers authorities, such as those created for
military base reuse, should be viewed as one model for
cooperative planning, and others are needed.
(d) Technological change should
be used to combat sprawl rather than encourage it. In
the past, technological advancements (such as
automobiles and government-sponsored freeways) have
supported sprawl, requiring expensive after-the-fact
government action of questionable value (such as
ridesharing requirements). Today we stand at the
threshold of a new technological era that offers the
opportunity to have more work done at home and in local
communities. We must take advantage of the opportunities
presented by the information superhighway to improve our
land-use patterns rather than further destroy them.
For example, the information
superhighway could end up encouraging a further
decentralization of jobs to the metropolitan fringe.
Freed of a daily commute to a large employment center,
some individuals and small businesses will seek to
locate in distant suburbs and travel back to older urban
centers to do business as needed. This trend could put
more pressure on land at the fringe.
However, the telecommunications
revolution can also hold the potential for reviving
economically troubled areas. Because of its locational
flexibility, telecommunications can provide new job
prospects for older urban neighborhoods and for rural
towns. Both government policy and private business
practice should encourage the use of telecommunications
to reinforce existing communities rather than further
dissipate them.
Fourth, we should forge a constituency
to build sustainable communities. Past efforts to reduce
sprawl have been hampered because little constituency
exists beyond groups of government reformers, some local
government leaders, community groups, and
conservationists. But, as this report suggests, many
other players in California's future will also find
themselves increasingly stifled by sprawl. Political
alliances must be forged between environmentalists,
inner-city community advocates, business leaders,
government experts, farmers, and suburbanites to improve
the quality of life in all our existing communities and
protect our resources.
This will not be an easy task. Most of
these groups are focused on their specific agendas and
often harbor animosity toward each other even though
alliances make long-term strategic sense. But it is
possible. For example, environmentalists concerned about
development at the suburban fringe have tremendous
opportunities to work with governments and community
organizations seeking to increase investment in more
central urban areas. Farmers seeking a long-term future
in agriculture near an urban area can form very
effective alliances with those working to protect
resources. Community groups, government agencies, and
builders can explore new marketing and funding options
that support homebuilding closer to major transit lines,
taking advantage of the huge demand for housing created
by the state's dramatically changing demographics.
Taxpayers concerned about the inefficiency of
governmental expenditures can join with those working to
make better use of infrastructure in existing urban
areas. There are literally dozens of such alliances
waiting to be created.
We must act now. The decisions we make
in the next few years will determine California's future
course-and its chances for success. To build a strong
economy and retain a good quality of life for the 21st
Century, we must move beyond sprawl to a new vision of
community in the few remaining years of the 20th
Century.
Acknowledgments
All of the report's conclusions may
not be endorsed in their entirety by each of the four
sponsors. At the same time, each of the organizations
believes that the time to act is now and that this
report can help advance the public dialogue about
California's growth and development.
The sponsors are grateful for the
assistance provided by Steven Moss and his associates at
the consulting firm of M. Cubed for developing much of
the basic research behind this paper. We are also
indebted to William Fulton for conceptualizing and
drafting the paper. His clarity of vision helped
consolidate our thinking into a comprehensive whole. If
you would like to comment on the paper, or obtain
additional copies, please contact any of the following
sponsors:
Bank of America
Environmental Policies and Programs
#5800
PO Box 37000
San Francisco, CA 94137
(415) 622-8154
California Resources Agency
The Resources Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 653-5656
Greenbelt Alliance
530 Bush St., Ste. 303
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 398-3730
The Low Income Housing Fund
74 New Montgomery
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 777-9804
Sponsor's Note:
This report suggests new ideas about
how California can continue to grow while still
fostering the economic vitality and quality of life
that makes it such a vibrant place to live and work.
It is sponsored by a diverse coalition-the California
Resources Agency, a government conservation agency;
Bank of America, California's largest bank; Greenbelt
Alliance, the Bay Area's citizen conservation and
planning organization; and the Low Income Housing
Fund, a nonprofit organization dedicated to low-income
housing.
The fact that such a diverse
group has reached consensus on the ideas in this
report reflects how important the issue of growth is
to all Californians. We hope this report will make a
meaningful contribution to the public dialogue about
the quality and direction of California's growth in
the 21st century.
 TOP
|
