FORUM PIECE FOR SAC BEE: REVISED 10/17/99

Land Use Planning Battles Heat Up

The recent editorials in the Bee about the lawsuit against SACOG's regional transportation plan highlights the state of land use planning affairs in the region. It is a mess. The transportation plan adds a lane in each direction on all of the region's freeways, but congestion will get drastically worse over 20 years. Transit is also improved, but ridership is forecast to stay at the currently very low share (0.6%) of daily trips, because the sprawling development pattern in the region puts more households beyond the reach of rail or buses.

Sacramento County adopted a commendable general plan in 1994, but have not implemented it very well. Almost every month, they lower land use densities in the transit-oriented development areas, so important to improving transit ridership. In sum, the region is increasing freeway capacity, while spending large wads on transit, which is poorly ridden, due to the competition from the freeways and because land use planning is not coordinated with the transit lines.

Not everyone is happy about this incoherent situation. A lawsuit has invalidated the general plan in El Dorado County. This plan unwisely permits all of the private lands in the county to be developed, most at very low densities. This form of development is not paying fully for its service burdens and so the quality of life is slowly going downhill there, as services are stretched more thinly. Two other suits recently forced developers of large subdivisions to reduce the size of their projects and to redesign them. Land use planning seems to have been taken into private hands in El Dorado County. There are also fights in this county over water rights. It is generally thought that there is not enough water to accomodate the development permitted in the general plan. This path is not sustainable.

This region also suffers from a lack of affordable housing, due in part to exclusionary policies in suburbs where the jobs are locating. Local governments also compete fiercely for sale taxes and so bend over backwards to attract malls, even though this process puts other retailers out of business in older suburbs and in the central city.  This rigged competition is not good for the region, as it detracts from the financial stability of the City of Sacramento and increases neighborhood decline in many areas. Peter King, writing in the Bee, believes that the widespread unhappiness over sprawl gobbling up open space and with traffic congestion all over California will lead to a statewide initiative to protect farmlands. Such ballot-box planning will not solve the underlying problems, poor land use planning, failing schools, and competition for sales taxes, according to King.

Why is it that the cities and counties in the Sacramento region cannot agree to negotiate and adopt a regional growth plan for the next 40 years that coordinates transit with higher-density growth and that protects a regional system of habitat and open space lands? Why can't we decide to strengthen the downtown, so critical to the region? A survey of regional leaders and elected officials in 1997 showed a strong consensus for regional planning, regional tax sharing, and regional open space protection. Why have no business groups come forward to push for these goals? Why have the local governments not taken action to improve the region?

A large part of the answer is that the State laws under which local governments operate force them to compete, by denying them stable revenues. State law also does not require or even encourage regional planning. California law does not even require localities to permit housing to be built for the people who work in that city or county. So, to understand our dilemma in the Sacramento region, we must look beyond our problems to those in the Legislature and Capitol who write the rules.  

The Politics of Inclusion

Governor Davis ran a campaign based on Inclusion. He advocated ending the use of "wedge" issues to motivate white Anglo voters by appealing to their fears of the growing non-Anglo and nonwhite populations. He also appealed to our sense of frugality in government by claiming he would trim programs to only those that are needed. I hope that he addresses these issues in the next legislative session, especially as they affect land use planning. Much needs to be done in this critical area of law, to remedy long-standing inequities and inefficiencies.

Falling Incomes, Rising Housing Costs

Lower-income workers in California, as a group, have lost 40% of their income over the last 30 years. This drastic drop in wellbeing is due to the transfer of low-skill jobs abroad and to the lack of English and other skills in the native and immigrant populations. Prop. 13 and the other tax limitation initiatives, more severe here than in any other state, have made new homes and apartments more expensive, by shifting local service costs heavily onto new projects. This housing crisis is compounded by the impending loss of a large part of the Federally subsidized ("Section 8") rental housing stock in California, due to rapidly rising market-rate rents. All of these problems are amplified in the Sacramento region, which has a higher percentage of very-low-income households than the State average.

Suburban Exclusion

Current California land use law is exclusionary, in that it permits suburbs to exclude lower-income, and even moderate-income households through large-lot zoning and restrictions on apartments. Since cities and counties are state-authorized entities and should operate for the good of us all, this practice is not just. Related transportation policies that encourage the construction of freeways on the edges of our urban regions also encourage the flight of middle-class families to ever-farther suburbs, increasing the isolation of the poor in older central areas. This segregation of households by income leads directly to divisive politics in the State Legislature, with relatively well-off suburbs fighting the poorer and more diverse central cities.

Sprawl Unjust and Costly

Current California land use law is not frugal. The outward growth of our urban regions causes the premature obsolescence of commercial properties in the central cities and inner suburbs. Sprawl causes the property values of those who invested in homes and businesses in these older urban communities to fall. The investment game, as it is now played, favors politically connected suburban investors and hurts moderate-income homeowners and business people. Decentralized growth also consumes huge amounts of agricultural land and important habitats for rare species of plants and animals.

The Sacramento region has witnessed a rapid spreading of growth into El Dorado and Placer counties. Suburban superstores and malls continue to draw income away from the Downtown. Furthermore, new jobs are locating predominantly in outer areas, such as Folsom and South Placer County. This decentralization of employment will cause residential development even farther out on grazing lands and on forest lands. Our region's oak woodlands are an important habitat, but are viewed by most as low-value grazing lands best made into scenic homesites. In fact, many plants and animals exist only in these grasslands, especially in the streamside corridors. In addition, the excessive competition for retail is creating low-rent and failed malls throughout the region. For example, the Florin Road area is being damaged by the new developments in Elk Grove. As our region already has too much retail space for its population, we can expect many more mall failures in the near future. The loss of these shopping facilities is a major blow to those living in these neighborhoods, some of whom will not even be able to access the new retail centers on transit.

Legislative Changes Needed

Our local governments cannot do right, regionally, because they operate under a set of State laws that encourage, or require, cutthroat competition. Governor Davis needs to elevate land use and transportation issues to the highest level of concern in the upcoming legislative year. He comitted to attacking these problems in his State of the State address. He also appointed task forces to study affordable housing and infrastructure. The Governor and our legislative leaders need to consider several changes to California law that could reduce the cost of development and be much fairer to lower-income families. These legal changes would make it possible for the local governments in our region to cooperate.

1. Enforce the existing "fair share" housing requirements in all cities and counties. Each jurisdiction will then permit housing to be built for all economic segments of their region. Those local governments that will not comply would no longer be allowed to regulate the density of residential development. This "opening up" of the suburbs will permit low- and moderate-income families to have access to the best schools and to many more jobs.

The most vivid example of this problem of jobs-housing imbalance in Northern California is the Silicon Valley. The cities in Santa Clara County do not permit sufficient housing to be built for the workers there, causing huge numbers of people to commute long distances. This policy also pushes the service costs associated with the commuters' residences off onto those other communities.

The nearby example is the booming job market in Eastern Alameda and Contra Costa counties, where the cities will not permit enough housing to be built. These workers are commuting out to San Joaquin County and soon will be coming to Sacramento County in greater numbers. There are many other examples of this problem inside of our region, where employment-rich jurisdictions throw their housing needs off onto other nearby cities and unincorporated places.

2. Require counties to make a finding that additional parcels are needed in that part of the county within ten years, before permitting additional subdividing or lot splits. Also, require that an adequate long-term  water supply be proven, before a project can go forward. This measure will reduce the huge backlog of developed, but unbuilt, parcels that exist in many parts of the State. Current practice is a free-for-all in many counties, fragmenting habitat lands with only a small benefit to the economy. This scattered pattern of development also causes service costs to rise, a major issue in many counties. For 20 years now, California has required such a finding of need before new electric power plants can be built, resulting in huge savings for us all.

The rampant over-subdividing in the Tahoe Basin in the 60s has resulted in the states and Federal government having to buy out thousands of parcels, to reduce soil erosion and pollution of the Lake. Many foothill counties in our region have excessive inventories of unbuilt rural lots. Flying east out of the Sacramento airport at night reveals the lights from rural residential properties evenly scattered all over the Sierra foothills. There are almost no large open space areas left. Indeed, excessive service costs from such development are one issue underlying the lawsuits invalidating the El Dorado County general plan recently.  The Sacramento County general plan has an urban limit line, but it is so liberally drawn as to accomodate growth far beyond the 20-year planning horizon year.

3. To create a strong incentive for infill development, amend the California Environmental Quality Act to  exempt all projects in built-out urban areas from impact assessment requirements. Modest steps were taken to allow this exemption, last year, but this provision needs to be strengthened. Also, improve the impact reports that are done on local land use plans and permit the costs from these studies to be passed on to all development projects. In this way, we can focus our attention on the important decisions that direct overall growth, rather than arguing over each project. Development costs should decline, if these changes are made to the Act. Worthwhile projects in downtown Sacramento have been blocked, using the environmental assessment process to delay construction. This misuse of the impact assessment law is widespread in California.

4. Declare multifamily housing to be the preferred land use in the State. Place the burden of proof in litigation on the cities and counties, if they deny such projects. Return to local governments all of the property taxes from multifamily real estate, to create a fiscal incentive for approval of these projects. Return sales taxes collected within each county to all cities and the unincorporated portion of the county on a per capita basis, to create a strong incentive for the approval of housing in general. The State Controller  has suggested this last policy.

These changes would increase the stock of apartments and of single-family housing throughout our region, lowering rents and home prices. Currently, affordable housing is located in only certain communities, whereas entry-level jobs for such households are spread across the whole region. The housing cost issue has reached a crisis level in the Bay Area and is getting worse here too.

5. Fund all local and State road improvements only from user fees. User fees include fuel taxes, but not county sales taxes or State bonds paid for from general funds. Sales taxes are regressive and so subsidize upper-income drivers. Paying for roads with State general funds hides the costs of new facilities, leading to overuse and overbuilding. So as to not overbuild, as we have done in the past, we need users to pay their way.

The four huge State bonds proposed by certain key legislators (totalling $16 billion) should not be paid for from general funds. The Sacramento County sales tax for transportation should be revamped when it comes up for renewal in a few years, so that road construction and maintenance are paid for from fuel taxes.

6. Last, before any major road or transit project can be funded, require a finding on the part of Caltrans and the local and regional agencies that the project will benefit lower-income travelers at least as much as moderate- and upper-income ones. This simple requirement will begin to reduce the drastic equity problems created in the last 30 years, where most of the funds went to freeways and commuter rail systems, which are used relatively less by lower-income households. This is especially a problem in Southern California, but also in our region, where light rail has gotten most of the transit attention for many years.

Such a finding will lead to better bus service in this region and in most other urban areas in California. Bus service is essential to lower-income households, as well as to youths and the elderly, in the Sacramento area. An aging population will make paratransit (dial-a-ride) and scheduled bus service even more important in the future, here and throughout the State.

It's Time 

Many other changes are needed, but these are the most important ones to redress the glaring inequities in current land use law and transportation funding. The Governor and Legislature have taken many steps to improve the fairness and effectiveness of local education in the past year. They also have addressed some of the concerns of workers. It is now time to take on land use regulation and transportation funding. Such legislative changes would improve living conditions for less-fortunate households in our State and would protect more of our valuable agricultural lands and important wildlife habitats.

The Governor has approached these matters indirectly, if at all. There has been support from the State Treasurer, Phil Angelides, and from the Controller, Kathleen Connell, for some of these ideas. We need support from the Governor for land use planning and local government laws that will increase the quality of life for Californians by requiring all localities to plan for sustainable development.

We are the second-richest state, in terms of species diversity, and so have a special need to prevent development from consuming the lands needed for the survival of these plants and animals. They are part of our legacy as Californians. And we are the richest state, in terms of human diversity, and so can lead the way in accomodating our immigrant and newer native-born families by creating fairer land use laws. These newcomers are our future.

Inclusive Growth

The economically less fortunate citizens of California not only need better schools and employment conditions. They also need affordable housing, near to transit, throughout every urban region. When we quit subsidizing outward growth and we forbid exclusionary land use regulations, we will see a quickened Renaissance in our older cities. This is how the favored members of our society can welcome the newcomers, the young, and the economically less fortunate. Such inclusive politics will hasten the integration of our fractured State.

It is to everyone's advantage to support our older cities. Economic studies show that reducing central city poverty leads to increases in regional incomes. Medical research also demonstrates that reducing income disparities in urban regions leads to higher life expectancy for all income groups. Income disparities lead to personal stress and to political tension.

Repairing Community

We need to turn away from a governance where the poor and minorities are left to fend for

themselves, blocked from access to the best jobs and schools and policing. Californians need to accept continued growth and plan for it equitably. We need to accept that there is a growing majority of racial and ethnic minorities, many of whom want to live in vital cities. We need to accept that land is a valuable and scarce resource and use it efficiently.

When these changes are made, it will be much easier for our local elected officials to get together and cooperate.

_________________________

Robert A. Johnston is a Professor of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of California at Davis. His research involves modeling travel and land use behavior in urban regions.