Home > Resource Center > In the News Home > Greenbelt Alliance in the News

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

November 6, 2002

Differing views in state on handling of growth

Many measures despite woes of economy

Some of the efforts at growth control were so draconian that even environmental groups opposed them. At the other end of the pendulum, voters in Nevada County were asked "to reimburse property owners when the market value of their property is reduced by county regulatory actions or determinations."

In some ways, this was the most potentially significant of all the growth-related measures on California ballots.

The Nevada County measure follows the lines of a successful 2000 Oregon measure. It argues that the "common good" is restricted to issues of public health and safety, rather than wider notions that growth should reflect wider values such as open space protection. A pro-landowner vote in Nevada County would be a vivid reminder that there are two sides to the issue -- one likely to be noticed in Sacramento, where legislators have been more and more willing to push for laws that encourage some types of growth, such as affordable housing, while restricting others.

The very existence of such a measure shows the stark difference in how Californians view development. In the Bay Area, by contrast, almost every ballot measure sought to put in restrictions portrayed by opponents as extreme.

Nor were the opponents a predictable amalgam of developers and Chamber-of-Commerce types.

BERKELEY HEIGHT MEASURE
In Berkeley, a measure to clamp down heights on commercial streets was opposed by every member of the City Council and both mayoral candidates -- rare unanimity in a fiercely fractious municipality.
In Sonoma County's Windsor, a move to limit housing to just 150 units in three years was opposed by the Greenbelt Alliance and Sonoma County Conservation Action -- environmental groups that just years ago led initiatives to put growth boundaries around eight Sonoma cities.

In both cases, critics argued that the measures were too restrictive -- pushing growth away without any consideration of the consequences, including the revival of struggling commercial areas such as downtown Windsor or, in Berkeley, San Pablo Avenue.

What was striking about each measure is how they signaled the hostility with which many Californians view the concept of "smart growth,"a the notion that development should take place in older communities where there is available land connected to existing infrastructure and, ideally, bus
lines or light rail. It's a great idea when viewed at a regional basis.

But locally, the trade-off is often depicted as an unfair assault on the quality of life.

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
More "traditional" anti-growth measures were in Fremont and Tiburon, where citizens sought to make hillside development as difficult as possible. A Fremont initiative would try to nail down 100-acre minimum parcel size on land along the city's outskirts; Tiburon voters were asked to prohibit development on "prime open space" -- which translates to almost anything not yet built on.

The only thing that might remotely be called a "pro-growth" measure in the Bay Area reflected the smart growth trend. That was in Santa Rosa, where voters were asked to allow a doubling in the amount of subsidized housing units allowed annually, from 197 to 594. The measure came about because
city leaders see an increased push regionally and statewide to create more housing; in response, they argued, they need more room for flexibility in terms of approving projects that fit the definition of affordable housing.

Ultimately, the votes on Tuesday were unlikely to settle much of anything. As long as pressures for growth continues, so will the desire to shape it or push it somewhere else. And the arguments will be couched in apocalyptic terms, if Tuesday was any indication. Two examples: The group pushing Tiburon's measure called itself the Last Chance Committee; supporters of Berkeley's measure to
knock allowable heights down from 50 feet said the change was necessary "to keep Berkeley from being overwhelmed by out-of-scale developments."

If such comments seem exaggerated from afar, they ring true among sizable groups of citizens. In the meantime, California is projected to grow by 500, 000 persons annually -- suggesting that the passions will grow more heated with time, not less.

E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.
Copyright 2002 SF Chronicle

###