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

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

June 29, 2005

CCC Initiatives are a threat to the environment

Letter to the Editor

In a recent Courier article, supporters of the measures, the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino, proclaimed that the initiatives are "smart growth." This is blatantly false. Our organizations, the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club, Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voters and Greenbelt Alliance, would like to set the record straight.

Uncontrolled growth is a major problem nationwide. Between 1982 and 1997, developed land nationwide grew by more than 25 million acres--paving an expanse roughly the size of Ohio.

Under current growth patterns, 340 acres of undeveloped land, nationwide, are consumed per hour. This frantic land consumption is the number-one threat to rare plants and animals, especially here in the Bay Area, a globally recognized biodiversity hot spot.

Sprawl development also leads to wetland destruction, degradation of water quality and the gradual elimination of the nation's ability to feed itself. For these reasons, the environmental community has been leading the way in promoting a better way of accommodating growth. It's called "smart growth," and these initiatives aren't it.

The Environmental Protection Agency defines smart growth as development that serves the economy, community and environment. Smart growth directs development to our built areas to create vibrant neighborhoods, increase transportation and housing options and alleviate growth pressure on open space.

The proposed initiatives are not smart growth. Quite the opposite.

These initiatives would encourage the kind of poorly planned development that paves natural areas and limits transportation options.

The overly restrictive limits on building heights and density would throw the baby out with the bath water, handicapping our region's ability to accommodate growth without sprawling outward.

Requiring large setbacks is especially short-sighted. Buildings that are closer to the street are an integral part of what makes older suburbs and shopping districts feel inviting and safe for pedestrians.

Supporters argue that the initiatives allow exceptions through a city-wide vote, but what this actually means is that the planning process would slow to a glacial pace, as every single variance is voted on by the entire city, not to mention the significant public cost of these elections. In the meantime, poorly planned growth will continue unabated, as new subdivisions pave over working farms and scenic areas from here all the way to the Central Valley.

To call the initiatives "smart growth" is to distort the meaning of the term. Rooting out the truth during campaign season while being bombarded with television ads, direct mail and phone calls is a time-consuming necessity of our democracy.

It's our hope that as the campaign season gets under way, Cupertino residents will take the time needed to understand the implications of these initiatives, examine the statements of both sides and come to a conclusion that favors economic development, quality of life and the health of the planet.

Bottom line: These initiatives are anything but smart growth. They're short-sighted, costly and bad for Cupertino and the entire region. Vote for smart growth by voting against these initiatives.

For more information about smart growth, go to www.smartgrowth.org or www.epa.gov/smartgrowth.

Rod Diridon Sr. is chairman of the board of the Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voters; Irvin Dawid is chairman of the Sustainable Land Use Committee of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club; and Michele Beasley is the South Bay field representative for Greenbelt Alliance.

###