On January 4th, the California State Legislature came back into session. Lots of important land use bills will be considered. Query how much will be passed. In election years, it’s easy for political posturing to substitute for the hard work necessary to craft a piece of legislation that can pass the Legislature and get signed by the Governor. Still, hope springs eternal in Sacramento. Here are three items on my New Year’s wish list that will talked about, at least, in the upcoming nine months, as the Legislature deliberates:

• First, genuine land use reform! It is clear to almost everyone that our patterns of growth, on a statewide basis, are not only destroying our natural resources, but are undermining the economy and weakening the social fabric of our communities.

• Second, a very simple rule: no new building on unprotected flood plains. Period. Again (and especially after Hurricane Katrina) isn’t it obvious that we’ve should not be putting more and more people at risk?

• Third, let’s match the deeds to the rhetoric, and actually so something about global warming. That means changing our way of life, in very significant ways, not just making speeches about it.

As the year unfolds, I’ll keep you posted about legislation affecting these and other land use issues, but I’m not letting you off the hook at the local level either!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Planning and Conservation League Website
www.pcl.org

One of the key pieces of legislation being considered in Sacramento this year is Senate Bill 1024, by State Senator Don Perata.

Senate Bill 1024 is a proposal for the people of the state to borrow money. It’s a so called “General Obligation Bond.” When General Obligation bonds are authorized by a vote of the people, and then sold, the sale of the bonds generates immediate cash to be used for the purposes specified in the bond issue. But that money is borrowed money, and must be paid back as a “first priority” for state expenditures. If the voters authorize General Obligation bonds for $10 billion dollars, as SB 1024 proposes, and if there are then fiscal problems, the bond holders who loaned the money get their interest and principal payments first, before the state can pay for education, keeping the Highway Patrol on the streets, making health and welfare expenditures, and things like that.

Because general obligation borrowing puts future state operations at greater risk, one significant debate in Sacramento this year is whether or not a dedicated stream of money to repay the bonds should be identified at the time that the bonds are authorized. In the land use arena, one proposal is that the ports should impose a new fee on the containers being brought into the ports, since so much of the proposed borrowing is to help the ports increase their business. The idea is that the businesses that benefit from the expenditures should pay for the borrowing that benefits them. Not too bad a concept!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Planning and Conservation League Website
www.pcl.org

SB 1024 – Find the bill at
www.leginfo.ca.gov

Because the so-called “infrastructure bond” is such an important topic in Sacramento right now, and may have such a profound impact on land use and transportation, let me continue to highlight the key items in the debate.

One item of debate, and hard to put a finger on, frankly, is whether the proposed investments are “worth it.” We are talking about borrowing $10 billion dollars, at a time when the state does not receive enough annual revenue to pay its ongoing annual expenditures. More bonds mean more expenses, so it seems contraindicated. However, if the borrowed money is targeted to investments that increase the strength and health of the state’s economy, then maybe it does make sense to borrow money to invest in things that will help eliminate our current financial problems.

It’s not very clear. $2.5 billion dollars is set aside for improvements to the state’s ports. This is the largest single category of expenditure, and could, arguably, generate more income for the state. One issue, as discussed yesterday, is whether those who will derive particular benefits from this borrowing (the businesses who operate through the improved ports) should actually pay for the benefits received. If they don’t, then the general public is on the hook.

The economic development tie is much less clear on all the rest of the proposed expenditures. The second biggest expenditure would be for road improvements, which could be used to stimulate more economically destructive sprawl.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Planning and Conservation League Website
www.pcl.org

SB 1024 – Find the bill at
www.leginfo.ca.gov

Senate Bill 1024, the proposed “infrastructure bond,” would put a whole lot of money into new road projects. In fact, it would be on the order of $4 billion dollars, all told. Whether borrowing all that money, and making those expenditures, is really worth the cost is unclear, particularly at a time when the state can’t pay its current operating expenses with its current revenues. One option would be to target spending on transportation projects to projects that demonstrably meet “smart growth” goals. Instead of allowing the borrowed money to go to a new freeway ramp to stimulate the newest sprawl development in the Central Valley, the money could be directed to projects that would save energy and gasoline by eliminating or reducing long distance commutes.

SB 1024, in fact, does talk about “smart growth,” but it does so not by making sure that the investments funded by the borrowing will be “smart,” but by making $25 million dollars available to local governments to develop what might be called “smart growth regional growth plans.” Once those plans are in place, then the bond would provide additional monies for competitive grants to implement the regional growth plans. While this is not “direct route” to smart growth, it does show an appreciation for the fact that how we invest in “infrastructure” will ultimately determine the patterns of development that will shape the long term health of both our economy and environment.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Planning and Conservation League Website
www.pcl.org

SB 1024 – Find the bill at
www.leginfo.ca.gov

With the rains we’ve had recently (not to mention the Gulf Coast hurricanes) people are thinking about flood protection. We have built our cities, many times, in areas where flooding is natural, and then buttressed them against floods by building levees. Levees are imperfect solutions, since they can be expected to fail, at least occasionally. In Sacramento, almost the entire city would be submerged, in some places to a depth of twenty feet or more, if there were a major levy break. In the Central Coast, everyone remembers the extensive flooding in Watsonville and Pajaro that took place about ten years ago, caused by levy break upstream of the towns.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which serves as the transportation route for Northern California water to get to Southern California, is extremely vulnerable to levy failure. Major failures in the Delta could make it very hard to supply the water that Southern California needs.

In various ways, in other words, California is courting danger with respect to the impacts that it might experience from flooding incidents. Senate Bill 1024, the proposed state infrastructure bond, would provide $2 billion dollars to address some of the problems. Here’s a suggestions not yet incorporated: make it a condition of the proposed bond issue that no more developments will be allowed to go into floodplain areas. Last year, legislation to that effect failed. Before we borrow money to correct past problems, let’s make sure we don’t cause any new ones.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Planning and Conservation League Website
www.pcl.org

SB 1024 Find the bill at
www.leginfo.ca.gov