|
"Development
has proceeded indiscriminately on urban fringes. It is threatening areas
which are predominately rural in character and is injurious to the central
community." Sounds a lot like a recent
Vice President explaining the need for federal incentives to combat
sprawl? In fact, the words are those of the New York Regional Plan of 1929.
Concern about urban growth in this country is an old
story. So are frequent proposals to undo the pattern. Now comes
$9.5 billion in tax-preferred bonds from the Federal
Gov for Smart Growth and more funding for public
transit, (also California has a 2.1
billion "Infill Housing" Bond).. Although meritorious,
this "smart" growth scheme, like various others already
tried by a number of local governments, is likely to be of modest
consequence at best. Here's why:-
Cities can only grow in three
directions: IN, by crowding; UP, into high-rises; or OUT,
to the suburbs. The outward mode of growth befits a nation with
abundant space, a young and expanding population, plentiful energy
resources and a dynamic economy.
By the mid-1920s, well over
half of all families in this country owned an automobile. The Western
Europeans began to reach that level only after World War II. Americans
were commuting between dispersed residences and workplaces long before
this was imaginable in other industrial countries. In addition European
Energy costs are government taxed, resulting in more than twice the
relative consumer cost of USA's Energy.
In place, for more than half a century, Urban Sprawl in the United
States is hard to slow, much less reverse, because numerous government
policies actively encourage it. These inducements would have to be
removed before the $9.5 bil. subsidized credit program or California's
$2.1 bil. Bond, could hope to make much of a difference. |
|
Federal tax policy preferences
home-buying, causing the exodus of population from cities to suburbs.. Families put all of their savings
into as large a home as possible on which the mortgage interest is deductible.
Why live anywhere but in suburbs where a mortgage will buy more tax relief and a
home is more affordable? Although it will mean owning several vehicles and
driving them more, automobiles and gas are so lightly
taxed it scarcely matters.
Or look at the $200 billion
highway bill (85 percent on roads). This paves the way to suburbia. No
policies intended to infill (“densify”) cities:— through planning,
community reinvestment, "empowerment zones," urban renewal projects,
mass transit subsidies, and so on —stand a chance when it collides
with this Bill, which promotes suburban expansion.
Plenty of other U.S. policies have
suburbanized us more:- Mortgage guarantees by the Federal Housing
Administration and Veterans Administration subsidized more than a
quarter of all suburban single-family homes built after WW2. Meanwhile, the Federal
Public Housing program concentrated the urban poor in the inner cities,
turning more of them into social and violent degradations, accelerating
the flight of the middle-class to safer locations in the suburbs.
A Simpler Solution
Whether urban America's spread-out style of settlement is a
national problem requiring a National or State solution is a complex and
debatable question. To think it through, policymakers will need to envision a
lot more than the US’s (and California’s) Smart Growth policy which
concentrates on “densifying” (infill) housing where job to housing parity is
looked at thru a monocular policy:- Move
houses closer to jobs rather than the far simpler solution:- Move
Jobs closer to Housing Should we not divert the majority of Infill funding
towards incentives for the re-location and construction of Business to where
housing already exists? In particular fund
incentives for Business Parks in the Suburbs?
| CA Counties |
Jobs : House 1997 |
New Jobs : New Housing
1984-2000 |
| San Bernardino |
0.9 : 1 |
2.9 : 1 |
| Sacramento |
1.3 : 1 |
3.2 : 1 |
| Orange |
1.5 : 1 |
4.7 : 1 |
| San Diego |
1 : 1 |
5.4 : 1 |
| Alameda |
1.2 : 1 |
5.4 : 1 |
| Santa Clara |
1.8 : 1 |
8.6 : 1 |
| Los Angeles |
1.3 : 1 |
9.4 : 1 |
| San Mateo |
1.3 : 1 |
10.8 : 1 |
| San Francisco |
1.6 : 1 |
15.8 : 1 |
|
The counties opposite have the
worst jobs-housing imbalance in the state. These Ratios show the
number of new jobs compared to the number of new housing units 1984-2000.
A ratio of 1.4 jobs to 1 house would be considered Balanced. This is the way the State is representing the data to us.
.
In fact the 1997 column tells us the truth.
California’s $2.1-bil bond intended to ease housing
shortage, paid for by CA taxpayers, costs $3.5 billion in
interest and principal. |
The State makes no mention
that in the Suburbs Houses Imbalance Jobs. The problem to be fixed is
defined by the State as “The housing shortage in California's Town
Centers”. The more fixable definition of the problem is “The jobs shortage in California's Suburbs”.
California 1990-97
Jobs +4.2%
Houses +6.4% |
Source:Smart Growth
Caucus Briefing Book http://www.assembly.ca.gov/sgc/SGbriefing_book.htm
California’s metropolitan areas’
roadway capacity increased in
the same proportion as population growth since
1984. What did outpace both population and highway growth at both
the regional level and statewide was the total growth in driving measured
in vehicle miles traveled.
California Cities' Travel Times
have nevertheless remained about the same.
Growth in Nonfarm Jobs, 1990-1997
http://www.sen.ca.gov/sor/housing/Greghousing.htm#Population-Housing%20Balance
|
County
|
Jobs 1997
|
Job
Growth
1990-1997
|
County
|
Jobs 1997
|
Job
Growth
1990-1997
|
| Alameda |
639,200 |
7.2% |
Placer |
88,800 |
46.3% |
| Alpine |
970 |
40.6% |
Plumas |
7,020 |
10.0% |
| Amador |
9,780 |
19.9% |
Riverside |
366,800 |
20.6% |
| Butte |
65,500 |
13.9% |
Sacramento |
500,200 |
7.5% |
| Calaveras |
7,230 |
6.8% |
San Benito |
11,760 |
41.2% |
| Colusa |
4,590 |
3.4% |
San Bernardino |
476,000 |
16.5% |
| Contra Costa |
311,700 |
10.2% |
San Diego |
1,049,300 |
8.6% |
| Del Norte |
7,420 |
13.8% |
San Francisco |
550,800 |
-1.4% |
| El Dorado |
35,000 |
16.3% |
San Joaquin |
167,600 |
9.8% |
| Fresno |
250,900 |
11.9% |
San Luis Obispo |
82,100 |
9.3% |
| Glenn |
6,430 |
5.8% |
San Mateo |
330,100 |
11.7% |
| Humboldt |
48,100 |
9.3% |
Santa Barbara |
151,000 |
1.8% |
| Imperial |
35,000 |
17.1% |
Santa Clara |
928,200 |
14.0% |
| Inyo* |
7,510 |
9.0% |
Santa Cruz |
91,000 |
8.2% |
| Kern |
179,700 |
5.3% |
Shasta |
55,200 |
10.8% |
| Kings |
27,360 |
14.0% |
Sierra |
990 |
-5.7% |
| Lake |
11,800 |
17.9% |
Siskiyou |
13,100 |
-1.4% |
| Lassen |
9,620 |
22.7% |
Solano |
100,900 |
5.3% |
| Los Angeles |
3,872,200 |
-6.3% |
Sonoma |
164,700 |
18.2% |
| Madera |
24,800 |
31.0% |
Stanislaus |
133,400 |
13.5% |
| Marin |
104,700 |
12.2% |
Sutter & Yuba |
33,100 |
7.5% |
| Mariposa |
4,720 |
-0.6% |
Tehama |
12,950 |
18.2% |
| Mendocino |
28,860 |
9.7% |
Trinity |
3,170 |
0.6% |
| Merced |
49,200 |
14.2% |
Tulare |
89,600 |
8.7% |
| Modoc |
2,350 |
6.3% |
Tuolumne |
14,570 |
3.3% |
| Mono* |
5,650 |
9.5% |
Ventura |
243,100 |
5.6% |
| Monterey |
117,600 |
6.4% |
Yolo |
76,900 |
22.8% |
| Napa |
49,400 |
17.1% |
Yuba** |
|
|
| Nevada |
23,680 |
14.4% |
California |
12,912,530 |
4.2% |
| Orange |
1,229,200 |
4.8% |
|
Growth in Occupied Housing Units,
1990-1997
|
County
|
Occupied
Housing Units 1997
|
Occupied
Housing Unit Growth 1990-1997
|
County
|
Occupied
Housing Units 1997
|
Occupied
Housing Unit Growth 1990-1997
|
| Alameda |
495,598 |
3.4% |
Placer |
79,562 |
24.1% |
| Alpine |
487 |
8.2% |
Plumas |
9,168 |
12.8% |
| Amador |
11,991 |
14.0% |
Riverside |
458,021 |
13.9% |
| Butte |
80,149 |
11.8% |
Sacramento |
430,515 |
9.1% |
| Calaveras |
14,748 |
16.6% |
San Benito |
13,818 |
21.0% |
| Colusa |
6,230 |
11.0% |
San Bernardino |
506,155 |
8.9% |
| Contra Costa |
325,659 |
8.4% |
San Diego |
944,044 |
6.4% |
| Del Norte |
9,151 |
14.6% |
San Francisco |
309,661 |
1.3% |
| El Dorado |
53,641 |
14.5% |
San Joaquin |
173,439 |
9.7% |
| Fresno |
249,541 |
12.9% |
San Luis Obispo |
86,623 |
7.9% |
| Glenn |
9,479 |
7.5% |
San Mateo |
248,451 |
2.7% |
| Humboldt |
50,398 |
8.6% |
Santa Barbara |
134,937 |
4.0% |
| Imperial |
38,218 |
16.4% |
Santa Clara |
544,358 |
4.6% |
| Inyo |
7,849 |
3.8% |
Santa Cruz |
86,891 |
4.0% |
| Kern |
205,999 |
13.5% |
Shasta |
64,297 |
14.9% |
| Kings |
32,626 |
12.2% |
Sierra |
1,394 |
4.3% |
| Lake |
22,910 |
10.1% |
Siskiyou |
18,643 |
7.7% |
| Lassen |
9,347 |
9.4% |
Solano |
124,125 |
9.8% |
| Los Angeles |
3,067,181 |
2.6% |
Sonoma |
163,761 |
9.9% |
| Madera |
34,943 |
23.2% |
Stanislaus |
139,688 |
11.4% |
| Marin |
96,865 |
2.0% |
Sutter |
27,347 |
18.3% |
| Mariposa |
6,473 |
15.5% |
Tehama |
21,427 |
14.6% |
| Mendocino |
33,069 |
8.7% |
Trinity |
5,473 |
6.1% |
| Merced |
62,317 |
12.6% |
Tulare |
110,052 |
12.5% |
| Modoc |
4,043 |
8.9% |
Tuloumne |
19,881 |
10.7% |
| Mono |
4,260 |
7.5% |
Ventura |
231,838 |
6.7% |
| Monterey |
114,702 |
1.5% |
Yolo |
56,180 |
10.2% |
| Napa |
44,601 |
8.0% |
Yuba |
21,247 |
7.4% |
| Nevada |
35,021 |
13.9% |
California |
11,041,716 |
6.4% |
| Orange |
883,229 |
6.8% |
|
|
|
