California Set to Adopt Nation's First Anti-Sprawl Law
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles 
on 08.20.08
Image from dsearls
While it remains to be seen whether California will be able to successfully meet the rigorous guidelines it laid out in its landmark AB 32 bill, the state is on the cusp of taking a huge step forward with the imminent adoption of SB 375. The bill, which would reduce sprawl by requiring California's 17 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and its regional transportation plans to meet strict GHG emission targets, was sponsored by Darrel Steinberg (D-Sacramento), the incoming state Senate Leader.
As LAT's Margot Roosevelt reports, the bill could go before the full Assembly as soon as tomorrow, to the Senate this Friday and on to the Governator's desk for his signature.
Image from Phillie Casablanca
Renewable energy and fuel-efficient cars not sufficient to meet AB 32's tough guidelines
Investing in renewable energy and lowering the amount of miles driven will help, Steinberg said, but it won't be enough for the state to reduce its emissions 30% by 2020. To reach this goal, local officials and builders will also need to curb sprawl and make sound urban planning their focus. The targets hammered out in the new bill will be enforced by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
An earlier version of the bill had been blocked last year by (surprise, surprise) builders and local government organizations, which had objected to its stringent provisions granting more powers to state officials. I haven't yet seen any studies or reports linking better urban planning/sprawl reduction to emission cuts (I'm sure it's probably because I haven't looked hard enough), but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the potential benefits could be significant.
While I probably don't need to tell you that sprawl is uniformly bad (even this so-called "green" sprawl) -- both for the environment and for the sake of fostering sustainable communities (among others) -- it can't hurt to get this primer from the Environmental Law Institute:
1. Sprawl development contributes to a loss of support for public facilities and public amenities.
2. Sprawl undermines effective maintenance of existing infrastructure.
3. Sprawl increases societal costs for transportation.
4. Sprawl consumes more resources than other development patterns.
5. Sprawl separates urban poor people from jobs.
6. Sprawl imposes a tax on time.
7. Sprawl degrades water and air quality.
8. Sprawl results in the permanent alteration and destruction of habitats.
9. Sprawl creates difficulty in maintaining community.
10. Sprawl offers the promise of choice while only delivering more of the same.
Via ::Green Car Congress: California to Adopt Anti-Sprawl Law (news website)
More about sprawl
::The Problems with Green Sprawl
::Ten Things Wrong With Sprawl
::Uncovering an Ancient City Felled by Urban Sprawl
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- What is the Cheapest and Greenest Way to Travel?
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- Focus Earth: May 23, 2009: New Fuel Standards and Hurricane Forecast
- Surf Green with Eco-Friendly Surf Gear
- Meet Auden Schendler, Author of Getting Green Done
- Meet Green Business Consultant Tyler Moorehead, of GreenUnlimited
Oh god please make this law. If the myopic zoning commissions in the central valley continue to let farmers pave over some of the richest cropland in the world to build McMansions for suburban breeders we're going to run out of food. And you can't get that land back.
This is one of the hugest issues with the CAHSR that nobody wants to talk about. By making Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto and Sacramento hubs in a state-wide transit network, we're going to be creating sprawl in those towns. That is, if we don't enact some sort of anti-sprawl ordinances.
On another note, electric cars are coming, and when they do, it's going to be DIRT CHEAP to drive. The initial cost of the vehicle will be high, but the incremental cost of driving 40 miles a day instead of 20 is going to be non-existent.
If you think traffic is bad now, wait till it costs $2 to fill up your volt. We need smart urban planning to deal with this now while people are still stinging from $4/gallon gas.
Here's a few examples of absurd laws, in Pasadena CA:
The number of floors in new residential buildings is limited to 3.
Each new building has to come with a parking lot that can accomodate as many cars as there are people fitting into the building.
As a result, you have low-density urban areas with 50% of the land occupied by guess what? Parking lots. If buildings were 10 floors tall and there would be less parking spots, people would be forced to move close to work, reducing traffic.
Smart planning? We've never tried that before.
I often wish I lived in CA.
I don't understand what sprawl is. Am I participating because I live in a suburb of San Diego? What if I told you I take the ferry to work every day?
I am 100% unwilling to give up my detached house; I like my garden, I like my grill, I like my yard, I like the safety and anything less would be unliveable for me, I moved to San Diego to get out of Manhattan. I think people in the suburbs can live green lifestyles they just need to try harder. But I think this is just going to make Southern California more expensive to live in and more crowded. Public transportation in California already does work, people just don't use it.
It's great California is doing this, considering they have so much sprawl in Los Angeles. I would love for my state to do this because the sprawl is downright outrageous, even in the time of high gas prices I still know people who want to live in Little Rock but want to work 40-50 miles away in a little suburb.
I hate Arkansas so much, I'll be glad once I save up enough to leave. Arkansas is going to be left behind in the post-carbon and post-oil world.
First anti-sprawl law? What about Oregon's almost 40 year old mandatory statewide land-use program that requires every city to establish an "urban growth boundary." It's certainly not perfect. Elected officials grant exemptions too easily, but most observers agree that it has been relatively successful in preventing egregious sprawl and "keeping Oregon green" over the last several decades. See http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/goals.shtml
Every state in the U.S. should have a mandatory program addressing urban sprawl! How is it that the rest of the U.S. didn't follow suite with Oregons' state land-use program as Doug Heiken stated above? Where is the quality of life? Who wants to live like Sardines in a can? I sure don't! Why is it that our Representatives in all the states excluding Oregon are not aware of this monumental problem? This law should have been implemented forty years ago just like the state of Oregon had done! Everyone living in the U.S. should know why there is an urgent need for having boundaries and limits placed on new construction and new development concerning raw land. We have mandatory postings for maximum capacity limits that are on elevators, pools, buildings, bridges etc. and the reason for this is for everyone's safety and for structural reasons as well. So why is it that most Americans are not concerned about urban sprawl and why are our Representatives not adamant to keep land development in check? I believe it is because of greed, corruption and power. The three evil traits of the Human race! How arrogant of the Human race to force population control on animals when we don't even care to control our own numbers!!!! Birth control and family planning should be free for everyone in the U.S. and also the rest of the world. In the long run it would be cost effective for us, healthier for the planet and we would have a better quality of life for us and for the future generations to come. Who really wants to live on a planet that is almost completely covered by asphalt? I would rather live in harmony with nature than not!
Speaking of urban sprawl, Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability at Curtin University in Perth, Australia, talks about how the current economic turmoil originiated in part from high capacity roads, peri-urban scatter and large fossil fuel-hungry houses. He offers solutions to the crisis based around new technologies (such as Transit Oriented Development, reduced dependance on oil and fossil fuels) and a shift away from "propping up of the old systems": http://blog.islandpress.org/241/peter-newman-resiliant-cities-and-the-crash