The Bay Area Governments’ Earth Day Summit
On this Earth Day, leaders from Bay Area city and county governments met to figure out how they are going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Hundreds of politicians and staffers shuffled into the cavernous convention center at the Oakland Marriot. The cattle prod forcing this herd of local officials to move in roughly the same direction is one of California’s new global warming laws, senate bill 375. It’s called a lot of different things, and most policy wonks refer to it as “SB 375,” but since I don’t believe in jargon, let’s call it the Sustainable Communities law. Basically, it requires local governments to create a “sustainable communities strategy” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The law requires all nine counties in the Bay Area to come up with a plan for land use that will allow for more efficient public transit, and allow people to live a carbon-light (or carbon neutral) lifestyle. Why the focus on transit? Because transportation, namely cars, accounts for 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in California (in cities like San Francisco and Irvine it’s closer to 60 percent), comprising the single largest piece of the problem. Therefore, this effort must transform systems we all use to move around if it’s going to be successful.
Sounds great in the abstract, but how does it work when the rubber meets the road? In many places, according to Michael Woo, the dean of Environmental Design at Cal Poly Pomona and keynote speaker at this summit, many local leaders are skeptical. There are three main objections, he said: First, they worry that the Sustainable Communities law is an external process imposed by the state (rather than one that serves local needs), second is the idea that the economy is too bad to support this, and third is the sense that governments just don’t have the money and time to do this planning. All of these objections amount to a failure of imagination, Woo said. He said that a slow economy is the time to make changes, and those changes can improve business. As for the complaint that local governments are strapped for planning resources, Woo was sympathetic, but he pointed out institutions like his own university are itching to assist.
Some of the elected officials at this summit see the Sustainable Communities law as an opportunity, while others objected to regional bodies stepping in to take some control of land-use planning away from local government. And this second category, those that see the law as a threat, tend to be more prevalent in other parts of the state, Woo said. Because of this willingness to innovate, he said, “The Bay Area can define the edge.”
But there were doubters even in this crowd. “I know I’m in enemy territory here,” said Ed West, vice mayor of American Canyon, before characterizing the summit as a sales pitch for the law. “We been clear that there may be some serious concerns about this law,” Solano County Supervisor Jim Spering shot back. “This is a battle cry. You will not be able to influence the process if you walk away.”
Santa Clara County Supervisor Ken Yeager acknowledged that the Sustainable Communities law would disrupt business as usual, but said that was necessary: “City councils in the past have not made very smart planning decisions,” he said. “Change is coming, change is inevitable.”
Incidentally, we got an idea of how this is going down around the rest of the state as well, because the League of California Cities met today to talk about the global warming laws. So far, the cities have supported the Sustainable Communities law, on the condition that the state pay for planners to do all the work of revising zoning codes and whatnot. Today they voted to stick to that policy (rather than come out against the laws). But Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League said that city leaders are getting restless: The state promised to pay for the planning, but so far it hasn’t made good. “We don’t have the resources to implement it,” McKenzie said. “You can’t do the plans without the money.” This is perverse. The planning cost for the state will only be $25 million to $30 million a year, which is a pittance when you compare it to the hundreds of billions (trillions?) of dollars worth of development that these plans will allow. Failing to do the plans because of that kind of money would be like failing to claim a lottery jackpot because you couldn’t afford the telephone charge.
On September 30 the California Air Resources Board will set a target for how much the Bay Area will have to reduce emissions. Then the region will have to come up with plans to meet that target. If the plans from cities and counties don’t go far enough, they won’t be able to receive state and federal transportation funding.
This article originally appeared on KALWNews.org
Posted By: KALW News