Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill, but sponsors expect him to sign it once the state passes a budget.
The legislation, SB 375, would offer incentives to steer public funds away from sprawled development. The state spends about $20 billion a year on transportation, and under the new law, projects that meet climate goals would get priority.
An earlier version of the bill was blocked last year by the building industry and by organizations representing cities and counties. Developers feared their suburban projects would be delayed or halted. Local officials were wary of ceding zoning powers and transportation planning to the state.
But momentum for the legislation has grown as the state seeks to implement its landmark 2006 global warming law, which would slash California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a 30% cut from expected emissions. To accomplish that, state officials say, fuel-efficient cars and factories won't be enough. Subdivisions, commercial centers and highways must be planned so that Californians can live and work closer together, reducing the amount they drive.
"Our communities must change the way they grow," Steinberg said.
-
-
-
-
- RyanBWylie
- added this
- added August 21, 2008
- flag
-
According toSmart Growth America, the advocacy group that ranked 83 major metropolitan areas, sprawl is unplanned urban growth that happens outside the existing infrastructure.
Check this article to see how your city ranks, if you live in one of the 83 in the study.
-
-
-
-
- RyanBWylie
- 5 months ago
-
-
This type of legislation is going to be more commone in the future.
As resources dwindle those resources (such as water) are going to have to be managed at the local, state and federal levels.
For the past few decades developement has proceeded at a blistering pace and in areas (like Arizona) where the actual resources available simply didn't mesh up with the number of houses built.
From a developers point of view -- all they see are numbers on a spreadsheet and each house represents a profit.
At the government level they can see that the natural resources available can't match the developers business plans. It would be reckless in the extreme to allow certain developments to continue knowing that there would not be resources available in the future to feed those developments.
Who wouldn't be pissed if they bought a brand new house in the extreme deserts of Tucson only to be told 5 years later that, sorry, water will no longer be piped to that development because there just isn't enough to service that area.
-
It would suck to have just bought a new house and be told 5 years later that the cost of water in my neighborhood has tripled (or more). But if that house is in the extreme deserts outside Tucson, I would have to consider it a lesson in conscientious consumerism.
Their is a lot of blame to go around. The developers seeking only profit, consumers being detached from their environment and ignorant of sustainability, and the governments (state/county/federal) that have allowed it to get this bad.
I kind of wish the housing market would have crashed 10 years ago...
-
-
-
-
- RyanBWylie
- 5 months ago
-
