At a recent conference, political leaders in California reaffirmed their support for California's commitment to carbon neutrality, but neglected to mention walking or biking. Making more compact, pedestrian-friendly communities can help meet that goal of carbon neutrality, and has the added benefit of ending the regressive "tax" that every driving age adult must own an auto. Non-sprawl neighborhood design can cut vehicle miles traveled roughly in half.
I own a plug-in hybrid, and like it so well I will not buy another gas-powered car, but ignoring simple solutions like building transit-friendly, pedestrian-friendly mixed use (stores and offices intermixed with the residences along streets that accommodate pedestrians) continuing to support sprawl, and outlying land speculation--is not a hopeful sign. Sprawl encourages longer commutes and longer streets, water and sewer runs, etc. Outlying development infrastructure maintenance costs roughly double compact infill, too.
Even though the Sacramento region has 20 years worth of unbuilt infill, local agencies are moving to make even more outlying "greenfield" development. LAFCO recently voted to expand Elk Grove by more than 1,000 acres, despite more than plenty of vacant acres within its current Urban Services Boundary. Barbara Leary, a candidate for Folsom's City Council, remarks that local planning is so dysfunctional that even if Folsom abandoned south-of-50 expansion, the land speculators would be able to get Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova or the County to annex the parcel Folsom rejected, and get their development approved that way.
Why bother? Because land speculators can purchase (or more likely option) the outlying agricultural land for a few thousand dollars an acre, then sell it to builders for hundreds of thousands of dollars once the "magic zoning wand" has been waved over it to approve development. They can get gross profits of 10,000% this way--and IRS doesn't even tax these outrageous profits if the speculators exchange into income-producing property like malls and apartments.
Meanwhile, in Germany, the developers must sell the outlying land to the local government at its agricultural land value, then buy it back at the development land price. All that profit benefits the public rather than a small plutocracy of speculators. And Germany has nice infrastructure, a solar program that's ahead of schedule, free tuition even for foreign students at its universities, etc.
Sacramento apparently can't get together the public policy to handle homelessness, or climate, but our political class can get a subsidy for the land speculators at the drop of a hat. In a betrayal of public interest, County Supervisors Susan Peters and Sue Frost provided the deciding votes on LAFCO for the Elk Grove expansion, but more of these outlying developments--North of North Natomas, South of 50 in Folsom, are cued up.
In any case, let's not get distracted by the shiny objects that have electric motors. Land use is the nexus of local political malfeasance, and the climate effects of sprawl are roughly double the pedestrian-friendly, mixed use alternative. Believe it or not, the real estate market actually pays premiums for those traditional, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods (e.g. McKinley Park). But as long as we want to give the speculators all the money that might go into civic improvements, we get nearer to the precipice of climate disaster.
I own a plug-in hybrid, and like it so well I will not buy another gas-powered car, but ignoring simple solutions like building transit-friendly, pedestrian-friendly mixed use (stores and offices intermixed with the residences along streets that accommodate pedestrians) continuing to support sprawl, and outlying land speculation--is not a hopeful sign. Sprawl encourages longer commutes and longer streets, water and sewer runs, etc. Outlying development infrastructure maintenance costs roughly double compact infill, too.
Even though the Sacramento region has 20 years worth of unbuilt infill, local agencies are moving to make even more outlying "greenfield" development. LAFCO recently voted to expand Elk Grove by more than 1,000 acres, despite more than plenty of vacant acres within its current Urban Services Boundary. Barbara Leary, a candidate for Folsom's City Council, remarks that local planning is so dysfunctional that even if Folsom abandoned south-of-50 expansion, the land speculators would be able to get Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova or the County to annex the parcel Folsom rejected, and get their development approved that way.
Why bother? Because land speculators can purchase (or more likely option) the outlying agricultural land for a few thousand dollars an acre, then sell it to builders for hundreds of thousands of dollars once the "magic zoning wand" has been waved over it to approve development. They can get gross profits of 10,000% this way--and IRS doesn't even tax these outrageous profits if the speculators exchange into income-producing property like malls and apartments.
Meanwhile, in Germany, the developers must sell the outlying land to the local government at its agricultural land value, then buy it back at the development land price. All that profit benefits the public rather than a small plutocracy of speculators. And Germany has nice infrastructure, a solar program that's ahead of schedule, free tuition even for foreign students at its universities, etc.
Sacramento apparently can't get together the public policy to handle homelessness, or climate, but our political class can get a subsidy for the land speculators at the drop of a hat. In a betrayal of public interest, County Supervisors Susan Peters and Sue Frost provided the deciding votes on LAFCO for the Elk Grove expansion, but more of these outlying developments--North of North Natomas, South of 50 in Folsom, are cued up.
In any case, let's not get distracted by the shiny objects that have electric motors. Land use is the nexus of local political malfeasance, and the climate effects of sprawl are roughly double the pedestrian-friendly, mixed use alternative. Believe it or not, the real estate market actually pays premiums for those traditional, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods (e.g. McKinley Park). But as long as we want to give the speculators all the money that might go into civic improvements, we get nearer to the precipice of climate disaster.
No comments:
Post a Comment
One of the objects if this blog is to elevate civil discourse. Please do your part by presenting arguments rather than attacks or unfounded accusations.