Land Use

(By SASHA ABELSON, Guest Blogger to the Climate Program)

 
When I first moved to LA I told people I hoped to find a job close to home which did not involve an hour commute to and from the office. The response to this statement was generally one of uncontrollable laughter.   I, however, did not think it was funny.

I was born and raised in New York City and the idea of walking to work was not a foreign concept to me.  In fact, in all of my years as a New Yorker, I was able to get to each place of employment on foot.  I always enjoyed my walk to work, and I appreciated the fact that it was indeed possible to walk to work. 

I am now a resident of LA and my current commute takes me approximately 10 minutes - on my bike.  I will always remember that I am one of the lucky ones! A colleague of mine just explained to me how she spent 3 hours last night traveling the 19.1 miles to her home. 

Earlier this year, Utah produced a new law barring citiznes from using local ballots to block specific land-use decisions. This attempt to slow down the phenomenon known as ballot box planning has run into trouble, however. The Utah Supreme Court is now examining a challenge to the law's constitutionality. Utah papers seem to think the law should be overturned.

This piece from the San Diego paper blasts a study commissioned about a local planning initiative in San Marcos. This may seem like a small issue, but it's not in California and in the West, where more and more local land use decisions are being made by voters, a phenomenon known as "ballot box planning." In my recent reporting and panel on the subject, I discovered that consulting companies that provide biased studies for cities attempting to fight ballot box planning have become a minor cottage indusry. A land use ballot initiative campaign in Thousand Oaks, Calif., earlier this month turned on just such a study. Commissioned by city officials who opposed the initiative, the study made several unsupported claims about the problems the city would have if the initiative -- which would have required voter approval for large-scale developments -- had passed. While there was some backing away from the study's more ridiculous conclusions, the study appeared to have convinced voters that the initiative was problematic. It lost.

Last week, I hosted a panel in Los Angeles on the use of local land use ballot measures as tools of competition between businesses. Zocalo LA, the panel's sponsor, has now made available audio of the event here.

The panel included the consultants from either side of the Measure B fight in Thousand Oaks (Harvey Englander and Rob Stutzman), Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy co-founder and executive director Madeline Janis, and former Beverly Hills Mayor Steve Webb. And there was a bit of news: Englander, who also represents LAX-area hotels that have been the target of a union organizing effort and of an extension of the Los Angeles city "living wage" law, said his clients there had no plans to put the law -- which has survived court challenges -- to a referendum.

That means the "living wage" extension will take effect, more than a year after it was passed. The impact on workers is less clear. The hotels say that only a small number of their workers make less than minimum wage. Several hundred make minimum wage -- but receive far more when tips are counted. They could end up taking higher salaries but receiving less in tips. And, as with any change in wages, the higher pay might prompt hotel managers to hire or employ fewer  workers.

If you live in Southern California, you can hear me moderate a panel on local land use referenda tonight, June 1, at 9 p.m. on KPCC (89.3 FM).

UTAH FIGHT OVER POWER OF REFERENDUM, INITIATIVVE: A new Utah law, which goes into effect next month, would prevent local voters from making land-use decisions at the ballot. But a group in Sevier County, Utah is attempting to challenge the law -- and plans to build a coal-fired electricity plant in their community.

MORE FIXED THAN PUTIN: At an event on budget reform in Garden Grove Monday, gov. Schwarzenegger -- in answer to a question on his redistricting initiative -- talked about the lack of political compeititon. He repeated the statistic that out of 496 seats up for grabs in the last three election cycles in California, only four changed party hands. "Think about that," he said. "That's a fixed system. We always laugh at Putin in Russia when he has his elections. We say, 'This is ridiculous, it's fixed.' Ours is more fixed, I can guarantee you that. It is crazy." More fixed than Putin? Hard to judge. But on turnover, the governor has got a point, as seats in the Duma have changed party hands -- in large part because of Putin's strong-arming -- more often than California legislative and Congressional seats.

In its first week, this blog has focused on the soaring number of land use questions that end up on the ballot as initiatives in local elections. California has been the center of this trend, but other Western states are experiencing the same thing.

Utah legislators have decided to slow down the train. They've passed a bill, now signed into law by the governor, that would make it all but impossible to submit initiatives or referneda on land use questions to local voters. The governor has signed it. And the Salt Lake Tribune is angry about it. This won't be the last you hear about this law. Look for court challenges -- and for the national property rights movement and direct democracy advocates to make a cause of reversing this.