"Local Decisions, Regional Impacts", the title of the current League of Women Voters of the Bay Area (LWVBA) study, can be seen as a theme both for the LWVBA over the past 35 years, and for the Monitor over the past 25 years. The LWVBA began as a group of local Leagues which saw the need to coordinate study, education and action on regionwide issues such as transportation, air quality, waste management and water quality. The Monitor, and its earlier companion, the Observer, have reported on local decisions affecting the region, and activities of the regional agencies.
Take a look at our reproduction of the first issue of the Monitor. Funded by the EPA, it covered air quality and transportation, a more narrow focus than today. It is interesting to see how much has changed (we now have a California Transportation Commission, as predicted here, and the Claremont Hotel is no longer in the 415 area code). We like to think we've improved the format, as well. Also note how much has not changed (Santa Clara County is still not a member of BART, and we still have no comprehensive regional planning agency).
One is tempted to wonder whether our latest round of proposals for regional planning and coordination will fare better than those we worked on so earnestly back then. A 1970s LWVBA program promoting greater transit use asked "Does It Have To Be This Way?" Apparently, it did, because in many ways it still is "this way". Does that mean we can't change anything? Hopefully not. Perhaps in another 25 years we will look back and see that some of these new proposals for changing the region have made a difference.
Leslie Stewart
When voters in November narrowly defeated growth-control measures in three East Bay communities, one explanation was that residents didn't want to vote on every development proposal. "That's why we elect council members", was a common remark.
These voters, and others around the region, understand that city councils and county boards of supervisors make the decisions about local development in the Bay Area. Voters may not understand quite as well that development decisions by local officials in the 101 cities and 9 counties control planning for the region, with major impacts on transportation, air quality, housing availability, and other quality-of-life issues. Regional agencies, on which some of these local officials also sit, have less influence on regional changes than the votes on land-use decisions cast by cities and counties.
As an example, consider the Coyote Valley south of San Jose. This area, if developed according to current proposals, could alter transportation patterns, add to air pollution in the South Bay, and pave or build on many acres of what is now open space. However, regional agencies which deal with transportation and air quality have an extremely limited role in deciding whether these changes will take place. Open space agencies, if they are lucky, will be consulted on which areas will be dedicated as permanent open space. The majority of the decisions will be made by Santa Clara County, the county Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) which controls annexations, and the city of San Jose.
Other jurisdictions, such as neighboring cities, also have limited influence on what a city chooses to do within its city limits, despite concerns about traffic or a limited water supply. When a city council puts a land-use decision on the ballot, input from agencies or other jurisdictions disappears entirely.
Local control, as this system is termed, has been extremely popular in California. Most elected officials, and many residents, have argued that they know best what their community needs. Recently, however, there is a growing concern that what one community needs is often achieved at the expense of other communities, and that the region as a whole has suffered from piecemeal development. Where there have been visions of ideal communities, they have been inconsistent and sometimes conflicting; often a vision applies only within city limits. While there are a number of regional plans, most of them are single-issue or single-agency plans. A unified regional plan has not been attempted since ABAG's efforts in the 1970s.
Spurred by interest in sustainable development and "smart growth", and by concerns about traffic congestion, escalating housing prices and depletion of open space, the League of Women Voters of the Bay Area has been working for almost two years on a study, "Local Decisions, Regional Impacts". Last year's annual Bay Area League Day was devoted to housing. This year's event will take a look at the ways in which state and local finances affect the region, including the "fiscalization of land use", in which tax revenues carry a disproportionate weight in local decision making.
The study began with five related problems:
Information was gathered from other parts of the country, including Minneapolis-St. Paul, Oregon (particularly Portland), and Atlanta. One product of this research was a list of possible mechanisms which might be considered for the Bay Area. They include:
One option, which has been supported by the League for many years, is a multipurpose regional government for the Bay Area. Currently, the Bay Area includes six major regional agencies. Three are single-function agencies (transportation, air quality, and water pollution control) with limited authority to affect development impacting their areas of responsibility. One, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, has development control which is very restricted. The regional planning agency, the Association of Bay Area Governments, has no authority to ensure implementation of its plans. The new water transit agency has a planning role but no funding. The agency which controls the most money is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. This is an anomaly for regional governance.
However, all attempts over the past thirty years to create a single multipurpose agency have failed. Other areas with regional governments demonstrate that successful regional government depends on strong state support for comprehensive regional planning and in creating an effective governing structure. These other areas are also quite different geographically from the Bay Area. The agency which is often cited as a model, Portland Metro, merged other agencies to better implement state-mandated growth controls and to operate specific regional resources such as the landfill and the zoo. Minneapolis-St Paul's agency is based in an urban region which is unified despite its origin as two cities. Only the Atlanta region is close to the size of the Bay Area, and none includes such distinct physical barriers as San Francisco Bay.
Some of the proposed strategies for change could be used in the absence of a regional multipurpose agency. More authority for some existing agencies so they not only review but influence local development plans and decisions which have regional impacts is one option. A shift in emphasis within an agency, e.g. increasing MTC transportation funding to jurisdictions with compact growth planning, would be another way to implement regional priorities. Tax-base sharing, a regional transportation or open space tax, or a housing trust fund might be implemented through existing agencies or independent organizations, although some proposals, such as a regional urban growth boundary, would require state authorization.
The study's summary report and position statements will be presented at the LWVBA Convention in May for approval by members. Meanwhile, the general public has slowly become more aware that local control has regional consequences. Ballot measures such as the ones in the East Bay last November indicate that the first approach to dealing with these consequences may be an effort to have local voters, not regional agencies, pass judgment on land use decisions. Without a single strong regional agency, the public's ability to understand and affect the regional impacts of local decision making will continue to be limited and often unsuccessful. The League hopes its study conclusions will help by presenting worthwhile proposals for change, spurring action within and beyond the League.
Leslie Stewart
Association of Regional Governments (ABAG), regionwide planning and government services. 510/464-7900, http://www.abag.ca.gov
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD),air quality planning and air pollution control. 415/771-6000, http://www.baaqmd.gov
Bay Conservation and Development Commmission (BCDC), regulating development in and directly adjacent to the Bay. 415/557-3686, http://www.ceres.ca.gov/bcdc
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), regional transportation planning and funding. 510/464-7700, http://www.mtc.ca.gov
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), protecting the quality of surface and ground water. 510/622-2300, http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/~rwqcb2
San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority, planning for high-speed water transit. (Just formed, no contact information yet available.)
A Relevant Quote...
"...the [B]ay region is governed like a city that has a parks department, a public works department, and a health department, but no city council. And I think [regional planning agencies] never happened partly because regional planning connotes land-use regulation. With all the explicit federal and state laws dealing with air and water, there are none dealing with land directly. Even the notion of land planning seems to spook people..."
Joe Bodovitz, former BCDC executive director, participant in Bay Vision 2020, in recent SPUR interview.
Another LWVBA publication, the popular Decison Makers, spans the turn of the century with the new 1999-2001 edition, now in print and online. Print copies are available from local Leagues around the region. The online edition, which will be updated to reflect elections and other changes, can be accessed at http://www.lwvba-ca.org/dm/ Please spread the word!
A correction: In the last issue, we noted that the Observer was published from 1972-1979. In fact, the Observer was published from 1968-1979.