"We have regional problems, but no regional consensus or mechanisms in place to deal with those problems." As a summary of the message from the State of the Region Symposium held by the League of Women Voters of the Bay Area in January, this is far too pessimistic, since speakers and panelists at the Oakland meeting suggested several new and promising approaches to regional decision-making.
At the outset, keynote speaker Angelo Siracusa, past president of the Bay Area Council, challenged the very definition of the region. He noted that the Council, like the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and other regional agencies, defined the Bay Area as the nine counties which touch San Francisco Bay, but he now considers it a super-region of fifteen counties, with three additional counties to the east and three more to the south. Alternatively, he suggested, we could look at mini-regions (north, east, south, and San Francisco/Peninsula), or use counties or "commute sheds" to define regions within the 15-county area.
However, Siracusa asked, what difference does the definition make, if there is no way to govern it? The region is as diverse as it is cohesive; in fact, with the state and federal governments making the laws and local jurisdictions responsible for land use, the regional level is in many ways irrelevant, he argued.
Another challenge, according to Siracusa, is the region's booming economy. With new businesses, and new types of businesses, adding wealth within what he termed a "lottery economy", growth is outstripping the government structure intended to control it. The region's economy cannot continue to grow without an impact on our quality of life, he said. Ironically, our livability has attracted growth to the area—"our environment is growth-inducing". A contraction of the economy could make things worse, but he suggested that business should join environmentalists in discussing how to control growth responsibly, through efforts such as the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development. However, he was dubious that either market or political forces, as currently in place, would be successful in achieving the necessary slowing.
What factors are affecting the ability of government to deal with growth? One factor is what Siracusa termed the "Proposition 13 syndrome", which says that citizens do not trust government to handle their money responsibly. For example, he noted, businesses have been divided over SCA 3 (Burton) in the Legislature, to reduce the vote for local transportation taxes to a majority from two-thirds. While business feels strongly that infrastructure needs rebuilding, many of its members are dubious about giving more power to government to take money for that purpose, fearing it may not be used wisely.
Fiscalization of land use, coupled with the Proposition 13 syndrome, has had a major regional impact. Citizens who distrust government have also insisted on more and more control over local decisions. Siracusa deplored "overly democratized" planning, with planners acting as brokers between developers and neighborhoods. Quoting Joe Bodovitz, "There are two things people hate -- sprawl, and density!", Siracusa added that people hate sprawl as a concept, but density in practice. The result is that many infill projects, which are being looked to as the answer to sprawl, are being "de-densified" and made more expensive.
Siracusa said, "We can't have affordable housing and stop sprawl—they are mutually exclusive." In fact, he said, "Whether we think it is good public policy or not, citizens acting as consumers, in the belief that housing is their entitlement in the great American dream, are forced to go further and further away. ... Our current growth control movements are not stopping growth—they're simply moving it around and moving it out."
Despite the sprawl, Siracusa feels that some improvements are possible for traffic, although the region will never be congestion-free. Transportation solutions, however, mean money, and money, and more money. He suggested we have not done enough to "tamper with the demand side". Techniques such as time-of-use pricing and special toll lanes, attacked by some critics as elitist, could raise enough money to improve public transit in the corridors where they are used, providing traffic relief for all income levels.
Siracusa concluded that while he still believes in regional planning, and supported efforts such as Bay Vision 2020, he does not believe that voluntary cooperation can be the cornerstone of a regional planning agency. The solution, he said, is "either the creation of a different institution of government, a regional planning agency—and remember that planning is only planning if it's got teeth and therefore the regional agency would have to have police powers—or the other solution is that we keep the institutions of government in place but we do create mandates, sanctions or incentives for them to behave differently." Any solution, he urged, should be "bold and dramatic".
Panelist Fred Silva, of the Public Policy Institute of California, talked about the financial component of regional planning. He discussed how Proposition 13, by allowing state control of the property tax, changed a financing pattern which had existed since the early 1900s, when a state ballot measure designated the corporation tax for the state and property tax for local jurisdictions. With the shift of the property tax away from local government, the relationship between state and local government, and between government and the economy, has also shifted. One result is the fiscalization of land use, as local governments turn to sales tax revenues for financing.
The Public Policy Institute looked at the issue of fiscalization of land use, using interviews with city managers and a survey of how cities used sales tax revenues. They concluded that cities which had sales tax revenues did not consider sharing this funding with neighboring jurisdictions. Since it is politically impossible to raise taxes, tax revenue becomes a zero-sum game between communities. One proposal would be to shift taxes between the local jurisdictions, the state and schools so that some of the sales tax currently coming to cities and counties would go to the state, some of the property tax going to schools would go to local jurisdictions to replace that sales tax money, and the state would make up the property tax loss to the schools out of its increase in sales tax revenue. This technique would make local jurisdictions less dependent on sales tax revenue and more interested in the overall economy, which has an impact on property taxes. The inner cities, which have a higher property tax base relative to sales taxes, would also benefit.
Silva described some proposed solutions, including the Constitutional Revision Commission's sweeping proposal to move to governance charters which would allocate responsibility between communities in a county or region, with voter participation.
The Speaker's Commission on State/Local Government Finance also considered alternative government techniques. Silva noted it was particularly important that stakeholders were not included on the commission, which allowed for more innovative thinking by "civic entrepreneurs"—for example, a discussion of pooling resources at the regional level. Since this runs counter to the "home rule tradition", it would be necessary to set up a system for sharing revenues by placing a certain percentage in a regional pool. A major barrier to this is the tendency of local government to count on future increases in the sales tax when doing long-term budgeting.
Single-purpose entities make it difficult to connect the region to solve a governmental problem. Silva cited James Knox's work on behalf of Bay Area regional governance in the 1970s as proof that the connection beween political leadership and government financing for regional solutions is essential. He noted that in the long run, it would be essential to work on problems in terms of the regional interest, regional finance, and regional equity.
Panelist Judith Innes, UC Berkeley, echoed Siracusa's points about distrust of government, but disagreed with him about voluntary cooperation. Her experience with collaborative decision making led her to say that it is clear that a top-down approach to regional government is not workable. Instead, she said, with many players in today's communities -- individuals, businesses, organizations, and government -- it is important to get them working together for mutual benefit. With professional assistance, and enough time, it is possible to develop the kind of dialogues needed to agree on a shared mission, understand how to "enlarge the pie" so everyone can benefit, and participate in innovative thinking. Now, she noted, no one agrees and there is no trust in other parties' experts.
Innes described some excellent collaborative relationships built during the CalFed process, as well as her work with MTC's Partnership to build a group which would help distribute federal transportation funding. While the collaborative process did result in a scoring system for allocating funds, the group had difficulty getting a vision of the region. Instead, it struggled with whether land use should be considered as well as transportation, and how to manage congestion. Problems included too many sources of money with different formulas, and no place for regional thinking. There was also no opportunity within the Commission itself to discuss how the region works and its interdependence. Innes noted that the outside stakeholders, not those who receive funding, raised the issue of regionalism.
Innes suggested government in the region would work more effectively using "forums, arenas and courts" to assist the collaborative process. Without forums, there are not enough occasions for governments to work together on issues—ABAG's General Assembly meets only twice a year. Arenas are a method of setting up incentives, such as the need to resolve issues before receiving funding, or requiring arbitration before litigation. Courts would be the final, hopefully little-used decision point. Innes strongly recommended using this model as an alternative to either voluntary collaboration or many rules.
Additional speakers agreed with Siracusa that the multiplicity of jurisdictions was a difficulty in regional decision-making, with one calling the situation a "Tale of Too Many Cities". Jim Lawson, Vice Mayor of Milpitas, talked about the importance of making decisions at the local level, and also the importance of regional thinking. He cited the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, which includes all transportation-related stakeholders within the county, including city representatives, and is working effectively with regional and neighboring transit districts. Lawson said it works well because all the cities and the county feel ownership of the decisions. He stressed that the public must be involved in decisions as well, because "part-time" politicians learn from public input.
One speaker commented that there is a need to provide better infrastructure on the regional level to serve local jurisdictions as they work with other jurisdictions, rather than insisting on moving straight to a proposal for regional government. The Interregional Partnership is working on improving the jobs/housing balance and revenue sharing. This group includes city and county participants from five counties—San Joaquin and Stanislaus, part of the "super-region", as well as Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara (see July/August 1998 issue). The three major regional agencies—ABAG, MTC and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District—submitted an application to EPA for a "smart growth" planning grant. Although the application was denied, a second application with more innovative proposals was submitted, with expectations of success. [Note: This grant award was announced at ABAG's April General Assembly.]
There is considerable interest at the state level in regional government, including the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century. Several speakers, including Assemblymember Tom Torlakson, described recent or proposed legislation on "smart growth". Some of the measures included plans to map local General Plans to create a state growth plan, support for density bonuses in neighborhoods near transit, and financing improvements for crumbling infrastructure. Debbie Drake described the California 2000 Project, a group convened by the Hewlett and Irvine Foundations to work on fiscal, governance and land use reform issues. The League of Women Voters of California is working on a sustainability project under a Hewlett grant, and is also working with the California Futures Network.
While Siracusa performed his self-designated role as "house curmudgeon", the overall tone of the symposium was positive, and participants were encouraged to follow the legislation and learn more about the programs which were described. The event, held to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the League of Women Voters of the Bay Area and the 25th anniversary of the Monitor, may be well worth repeating in another few years, to once again assess the state of the region.
Leslie Stewart
Note: The Symposium agenda was printed in the January/February 2000 issue. Full background information on each speaker is available by contacting the LWVBA office, 925-283-7093, lwvba@lwvba-ca.org.
For more information:
Public Policy Institute of California: 415-291-4400; http://www.ppic.org
Speaker's Commission on State/Local Govt. Finance: http://speaker.metroforum.org/
Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century: 916-322-9906; http://www.clg21.ca.gov
Interregional Partnership: Gary Binger, ABAG, 510-464-7900; http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/interregional/
California 2000 Project: http://www.cal2000.org
California Futures Network: 510-238-9762 or 916-325-2533x313; http://www.calfutures.org/
LWV California: 916-442-7215; http://www.ca.lwv.org
Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development: 510-464-7978 (ABAG); http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/baasd/