Housing mandate undercuts conservation

By: JIM TRAGESER - Staff Writer | Wednesday, December 28, 2005 7:21 PM PST ∞

Where have all the environmentalists gone?

A new state law that takes effect Sunday will pressure, if not force, all cities in California to set aside more land for new houses, and there's been hardly a peep from environmentalists.

The idea at the heart of the legislation by Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento ---- that cities and counties should not be allowed to make their own decisions on the proper balance of development and preservation ---- is one that ought to have conservationists up in arms.

But if there's protest on this issue, it's mighty quiet. In fact, a search of Sierra Club's California chapter Web site (sierraclubcalifornia.org) didn't turn up any references to Jones' Assembly Bill 1233.

In an interview with North County Times reporter Dave Downey, Jones made the point that he pushed this bill because the cost of housing is out of reach of more and more families every year.

Look, I'm on that list. Forty-four years old and I rent because I can't afford to buy.

And while I'd love to buy a condo or townhouse in the next year or so, I'd also like to leave a California for my kids and grandkids that's worth living in.

But a California that's been strip-mined to make room for an unbroken sea of suburban plats hardly sounds like my definition of a place worth living in.

And there's this: Some cities are already built-out; requiring them to set aside yet more land for development seems to assume that real estate is a renewable resource ---- something we can just plant and grow more of. Or maybe just wish into being.

While parts of California remain undeveloped and/or rural, many parts of North County are already at or near build-out. Escondido, for instance, doesn't even have enough undeveloped land left to find a space big enough for a new high school. Encinitas has almost no undeveloped land left.

If Jones' bill is allowed to stand unchallenged, Escondido and Encinitas will be legally bound to rezone existing land for high-density housing ---- a decision that would radically alter the nature of entire neighborhoods.

Why should cities that were founded, settled and built-out earlier than others ---- those that, in effect, were ahead of their time in providing housing ---- be under the same obligation to provide additional housing as the more recent settlements?

Jones' bill simply makes no sense.

It provides no exceptions for conservation of ecologically important land ---- a city located in a fragile ecosystem will be legally bound to plow under those valuable wildlands to build more cookie-cutter houses. That a Democrat pushed this bill is baffling.

Californians have always recognized that undeveloped wilderness is worth preserving, that greenbelts are real, tangible assets that improve our quality of life.

This new law defies our environmental heritage and undermines every conservationist effort in this state. It says housing is the one and only priority of cities, and dismisses preservation out of hand.

Jones' law needs to be gone. If it takes another ballot measure to make that happen, then so be it.

Contact staff writer Jim Trageser at (760) 740-5424 or jtrageser@nctimes.com.