Opinion: It’s dangerous to live in freeway-adjacent homes, so how do we stop them from being built?

To the editor: The California Air Resources Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District have long relied on their detailed knowledge of the epidemiology of lung disease in reaching decisions regarding allowable ambient pollution levels and in restricting the development of new large emitters such as power plants. Much of that research was funded by these agencies, including studies of “hot spot” pollution near freeways and how it affects the lungs of the young and elderly. (“L.A. keeps building near freeways, even though living there makes people sick,” March 2)

To hear now that most of the cities and counties in Southern California still permit residential developments adjacent to freeways illustrates how powerful greed can be in overriding basic ethics. We restrict land uses under airport flight patterns in California to save lives. Are delayed but expected deaths less important than past deaths from airplane crashes?

This ridiculous situation begs for the attention of the planning departments and law schools at UCLA, USC and the other local universities. These residential projects seem to be nuisances themselves and the local permits for them to be not in the public interest and therefore illegal under state law.

Robert Johnston, Inverness, Calif.

The writer is a professor emeritus in the UC Davis department of environmental science and policy.

..

To the editor: The Los Angeles City Council’s power to address this challenge is immense, but many in City Hall don’t know it.

One reason is that too many wrongly believe that the county has all local public health authority. It doesn’t. While the state Constitution assigns all emergency authority to the county, it assigns all regulatory authority to the city.

The reason so many in City Hall are unfamiliar with this power is that 43 years ago, the city disbanded its own health department and began contracting with the county for certain services. But the city, not the county, still holds the power to issue new regulations as the need arises on problems such as the danger posed by living too close to a freeway.

Few in City Hall appreciate the breadth of their authority in this area. In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state’s authority to regulate public health arises from the very same federal constitutional provision as its authority to put cops on the street — its police power.

Whether protecting residents from criminals or from microscopic particulates, the city has the power to take action. But does it have the will?

David I. Schulman, Los Angeles

The writer, a former Los Angeles deputy city attorney, advised the city on public health matters until 2010.

..

To the editor: Living near a freeway or a busy street is especially harmful to children. As a Realtor, I strongly discourage my buyer clients from locating near freeways.

My advice is that if you can easily hear the traffic noise, don’t even consider buying or renting there, because what comes with the noise are dangerous fumes and dust.

Find a place at least a mile away from any freeway; your children will thank you for it.

It is hard to believe that officials and developers don’t consider first the serious lifelong health consequences of building and living in these “black lung lofts.” Some people will say they can’t afford another place, but they should say they can’t afford the health risk of living here.

Flavia Brown, Redondo Beach

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

ALSO

Didn’t vote on March 7? Shame on you.

The avoidable death of a woman killed by a previously deported undocumented immigrant

Angelenos want to fight climate change by building more livable neighborhoods. Our leaders need to get on board.