Lenient Zoning Regulations and Apartment Construction
Daniel M. Guggenheim cites Houston’s housing glut (Commentary, May 26) as an example of the benefits of lenient zoning regulations. As he undoubtably knows, Houston’s housing glut results not from the efficiency of unfettered developers, but from the collapse of the domestic oil service industry in 1982.
He also neglects to mention that Houston’s lack of zoning allows strip joints and motorcycle repair shops to sprout amid residential areas.
The resistance to apartment projects in Orange County results from two independent factors. The first is the prejudice against apartments accurately described by Guggenheim. From a social point of view, a specified portion of new housing should consist of apartments and modest condominiums. We should not systematically exclude teachers, postal workers, and divorced mothers from our communities.
The second factor is that sound land use planning requires that the population and the infrastructure to support it grow at the same rate. In Orange County we have discovered that the supply of clean air, open space, and personal transportation is limited. There is a growing consensus that all types of housing must be limited until these problems are addressed.
Rather than Houston, I would cite the example of Santa Barbara. The city has legislated a population limit of 85,000. The neighboring city of Goleta has enforced a moratorium on new water connections since 1973. Virtually all other areas of the county carry strict agricultural zoning with a 40-acre minimum lot size.
When Santa Barbara County planners are asked why they don’t allow growth, they simply shrug their shoulders, “We can’t. We’re starting to get smog.”
It is no accident that Orange County’s population density is now 23 times that of Santa Barbara County, and no mystery why Orange County’s developers encounter resistance and resentment.
JAMES R. TALEVICH
Mission Viejo
