Commentary : Balancing Growth, Quality of Life

When I was first named chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Planning for California’s Growth, I was both pleased and overwhelmed. Issues surrounding California’s growth have been quietly discussed in Sacramento for years, culminating in the Governor’s Infrastructure Review Task Force in 1984. Now, with the issues and problems surrounding our growth defined, it is up to us to meet the challenges posed by those issues and problems.

Never shunning challenge, I am excited about the prospects of looking for solutions--but I am cognizant of the fact that other, well-respected legislators (and the governor himself) have been searching for these solutions for a long time.

The committee’s challenge is to ensure that California continues to plan and provide for our basic needs--ensuring, for example, that our flood-control dams do not give way, that our bridges do not fail, that firefighters have adequate water pressure, that our underground water supplies are protected, that we can transport people and goods, and that our children have schools to attend.

These services and facilities on which our home and business lives depend are often called “infrastructure.” In recent years, infrastructure has received some attention by government, but not much attention by the public. The impetus for governmental interest lies in the revelation that over the next decade California’s new infrastructure needs total $49 billion!

For California as a whole, infrastructure creates the basis for prosperity, wholesome living and working conditions, and preservation of natural beauty. Yet, infrastructure investment has been a victim of the taxpayers’ pressure to reduce government spending. It has no constituency among taxpayers. That makes it easy for us as policy-makers not to spend money on it, because nobody is immediately or directly affected by that decision. The results are longer-term.

The methods of financing infrastructure needs have changed drastically over recent years.

Many major public-works projects were built in the 1930s, with federal funding, with a life span of 40 to 70 years. In the 1950s and 1960s, we witnessed massive building of other types of facilities, such as state hospitals, higher education complexes, and waste-water treatment and water development and storage facilities for developing suburbs.

In the late ‘70s, taxpayers began to withdraw their support for the public financing of public-works and public-needs projects. Maintenance was deferred by local governments at the same time that growth continued to occur. We have since witnessed baby booms, longer life spans for the elderly, the influx of refugees and a healthy statewide economy which both depends upon and fosters various forms of growth.

Most important, there is no sign of growth slowing. In my 37th state Senate District, which includes portions of Orange, San Diego and Riverside counties and all of Imperial County, growth continues at a rate of 10% in Orange County, 14.5% in San Diego County and a whopping 23.8% in Riverside County.

In the midst of the growth pattern is the no-growth or slow-growth sentiment in our state.

San Clemente’s Measure B, limiting new housing units to 500 per year, and San Juan Capistrano’s ordinance limiting new housing units to 400 per year are indicative of a heightened concern in growing counties for preservation of the quality of life .

So as chairman of the new Select Committee, I must recognize the indisputable link between a healthy economic base for our state, the ability of the state to keep pace with its growth through responsible planning for infrastructure needs and the concern for our citizens over the quality of life.

As we look to solutions, we must first answer the following policy questions:

- When does the state interest in growth, planning and infrastructure decisions supersede local interest and authority?

- Should local jurisdictions be able to block regional projects?

- Do all Californians have a right of access to a certain level of public improvements?

- If broader interests are involved (the community or region), should not the broader users support the costs?

One of the most difficult issues to address will be that of state preemption. As communities strive to provide services but run into such roadblocks as environmental regulations used solely to block or delay projects; as residents become increasingly protective of their backyards and communities; and as open space declines and there are fewer “remote” sites available for such services as landfills and prisons, developers and local governments may well turn to Sacramento for help. This has already occurred through the introduction of one bill which would, if passed, overturn local growth initiatives.

Democracy is an incredibly painful way to accomplish goals. It lends itself to degrees of participation in the process which sometimes slow progress. Yet, it offers opportunities, too. As an optimist, I believe the challenges can be met through public awareness, education and participation.

One of my personal goals as chairman of the Select Committee will be to strive for greater awareness on the part of the general public to the importance of meeting our infrastructure needs. We must realistically recognize that the nature of the Legislature as a political beast is to respond to the directives of the people.

If the public can understand the undeniable link between a healthy economy, quality of life and adequate services, it will be the public which will press for the creative solutions to the needs we face.