Slow-Growth Controversy

The two Dans (Garcia and Shapiro) articulated perfectly the concerns I have expressed over the possible economic ripple effects of the so-called “slow-growth” movement (“Heed the ‘Have-Nots’ on the Slow-Growth Issue,” Op-Ed Page, Sept. 8).

Two important factors buttress their very sound conclusions.

The first is that “slow growth” is an attractive political label; it is as though anyone opposed to across-the-city planning measures is a “fast-growth” advocate in favor of traffic jams, smog, overcrowded schools and other of the undeniably negative results of growth. Of course this is not the case.

“Slow growth for whom?” is the real heart of the land-use questions we will have to address over the coming decades. The Angelenos who will live in that future promise to be socio-economically very different than those who have a voice in influencing planning decisions today.

As such, we have a responsibility to render a vision of future growth which takes into account Latino and Asian population trends and recognize neighborhoods where injections of growth serum is the proper prescription.

As we plan for next year and the next century, we must take care to include individuals who articulate the wide variety of neighborhood needs to create a viable city, acclaimed for its diversity.

RICHARD ALATORRE

Councilman

14th District

Los Angeles