It’s Cage-Rattling Time Again : New study of state sees familiar woes, but comes up with some fresh solutions

One striking thing about analysts of the right, left and center who peer into California’s future is that they all see about the same thing.

First, they are agreed that a future in which California still is a decent place to work and play will not just fall into the state’s lap. California must build that future.

Second, the building blocks mentioned in virtually every report on what must be done include much better schools, more efficient transportation, cleaner air, land and water, health care that does not short- change the poor, and government that is, in the words of the most recent report, “smarter and leaner.”

A third common theme is that California still has time to build for the future, although time is fast running out. A final theme, so newly apparent that it has yet to find its way into print, is that a prolonged economic slump might cut tax revenues to the point that Sacramento must postpone investment in most, if not all, of the building blocks.

The new study, from a joint government and private-sector think tank, sees pretty much the same challenges but suggests that half the job of building for the future can go forward without a lot of new money.

Much that ails California involves the way public services are managed at least as much as any lack of funds, according to the California Economic Development Corp. Since change would be needed even if the state were rolling in money, the changing must start now so that when the economy turns up again, new revenues can be used more effectively.

Existing political and academic institutions will recoil from many of the think tank’s ideas. For example, the report, “Vision: California 2010,” suggests that better schools depend as much on better performance by students and the schools themselves as on more money. Achieving it might mean new laws in which public and private schools compete for students.

Other points in the report: Transportation will work better if commuters pay a premium to use congested roads at rush hour. Future water supplies depend less on costly new dams and aqueducts than on changes in water laws to clear the way for transfers and sales of existing flows for more efficient use.

These and other points will be debated, often vigorously, but the report is welcome on at least two counts: It represents the business community getting back into the debate over California’s future. And it will rattle a cage here and there, which is always helpful when old policies need recharging.