Weighing the Side Effects of Growth

In recent months, articles in the media have referred to the “drawbridge syndrome” supposedly suffered by certain homeowners-cum-environmentalists. Other articles have accused us of liking birds and wildlife better than people or riding roughshod over the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the taking of private property for public purposes. I would like to address these issues.

First, those who want to profit from their land are not the only property owners in Southern California. The status is shared by hundreds of thousands of homeowners who have rights of their own. And many of these rights have nothing to do with wildlife.

When residents bought their property, a deciding factor was the value of the neighborhood and the property itself. Also, there was the quality of services available: police and firefighting services, hospitals, schools, roads, water. And they bought into aesthetic and recreational conditions surrounding their property: open space, views, clean air, beautiful ocean. These factors all affect property values.

Considering the homeowner investment, is it surprising for them to oppose immense and closely packed developments that degrade or eliminate their home values?

Before developers and their allies challenge the environmentalists’ commitment to people, they should take a look at their own contribution to people’s health, safety and pocketbooks. Aesthetics aside, is there any compensation for the loss of decent air to breath? For hours wasted sitting on freeways? For the extra minutes it takes firemen to arrive? For water no longer available? For jobs lost along oceanfronts too polluted for commercial fishing? For the loss of safety on our streets and in our homes? When is enough enough?

CHARLOTTE CLARKE, President, Orange County Fund for Environmental Defense