Many Roads Lead to ‘Suburban Sprawl’

While “Rising Prices Are Pushing Home Buyers Far Inland” [Special Report, Aug. 30] refers in passing to some of the social and environmental sacrifices of the trend toward “suburban sprawl,” the underlying comparison that concludes “money will go much further” when spent “inland” is accurate only in a vacuum.

As an example of factors not considered in such a comparison, take the 50-mile one-way commute that’s a reality for many who work in L.A. and live in Riverside County. At 30 cents per mile, that’s about $600 per month that could otherwise help make a mortgage payment, in turn allowing the buyer to purchase a $240,000 home as opposed to a $175,000 one “far inland.”

Meanwhile, flight from our urban areas engulfs Southern California’s remaining open space and wilderness, consumes more of our water, pollutes more of our air, and creates more urban zones from which vacuum-packed comparisons encourage people to flee. The Times and its readers will do well to recognize the far-reaching value of investing in our cities and the extensive costs of seemingly limitless sprawl.

MARTIN SCHLAGETER

Conservation Coordinator

Sierra Club-Angeles Chapter

Los Angeles

*

I think James Flanigan missed the boat in his column “The Problem Is Larger Than Housing” [Aug. 30].

The stress of his column is on the need for planning commissions and building departments to be more lenient in making new housing available. I contend that the larger problem is water, water, water.

If we continue to cover every piece of open space with housing, what concurrent efforts are being made to solve the increased demand for water and other infrastructure?

CHARLES H. DICKSON

Whittier

*

Over the years we have grown accustomed to complaints from the left regarding the negative effects of Proposition 13, so it is refreshing to now hear an acknowledgment, by a conservative financial analyst like James Flanigan, how truly destructive that measure really is. He is, of course, correct when he points out that virtually every problem that local communities face would be much easier to deal with if it were not for the constraints imposed by that stupid law.

Can there be a more anti-conservative measure than Proposition 13, which cripples the ability of local governments to raise the revenues necessary to provide for the needs of their community, and makes them completely dependent on the state?

SANFORD THIER

West Los Angeles