Commentary : Keeping the Drawbridge Down

One of the first laws of politics that I’ve learned is that no matter what one proposes, there is certain to be opposition. I not only accept it, I’ve found it very helpful and several times, the strength of the opposing argument has led me to modify my views.

However, I don’t find it at all helpful to have the media and then some constituents take offense and oppose views or proposals that I neither hold norendorse.

Somehow my views on growth and local control of development have become distorted to the point that even I would oppose them as they were headlined. I agree with The Times editorial stand, that the state should not become our city council when it comes to decisions on growth but, as the recent editorial said, there is a fine line here. And I’m not on the side of that fine line that the editorial would have readers believe.

Since 1926 local government has had the legal right to determine land uses within its jurisdiction. I support that right.

I would not support, much less advocate, regional, federal or state control of local growth and development. To the contrary, for the past 14 years I was part of a political activist group that opposed all such attempts.

However, local government’s authority to zone property and determine its use is limited by the Constitution and 60 years of court decisions. The importance of our constitutional system of law cannot be overemphasized. Without its protections, our experiment in freedom would soon become lost to a mobocracy.

A city, for instance, cannot simply raise the drawbridge and, in effect, deny others entrance. It can’t do this by moratorium or by limiting development or by making development more expensive. That is, a city can’t do it for arbitrary or selfish reasons. It can’t control growth just to ensure that the property values of those who already live there rise in response to the pent-up and growing demand. And a city can’t stop certain kinds of development simply because the folks in that community don’t like it.

Local government can impose moratoriums, downzone, restrict growth and deny certain uses, but its actions must be in response to justifiable reasons that square with the state and federal constitutions and court rulings in that area. And that’s all that a bill I have proposed bill would codify.

It’s only natural for those of us who live in this paradise to want to keep it just the way it was the day we arrived. Fortunately for all of us here now, those who came before us didn’t pull up the drawbridge after them.

Fortunately, too, the major landowners and enlightened builders of our county determined early on to develop, not just more of the same, but a new kind of living environment that was totally different.

As an officer in one of the major development firms I can tell you that we received expert advice not to do so. We were told by consultants and other experts, that if we proceeded in attempting to create this new dream of master planned communities we would never succeed. It was their prediction that as the newcomers began to settle in, the reality of their beautiful new environment and the promise of master-planned living would raise their expectations, and therefore the seeds of opposition to our future development would not be sown.

We did not accept that. I still don’t.

I do know that it is a natural tendency to want to keep things in our community the way they were and are. And I also recognize that our failure at both the state and county levels to solve our vexing and worsening traffic problems is strong reason for those of us who live here to want future development slowed or at least paced to improvements in transportation.

We absolutely must solve our traffic problem before it destroys our economic base and the life style we all cherish. I, along with the other county legislators, am pledged to solve this problem as our very first priority of business. Meanwhile, we must not close the door on our children’s future.

Growth or no growth is simply not the question. If you could be with me as I visit the overflowing schools in our county, you would accept that the real question is “how� we shall grow, not whether.

The bill I have proposed would not stop us from determining the future character of our communities. It would, however, guarantee to our children and children all over California that local communities could not arbitrarily and selfishly deny them a share of tomorrow and the American Dream.

Under our system, none of us, including our children, have a “right� to a job and housing. Only in a government-directed, socialist system, are such “rights� guaranteed. Our system is predicated on the right to pursue happiness, and that means we must keep open the opportunity for jobs and housing and everything else necessary to the fulfillment of our pursuit.

Limiting, slowing or stopping growth for any but the most vital and pressing public need is wrong and shortsighted, not just because it denies the American Dream to our children but also because, in the face of our determined economic competitors on the Pacific Rim, it is economic suicide.

And without California’s dynamic economy, this beautiful environment and life style we all cherish will be lost for sure.