OPINION: Global warming vs. housing
In his zeal to battle global warming, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif., has signed one of the most authoritarian, far-reaching and elitist bills that has ever made it to any chief executive's desk. It's a piece of environmental extremism that's intended to make it more difficult for citizens to live in single-family homes. Senate Bill 375 will give California officials the power to restrict new suburban developments as a means to force Californians to reduce their "carbon footprint" by shoehorning them into high-density urban neighborhoods.
It's part of what urban author Joel Kotkin refers to as the government's war on the suburbs, packaged as "environmentalism" and "smart growth." It seems ironic that Gov. Schwarzenegger, who has fashioned himself as a representative of the people and an advocate for the American Dream, would be the one to promote such an intrusive, anti-family law. Sure, Schwarzenegger is mostly California's problem. But planning practices that start on the West Coast quickly migrate east. When this one does, watch for: a) less freedom, as central planners impose their visions on new developments; b) less opportunity for immigrants and young people to afford single-family homes; c) nettlesome regulations that will increase the cost of living; d) less mobility.
The stated purpose of California's law is to battle global warming. Even true believers of the concept that Earth is warming because of man's SUV should wonder how a government-induced increase in urbanization will cool things down. Yes, fewer suburbs means more open space. But it also means more concentrated heat in higher-density urban settings.
Smart Growthers, and their closely related supporters in the New Urbanism movement, despise suburbs and seek various and sundry ways - almost always relying on government coercion - to make suburbs too costly to build. They believe that most of us should live in condos or apartments and that we should rely on public transit, rather than on automobiles, to get around.
"To cut emissions, the government will take a more active role in where you live, how you get there, and what kind of home you live in," explains Sam Staley, director of urban growth and land use planning at the libertarian Reason Foundation. "While this legislation, thankfully, stripped away specific regional targets that would have been far more Draconian, the core governing values underlying California's approach should sound alarms in and out of state government."
