|
iiiy t,, , ,
<br /> ,,,,J, ,1 e.,,,..-he
<br /> WTritingA D efensible B, berte E.
<br /> Stone
<br /> e
<br /> surddRobert
<br /> H. otonn
<br /> • Growth Ordinance
<br /> .. . ...
<br /> ,,
<br /> . • .. . .. n noting the trend, the editors of the planning:The rate,location,type,density,
<br /> • The West,'and Califor- -. Los Angeles Times'wrote recently:"The amount and quality of development.Unlike
<br /> ilia in particular, has quality of life in California is crumbling traditional subdivision and zoning which
<br /> always been and until in ways that every citizen can see—traffic are two-dimensional(controlling the use of
<br /> very recently still was per-
<br /> gridlock on deteriorating highways,inade- land and the density of permissible devel- ,
<br /> ceived by manyasthe place quate growth management, an education opment), growth management adds and
<br /> system at capacity and potential chronic emphasizes a third dimension—timing.'
<br /> of sunshine and oranges— water shortages,to name a few."' Continued
<br /> unlimited bountiful resour- Efforts by local governments to deal with 1.A quote usually attributed toHorace Greeley.Actu-
<br /> Y`/► " these and other owth lana ement" ally,the author is John Babsone Lane Soule from an
<br /> �eS. 171011�1est,Youngman g article in the Terre Haute,Indiana Express,1851.
<br /> problems have not always been well re
<br /> and make your fortunes 2.Los Angeles Times editorial.March 6,1989.Also,
<br /> :California is now the most - ceived.Growth management is frequently - - USA Todayreported nationally that"our environment is
<br /> equated with population caps, exclusion- headed for chaos if we don't take immediate steps to
<br /> populous state in the na- ary zoning; NIMBYs3 and other (selfish) halt the slide",but noted that California is ranked high-
<br /> tion,and,if it were a nation; interests.Consequently,the term''growth est in the nation for taking steps to protect the environ-
<br /> ment(Enrique Corredera,USA Today,March 1,1939.)
<br /> California would have the management" has gotten a bad name, 3."Not In My Backyard?
<br /> • sixth largesteconomy in the ,. undeservedly, because growth manage- 4.According to the California Association of Realtors,
<br /> ment simply means planning for the future, 214 land use planning measures have been considered
<br /> world.Southern California's
<br /> A profusion of local growth control initis=— by the voters since 1971, with 66 considered "pro-
<br /> • •__ population of 13 million is . growth",134 as'growth control",and 14 city council al-
<br /> tives are seen by elected officials as a repu- ternatives to voter initiative growth measures.During
<br /> surpassed by only three diation of their good faith efforts to govern, the last two years,58 growth control and 43 pro growth
<br /> - states ._.California, ,t11ew • by city planners as an insult t0 their profes- initiatives or referenda have been introduced along
<br /> York and Texas.Along with sional skills,by developers as creating un- with eleven city council measures,representing over
<br /> Certainty and lost profitsand baffordable-
<br /> Assembly
<br /> of the total considered since 1971.(California
<br /> -the-benefits -of this eco- , y e Assembly Local Government Committee Hearing on
<br /> 'nomie boom has come criti- housing advocates as increasing housing Growth and Development Issues Facing Local Govern-
<br /> --costs! Conventional wisdom nowa ays lents,October 20,1985-Cortese.)Editor's note:For a
<br /> mal'problems. : �:_._;"s•:: seems to bethatlocallanduse regulationis differing view of these numbers,see the Initiative
<br /> the cause of all our urban problems and,if and California's Slow-Growth Movement",page 18.
<br /> response to this perception,since 1980,each
<br /> growth were left unregulated,the develop- 5.In
<br /> year the Legislature has been faced with an increas
<br /> --- ers and market forces would take care of ingly dense flurry of legislation designedlo limit local
<br /> everything.' But, as one court observed: governments'power to manage its growth,some of
<br /> "unfortunately,the experience ofmanycom which, notwithstanding excellent lobbying by the
<br /> munities in this state has been that when League of California Cities,is actually enacted into law.
<br /> That which is.invariably results in limiting cities'dis-
<br /> planning is up to developers, the result is cretion to plan for the future,and expensive litigation
<br /> urban sprawl."'Among other things,growth which can deter elected officials from taking measures
<br /> management provides cities with a corn- necessary to deal with critical problems so that out
<br /> prehensive tool to prevent urban sprawl. cities will be liveable in the next century.See.e.g.,All
<br /> 4099(Hauser)which amends Evidence Code 6669.5 to
<br /> Fundamentally, all growth management apply to certain downzonings. Originally adopted in
<br /> systems involve the control of one or more 1980,along with a series of housing statutes,Evidence
<br /> of the familiar components of land use Code§669.5 establishes a rebuttable presumption that
<br /> certain rseaffect hopportuni-
<br /> KatherineE.Stone is the managing partner ties in thore regiondinances andadshveifts
<br /> (hlye burdenousing of proof to cities
<br /> of the Los Angeles office and Robert H.Freil- and counties to justify such ordinances.
<br /> iclr is the senior partner of Freilich, Stone, 6.Dateline Builders,Inc.v.City of Santa Rosa(1983)
<br /> Leitner&Carlisle,a national firrn specializ- 146 Cal.App.3d 520,529-530.
<br /> illi° ing in local government land use and
<br /> 7.See Golden v.Planning Board and Town ofRamapn
<br /> (1972)30 N.Y.2d 359,334 N.Y.S.2d 138.258 N.E.2d 291,
<br /> environmental law. The firm designs and appeal dismissed,409 U.S.1003(establishing the legal
<br /> defends growth management systems. validity of timing and sequencing of development).
<br /> LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITI IS
<br />
|