Consolidate California Sprawl by Regional, Responsible Government : Southern California: 72 agencies issue environmental decisions and regulations. Too many competing jurisdictions do too little good.

Assembly Speaker Willie Brown has upped the ante. By introducing a bill that would reorganize local government to create a means for regional action on regional problems, Brown adds Sacramento prestige and clout to an issue of critical importance to all Californians.

The 2000 Partnership and its predecessor, the Los Angeles 2000 Committee, have long believed that an improved system of regional governance, with increased public and private investment, is essential to the creation of livable communities throughout the state.

That problems have outpaced our political and financial will to solve them is evident, leading to a widespread perception that our quality of life is declining.

This perception has some basis in fact. Transportation planners document increased congestion on our freeways and report that this trend will continue.

Housing experts lament the current shortfall in affordable housing and project a regionwide demand of 1 million new low- and moderate-cost units between now and 2010.

We are running out of places to put our waste. Our public school system does not have enough money to construct new schools or expand existing ones.

And, despite adopting the most stringent air-quality plan in the country, we are still unlikely to meet federal standards.

These problems are solvable if, first, we understand their causes, and second, we are willing to make some fundamental changes in the way we plan for, shape and finance our man-made and natural environment.

Three factors contribute to current and projected problems:

First, the number of people and jobs will continue to increase. This growth is caused by powerful economic and social forces; it will not be stopped. For example, two-thirds of the projected population increase in Southern California will be home-grown--births among people already living here. Even the most Draconian restrictions on foreign and domestic immigration would not prevent a population growth of more than 3 million during the next 20 years. Economists project close to 3 million new jobs, fueled by international trade and growth in business services. Other new jobs will grow out of the need to provide goods and services for an expanding population.

Second, our problems are the result of declining federal, state and local investment. Federal support for affordable housing, nationwide, shrank from $26 billion in 1981 to $7.5 billion in 1987, while federal tax policy sharply curtailed incentives to build apartments. Because of decreasing state investment in transportation, California now ranks 50th among 50 states in per-capita spending on highways. The Bush Administration’s new transportation policy reduces federal participation in most transit and highway funds. This means state and local government will be expected to raise billions more for transportation.

Third, Californians have an anachronistic collective image of the ideal metropolitan area. Anthony Downs of the Brookings Institution articulates this ideal vision: ownership of a detached, single-family home on a spacious lot; unlimited personal use of a private automobile; suburban workplaces with ample free parking, and strong local governments to control police power, land use, public schools and other amenities. We have clung to this image despite the obvious fact that Los Angeles has become one of the world’s major metropolitan centers.

Understanding a problem is key to its solution. In the study of these issues, we have come to several important conclusions:

Growth is both inevitable and from most perspectives, desirable. That growth, however, must be planned and managed.

Current investment is critical to future improvements.

The ideal of a low-density, sprawling, semiurban landscape--and the lifestyle it implies--is already inappropriate.

If growth must be planned and managed, then who will do it? Transportation and environmental-quality issues transcend city-county boundaries; critically needed regional facilities are often rejected at the local level--”not in my back yard.” Because their authority and responsibility is limited by geographic boundaries, cities and counties cannot always be expected to act responsibly on broader regional needs. (There are 86 municipalities in Los Angeles County alone.)

Nor can special-purpose agencies plan for and manage these issues. There are now 72 federal, state and local agencies issuing environmental decisions and regulations in Southern California; 69 of them are either single-purpose bodies or fragmented functions of general-purpose governments. These agencies are limited in scope and not generally accountable to--or representative of--the electorate. Single-purpose agencies, like the South Coast Air Quality Management District, do not have the capacity or representation to balance properly all the region’s legitimate but competing interests.

It is time to restructure the decision- making process so that decision-makers can understand how one proposed solution to one problem impacts other issues. What are the socioeconomic consequences of implementing environmental regulations? What are the consequences of waste-disposal decisions on air and water quality?

The 2000 Partnership advocates consolidating current fragmented and ineffective regional planning so that citizens can understand the process and hold elected officials accountable. We believe comprehensive planning is necessary.

We recommend consideration of a regional agency that would determine goals and incentives but minimize regulations imposed regionwide; site critically needed regional infrastructure in cases of impasse or inaction at the local or subregional level, and act as trustee for making and implementing policies when a city, county or special district fails to meet regional objectives over a period of years. This agency would also play a role in ensuring that the region has sufficient revenues from Sacramento to implement its decisions.

In our view, existing single-purpose regional agencies should operate consistent with policies adopted by the regional planning body. Conflict resolution would occur through subregional mechanisms and, ultimately, at the regional level. The regional agency would be governed by a mixed board--some directly elected representatives and some selected from among elected local government officials.

Any regional entity must properly reflect the region’s diverse population; its board must comply with constitutional standards for proportional representation. Both principles are largely ignored by existing regional entities.

An essential ingredient in this prescription for the future is creation of a reliable funding base for infrastructure improvement and enhancement. Without more public investment our region will deteriorate.

By themselves, governance changes and policy changes will not be enough. For a decade and a half, politicians have assumed that California voters are unwilling to invest in their own future.

There are recent indications of a shift in public mood. Gov. George Deukmejian, along with a coalition of legislative leaders and diverse interest groups, placed Propositions 108 and 111 on the June ballot to raise money for transportation. We need it--a step in the right direction.

Speaker Brown is also moving in the right direction. His bill, AB 4242, provides the framework for the necessary debate on these issues--the first step in a process that could give us 21st-Century governance to manage present and future problems.

Consolidating existing agencies will make the political process more intelligible and elected officials more accountable. With better governance and greater investment, California can hold promise and hope for all citizens.