It’s Time to Talk About What Matters Most

Candidates for governor and other offices in this year’s election seem happy to trade rhetoric about prison sentences, abortions and Monica Lewinsky. They avoid mention of serious issues of tremendous importance facing California, a state that will grow rapidly in the next 20 years.

This can’t go on. The state’s growth in population and industry is imposing a need for decisions about such issues as water, land use, housing and taxation.

The void is being filled partly by business and community groups in every region. But where is the political leadership?

Whoever is elected on Nov. 3 will have to tackle some fundamental changes if California is to retain its quality of life while enjoying economic growth.

The main issue is that California’s population in the next 20 years will grow much faster than the U.S. as a whole. The state’s population, now at about 33 million, will increase by fully one-third to 45 million, according to Census Bureau projections.

All regions of California will grow dramatically. The six counties of Southern California--Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura--now home to 18 million people, will grow to 26 million. Undoubtedly, Southern California will surpass the New York area to become the country’s most populous region.

Questions arise, naturally, as to where all those people are going to live and work and get their water. “This region could face a water shortfall of more than 3 million acre-feet”--the equivalent of a year’s supply of water for 12 million people, says Steven Erie, political science professor at UC San Diego.

Sprawl is already imposing costs. Open space is disappearing from Orange County. Agricultural land is being paved over in the Central Valley.

Growth should be good news, not bad. The California economy is home to newer, higher-paying industries. The state’s problem--how to benefit from growth without choking on it--is one of prosperity.

Yet the public is scarcely informed about the issues. Certainly no one running for office is being forthright about housing, water, roads and local taxation.

Why is that? Fear, for one thing. Candidates know that if they speak out on local housing or taxation, they’ll be attacked by advocacy groups. So they keep quiet.

“Our public dialogue has diminished,” says Kevin Starr, state librarian and historian. He recalls that, 30 years ago, expansion of the California higher education system was debated; the water plan of Gov. Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, which set up much of present-day water distribution, was debated openly.

Today, essential matters are being tended by California’s civil service. Powerful agencies such as Caltrans, the Metropolitan Water District, the Harbor Commission and others are dutiful caretakers of billions of dollars in public money. But it’s not a perfect solution because powerful agencies can make mistakes. (Witness Los Angeles’ Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s costly subway debacles.)

But new directions and new mechanisms for accomplishing the public purpose are needed, says a major new study, “Land Use and the California Economy.” The report was paid for by various business and environmental groups and foundations.

The study declares that land use--how real estate development and city planning proceed--must be decided on a regional basis. It calls for more efficient use of land, meaning higher density of building to prevent sprawl. Development of outlying areas instead of renewal of central cities imposes unacceptable costs in providing transportation and other amenities, and ultimately leads to more congestion, not less.

Reform of public finance is needed so that cities don’t go on financing themselves by slavishly seeking more sales taxes, says the report, which was prepared by the Palo Alto-based Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy.

And public investment is needed to refurbish and renew California’s basic infrastructure of schools and roads. The level of investment needed is roughly $90 billion, the California Business Roundtable said recently.

Well, sure, no doubt about it, the land use study comes up with dramatic solutions to the state’s problems of growth. But the proposals are all controversial. Present realities are that communities fight housing density, discouraging their city councils from issuing permits for apartment construction. Municipalities are so strapped for revenue that often they cannot pay for the police, schools and waste treatment services that new housing requires, so shopping malls are the only developments they accept.

As for $90 billion for infrastructure, who is going to advocate the taxes to pay it? And as for regional land use decision-making, where is that to come from? There are no regional decision-making mechanisms and, as we see, no politicians courageous enough to mention such subjects.

Nonetheless, there is hopeful news. All over California these days, civic groups are bringing together people from many walks of life. Joint Venture Silicon Valley is such a group. So is the Economic Alliance for the San Fernando Valley. The Irvine Foundation, the Bay Area Council, the San Diego Economic Development Corp. and many more are involved in an effort called the Civic Entrepreneur Summit.

Such groups are influential. “We offer viewpoints to government on the need for housing and ways that communities can cooperate to develop,” says Candace Skarlatos, an official of Bank of America who works with community groups.

The Civic Entrepreneurs are looking for changes in the next four years. They have sent open letters to the major gubernatorial candidates, Gray Davis and Dan Lungren, calling on them to work for sustainable growth of the economy. And they ask that the next governor “raise public awareness of critical issues.”

Who knows? With a renewed public dialogue, maybe Californians can recapture the unity and purpose that built the state to greatness 30 years ago.