The state Senate has delayed until next year consideration of SB 50, which would force increased population densities on California’s communities by overruling local planning and zoning regulations. This pending state law would mandate unit densities and building heights, not only for new housing developments but also for existing residential neighborhoods.
No surprise that this proposed legislation was greeted with howls of objection by residents throughout the state.
Imagine your quiet, single-family home neighborhood transmogrified by fourplexes and towering apartment buildings throwing shadows across your yard during the day and lighting it up at night. Imagine all those new neighbors clogging your streets with traffic, and claiming every curbside for parking.
That is not the neighborhood, the community or the state you bought into, is it? So, what right do these people-packing politicians have in taking it away from you? And for what?
Their justification is based on the assumption that continual population growth is inevitable and on appeals to “moral duty.” They scold that it is immoral for us to keep what we have when so many others also want it but can’t get it. And, besides, population growth is unavoidable.
Is it?
Unless California is physically expanding and increasing its essential resources — especially fresh water — population growth cannot be infinite. There is a capacity limit at which point further numbers cannot be sustained. The closer we get to that limit, the more we seriously damage our environment and our quality of life.
Even though clever technological advances and engineering feats have stretched that limit, ultimately, they can’t eliminate it. Unrestrained population growth will overwhelm ingenuity like tsunamis overwhelm seawalls.
A state equipped for a population of around 10 million to 15 million now staggers and struggles under the weight of 40 million. The misery of driving almost anywhere, anytime, in California’s constipated traffic confirms that.
As does the water shortages, the decreasing air quality, the endemic urban expansion into wildfire-prone areas, the loss of wildlife habitats, the rolling blackouts on overburdened power grids, the toxic filth that closes our beaches after every rainstorm, maxed out landfills, the eternal waits at the DMV and other government offices, getting a doctor to see you sooner than three months out, and finding a parking place.
I’m pretty sure you can add to this list.
Notice that as population increases so do restrictions. As resources and availability get strained by increased demand, personal freedom and individual choices are limited, even prohibited.
For example, penalties, up to and including cessation of service, for exceeding water use limits are imposed. Electricity becomes a tiered expense — exceed a tier and the rate spikes. Gasoline is ever more expensive. Green lawns are now something to be ashamed of. Time limits on parking get shorter and fines for infractions get larger. You are preached at to replace your car with a bike, or to take the bus.
The denser the population, the less civil it becomes — road rage becomes vicious. Like too many rats in a cage, we start biting each other.
So, what is our “moral duty”? Is it really to sacrifice nature and further deteriorate our living conditions in order to keep cramming more people into a finite environment, or is it to recognize the reality of limits and the destructive consequences of exceeding them?
Are residents immorally selfish because they want such things as green gardens, nature, freeways that move at more than 20 mph, clean air, and quiet, uncrowded neighborhoods?
Housing in California will never be plentiful or affordable enough for everyone who wants to live here. Building ever more housing, even with those silly “affordable unit” requirements, to satisfy demand is like leaving more sugar on the counter to satisfy ants. They will just keep coming.
There is affordable housing in America, just not everywhere. Because people want to live in a particular location does not entitle them to a home there.
And, please, don’t regurgitate that fallacious argument that an economy can only be sustained by continual population increases. If that were true, an economy would always be on the verge of collapse — awaiting the daily reports from the maternity wards.
Economic activity is mostly cyclical with repeated transactions for needed products and services — groceries, energy, health care, replacing worn-out tires, roofs, clothing, etc. It doesn’t require more people.
California’s politicians who do not confront these realities are either short-sighted, spineless or stupid. We have to continue to let them know that the state’s occupancy limit has been reached, and demand that they work toward population stabilization down to an environmentally sustainable level.
This can be done, as is evidenced by the recent report that California’s population growth fell to its lowest rate in history last year — less than one half of 1 percent. Reasons given for the sharp decline include the state’s high cost of living — especially housing costs. People are choosing to live elsewhere — and that’s a good thing.
Responsible, wise, leadership would discourage population growth, not impose increasingly onerous obligations, like SB 50 and housing quotas, to boost it.
— Randy Alcorn is a Santa Barbara political observer. Contact him at randyaalcorn@gmail.com, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.