ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AND SOCIAL EQUITY
Printed in the Santa Barbara News Press
Grant House

To: John Lankford, Editor
This article reflects a view of the social consequences of inefficient land use that only grows deeper as I sit on the Planning Commission. Both at a local and regional level, we have to confront these issues and change our ways, both as business people and as environmentalists.
Grant House, November 1999

Stretching from Point Conception to the Ventura County line, the South Coast is a geographically distinct region. The demographics of this area are microcosmic of much of Southern California. It goes without saying that those of us who live and work here must take great care with how we manage our resources.

What does not go without saying is recognition of the countless deeds of volunteerism and service that make this a great place to live. Many cite our beautiful climate; others say it's our dynamic economy. But there is a caring and giving nature here that is the heart and soul of our community.

We have a tradition of helping the other guy, of running clean enterprises, and of holding the line for ecologically sound practices. Steeped in a deep and abiding civic spirit, we can no longer tolerate the social inequity of inefficient use of the land and segregated land uses.

The gulf between those who have a lot and those who have very little is wider than ever. The rising economy has lifted many boats but many more remain anchored to the bottom. Over twenty percent of the little children in Santa Barbara live in poverty. Nothing could be more ironic than this dichotomy as it plays out against the backdrop of our scenic seaside home.

This is where economy, ecology, and social justice meet. In the past, growth meant expansion. "Grow or die," admonished the business consultants. "No growth, not now, not ever" warned the environmentalists.

Whether we had growth or no growth policies, no matter whether times were good or bad, no matter how much or how little water filled Lake Cachuma, the population of Santa Barbara County has continued to grow at a steady 1.5% each year. [2004 = 1.1%, 2005 = 1.3%; source: "Economic Outlook 2005", UCSB Economic Forecast Project]

Our population grows slowly and steadily year after year but jobs appear and disappear with the economy leaving large income gaps and debt for many. Many South Coast jobs pay well. Most don't.

More people than ever need quality affordable housing or at least housing that is decent and moderately priced. The few dwellings that are built are typically market rate detached single-family houses out of the reach of most folks who already live here. Almost no apartments have been built since a tax law changed in 1986.

Beginning in the 50's, a pattern of development called sprawl has been expanding urbanized areas at an unprecedented rate. Agricultural and undeveloped open space succumbs in the press for more development. This inefficient use of land requires people to live farther from work, recreation, schools, and needed goods and services.

The infrastructure demanded by this pattern is extremely expensive to construct and maintain. Each new road extension or added lane encourages more unsustainable, low-density development. The increased use of the automobile by the widely distributed population fills the air with toxic fumes and particles, more, in fact, than all the fixed and regulated industrial sources combined.

Leapfrog development expands in neighboring communities. Families relying on middle and lower incomes move to outlying areas such as Lompoc, Ventura and Oxnard where housing is cheaper. Their long commutes foul the air and congest the roads initiating cries for very wide and very expensive highways.

Even within existing urban areas, outmoded zoning practices segregate land-uses that could complement one another. Housing, shopping, schools, recreation, and work are separated into distinct sectors making the car a necessity for even simple errands. New developments are walled off islands located far from anything the residents might need.

Older people, many living on fixed incomes, have been forced to move out as their modest dwellings are converted to condominiums and hotels. Young people just getting started find it impossible to get a toehold on the shear cliff of rising housing costs. Minority families are relegated to distinct areas of our towns or driven out in search of affordable rents.

For years, people fled the cities for the suburbs leaving the urban poor behind. Now the well-off are realizing the vitality of city living and are moving back. In the glow of an expanding economy, revitalized urban cores are seeing an exodus of underpaid workers and their families. But the suburbs have become bastions for the diminishing middle class and have been designed to exclude them as well.

The business and development community is of two minds about this. Some believe that government should be stripped of its power and businesses freed from regulation and taxes. Environmentalism is seen as the enemy of unfettered business development.

On the other hand, a new way of thinking has captured the imagination of many influential business people and developers. It recognizes the economic benefits of living in a community known for its high quality of life and for its commitment to a healthy environment.

The environmental community is also split on these issues. The old school believes that businesses and developers should be penalized and growth restricted at all costs. Housing should not be built in an effort to discourage people from living here. Commerce is viewed as the enemy of the environment.

In a parallel shift of consciousness, a new group of environmentalists recognizes the ecological benefits of living in a community known for its high quality of life with a vibrant economy bolstered by environmental stewardship.

The new schools of environmentalists and business people have a lot in common and a lot to gain by working together. Both groups must wake up to the social inequity of inefficient use of the land and segregated land uses.

Economic growth that widens the gulf between rich and poor has been referred to as economic apartheid. Urban sprawl is nothing less than segregation embodying the discriminations of age, race, and class. Probably worst of all is the political disfranchisement that accompanies the working non-elite on their long drive home each evening.

I challenge those of us in Santa Barbara and the communities of the South Coast to refuse to allow this pattern of development and economic disparity to continue. Let's define urban limits and hold development to the existing urbanized areas. Let's focus on the design of that development to provide better neighborhoods and quality housing for those who are living here now.

Let's provide excellent bus service, neighborhood schools, and community services nearby so people can get what they need without having to drive. We can slow the pace of cars that race by our homes and introduce design elements that calm the traffic and beautify the street. We can make it safer for children to walk or bike to school while we bring a local, small town feel to our intersections and commercial areas.

There are many strategies we can use to increase the efficiency of development in order to meet the existing needs of those who live in substandard situations. Let's encourage mixed-use infill development and strive to create and preserve urban parks for access to undeveloped land within the urban core. Affordable and low cost housing should blend seamlessly with existing neighborhoods and be built in a way to afford the maximum public open space in the form of pocket parks and community gardens.

Constraining development to the existing urban footprint would preserve invaluable open space, habitats, and agricultural land. The limited funds available for transportation could be spent on maintaining streets and sidewalks and on improving transit service. Fewer parking lots would need to be built. People would live closer to work and school. Walking would replace many trips.

This way of looking at things would encourage the construction of a mix of low income and market rate housing in urban centers and along transit corridors. Green space and fingers of riparian habitat would be preserved for passive recreation and improved air and water quality.

Ways would be found to encourage people of a variety of income levels to live in each neighborhood. Services would be located throughout the community to improve access for those who need them. Public neighborhood schools would serve a mix of economic and social groups, not just those left after the more affluent families take their children to private elementary schools.

Water quality can improve. New development near creeks can be pulled back and run-off filtered before it gets into them. Building on steep hillsides and in the foothills can be restricted and development rights transferred to preferable locations in town.

All of this takes people working together with both a care and sensitivity to the environment and yet cognizant of the social costs of sprawl and car oriented development. Many of the policies exist and need only be implemented. Others will have to be crafted. Either way, it will take an understanding of the relationship between environmentally sound development practices and social justice.

Leadership will be needed to answer legitimate public concerns about concentrating development in the existing urban areas. Neighborhood advocacy groups need to have access to tools to craft better use of the empty lot down the street and the undeveloped corner near the bus line.

We need to be able to recognize good proposals when we see them. When developers bring forward ecologically sound projects, let's acknowledge them. When they provide rentals, apartments, and affordable housing where they belong, integrated with other urban uses and along transit corridors, let's encourage them. When fellow environmentalists work with businesses and developers to shape projects to meet strict environmental guidelines, lets appreciate them and urge them to continue.

Government needs to be brought closer to the people and their neighborhoods. People who are currently underrepresented in local boards, commissions, city councils, and the Board of Supervisors would be empowered to participate in the process of governance. Those who embrace the principles of ecologically sensitive and socially responsible patterns of development and growth would be commended and supported by their constituents.

Inside local government, courageous elected officials and staff members make lonely and often heroic efforts to forward sustainable and socially equitable development practices. They deserve our praise. Those who don't, who are stuck in the failed experiment called sprawl and its social consequences, should be replaced.

Environmentalists must become social activists and help generate healthy neighborhoods, not by blindly fighting development, but by guiding it into appropriate places with quality planning and design. The old approach of opposing any and all development is as out of date and ineffective as the old school of developers who never saw an empty field that didn't look like pay dirt.

We must work hard to create integrated communities that are even better places for people to live, work, play and raise their families. Let's work together to renew our commitment to social equity and stewardship. Let's proclaim the value of a healthy environment and a vibrant economy in terms of social responsibility.

Back to Top