Just Another LA Times "News" Article

Every once in a while it's worth setting aside about 5 minutes to spotlight the lunacy and lack of journalistic integrity that is referred to locally as "The Los Angeles Times". Here is a current article of extreme relevancy to the future of California development that is published not as an opinion/editorial piece but simply as "news" on the LA Times Website. So let's have a read and we will go ahead and provide The Plastico commentary [that will look like this so you are not confused]....

Legislature takes aim at urban sprawl and global warming

A bill calling for financial incentives to target greenhouse gases would be the first in the nation. By Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer August 21, 2008

Will Californians drive less to reduce global warming? Maybe not on our own -- but state officials are ready to nudge us. [Mileage driven in California and the Nation are already well below last years levels because of high gas prices - if the goal was to make driving more painful they could add to the gas tax which is already the highest in the nation]

The Legislature is on the verge of adopting the nation's first law to control planet-warming gases by curbing sprawl. [Sprawl can also be defined as the development of land that people legally own and would like to invest in just as they have since.. well - forever]

The bill, sponsored by incoming state Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), is expected to pass the Assembly today and the Senate on Friday. [The above link takes you to a 20 minute YouTube Video of Mr. Steinberg others and celebrating the expected passage of the bill - the most interesting fact here: they disabled the 'comment' section following the video. That makes sense; the one group beyond criticism must be our government]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill, but sponsors expect him to sign it once the state passes a budget. The legislation, SB 375, would offer incentives to steer public funds away from sprawled development. [Making it nearly impossible to develop in areas that Sacramento Bureaucrats have decided to define as 'sprawl'- anyone thinking about the crucial importance of campaign donations???]

The state spends about $20 billion a year on transportation, and under the new law, projects that meet climate goals would get priority. [Can you possible have a more confusing or irrelevant threshold]

An earlier version of the bill was blocked last year by the building industry and by organizations representing cities and counties. Developers feared their suburban projects would be delayed or halted. Local officials were wary of ceding zoning powers and transportation planning to the state. But momentum for the legislation has grown as the state seeks to implement its landmark 2006 global warming law, which would slash California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a 30% cut from expected emissions. [So - what happened to the concerns about suburban projects and ceding rights to Sacramento???? By the way the link that Ms. Roosevelt included takes you to a June 2008 article also written by Ms. Roosevelt that includes nearly all of the same praise for the bill and absolutely no relevant opposing viewpoint. I'm shocked that she didn't directly quote her 3 month younger brain]

To accomplish that, state officials say, fuel-efficient cars and factories won't be enough. [Why not? Have they heard of electric cars and nuke power? Maybe we should just add MTBE to the gas again]

Subdivisions, commercial centers and highways must be planned so that Californians can live and work closer together, reducing the amount they drive. [Think Communist Russia; BTW is the LA Times writer passing off her current opinion as a pure statement of fact????]"

Our communities must change the way they grow," Steinberg said. A compromise 17,000-word bill was hammered out this month and endorsed by builders, environmentalists and local officials. [That must be great news to all of the builders, land owners, and local officials who still oppose it]

It requires the state's 17 metropolitan planning organizations and its regional transportation plans to meet concrete targets to reduce global-warming emissions. The targets will be set by the state Air Resources Board. [That's a relief, only 17 government agencies have to work together to comply with the new law that will be administered by new powers granted to a larger state agency; sounds cheap, efficient, and absolutely freaking impossible]

"California led the way into our culture of car dependence [freedom of travel], so it is only appropriate that the state lead the way out," said David Goldberg, a spokesman for Smart Growth America, a Washington-based nonprofit. [Perfect, so we have heard exclusively from the bills supporters and now a national left wing anti-development group... we must be getting really close to uncovering the opposing viewpoint]

The law could "provide a model for other states," he added, noting that the number of miles Americans drive has risen at more than double the rate of population growth in recent decades. [Maybe we should lower income taxes so people can afford to live closer to work??? Wait a sec, we have not read @ any sweeping generalizations and scare tactics yet that would be sure to win over the weak minded skeptics]

Scientists agree that the earth is heating up at a dangerous pace, in part because of excess carbon dioxide and other gases from vehicles, power plants and other human sources. The expected effects in California include coastal flooding from rising sea levels, reduced water supply and the disappearance of many species of plants and animals, according to researchers. The legislation would lead to better-designed communities and save consumers on gas bills, advocates said. [How on earth can we plan to spend less on gas and gas taxes at a time of remarkable shortfalls in the State Budget... What other additional tax increases should we prep for to replace the huge gas tax revenue that the state currently takes in???]

Thomas Adams, board president of the California League of Conservation Voters, called it the most important land-use bill in California since the Coastal Act in the 1970s. "It is also the first legislation to link transportation funding with climate policy," he said. [That is probably the scariest sentence I have ever read and I just read "1984"]

So what could have Mrs. Roosevelt have mentioned if she were interested in writing a real article?

Maybe that the bill requires "a minimum net density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre" in order to receive the crucial "transit priority". Great news if your building low income apartments by the rail road tracks... terrible news if you were hoping for a reasonably priced home with an actual backyard - but don't worry; this will affect your children far more than it will affect you.

Maybe she could have mentioned the inevitable huge increase in review fees and project approval time for each development and how such changes will disproportionately hurt small developers who can't afford to buy off politicians. Perhaps we might want to know about the new added government jobs that we will have to pay for, the troublesome rezoning costs and legal fees that will hit individual counties as they attempt to comply with Sacramento zoning changes by the required dates.

But what the hell, as long as we are trying to save earth's environment with local law it should be certain that God will bless us with less fire, flood, and earthquake (just a few of the things that I'm told are related to human caused global warming).