As much as some planners might not like to admit it, sometimes it seems that the only thing worse than a choked with cars is a street devoid of cars. Forty years ago, Sacramento's K Street Mall – three blocks of prime downtown real estate not far from the State Capitol – was closed off to vehicular traffic as part of a trend that swept downtowns across the country. The premise was simple enough: the absence of cars would increase foot traffic. But – as in other cities -- that foot traffic never materialized in Sacramento  and merchants and planners in the vicinity of the mall have been clamoring for the return of cars for decades. Last month, they finally got their wish. City officials hope that re-opening of K Street to cars will be the catalyst for a downtown revitalization that, though palpable, has been hindered by the ghost town in the heart of what should be a vibrant city center. "It has come up off and on at least over the last 20 years," said Sid Garcia-Heberger. "It was always something that seemed impossibly expensive and difficult from a traffic planning point of view. So it never really got traction. This time around, the sun, moon, and stars aligned, and here we are." The new K Street features extra-wide sidewalks and only two lanes of traffic, which is shared between vehicular traffic and a segment of the city's light rail system. K Street therefore is not expected to become a major thoroughfare but will nonetheless restore what planners consider to be a balance between pedestrian friendliness and the activity that naturally comes with cars. "It's not enough for a city to simply close a portion of its streets to vehicular traffic; the land uses and streetscape must be reconsidered to accommodate pedestrian activity and safety," said Jessica Schmidt, a planner who has conducted research on pedestrian malls. The failure of the K Street Mall stands in stark contrast with successful pedestrian-only streets across the country. Burlington, Vermont; Aspen, Colorado; and Boulder, Colorado, have all created successful outdoor spaces in the hearts of their respective downtowns. And, Santa Monica's bustling Third Street Promenade—the gold standard for pedestrian malls—dispels the notion that Southern Californians refuse to walk. Meanwhile, New York City has famously closed off stretches of Broadway to traffic, creating instant urban plazas with little more than paint and inexpensive outdoor furniture. However, like many other pedestrian malls – including those in Redding and Fresno --  failed to hit on the right formula. Rather than attract pedestrians seeking an unimpeded stroll, K Street repelled them with its emptiness. Indeed, without a thriving commercial district in the first place, a pedestrian mall cannot create foot traffic. It reflects the surrounding environment but is not a catalyst for change. In the case of Sacramento, everyone who should have been visiting K Street was at home on the outskirts of the urbanized area. "You not only have the competition from the suburbs but you also have the general decline of the downtown," said Sid Garcia-Heberger general manager of the Crest Theater, a historic movie theater and performance space. Heberger said that without incidental traffic passing through K Street – enabling drivers to, for instance, see the Crest Theater's marquee or the display windows of shops – some Sacramentens hardly knew that there was a street they could walk down. And at nighttime, without the lunch crowds from nearby offices, K Street was nearly empty. "Property owners and business owners have wanted visibility for their businesses for a long time, and after 42 years we're able to give them that visibility," said Leslie Fritzsche, downtown development manager for the City of Sacramento. "People don't even know that they're there." Despite the success of some pedestrian malls, the story of K Street is hardly unique. Pedestrian malls arose at a time when populations were shifting dramatically towards the suburbs, and planners did not necessarily know how to maintain organic urban places as they emptied out. "Many downtowns were closed to vehicular traffic to try to recreate suburban shopping mall conditions in an urban setting and Main Streets were unable compete with their newer, shinier counterparts, " said Schmidt. Indeed, in Redding the city put a roof on the mall so that it completely mimicked a mall. Planners in many other cities have come to the same conclusions as those in Sacramento did and already taken down their bollards. "I think that pedestrian malls were a bit of a cliché when they were implemented in the 1960s," said Steve Davies, Sr. Vice President at the advocacy group Project for Public Spaces. "Most have been retrofitted in some way or another." Are Sacramento planners committing heresy by inviting traffic? Davies insisted that the demise of pedestrian malls does not contradict the movement towards pedestrian-friendly environments that many urban planners are advocating and that new laws, such as Senate Bill 375, are promoting. "There's nothing wrong with cars. It's all about a balance with cars," said Davies. "Streets are multi-functional places. They have to serve a variety of uses for light rail, pedestrians, cars, bicycles….it's a mix that needs to accommodate all sorts of diverse functions. It's not all sitting on benches and looking at trees." Davies noted that even with density and activity, an entirely closed-off street does not necessarily appeal to pedestrians, who may consider the space to be too open. "There's something psychological," said Davies. "When you look at how people actually walk along pedestrian malls, they cling to the edges and the storefronts like it's this ghost street in the middle." He noted that Santa Monica's Third Street Promenade includes a "fake street," which runs down the middle and gives pedestrians a defined space in which to walk. The design of the new K Street attempts to strike a balance between the space occupied by cars and trains and the space open to pedestrians. "We wanted to make sure that the pedestrian experience wasn't changed and that they still had opportunity for wide sidewalks and all of the aesthetics that a wider sidewalk provides," said Fritzsche. The re-opening of K Street is not expected to spur traffic—foot or otherwise—all by itself. The city has struck an agreement for a major mixed use development in the 700 block, and officials are also hoping to revitalize the suffering Westfield mall, itself a remnant of 1960s urbanism, at the foot of K Street. "We certainly would like them to do a little bit more and turn it inside-out more so that it's facing the ‘letter' streets more effectively, said Fritzsche. She said that the arrival of a car dealership and the expansion of a fitness club are positive signs. In the meantime, stakeholders on K Street are eagerly waiting to see how Sacramentans respond to the resurrected street. "We definitely are going to have some learning curves. I think people are not quite used to the idea that it's a street," said Heberger. "Overall it's pretty exciting to look out and see cars going by." Contacts: Sid Garcia-Heberger, General Manager, Crest Theater 916.44C.REST Steve Davies, Sr. Vice President, Project for Public Spaces,  212-620-5660 Leslie Fritzsche, Sacramento Downtown Development Manager 916.808.7223 Photos courtesy of John Pastor and Neighborhoods.org, respectively.

Downtown Los Angeles' residential population nearly tripled between 2000 and 2008.  There are now about 45,000 people who call Downtown home, including my wife and I, who recently celebrated the anniversary of our move to Downtown (or DTLA as it's become known among locals).  We are, in many ways, exactly what planners had in mind when they began to promote downtowns as residential neighborhoods. In Los Angeles, the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, enabling developers to convert older commercial buildings into apartments and lofts, is credited with sparking this movement. My wife and I rely on public transportation to get to work and share one car, which we drive primarily on the weekends.  We dine at a wide variety of restaurants, watch the latest movies at a first-rate theater, enjoy diverse cultural events, walk to our church, and go to the gym without driving.  These benefits of downtown living are obvious and have certainly helped to attract people like us to Downtown.  However, now that we are more than ten years into the rebirth of Downtown, the area's evolution remains unclear. Whether Downtown can keep its existing residents in the long-term and draw in new ones will depend to a great extent on the provision and improvement of critical amenities like schools and parks.  Two recent community meetings highlighted the divergent paths that Downtown Los Angeles—like other revitalized downtowns from Oakland to San Diego—might follow. \tOn November 3, 2011, a group of neighborhood churches hosted a town hall meeting for residents who wanted to learn more about schooling options available in the area and discuss ways to make Downtown more kid-friendly.  According to a recent study by the Downtown Center Business Improvement District, over 18% of Downtown residents either have kids at home or plan to start a family soon. It was clear that contrary to public perception, there are a number of quality public and charter schools within close proximity to Downtown in neighborhoods such as Chinatown and Elysian Park.  However, some South Park residents expressed a desire for a new elementary school within walking distance from their homes. It is an understandable desire. People live downtown so that they can abandon their cars. Having to make two round-trip drives per day to pick the kids up at school defeats the purpose. \tA week later, City Councilmember José Huizar hosted "The Future of Your Downtown."  Contrary to the big picture feel of the event title, the meeting was actually focused on two related planning initiatives: Bringing Back Broadway and the L.A. Streetcar. Bringing Back Broadway is the effort to revitalize Broadway, one of the birthplaces of vaudeville and film, and one of the city's oldest, most storied corridors.  The proposed L.A. Streetcar is an approximately 4-mile system that would serve areas including Bunker Hill, Grand Avenue and the Music Center, Historic Broadway and the Historic Core, South Park, LA Live, and the Convention Center. As a Downtown resident, I certainly like to see exciting new projects. However, a cohesive vision of the future of Downtown appears to be missing.  By this, I mean that there are numerous planning efforts happening in DTLA, but they seem to be considered in isolation rather than together comprehensively (the same could probably be said for the other California cities that are planning streetcar lines, see CP&DR Vol. 25, No. 21 , Nov. 2010).Tellingly, the issue of schools was only briefly mentioned at this meeting when a member of the audience asked about the potential to convert unused historic commercial buildings on Broadway to charter or public schools.  As well, this meeting was generally more concerned about attracting visitors to DTLA rather than maintaining or increasing its residential population. DTLA can be both a vibrant residential community and a successful tourist attraction; the two visions can complement rather than conflict with each other.  However, much more resources and attention have been given to projects designed primarily to attract visitors like Bringing Back Broadway, the L.A. Streetcar, and even a professional football stadium.  In order to create well-rounded urban centers in Los Angeles and elsewhere, planning efforts must focus on maintaining and growing resident populations. This means the provision of quality schooling and recreational options must become priorities in Downtown. My sister often gives me props for living the true urban life.  I am convinced that more people will continue living this urban life or try it for the first time when they are assured that DTLA does not just offer good restaurants, shops, and entertainment, but also great schools, parks, and other vital amenities. Planners, developers, and civic leaders deserve credit for the massive efforts they have put forth to make old city centers viable residential areas. But planning is a perpetual, generational project.  It is not enough to look ten years back and marvel at how far we have come. We also have to look ten, or twenty, years ahead and decide what sort of life downtown dwellers want for themselves and—by then—for their children. Clement Lau is a planner and freelance writer based in Los Angeles.

LOS ANGELES—For as long as I can remember, civic leaders in Southern California have been touting "regionalism." They insist that an area as interconnected as Los Angeles and its satellites really ought to coordinate how it grows and what it invests in. This sort of rhetoric usually goes no further than sparsely attended final panel discussions at a conferences about leadership or land use or some such. It's hard to "be regional" when everything from county boundaries to uncooperative public officials keep everything in its respective silos.  Last week, however, Southern California finally got something to be regional about.  At its regional council meeting Dec. 1, the leadership of the Southern California Association of Governments unveiled its draft Sustainable Communities Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan . The SCS was crafted by SCAG planners to respond to the demands of Senate Bill 375, the 2008 law that requires urban regions in California to coordinate their land use and transportation planning in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the two-month comment period to come, SCAG members and other stakeholders will no doubt grouse emphatically about this or that detail in the RTP. But if last week's event is any indication, the advent of the SCS may mark a new day in regional governance. (Bear in mind that this "region" has a larger population, and has more political subunits, than most nation-states do.) As if all that pent up desire for regional cooperation has finally found a worthy project, city representatives and other stakeholders who offered their comments overwhelmingly supported the spirit of the RTP and exhorted their colleagues and counterparts to cooperate for the good of SCAG and of the plan itself. More than one speaker compared SCAG favorably to the California Legislature and to the U.S. Congress. They said that SCAG and its constituents can prove that regional governance can get things done when others have failed.  For a few moments, it almost felt as if the SCAG region was not part of a bankrupt state and an indebted, politically fractured country. But, of course, it is. So all the optimism and accord may not be able to obviate the fact that implementing the RTP and re-organizing land use for a region of 12 million people may cost a ducat or two. Where they will come from is open to debate.  But SCAG may be off to a good start. It, like its fellow "Big Four" MPOs, clearly has a renewed sense of purpose and a common goal. And now that SB 375 is on the books, there was no sign of the bitter debates over per capita emissions goals—largely between suburban and urban representatives—that complicated the target-setting process that the California Air Resources Board underwent this time last year.  Now if only Congress could follow SCAG's lead.  --Josh Stephens

In a few years, if the funding lines up and environmental clearances are issued, California may welcome the nation's very first high-speed rail system, a high-tech wonder that promises to alleviate traffic, reduce pollution, and get Californians to the blackjack tables as quickly as humanly possible.   But it's not the California High Speed Rail project. Rather, it's the proposed DesertXpress. Five years in the making, the Desert Xpress may sound like a frivolous party train, recent federal approvals have brought the line considerably closer to reality than it has ever been before. And as the projected price tag for the state's high-speed rail system steams towards the $100 billion, it is increasingly likely that the $6.5 billion privately-developed line could turn out to be the nation's first true high-speed rail system.  Under the lead of the Federal Railway Administration, DesertXpress completed its environmental impact statement in April and last month the line received preliminary approvals from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. It has received public support from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood. It has received opposition from environmental groups concerned about the train's impact on desert tortoises. The exclusive, double-tracked right of way would parallel Interstate 15.  As proposed, the line would go from Victorville, in San Bernardino County, to the heart of Las Vegas. The 185-mile trip would take 80 minutes, at speeds of up to 150 miles per hour and spare travelers the agony of the five-hour traffic jams that often back up on Interstate 15.  "That's a hellacious drive," said John Husing, an economist who focuses on the Inland Empire (Husing worked on an economic analysis of DesertXpress for the City of Barstow). "On Friday evenings and Sunday when people are often going for the weekend, it can be bumper-to-bumper practically all the way out there." While the obvious attraction of Sin City awaits at the line's northern terminus, its southern terminus doesn't offer quite the same degree of glamour. The City of Victorville is known as the center of the high-desert Victor Valley, just over the Cajon pass from the Inland Empire. Like its sister communities on the other side of the pass, Victorville has been devastated by the economic downturn and the collapse of the housing market. But the advent of DesertXpress has some thinking that a new, genuine real estate boom could be coming to the city.  "I think it's transformative from the standpoint that it's going to put Victorville on the map from the standpoint of it being really the first HSR on the West Coast…of any significance in the entire nation," said Victorville Mayor Brian McEachron. "A lot of that should spur future development in and around our city and will benefit all the cities and towns here in the high desert." Currently, two sites are being considered for the southern terminus of DesertXpress. The more southerly site is farther from the center of town but has fallen out of favor because it abuts the city's landfill. Regardless, both sites have been included in the expansion of the city's sphere of influence, which was approved by the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission in 2010.  DesertXpress is now reportedly seeking $4.9 billion in federal transportation loans. Even with such a daunting price tag, some believe that the project is viable, in part because the train has strong support in the Las Vegas area. "I think it's real, mostly because it has a very large private sector commitment to get it done. It's not like the high-speed rail California, which is essentially federal and state and looks like it's going nowhere," said Husing.  If the the line goes forward, it could eventually lead to an annexation of the land surrounding the high-speed rail station and the development of a brand-new town center which, planners say, could eventually be the home up to 70,000 people. Victorville's current estimated population is 115,000.  Planning for the station and its surrounding area is likely to follow a far different strategy than that for the stations envisioned for the statewide high-speed rail system. Most of those stations, including San Francisco's Transbay Terminal and Los Angeles' Union Station, are in big-city downtowns. Whether Victorville can entice travelers to stay a while—between the time they park their cars and the time they board the train—and whether the vibrancy of a station will be enough to bring life to what is currently a plot of scrub brush remains to be seen. (The current Amtrak station in Victorville is located in the downtown.) The Federal Railway Administration's record of decision does not predict that the station in Victorville would spur much development because "unlike other rail lines, the Project would primarily serve non-work trips between the two stations; use of the rail line for frequent commute trips is expected to be minimal….Although anticipated to be small, there is potential for the Project to result in beneficial TOD effects within the vicinity of the stations." That analysis, however, may underestimate the ambitions of DesertXpress' developers and the city. City officials say that it will and are already planning for it in conjunction with Transit Real Estate Development Co. (TRED)—the real estate development arm of the Las Vegas-based company that is developing DesertXpress. The agreement between the city and TRED was the subject of a lawsuit was brought against the city in 2008. Stakeholder groups claimed that the agreement was a back-room deal that gave the company the right to develop the station and the surrounding area without a proper competitive bid or request for proposals process. That suit settled, however, and the developer agreement remains.  DesertXpress company officials declined to comment for this story.  While DesertXpress is reported to be planning a surface parking lot that could hold up to 15,000 cars. DesertXpress has promised that the Las Vegas "experience" will begin in Victorville, but whether that means neon lights and showgirls, city officials are hoping that there will be some land left over for rail-oriented development.  "I think a train station in that area could spur a lot of development that would have taken a lot more years down the road would see any if it weren't for the train," said the city official.  The city had already begun preliminary discussions of the planning and engineering necessary to link the southern site into the city's infrastructure; the northern site is four miles from current city boundaries and therefore will require a new round of studies and discussions on the part of the city.  "Because we expanded our sphere of influence to the north of our city to include land that would ultimately encompass not only the station but also the surrounding development," said McEachron. "We've done a lot of pre-planning with that organization and zoning." McEachron said that the city has master-planned the annexation area for a full build-out that could evolve into a multifaceted community, with commercial, retail, multifamily housing, and amenities such as parks and paseos.  "The commercial core that we have planned around it would allow an adequate band of development around the train station," said a Victorville city official who requested that his name not be used. "The train station would be the core. But there is a band of commercial, enough for shopping, hotels, conference centers and things like that. Outside of that ring, we're thinking possible Victoria Gardens-style multifamily buildings."  Victoria Gardens is an upscale lifestyle and shopping center in Rancho Cucamonga, on the southern end of the Cajon Pass.  While DesertXpress will be designed to serve the transportation needs of eager partiers, it may also affect transportation and employment patterns in Victorville. McEachron said that the construction would generate 28,000 jobs in San Bernardino County, plus jobs that would be associated with the train's eventual operation. That means that area residents, many of whom have suffered in the recession, would not have to go over the Cajon Pass for work.  "The primary earners are commuters down to place like Ontario," said Husing. "So this will add to the local job base." Despite the enthusiasm and development opportunities, some in Victorville are wary of scheduling any ribbon-cuttings just yet. While Victorville has reaped the economic benefits of nearby Southern California Logistics Airport, other seemingly ideal megaprojects have come and gone.  "I think at the end of the day is that the challenge that the High Desert region has….always have projects like this on the horizon, and they don't happen," said Joseph W. Brady, president of the Bradco Companies, a commercial leasing brokerage based in Victorville. "I'd love to see a bunch of development out there, but I'm also realistic. I'm not going to be a part of convincing people to speculate on land that may or may not happen." Brady and McEachron both said that the ultimate ambition is for DesertXpress to eventually traverse the Antelope Valley and connect with the planned California High-Speed Rail station in Palmdale. But with the state system facing an uncertain future, many stakeholders in Victorville will be happy just being the portal to Las Vegas.  "If they can push this thing forward and put the money in the ground and people use it, then God bless them, because everybody's going to win," said Brady.  Contacts:  Joseph W. Brady, President, The BradCo Companies, 760.951.5111 John Husing, Economics & Politics, Inc. Brian McEachron, Victorville Mayor, (760) 955-5000 Victorville Planning Division, 760.955.5135

The past few years have been great for not building things. The Great Recession has particularly devastated developers building on the urban fringe, who found themselves saddled with entitlements for homes that no one would ever buy.  But for a distinct group of non-developers, the so-called Great Recession has been great for business.  The state's 150 land trusts are a diverse lot. But many have escaped the fate of their for-profit counterparts due to a fortunate coincidence. At the very moment when land prices have dropped, state, federal, and even philanthropic funding has generally remained robust.  "For the most part, the speculative values have gone down, so it's actually a better time to be buying than during the craziness of a few years ago," said Brian Leahy, assistant director at the Division of Land Resources at the California Department of Conservation. "Overall, it's been favorable as long as you have dry powder," said George Yandell, director of real estate for the California chapter of the Nature Conservancy. By that he means, of course, money. So far, money has flowed smoothly enough during the recession for land trusts large and small around the state to make major acquisitions. For example:  • The Nature Conservancy has, according to Yandell, recently been adding roughly 10,000 to 15,000 acres annually in easements and outright purchases to its statewide total - roughly 400,000 acres.   • The Eastern Sierra Land Trust has acquired roughly 4,000 acres since 2008, more than doubling its total holdings.  • The Sonoma Land Trust recently made one of its biggest acquisitions ever, a 6,000-acre assemblage along the Jenner Headlands, at the mouth of the Russian River.  Others have suffered decreases in donations and bureaucratic impediments.  In the Bay Area, where land prices have scarcely dropped, the economic situation has "drastically reduced (the) ability to secure land," according to Craige Edgerton, executive director of the Silicon Valley Land Conservancy. Edgerton said that his organization missed out on the chance to purchase 500 acres for $1.9 million when the state, amid its own budget troubles, put a temporary freeze on the disbursement of bond funds that had already been granted to the organization. Though they are independent organizations, many land trusts effectively act as conduits for state-sponsored conservation activities. Trusts identify properties with significant ecological resources and willing sellers but often fund the purchase of title or easements with state funds that are earmarked for conservation.  The most robust source of funding in recent years have been bonds issued under Proposition 84, the 2006 voter initiative that approved the sale of $5.8 billion in bonds for a variety of purposes related to drinking water, flood control, and conservation. Just under $1 billion in uncommitted funds remain.  The continued availability of those funds has, in some ways, put land trusts in their own economic time warp. "Because of the number of bond acts that were passed over the last 5-10 years, there's been a carryover of funding," said Hardy. Though land trusts are well aware that this pool of money will dry up when the final round of funding is disbursed, many have tried to take advantage of the funds and the deals that have come available over the past few years.  Karen Ferrell-Ingram, executive director of the Eastern Sierra Land Trust said that the "vast majority" of funding for the 4,000 acres her group acquired has come from either Prop. 84 or Prop. 50 funds, much of it disbursed through the newly created Sierra Nevada Conservancy. Prop. 50 is the $3.4 billion clean water bond passed in 2002. Nonetheless, Ferrell-Ingram said that 5,000-15,000 acres of "high-value resources" remain to be preserved in her region, which is centered on the town of Bishop.   Some of land trusts' most fortuitous acquisitions have come at the expense of would-be developers on the urban fringe. Investors who bought land before the real estate bubble burst have had to unload it at a discount. Those discounts have been 10-15% off peak prices, according to Paul Hardy, executive director of the Feather River Land Trust. That's compared to 60% drops in residential and commercial prices in his area in Plumas County, Hardy said.   "There was a combination of developers and holding companies and real estate investors buying these large ranch properties, many of them rapidly proceeding with entitlements and zoning and subdivision permits," said Hardy. "When the bubble burst there wasn't a market for those kinds of subdivisions."  "We've picked up ranches that were slated for development into everything from suburban-type housing, or large trophy, second-home, hobby ranch types of opportunities," said Yandell.  Hardy even said that some investors have approached him trying to unload their properties. "It's kind of created this super-demand and super-level of interest in working with us," said Hardy. "We used to do a lot of landowner outreach—and now we're doing donor discouragement." Across the state, however, opposing forces are acting, on the one hand, to create a buyers market for land trusts but, on the other hand, to limit the availability of properties.  Would-be developers who bought rural land, and are carrying debt on it, likely have neither desire nor expertise to put it to agricultural use and therefore may be willing to unload it on to land trusts for a relative bargain.  By contrast, the prospect of building exurban mini-mansions may not be nearly as enticing as that of using rural land for old-fashioned agriculture. Many working farms and ranches show no signs of coming on to the market because, in this economic climate, those activities have remained profitable. And owners who have been in business for years have nearly zero incentive to get out, particularly because grain and beef are currently fetching relatively high prices.  "Many of the ranchers are not overburdened with debt, so they don't have the liquidity needs," said George Yandell. "They're not in a rush to sell….they're making good money." Those landowners are, in essence, unfazed by market conditions and are likely to sell land only according to their personal inclinations or family situation.   "Probably the main thing that has changed is that there's not as many potential parties that are interested in selling," said Darla Guenzler, executive director of the California Council of Land Trusts.  Land prices would likely be lower except that trusts must purchase land according to appraised development value, and those values still persist even if no one actually intends to develop the land.  When those properties do come up, however, they often lead to a scramble. When trusts have funding on-hand, they can jump at those opportunities—or be sorely disappointed.  "It's not just where you can pick and say, let's get this in 2012, 2013," said Ralph Benson, executive director of the Sonoma Land Trust. "It's all of a sudden there's a death in a family and a really critical property comes on the market….and you either respond or you're really not in the game." The game, however, is set to change drastically for everyone.  When Prop. 84 funds run out in 2013—without any indication of another bond measure on the horizon—it will be the first time in recent memory that land trusts have not been able to draw from a dedicated pot of state funds. Guenzler said that state capital has been available consistently since 2000.   "California has such a history of having periodically renewed sources of capital, so up until now, it's been fairly constant," said Benson. "We'll miss opportunities. It's hard to say what they are, but I'm sure it'll be a setback and there will be some things that are just irreversible."  Land trust administrators say that a combination of strategic planning for acquisitions and diversified funding sources will be essential for them to ensure that they minimize those irreversible losses. Many trusts say they will rely more heavily on donations, which have remained consistent for many of them.  "It seems like there are people recently fed up with government," said Hardy. "My own perception is there could be a broader trend and that people are feeling like taking direct action. One way they can take direct action is voting with the dollars for things they care about."  In order to stretch those dollars as far as possible, land trusts may become increasingly more  picky about the properties that they try to acquire. It has to have some value to our mission: biodiversity, threatened, and of a critical size or adjacent to something making it meaningful," said Yandell. "We have to find those critical projects that are going to make a difference in those large environmental problems that we're facing in California." Though Guenzler noted that donations have been down at many land trusts, overall she said that Californians are likely to continue supporting the work of land trusts. "Californians love land," said Guenzler. "They love parks and open spaces… there may be changes and the change in pace in the coming years, but Californians are pretty dedicated to seeing land protected." Notwithstanding that rosy prediction, Leahy, of the Division of Land Resources, said that the organizations that are facing this future—however uncertain it may be—are far more stable and mature than they were before the current 11-year wave of state funding began.  "Fifteen years ago there were land trusts, but they were more like coffee klatches," said Leahy. "Now we have some very professional land trusts throughout the state and they have become part of the planning process in many areas."  In the absence of state funding, Leahy said that local jurisdictions must make conservation a formal part of their planning and permitting process.  "These farmland easements are valuable planning tools for lots of reasons: open space, food, buffers," said Leahy. Leahy suggested that all counties should consider programs, such as one in Stanislaus County, by which developers who build on farmland are required to pay for the preservation of farmland elsewhere in the jurisdiction.  He also said that the implementation of Senate Bill 375, the regional planning law that requires the creation of Sustainable Communities Strategies, may have implications even for rural land conservation.  "SB 375 is basically trying to get to a land ethic," said Leahy. "And that's what we're about. We're trying to figure out how we instill in the local planners and supervisors an understanding that some land is more valuable as developed land and some land is more valuable as working land."  Contacts:  Brian Leahy, Assistant Director, Division of Land Resources, California Department of Conservation,  916.324.0850 Ralph Benson, Executive Director, Sonoma Land Trust, 707.526.6930 Karen Ferrell-Ingram, Executive Director, Eastern Sierra Land Trust, 760.873.4554 Craige Edgerton, Silicon Valley Land Conservancy 408.460.1102 Paul Hardy  Feather River Land Trust   530.283.5758  George Yandell, Director of Real Estate, Nature Conservancy, California Chapter, 415.777.0487

The outreach process that developers and planners often undergo has always struck me as less a negotiation and more like a perverse game of Marco Polo. Planners and stakeholders chase each other blindly, never quite knowing where each other are and rarely knowing what to do if one actually catches up with the other. It goes something like this:  "Setbacks?"  "10 feet!" "FAR?" "2.5!" "Height limit?"  "40 feet!" "Parking...?" Don't get me started.  This process often devolves into the lamest sort of entrenchment, where even if the stakes are trifling, neither side is willing to admit that they have common ground and common interest. Wouldn't it be nice if planners understood what stakeholders wanted before they tried to go to bat for their projects? The first thing they need to know is that everyone hates their project. Once they know that, everything else gets a little easier.  At last month's Urban Last Institute Fall Meeting in Los Angeles, I attended a panel ostensibly about how developers can contribute to urban design. It was really about how developers and planners can tame the beast known as the public.  The panel was framed around some compelling survey data collected by Saint Consulting and presented by Saint VP Jay Vincent, who delicately referred to American cities as an "opposition-rich environment." According to Vincent, the 2010 "Saint Index" found the following:  In recent years, opposition to all types of development is down. However, 74% of respondents still said that they would not support any new development in their own communities and only 24% said that their community needs new development. The most strongly opposed types of development include, not suprisingly, landfills, casinos, quarrys, power plants, and large malls.  The most favored are single-family homes and groceries, with 87% and 74% support, respectively.  The demographic group most likely to oppose new development are older, college-educated liberals who earn more than $100,000 per year.  Supporters of new development are more likely to be ages 21-35, educated, and less wealthy -- and therefore less likely to spend time or money opposing a poject.  The group most likely to support new development is the Tea Party: 77% of self-identified Tea Party members leaned towards support of new projects.  Key reasons for opposition to a project are protecting community character (23%), protecting the environment (22%) and protecting the value of a home or real estate (16%). Other reasons for opposition include fear of too much new traffic (13%) and that the project is too close to the person's home (13%). The good news for planners, however, is that the survey showed that when stakeholders are educated about the positive impacts of a project, they are more likely to support the project. This seems like the biggest no-brainer of all time, but I doubt that planners abide by this advice as often as they should. Planners can get so bogged down in the minutiae of a project that they neglect to remind stakeholders that a project -- new stories, more jobs, more attractive environment, more neighborhood amenities, and all the rest -- is not merely a money-making engine for developers. If developers think about the benefits that they can confer on stakeholders, then American cities might get fewer timid projects and watered-down compromises. To that end, Vincent recommends that developers and planners not hang back and wait for community opposition to boil over, as it inevitably will. Instead, he recommends that developers present their projects early and often. Once angry neighbors show up, then developers have "lost first-mover status and are on defense," said Vincent.  So, what do public sector planners do with all of this information? In some cases, they may have to lay low, because the public is very suspicious of the relationship between planners and developers. 51% believe that the "planning environment" is fair to poor and assume that there is an "unfair relationship" between the public sector and developers. Here, too, Vincent recommends that planners be proactive. "The days when a (public official) can just show up for a ribbon cutting are gone," he said. Instead, they need to get out into the community and participate in charettes and other collaborative planning activities.  Then maybe we'll get something that resembles less a zero-sum game--be it Maro Polo, chess, or Risk--and looks more like democracy.

How many mitigated negative declarations are required for a lead agency to avoid preparing an EIR? In Sonoma County the answer is five. While the portion of Schenck v. County of Sonoma devoted to the "fair argument" analysis remains unpublished, the court's published ruling that certain procedural errors are not prejudicial is helpful, as well as the appellate court's affirmation that the trial court can fashion a tailored remedy to cure a California Environmental Quality Act error and is not compelled to set aside the approval. The basic facts are not unusual. In processing a negative declaration as the CEQA document for a 116,000-square-foot warehouse and beverage distribution center, the county and developer labored through four additional mitigated negative declarations before the Board of Supervisors ultimately accepted the negative declaration and approved the project. In the ensuing litigation, the trial court concluded that the county, as lead agency, failed to send a required notice to the Bay Area AQMD (BAAQMD), but otherwise upheld the substantive analysis contained in the negative declaration. The trial court fashioned a remedy specific to the one notice error it determined to be prejudicial. The county complied with the court's directive, documented to the court that it had fulfilled the court's order, and final judgment was entered.  Schenck, the project's opponent, appealed. The appellate court addressed three principle issues. First, the court concluded that notice to BAAQMD of the intent to approve the negative declaration was mandatory, and that the county had not complied with the notice requirements for the revised negative declaration. However, the appellate court, unlike the trial court, concluded that the error was not prejudicial. The lead agency had provided a notice of the application to BAAQMD, and had used the district's standards and mitigation requirements in the negative declaration. That, coupled with substantial notice to the public, led the appellate court conclude that the error was not prejudicial. The appellate court next addressed the trial court's surgical fashioning of a remedy which left the approval in place, while directing the lead agency to provide notice to BAAQMD and take appropriate action. The appellants argued that the trial court was obligated to set aside the approval. Not so, according to the appellate court. Citing Public Resources Code section 21168.9 the appellate court held that this code section grants trial courts discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy. The appellants then argued that the lead agency erred by failing to give Caltrans and the Regional Water Board notice of the hearing on the project (Guidelines Section 15072). The appellate court again disagreed, concluding that the notice provided to the State Clearinghouse and the other notices meant that the county "substantially complied" with the required notice steps. Given that the public and the county had received the agency comments based upon the fourth negative declaration, the failure to give notice in conjunction with the fifth negative declaration was not prejudicial. The remainder of the decision, which deals with the fair argument test, remains unpublished by order of the appellate court. The Case:  Schenck v. County of Sonoma (August 26, 2011, SCV-244017) A129646. Cal.App.4th, Filed August 26, 2011.  The Attorneys:  Bruce D. Goldstein, County Counsel, Sue A. Gallagher, Deputy County Counsel, For Defendant and Respondent County of Sonoma. Clement, Fitzpatrick & Kenworthy, Clayton E. Clement, Esq., Anthony Cohen, Esq., For Real Parties in Interest and Respondents Liquid Investments, Inc., and Mesa Beverage Co., Inc. William W. Abbott is a partner in the law firm of  Abbott & Kindermann , LLP, of Sacramento.

As the state's public disclosure statute, the California Environmental Quality Act directs lead agencies to disclose the likely impacts associated with agency approval of projects. And while legal caution dictates that more disclosure is preferable to less disclosure, lead agencies have to recognize that there are two notable exceptions to this practice: information relating to cultural resources, as outlined in Government Code section 6254, CEQA Guidelines section 15120(d), and trade secrets, per CEQA Guidelines section 15120(d). A recent decision in Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin , in which the integrity of Native American cultural resources hung in the balance, explores how a lead agency can navigate the conflicting requirements of disclosure and confidentiality. The facts involve Clover Valley, a small rural valley located in Rocklin, part of the great Sacramento urban area. A developer prepared an environmental impact report for purposes of annexation and an updated land plan for a area originally zoned for 974 homes. This EIR was certified in 1997. In early 1998, the developer and city entered into a development agreement, under which the developer made a substantial contribution to the city for a public recreation facility. Starting in 2000, the developer submitted a large lot map, and the city processed another EIR, tiered to the original annexation EIR. The DEIR was released in 2002, and through subsequent reviews, the project was reduced from 933 to 558 lots. Following certification of the later tiered EIR, the city approved the downsized project in 2007. Community opponents of the project then filed suit, challenging the sufficiency of the EIR. The trial court ruled for the city and developer.  On appeal, the appellate court first addressed the contradictory aspects of the CEQA full disclosure requirement with the obligation to protect the integrity of cultural resources by not disclosing specific information. In Valley Foundation, the resources in question were Native American archeological sites and artifacts. The city did not want to reveal their exact location for fear that would-be looters could seize upon the information. Claimants, however, argued that this lack of disclosure was a violation of CEQA.  As a result of a decision made in 2002 by the Army Corps of Engineers and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), a section 106 consultation was undertaken. That consultation resulted in the development of a historic properties management plan.  The management plan was kept as a confidential document by the Corps and SHPO. Generalized information regarding cultural resources was included in the EIR, and the appellate court ruled that the lead agency had provided the right level of accommodation of disclosure and confidentiality. On a related topic, the appellate court also ruled that the information added to the FEIR by the city regarding certain cultural resources did not trigger recirculation. Turning to growth-inducing impacts, the appellate court upheld the city's discussion of the growth-inducing impacts of a sewer line extension, whereby the EIR documented that the line would provide service to additional homes, but that those future homes were already analyzed in the Rocklin general plan and related EIR, and would not constitute unplanned growth. In upholding the adequacy of the EIR, the appellate court addressed a number of other common claims. Facing a claim that the construction of a road in a potentially sensitive area was inconsistent with a specific general plan requirement, the appellate court followed the more flexible rule in general plan interpretation articulated in Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704.  With respect to a challenge to the infeasibility of mitigation for address scenic impacts, the court found the evidence in the record regarding conflict with rights granted under the previously approved development agreement and potential secondary impacts to other resources to be sufficient to uphold the city's conclusions. Finally, the court upheld the city's reliance on a commitment letter issued by the Placer County Water Agency as sufficient, even though the actual future delivery of water was subject to later regulatory steps and hurdles, all of which was reflected in the EIR. The Case:  Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin  (2011) 197 Cal.App. 4th 200. C061808 The Attorneys:  Kenyon Yeates, Charity Kenyon, Bill Yeates, and Christina Morkner Brown for Plaintiffs and Appellants Clover Valley Foundation and Sierra Club Russell A. Hildebrand; Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson andRick W. Jarvis for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents William W. Abbott is a partner in the law firm of Abbott & Kindermann , LLP, of Sacramento.

Tulare County is a diverse 4,800 square miles, with extensive, mountainous public lands in the east, and some of the country's most fertile farmland in the west. It encompasses the Sequoia Park, parts of the Giant Sequoia National Monument and Sequoia National Forest, and every year hosts the World Ag Expo. How all of these diverse elements fit into a single general plan is the question that has vexed planners and stakeholders alike for the better part of the past decade.   While many cities and counties across the state have been promoting compact development through their recent general plan updates, critics contend that Tulare County's update does the opposite. Or it would if ever it was approved.  On October 19, the County Planning Commission postponed a decision on whether to recommend the General Plan Update to the Board of Supervisors, and instead voted to continue public comment on the plan during its next meeting, November 16, and directed the county Resource Management Agency to respond to critics of the plan, a coalition that includes the Sierra Nevada Alliance, Tulare County League of Women Voters, and the Kern-Kaweah chapter of the Sierra Club.  In 2003, the Tulare County Board of Supervisors direct the county Resource Management Agency to update their previous plan. That plan, adopted in 1964 and amended in piecemeal fashion, became, in the words of Dave Bryant, division manager for the TCRMA's Special Projects, unusable.  The goal for the current update cycle was to modernize the plan, creating a single reference that would have both the breadth necessary for the next 20 years, and incorporate the changes in planning and environmental concerns introduced over the last 50 years, such as an emphasis on nodal transportation planning and fully integrating mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act.  The update was supposed to conclude in the fall of 2005. However, requirements of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act passed in 2006, required the county to submit a Climate Action Plan, which has meant even more delays in the process.  The new plan comprises three large subplans: the Rural Valley Lands Plan, Foothill Growth Management Plan and Mountain Framework Plan, along with a passel of previously adopted sub-area plans, including newly designated hamlet community plans and corridor plans based on projected growth, especially around Highway 99 and State Route 65.  As new policies, the plan "shall encourage" maintaining distinct urban boundaries, development based on existing infrastructure, and consistent land use within urban and hamlet development boundaries. The plan will also ensure that new development doesn't occur without adequate infrastructure, including access to potable water. Tulare County's rural population pulls primarily from groundwater wells, and a 2006 survey of those wells by the State Water Control Board found that of 20,000 private wells, 40 percent had unsafe levels of nitrates; more recently, a U.N. Human Rights Commission report also voiced concerns about Tulare County's water quality. The plan was presented for public comment in 2008 but has been mired in debate ever since. Which will begin the next phase for the county: Defending the plan.  From the beginning, there have been concerns raised about the level of planning in both the update and the Environmental Impact Report. The initial Draft EIR did not include a greenhouse gas inventory, nor a Climate Action Plan; remedying that led to the recirculated DEIR of 2008. That RDEIR led to a scathing letter from the desk of Susan Fiering, Deputy Attorney General, in May 2010. The letter holds that "the General Plan relies on unenforceable policies that ‘encourage,' but do not mandate that growth will occur in certain areas, with the result that all important development decisions are left to the marketplace."  Fiering's letter continues to describe the plan as an "aspirational document" that fails to exercise control over growth, saying that the open-ended nature of the plan means that accurate description of the impacts is impossible, and that the DEIR neither considers nor imposes enforceable mitigation measures.  Lynda Gledhill, spokeswoman for the office of Attorney General Kamala Harris, says that they are reviewing the current iteration of the plan and final EIR, and that the attorney general is very concerned about the ramifications for the predominantly Latino and disadvantaged communities throughout Tulare County. If the plan hasn't changed substantively, the letter, including its implicit threat of lawsuit, "would speak for itself." Similar comments were made by the Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment, and by a coalition of critics including the Sierra Club's Kern-Kaweah chapter, the Sierra Alliance and the Tulare County Citizens for Responsible Growth.  Gordon Nipp, vice-chair of the Kern-Kaweah chapter of the Sierra Club, is incensed over what he sees as a lack of enforcement and performance criteria, and rejects the planners' and supervisors' arguments for keeping the plan flexible.  "It's so flexible that the county doesn't have to do anything," he said. "Flexibility allows the good ol' boys network to run things."  Nipp cited a range of issues, from relying on coordination with state and area agencies to mitigate air pollution rather than a specific county plan, saying that the only local mandate comes from the Air District's indirect source rule, to farmland loss, to water quality — none of which are adequately addressed, according to Nipp.  "They don't have any mitigation methods — They haven't done any in the past, they're not committing themselves to any now, so why would we think that they're going to do so in the future?" asked Nipp. He said that if the planning commission and Board of Supervisors adopt the plan as its currently written, a lawsuit from the Sierra Club is likely, noting that the Sierra Club prevailed over the city of Tulare in a similar lawsuit.  Rich McIntyre, Campaign Director of the Sierra Nevada Alliance, concurs with Nipp.  "Instead of having infill, this plan has sprawl," says McIntyre. He says that the Board of Supervisors has taken the position that it's not their place to direct growth. "From the perspective of the alliance, that is exactly the role of supervisors. This plan is an abnegation of their role."  McIntyre cites the recent plans in Mariposa and Nevada counties as solid and sustainable, and brings up a specific sore spot for many of the critics of the plan — a proposed development in Yokohl Valley that would comprise 30,000 new residents and 56 square miles of new urban development for the county, also cited by Nipp as one of the big beneficiaries of the new plan. McIntyre says that the Yokohl Valley east of Visalia development would be prevented by the sort of plans adopted in Mariposa and Nevada counties, but not in Tulare County. "The plan basically allows new development whenever, development wherever. Either you're going to have infill and infrastructure replacement, or you're encouraging sprawl," McIntyre said, emphasizing that the situation is especially dire for lower-income residents. "It's the disadvantaged communities that always pay the price for bad planning."  McIntyre also complains that the comments made by critics haven't been adequately integrated into the final revision.  "The comments we made were extensive, and there has been no movement. The supervisors have dug in their heels."  Supervisor Steve Worthley disagrees: "We went through a process of public comment — we're not proposing any drastic changes or anything out of the character of Tulare." Likewise, he says that the complaints miss the point of the document.  "It's a general plan — you're very careful to avoid specifics," said Worthley, adding that projects would be evaluated individually, with details appropriate for those projects. The plan itself does contain roughly 50 pages of responses to the public comments, and specifically addresses the complaints about the enforceability of the "should" (as opposed to "shall") language repeatedly used in the general plan. The argument, from Brian A. Garner's "A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage," is that the "should" language creates a directory provision, requiring "substantial compliance only; not exact compliance." The RMA sees this as allowing for the necessary flexibility required for a truly general plan, saying in their response, "'Should,' as used in General Plan policy development, is a less rigid directive to be honored in the absence of compelling or contravening considerations …  They are clear expressions of the policy makers' (i.e. Board of Supervisors) intent to rely on the subject policy to guide relevant decisions, and so must be recognized and analyzed in such decisions." The responses also address complaints over the level of detail, holding that beyond the statutory requirements, counties have wide latitude in implementation, and that the implementation in Tulare County will be primarily set by lower-level and more local regulations.  "The general plan, in addition to being a policy document, is a guide — there will be a host of implementation policies as it proceeds, specifically updating zoning and ordinance codes," said Bryant.  And while McIntyre has complained that the county is asking critics to take the assertions of smart growth and effective mitigation efforts on faith, Bryant responds by cataloguing the outreach process: "There have been multiple public outreach efforts during the general plan process. After release of the 2008 version of the plan staff has included recommendations to improve clarity in the land use element, provide for long-term sustainability of water resources, and initiated a climate action strategy. In 2010 and 2011, staff conducted 26 public outreach meetings in the 8 cities and unincorporated communities."  Some critics have been mollified — the Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment said that the changes made between the 2008 plan and the current revision shifted from a policy of essentially leaving poor rural communities to wither in order to shift growth to more urban areas, to supporting them with infill and infrastructure, especially through the new Hamlet designation. Alegria de la Cruz, legal director of the CRPE, said that the changes meant that while the CRPE still had concerns over the implementation process, they would work with local partners to ensure the interests of their constituents, rather than further participating in the planning process.  According to Worthley, part of the problem that smaller communities in Tulare County have, especially with regard to water supply and utility infrastructure, is one of scale, and that the updates to the general plan address that.  "We're trying to get them to a level of self-sufficiency. We're suffering some of the consequences of a failure to grow these communities, and we're looking to share the opportunities," said Worthley. Worthley is confident that the plan will pass the next hurdles, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.  "We're feeling good. We feel good about the plan and the direction of this county, which is in line with our history." But for opponents of the plan, passing at the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors would mean taking their case to the courts. Once the plan is approved, a lawsuit is very likely, said McIntyre.  Ultimately, the disputes over the adequacy of the language in the Tulare County general plan are legal questions. To resolve them will probably require litigation, which will only further delay the comprehensive update. For now, anyone seeking to build or develop in Tulare County will have to make do with the filing cabinets.  Bryant is circumspect. "The county has done its due diligence, circulated a final EIR. At the end of the day, the planning commission will decide the fate. There will be concerns that will be raised and concerns that will be addressed. At this point, it's premature to speculate on satisfying everyone." Contacts & Resources: Tulare County General Plan Update: http://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/index.html Josh Steichmann is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles.

Probably too much has been written about the Tea Party movement already--which may be emerging as a distinctive voice in land use politics (see CP&DR Vol. 26, No. 15 August 2011)--but sometimes the urge to comment is irresistible.  In a few short years the Tea Party movement has already proven itself as much a celebration of negativity as it is a political movement, no more so than when it dabbles in land use policy.  The latest comes from Lodi, where Tea Party activists last month convinced the city council to delay the acceptance of a $120,000 federal grant to help it implement SB 375.  That's right: the Tea Party hates Washington so much that it won't accept its money, even when that money is free.  Why would they do such a thing? Because they do not want Lodi to come under the sway of nefarious undemocratic powers.  Somehow the ghosts of Hamilton, Adams, Franklin, and Hancock have convinced Tea Party activists that SB 375 -- and seemingly all other manifestations of smart growth -- is a tentacle of the United Nations' "Agenda 21." I have to hand it to the Tea Party for a moment. "Agenda 21" does sounds menacing. What it really should be called is "Some nice things that countries and cities can do to ensure that they don't starve to death, exhaust their energy supplies, or fall into the ocean--but only if they want to."   Be that as it may, the Tea Party seems to be confusing "conspiracy" with "something that's just a good idea." There are lot of good ideas floating around out there. If the U.N. were to say, promote nutrition, women's rights, education, and democracy, should we reject those things too? Oh yeah, it does .  I'd say that this kerfuffle about smart growth is the opposite of a conspiracy. The last time I checked, the road to global domination did not being in Lodi. Crying about the UN is like praying that you'll sink the next putt. Jesus doesn't care about your golf score, and, well, I think it's safe to say that the UN cares even less about Lodi.  If the creation of compact cities is really a conspiracy, then we can find its influence in slightly less obscure places. Maybe, New York, Tokyo, and London, for starters.   We can certainly debate the merits of smart growth. In fact, we can debate the merits of SB 375. In fact, it would be a lousy piece of conspiracy mainly because many people think that it's not strong enough. Rather than force residents into urban high rises, it calls for 8% reductions in per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Eight percent means carpooling to the stock car races instead of driving in a caravan.   Back to that $120,000. These funds aren't just for Lodi to conduct a grand experiment on an unwitting population. It's to fulfill a state mandate to implement SB 375, which assumes that managed growth is probably better than haphazard growth. That means that it's going to have to spend the money one way or another -- and if Lodi is like the rest of the cities in California, then it doesn't have the money.  The reason it has to spend it is that a few years ago something called the democratic process wrapped its icy fingers around the State of California and caused the passage of SB 375. That process included open debates and votes by legislators (of both parties) and approval of the dude who was then the state's Republican governor.  But it's no wonder that none of this fazes the Tea Party. The website of the California Tea Party Patriots still features that same governor on its website. It even urges citizens to "tea bag" him. I hate to break it to the Patriots, but Arnold is no longer in office. And has almost certainly been tea-bagged already.  And if they don't know what that means, well, they probably can't figure out what smart growth is either.

After yesterday's California Supreme Court oral argument in California Redevelopment Association vs. Matosantos – the lawsuit challenging the state's new pay-ransom-or-die redevelopment system – it's still hard to tell where the court will go. But the biggest question that emerged was: What happens it the court upholds AB 1x 26, which abolishes redevelopment, but strikes down AB 1x 27, which permits redevelopment agencies to continue to exist if they pay a "remittance" to the state? Apparently it's a plausible scenario given the nature of Proposition 22, the successful 2010 initiative that sought to protect redevelopment funds from being raided by the state. AB 1x 26 might survive a constitutional challenge on the theory that, while Prop. 22 amended the constitution to prohibit raids, it didn't explicitly protect redevelopment itself, meaning redevelopment agencies can be killed by statute. However, because AB 1x 27 calls for "remittances" to the state, that could be interpreted violating Prop. 22. The net effect of upholding AB 1x 26 and striking down AB 1x 27, of course, would be to kill redevelopment completely – a worse outcome than the redevelopment agencies got from the Legislature and the governor.  The state's lawyer, Deputy Attorney General Ross Moody, obviously would prefer that both laws be upheld. Steven Mayer of San Francisco's Howard, Rice law firm – representing the California Redevelopment Association and the League of California Cities – said AB 1x 26 "is the whole ballgame to my clients". Meanwhile, James Williams of the Santa Clara County Counsel's office argued passionately to uphold AB 1x 26 and strike down AB 1x 27. All three lawyers were pepped with questions during the 70-minute oral argument. Much of the questioning had to do with whether or not the remittances were truly voluntary and whether cities had any options for paying the remittance other than using tax-increment funding. AB 1x 27 could fall if the court found that the remittances are not voluntary and/or that the cities must use tax-increment funding to pay them – which would appear to be a violation of Proposition 22.  Moody argued that, in a facial challenge, the court had no choice but to accept the "voluntary" contribution idea at face value.  "It's hard to argue it's a voluntary payment," Justice Carol Corrigan said. "Everybody gets paid," Moody responded. "Is that so bad?" "It is if you want to keep doing redevelopment," Corrigan said. "That's a facile argument – they get to continue to exist just as long as they are wrapping things up."  Moody called the remittance program not a ransom but, rather, "a legislative offer to participate in a program." Not even all of the justices appeared to take that one seriously. "We're from the government and we're here to help you?" Justice Kathryn Werdegar gently mocked. And a lot of the questioning focused on whether cities would any alternative in paying the remittances other than using tax-increment funding. Moody, of course, argued that it was entirely possible – and, in fact, heartily agreed with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye asked whether cities could pass a tax increase to pay the remittances. Mayer, on the other hand, basically argued that most cities have no other source of funds, so the practical reality is that they will have to use tax-increment financing to pay the remittances, possibly in violation of Prop. 22.  Williams from Santa Clara County made a passionate pitch that AB 1x 27 is unconstitutional. That's not surprising considering the pickle the county is in. The San Jose Redevelopment Agency – once of the richest and most powerful agencies in the state – does not appear to have the money to pay the remittance; but if San Jose can figure out how to do so, the county will be out an enormous amount of money. Mayer spent his final presentation responding to Williams and making what appeared to be circuitous arguments about why the two laws could not be severed – even though there is a severability clause in the language. Mayer noted at one point that, regardless of the statute, "The Legislature designed 27 because they wanted agencies to op-in....the Legislature did not intend to end redevelopment."  The court is expected to rule by mid-January, when the first installment of the remittance payments is due.

Oral arguments in  California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos , the lawsuit by CRA and League of CA Cities seeking to invalidate Assembly Bills 1X 26&27, will be heard in the California Supreme Court tomorrow, Thursday Nov. 10, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. The  CRA and League of California Cities contend the legislation is unconstitutional, violating recently-passed Proposition 22 and other provisions of the state constitution. CP&DR will be blogging the hearing, which will take place in the Earl Warrren Building in Sacramento.  For background, please see previous CP&DR coverage:  CRA, League Sue to Overturn Redevelopment Remissions