So, we all woke up this morning to the news that Eric Garcetti – longtime city council president, councilmember from Hollywood, and son of former L.A. District Attorney Gil Garcetti – will almost certainly be the next mayor of Los Angeles. What does this mean for planning and development in L.A.?  Well, first of all, far more than his opponent Wendy Greuel, Garcetti has been a high-profile political figure on planning generally and smart growth and infill in particular. At the same time, however, his reputation around town has always been that he's not as much of a policy heavyweight as Greuel. And, of course, he's got to compete with the legacy of Antonio Villaraigosa – the politician who can legitimately go down in history the guy who changed L.A. from a car town to a transit town and set the table for "elegant density".  So what does the guy do? Garcetti has always been an eloquent and forceful advocate for a truly urban Los Angeles. And while it's made him the darling of the planners, it hasn't always gone down well with his constituents, which has caused him to straddle the issue on occasion.  Witness his approach to the controversial, 55-story Millenium Towers project in Hollywood. On the one hand, Garcetti has held out Hollywood as the "template" for the new Los Angele s.  On the other hand, after he finished first in the primary, he came out against the Millenium project .  The practical reality is that as mayor he'll have to straddle more than ever. That's what big-city politicians have to do.  But Garcetti's got a great opportunity here to push L.A. in the right direction. He's a charismatic young politician who talks about this issue in a winning way – maybe the first truly urban mayor the city has ever had. He's not saddled with the baggage of controversy that always followed Villaraigosa around and, thanks to Measure R, he doesn't have to fight the battle to actually build the transit. Villaraigosa already won that battle for him.  What Garcetti has to do is seize the moment. The city is changing. The transit is getting built. A lot of people are already bought into the idea of "elegant density". Even as he straddles, Garcetti can bring his constituents along by pushing the idea that new development in L.A. must revolve around the rail transit stations – responding to emerging market demand, improving those neighborhoods, and protecting existing single-family neighborhoods all at the same time. Eric, it's your moment. Jump on the train and get moving this morning.

After eight years in elected office in California, I can tell you that I often fell into the same trap as everybody else: chasing revenue. When you're up against the wall on budget problems, any new revenue – especially a boost in property or sales tax revenue – looks like the solution to all your problems. And it is – at first. How many times have I heard a city councilmember or a city manager say they're just trying to hang on for one more year until the revenue from some new subdivision "comes online." But as I've written before in this space ("The Multari Curve" ), the revenue boost is short-term and over time it's eaten up by increased service costs, meaning you always have to approve another subdivision to make up for the deficits on the one you approved in the past. Yesterday, Smart Growth America – the organization I spend most of my time working for – released a national report called " Building Better Budgets , " which makes the argument on a national scale that smart growth-style development can actually improve the fiscal situation of local governments by increasing revenue and decreasing cost. (Full disclosure: I was the project manager for this report.) Building Better Budgets has already gotten a lot of publicity in the blogosphere (see, for example, the APA's blog . And it's mostly a review of research nationally – not a California-specific piece of work. But there are a couple of things worth calling out for California planning practitioners. The first is the simple fact that infill development properly done, can have a huge positive impact on the bottom line in a city's operating budget. This is the main thing we were shooting for in Building Better Budgets. The argument that smart growth and infill development lower the cost of up-front infrastructure was well established. But the report highlighted the argument about operating costs as well.  For example, Smart Growth America scooped up some research from Charlotte, North Carolina, which found that conventional suburbs cost four times as much for the fire department to serve than smart growth neighborhoods – and SGA concluded that a smart growth approach could avoid the need for Charlotte to build two fire stations when the city is built out, saving about $13 million in capital costs and $8 million per year in operating costs. As a former elected official, the bottom line for me is that a smart growth development approach is a way out of the fiscal box. Conventional suburban development always loses money in the end. Traditionally, the only ways around the problem were to keep approving subdivisions (simply pushing the day of reckoning out into the future), charge enormous impact fees (which simply shift the cost rather than reduce it), or raise taxes. Smart growth can lower the cost of development, which is good for everybody – developers, homebuyers, taxpayers – and increase more revenue. It's a game-changer.

Well, California's at it again -- going in a different direction than the rest of the country. The Census Bureau recently released a new report showed that -- by at least one measure -- the nation's overall population density dropped by 6% between 2000 and 2010. But by this same measure, the population density of most California metro areas -- where almost 90% of Californians live -- is going up. And density's going up faster in the smaller counties. What gives? Overall, the Census Bureau concluded, the population density of the United States increased by 9.7%. But that's a meaningless figure. Since our nation's geographical area is not increasing, every time population goes up population density will go up too. So the Census Bureau tried something different -- a technique it calls "population-weighted density". It's the average population density from across all Census tracts in a particular geography -- the nation, the state, the metro area, whatever. Some demography nerds  are excited that the Census Bureau has finally adopted this approach. And, indeed, since every Census tract has about the same population (around 4,000 people), an average across all Census tracts ought to be pretty revealing. Nationwide, the Census Bureau found that, by this measurement, density dropped 6.0% in all metropolitan and micropolitan areas combined, and 5.5% in all metro areas. (Micropolitan areas are very small population centers that function like metro areas. Both metropolitan and micropolitan areas are delineated by county boundaries, and the vast majority of them nationwide are one county.) Of the 377 metro areas in the nation, population density dropped in 232 of them -- more than 60%. But not in California. In our world, using the population-weighted approach, the population density of 14 of state's 22 metro areas went up. And, as Figure 1 shows, density was more likely to go up in small metros than in larger ones. Itís not possible, based on the numbers the Census Bureau released, to calculate the overall density change for all metros in California. But the chart below gives you the idea. Population density increased the most -- by far -- in Madera County. Other places that saw population density go up were Shasta, Kings, Napa, Sutter, and the Inland Empire (Riverside and San Bernardino counties combined). Among those metros losing density were Sacramento, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Monterey. What's going on? Some of this makes sense and some of it is counter-intuitive. It makes sense that California metros are denser than the rest of the nation. But why would Madera, Kings, and Napa counties be densifying, while L.A. and San Francisco are not? Remember what's being measured here: The average number of persons per square mile for all the census tracts in each metro area (most often, in each county). In the case of Madera County -- admittedly the outlier -- what this probably means is that new single-family subdivisions are being built at a suburban scale (that is, the same density as across the river in Fresno County), which is a very high density compared to the traditional, more rural development pattern in the county. In a suburban county such as Ventura -- my home county -- it's likely that several things are going on: more small-lot single-family subdivisions are being built, more previously passed-over sites are being built on, and more apartments are being built. (Remember last week's blog , which showed that between 2011 and 2013 -- admittedly a different time period -- most new construction in Ventura was multifamily.) Fair enough. But why are densities going down in the big metros? This is harder to answer. At first I thought it might be because household size is going down. After all, the big population growth in these metros in the '80s, '90s, and [00s was from immigrants and high fertility rates among immigrant families, and now the Latino baby boom is over. But that's not it: According to the Census Bureau, average household size in California actually went up between 2000 and 2010, both statewide and in most counties such as L.A. My guess is that the aggregate number for these large metros is making smaller-scale trends -- that is, the dropping density in certain locations (most likely exurban areas) is more than making up for increasing or stable density in established locations. Imagine what LA-Orange might look like without the Antelope Valley, or San Francisco without Marin and eastern Contra Costa, or San Diego without East County. And anyway, as Figure 2 reminds us, these areas are already extremely dense. L.A. and San Francisco metros both have a weighted population density of about 12,000 persons per square mile. That's not nearly as much as New York, but itís way more than Chicago, Boston, or Washington. And it's six times as much as Madera.

Preliminary plans were recently revealed   Los Angeles's 77-year old union station modernization project. The plans (including four design concepts) focus on the integration of the stateís High Speed Rail system with the cityís historic transit hub. Additionally, the improvements aim to enhance the passenger experience by adding restaurants and retail, centralizing alternate terminals and improving connectivity and accessibility to its surrounding neighborhoods. The project team hopes to present its final design plan to the L.A. Metro board.  Pasadena's New General Plan: Praises and Controversies Pasadena Star-News After four years of work on the city's updated general plan, the Pasadena City Council has green-lighted moving to environmental review phase. Among its updated elements, perhaps the most praised is the addition of a component that focuses on promoting the city's public education system, and the most controversial being development caps for Old Pasadena -- 3,750 residential housing units and 2.5 million square feet for commercial development. Those who oppose the caps say the proposed limits will also cap economic development potential and conflict with the plan's guiding principle for a lively and walkable downtown. Another highly contested issue included proposals to increase density and allow for mixed use projects in commercial to residential transition areas, specifically in the North Lake commercial district. Council is expected to finalize the plan next summer.  CEQA Reform Moves Forward.... The Sacramento Bee Last Wednesday was a day for CEQA reform advancement as the Senate Environmental Quality Committee approved Senator Steinberg's SB 731 for CEQA modernization. Steinberg defended his proposal as an attempt to reduce project delays without compromising CEQA's original intent for environmental protections. Proponents of CEQA reform praise Steinberg for starting the reform process however are advocating for bigger changes than those that are being proposed in SB 731. But as the recent rejection of a broader reform approach shows, a new CEQA law would still have to satisfy those who oppose sweeping reform of the state's environmental law.  HSR Authority Gives Contractor Additional $96 Million Mercury News Last Thursday, the California HSR Authority voted to give its largest private contractor, Parsons Brinkerhoff, a two-year contract extension and an additional $96 million for the projectís architectural and engineering oversight. The extension allows the firm to continue its work and develop a revised business plan due next year. Responding to criticisms that the authority has failed to adequately monitor its outside contractors, the authority emphasized that it is prepared to exercise rigorous oversight over Parsons Brinkerhoff during the next two years. Bay Area Faces Potential Growth War Marin Independent Journal The Bay Areaís regional growth plan, Plan Bay Area, establishes a framework for the regionís future transportation and land use/housing choices that can accommodate its growing population while reducing GHG emissions (SB 375). The draft plan, released in March, identifies potential and priority growth areas, sparking strong opposition from both Marin County and San Mateo County. Opposition largely stems from the plan's alleged co-opt of land use controls- a power that fundamentally lies within the local government's jurisdiction. The public will be able to comment on the plan until May 16th before its adoption this summer.

Yesterday's California Supreme Court ruling on medical marijuana dispensaries put a longstanding legal dispute to rest and gave cities the green light to zone out such establishments. The question of whether cities can use zoning powers to ban pot dispensaries has been a growing battle in municipalities around California in the last few years. Some cities created headaches for themselves by attracting dispensaries because they failed to pass a ban – witness the spectacle of Los Angeles having to shut down 800 dispensaries by holding hearings one by one. Many cities endured lengthy hearings to pass temporary moratoria, angering local medical marijuana advocates and gambling that in the end the courts would uphold a ban. But just as frequently, cities had to try to figure out what to do with dispensaries that opened up in defiance of a local ban. That's the situation that the City of Riverside faced in the case decided by the Supreme Court yesterday. A dispensary opened up in Riverside in 2009 even though the city had banned such establishments. The city then had to sue the dispensary to shut it down, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In ruling for the city, the unanimous Supreme Court concluded that neither the 1996 ballot initiative that legalized medical marijuana nor the 2003 statute allowing dispensaries pre-empts the power of local governments to use land-use regulation to ban the dispensaries from within their borders. "We have consistently maintained that are but incremental steps toward freer access to medical marijuana, and the scope of these statutes is limited and circumscribed," wrote Justice Marvin Baxter for a unanimous court. "They merely declare that the conduct they describe cannot lead to arrest or conviction, or be abated as a nuisance, as violations of enumerated provisions of the Health and Safety Code. Nothing in the CUA or the MMP expressly or impliedly limits the inherent authority of a local jurisdiction, by its own ordinances, to regulate the use of its land, including the authority to provide that facilities for the distribution of medical marijuana will not be permitted to operate within its borders. The case began in 2009 when Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center opened a medical marijuana dispensary in Riverside despite the fact that the city had passed a ban. The city successfully obtained an injunction against the establishment's operation and the case went up the chain all the way to the Supreme Court. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether either the initiative or the statute explicitly or implicitly prohibits a zoning ban on pot dispensaries. The explicit question was easily dealt with by the court. As Baxter, noted, the initiative does not mention dispensaries, while "no provision of explicitly guarantees the availability of locations where such activities may occur, restricts the broad authority traditionally possessed by local jurisdictions to regulate zoning and land use planning within their borders, or requires local zoning and licensing laws to accommodate the cooperative or collective cultivation and distribution of medical marijuana. Regarding the possibility of an implicit pre-emption by the state, the court rejected that as well, concluding "there appears no attempt by the Legislature to fully occupy the field of medical marijuana regulation as a matter of statewide concern, or to partially occupy this field under circumstances indicating that further local regulation will not be tolerated." Indeed, quoting an amicus brief from the League of California Cities, the court bought the argument that communities are different and whereas pot dispensaries might be fine in one city, they could well create blight in another. Of course, there is nothing the in ruling that would prevent the state legislature rom passing another law pre-empting local regulation of pot dispensaries. The state has done so with regard to other land uses – schools, for example – and could do so here. Justice Goodwin Liu wrote a concurring opening arguing for a very broad interpretation of the court's language about implicit state pre-emption, essentially arguing that there should be a very high bar. The text of City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center , No. S198638, can be found here .

It's official: Apartments are the new California dream. At least for now. The Department of Finance's Demographic Research Unit reports that multi-family construction outstripped single-family construction over the past two years – not by much, but it did happen. Between 2011 and 2013, statewide about 40,000 multi-family housing units were constructed, compared to 39,000 single-family units. And of the single-family units, 3,000 were townhomes. Although this makes a good headline, it shouldn't be very surprising. There's been a general trend toward multifamily construction in California since the 1990s – it was temporarily reversed during the housing boom of 2000-2006 – and in the last couple of years rental apartments have been virtually the only housing product for which California developers can obtain financing. And the overall numbers are very low compared to the boom, when 200,000+ housing units were being constructed per year. The breakdown by county, showed in the chart below, shows that there is still a big difference between coastal and inland counties – but there's now a big difference between working-class inland counties and more affluent inland counties. For example, while Riverside County contructed only 18% apartments, the figure for neighboring San Bernardino was 35%. Placer County in suburban Sacramento had only 11% apartment construction, but the figure for Fresno was almost half and for Kern was 30%. The numbers in the coastal counties were off the charts – 87% in L.A; around 75% in Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Ventura; more than half in San Diego and Orange counties. These numbers will change as the housing market comes back. The inland counties are sitting on an enormous supply of entitled single-family lots, and as the market comes back those houses will be built. But the idea that the California dream includes multi-family housing – especially in the coastal areas – is now too deeply embedded to be denied.

I love a Parisian stroll as much as the next guy does, but I have friends in the planning community who make me look like Robert Moses. They ride fixies. They build parklets . They live in lofts. They go on urban hikes. Some don't own cars in Los Angeles.  And I have never heard one of them say, "man, I really wish L.A. was more like Bangladesh." Dhaka, for those of you who aren't up on your jute or abject poverty, is the 15 million-resident, 134-square-mile capital of Bangladesh, a country with an average annual income of $848. Dhaka has 114,000 residents per square mile . That's roughly the density of the mosh pit at a Justin Bieber concert, minus the shrieking. It's safe to assume that not even Bangladeshis consider impoverished, chaotic, unsanitary Dhaka to be an urban ideal. And yet Joel Kotkin, Los Angeles-based urban theorist and persistent critic of downtown revitalization, would have you believe that advocates of smart growth�which, these days, includes not only Andres Duany, Richard Florida, and CP&DR's own Bill Fulton but also the California Legislature and pretty much every planning director in the state�all want to turn their cities into putrid slums. This dystopia is the natural extension of advocating for higher density. At least, that's what Kotkin claims in a recent Forbes article, "Megacities and the Density Delusion: Why More People Doesn't Equal More Wealth." Kotkin's headline basically answers its own question: "megacities" include everything from Tokyo and New York to Lagos and Kolkata. On face, it's obvious that size and density do not correlate, directly or inversely, with wealth. They never have. If they did, Aspen and East Hampton would be the food-stamp capitals of America. This point should be so evident that it hardly warrants discussion. And yet, Kotkin goes on and on about how economic prosperity naturally stems from, and leads to, outward expansion but not necessarily increases in density. He even cites a study by an association of realtors that contends that 80% of adults prefer to live in single-family detached homes rather than apartments. Realtors, mind you. These would all be fun facts had Kotkin not set up his column with an oddly sinister, and nonsensical, premise. There is, apparently, a "cult of density" among urban planners these days. Specifically, Kotkin says that among "urban core theorists perhaps no idea is more widely accepted than the notion that higher population densities lead to more productivity and sustainable economic growth." I hear they also sacrifice goats on subway platforms. Kotkin implies that "higher" means "unlimited" and that these "theorists" believe that ever greater increments of density will result in ever higher increments of productivity. Just like ten helpings of quinoa is ten times healthier than is just one. As it turns out, if you Google "urban core theorists," all 10 hits on the first page are attributed to Kotkin's very column. Joel Kotkin is an accomplished scholar, so I assume he knows exactly what he's doing: he is willfully distorting the ideas most famously promoted by Jane Jacobs and now accepted widely in the planning community that say that density is desirable. But Jacobs never advocated for unlimited density, and neither does anyone else  I know. It's true, of course, that many progressive planners advocate high densities in the urban core. Full stop. They are not advocating for overcrowding, nor are they advocating for endless zones of density, as if there were no difference between good planning and bad planning, or between enthusiasm and extremism. For his part, Kotkin has long relegated urban cores to rarified sideshows and believed that the fringes will, and should, keep expanding geographically. It would be nice to have a debate about that notion. Planners should always ask themselves how far is too far, and they should ask what densities are optimal under what circumstances. Kotkin himself has, in the past, advanced plenty of compelling ideas about urban growth . He seems, however, to have doubled down on a sort of extremism that will never make its way into actual policy. Ultimately, the notion of comparing any American city to any hyperdense city, be it Mumbai or Hong Kong, is patently absurd. For San Francisco's density to mirror that of Dhaka, it would have to have a total population of 5.5 million; Los Angeles would have 57 million. The only way to do that would be to start importing Bangladeshis. (They would, presumably, all live in straw houses.) It's pretty clear that Kotkin is browbeating these hypothetical planners purely for show. He knows that a conservative Forbes readership, nestled in their big suburban houses, won't have a clue about the nuances of contemporary planning. And he's not about to educate them. Instead, he's going to use distortion and nameless straw men to trumpet an argument that literally no one will disagree with. That number includes my friends. They know that the streets of Bangladesh are no place for fixies. Or, in a humane world, for human beings.

As expected, President Obama has picked a mayor to succeed Ray LaHood as Secretary of Transportation. But it's not Los Angeles's Antonio Villaraigosa. It's Anthony Foxx, the mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina. As I've written before , there are good reasons to pick a mayor as DOT secretary. There are also good political reasons to pick Foxx. He's an impressive young African-American politician from a purple state that the Democratic Party has targeted for great things. (He was, of course, the host mayor for the Democratic National Convention last year and was given a keynote speaking slot.) It's also unlikely that he could win a statewide election, at least in the short run, given North Carolina's current politics. More than any other recent DOT secretary, the 41-year-old Foxx resembles Federico Pena, who was appointed by Bill Clinton when he the 46-year-old Latino mayor of Denver who had just built a major airport. Pena occasionally seemed overmatched by the job at first but eventually grew into it and later served as Energy Secretary as well. Foxx has no executive experience (the Charlotte mayor's job is part-time, paying $22,000 per year), but he comes to the job with impressive credentials as an advocate of transit, smart growth, and infill development. Since becoming mayor in 2009, he has continued to successfully implement the city's light-rail system, which was initiated by his Republican predecessor, Pat McCrory, who's now the governor. He installed the progressive smart growther Danny Pleasant as his transportation director and has pushed to add streetcar lines to the city's transit system, especially to African-American neighborhoods and the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, to the east of downtown. However, Foxx has clashed on the streetcar issue with McCrory, who has argued that the streetcar project will hurt the city's chances for funding a light-rail extension. And even though the Democrats have targeted for great things, he does a good job of maintaining the longstanding mayor tradition of maintaining a nonpartisan stance on practical issues. He did this on the topic of infrastructure the other day , and I watched him do it last summer at a Politico breakfast in Washington , when he and Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn, also a Democrat, talked about the upcoming political conventions in their cities. "Historically, these issues have been less partisan," Foxx said at that time. "Charlotte is growing by 30,000 people every year. People are coming for all kinds of reasons. Our challenge as a city is integrating thousands of new people without raising our air quality problems and commute times. Transit infrastructure is so critical." I met Foxx personally in 2010, when we both participated in the Mayor's Institute on City Design – a federally funded institute that allows mayors to get together to discuss urban design issues. At MICD, each mayor brings an urban design problem to the table and seek advice from other mayors and outside experts. I brought the idea of capping the 101 freeway in downtown Ventura. Foxx brought not an urban development issue but design and traffic problems associated with an affluent suburban employment center on the south side of Charlotte known as Ballantyne. It seemed somewhat odd that Foxx wouldn't bring an urban development or transit issue, but he was determined to address a problem that he truly believed was harming Charlotte's economic expansion. Concidentally, I'll be in Charlotte the week after next [ conducting a workshop with city officials on how best to direct public investment in five struggling outlying neighborhoods, most of which won't get rail transit. I'll provide an update at that time.

Jerry Brown may have given up on CEQA reform this year, but Darrell Steinberg has not. The Senate leader released details of his proposed reform of the California Environmental Quality Act yesterday. It's not sweeping reform. Rather, it contains a series of incremental changes designed to speed projects along. These include statewide significance treshholds on some topics including traffic; some reforms to CEQA litigation procedures; and $30 million in annual funding to the Strategic Growth Council to continue providing statewide planning grants. The details received a positive response from both CEQA reformers and CEQA defenders. The CEQA Working Group, a business and labor group that has called for major CEQA reform, called the bill "meaningful CEQA reform" , while Bruce Reznik of the Planning & Conservation League, which heads the CEQA Works coalition that has defended the law, was quoted as saying : "I think there's actually quite a bit that we can get behind." News coverage around the state focused on the possibility that the bill will speed construction of a new basketball arena in Sacramento, largely because that's what the Sacramento Bee focused on in its coverage. Here is what the bill would do as reported by Steinberg's office : 1. Statewide standardized environmental thresholds for the environmental impacts of traffic and noise for infill projects.  Projects meeting these thresholds would not be subject to lawsuits for those impacts under CEQA and would not be required to do more for those thresholds in environmental documents unless required by a local government.  Also excludes project aesthetics from CEQA consideration. These aspects of a project impacts are currently common elements for CEQA litigation and typically are most complicated for lead agencies and project proponents to analyze and mitigate. 2. Better state-level planning to reduce CEQA legal challenges and incentivize smart planning by amending the Government Code Specific Plan section to exclude unsubstantiated opinion for "new information" that would trigger additional revisions to the Environmental Impact Review. Also appropriates $30 million for SB 375 (of 2008) planning grants based on competitive process. This expands the current CEQA exemption for specific planning so that projects undertaken pursuant to that local plan and EIR are not subject to further review or CEQA lawsuits.  Further, local governments typically prioritize investment in smart growth plans. 3. CEQA streamlining for clean energy projects and formalizes a Renewable Energy Ombudsman position to expedite renewable siting. This would cut red tape on large renewable energy projects and establish a position in the Office of the Governor to champion renewable energy projects within the State Government. 4. CEQA lawsuit reforms to speed up disposition of legal challenges. Specifically: o Allows the lead agency to comply with notices and findings on EIR's through the Internet; o Allows the 30-day statute of limitations to bring actions under CEQA to be tolled by mutual agreement of parties in order to facilitate settlements; o Authorizes project proponents to request and pay for concurrent internet-based preparation of the administrative record for all projects to reduce litigation delays, saving months if not a year off project delays;o Allows courts to issue partial remands of environmental documents to reduce re-notice/recirculation/litigation delays where lead agencies have been found to be in violation of the law; o Directs the Attorney General to track lawsuits and report to the Legislature in order to provide lawmakers and the public with accurate information on whether or not CEQA is being abused by vexatious litigants

Among some conservative circles, it's become fashionable to say that liberals "hate America" any time Democrats try to do, well, anything. Notwithstanding the illogic of hating one's own home, I don't think that liberals hate America. I just think they (we) have different ideas about how to improve America. What's become disturbingly evident recently, however, is that the  Wall Street Journal , a conservative-leaning publication that generally likes big, wealthy things, really seems to have it in for California. Over the past year or so, the Journal has published no fewer than three op-eds, each more desperate than the last, lambasting California's land use policies and their supposed drain on the state's economy. The first two came from Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox, both of whom are venerable scholars who, though I don't agree with them, have long staked out their places in the spectrum of urban ideology. Recently, they were joined by Allysia Finley, a WSJ assistant editorial page editor with no apparent experience in land use. I can hear her senior editor saying, "oh, just cook up some crap about California. Readers in Middle America will eat it up."  Borrowing a metaphor from Middle America, Finley's column  "The Reverse-Joad Effect,"   posits that a recent trend of out-migration of lower-income residents from California doesn't just reflect a shaky economy and relatively high real estate prices in the broad sense. Finley has narrowed down the eastward exodus to—drumroll—restrictive land use policies. That is to say, of all the micro- and macro-economic effects that influence migration in and out of the country's largest state, it's land use that deserves the finger pointing. (Finley doesn't actually name any policies, but we'll get to that later.) You don't have to be a State of Jefferson separatist to admit that California has problems. I'm as loyal a California patriot as they come, so I know that our budget is a mess, our schools are distressed, and our cities, through improving, have a long way to go. But I'm still going to defend California, and its land-use policies, against specious reasoning and gross distortions. As I have done in response to Cox and Kotkin in the past, I'd like to extract a few of Finley's gems-though she has far more than either of them did—and offer a few further thoughts. Finley writes: It is ironic that many of the intended beneficiaries of California's liberal government are running for the state line—and that progressive policies appear to be what's driving them away. No, it's not ironic. That's how it's supposed to work. Benefiting from social services doesn't mean that recipients have to stay. In fact, they could have benefited so much that they became prosperous enough to move wherever they choose. Finley cites no studies or surveys to determine why people are leaving (or even that California's government is liberal; maybe she's too young to remember George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, or Arnold Schwarzenegger; maybe she's never even been to California). Even if there's a grain of truth to this, it's not the policies that are driving people away. If anything, it's the consequences of policies—intended and otherwise—that might be driving them away. I don't think anyone is saying, "man, that DU/acre regulation really sticks in my craw; Abilene, here we come." But Finley does't draw connections between, policies, outcomes, and responses.  For starters, zoning laws, which liberals favor to control "suburban sprawl," have constrained California's housing supply and ratcheted up prices. Naturally, high housing prices can turn people away; we'd all like to pay less. But blaming high housing prices on regulation--and not on supply and demand--seems a bit much. 3.4  million  people leave the state, and we start with  zoning laws ? Remind me to write to the authors of every major textbook on immigration and encourage them to update their first chapters. Finley implies that the healthiest states are those where development is allowed to roam fee. But, while suburbia may have been invented in Levittown, it was perfected and executed on its grandest scale in California, with zoning laws that are imposed on a city-by-city basis. California is chock-full of the suburban places that conservatives routinely equate with freedom. Interesting that some of those places are now full of vacant tract homes.  Of course, it's true that liberals generally tend to oppose sprawl. But opposing sprawl doesn't necessarily equate with constraining housing supply. Those liberal policies come in two varieties: first, many liberals favor controls that preserve open space and farmland; second, they often favor policies that promote compact development. Traditionally, these two approaches are supposed to work in tandem in order to ensure an adequate supply of housing in favorable locations while preserving land. Meanwhile, it's the conservatives—policymakers, developers, and, often, residents alike—who favor low-density, urban-fringe development and who enact restrictions against higher densities. We have plenty of that.  The problem is not that suburban  land use  policies don't work – they worked spectacularly. The problem is that  suburbia  doesn't work. It has made the state poorer and has implicitly limited housing options by reducing demand for high-density housing in cities.  That's why California enacted SB 375, the most significant anti-sprawl legislation in the country. Finley might like to know, though, that SB 375 operates on an incentive system. It has no power to actually restrict sprawl in places where cities want to permit it. She might further like to know that SB 375 wasn't adopted until 2008 and has scarcely been implemented. Land restrictions became common in high-income enclaves during the 1970s—coinciding with the burgeoning of California's real-estate bubble—and have increased income-based segregation and inequality. Al Joad, hit the brakes. OK, so at least we know we're not talking about SB 375.  (Finley could have at least cited the nominally liberal law CEQA -- assuming that she's heard of it -- but then she might have to acknowledge that it was signed by, um, Ronald Reagan.) But by alluding to generic liberal "land restrictions" from the 1970s, Finley makes it sound like conservatives have been clamoring to build townhomes and TOD's for the past three decades while it's the liberals who are forcing them into outer-ring McMansions. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Finley objects to segregation, income inequality, and almost any other land-use ill you care to name, then she might want to consider, oh, the single most consequential law in the history of California land use: Proposition 13, enacted in 1978. Prop. 13 – as conservative a law as there is – has contributed to sprawl in at least two ways. Most directly, it creates incentives for homeowners to stay put; thus impeding the free market and forcing the construction of new homes for, say, young families, on the urban fringe. Perhaps more importantly, it decimates cities' abilities to raise revenue, because it all but freezes revenues in older cities. (Meanwhile, never mind that, by some measures, the entire state is a donor state with respect to federal taxes.) Under Prop. 13, when people want good schools and other services, they go to new suburbs where, at least for a little while, brand-new houses sold at market rate generate enough tax revenue to support the services they want. At least until inflation and wear-and-tear catch up with those houses, and the next generation of suburbs appear on the horizon—or maybe they go to another state, with better-funded schools. That's the legacy of "conservative" land use policies. Then again, according to many conservatives (such as Robert Bruegemann  in  Sprawl: A Compact History ), this is what we ought to want -- so I'm not sure what Finley is complaining about. As for the very real problem of " income-based segregation and inequality ": Where in this country, from the hedges of Greenwich to the gates of Plano, do high-income enclaves  not  enact measures to control land use and restrict in-migration of "undesirable" neighbors? And since when are these enclaves usually  liberal ? Housing in California is on average 2.7 times more expensive than in Texas. The median house costs $459 per square foot in San Francisco and $323 in San Jose, but just $84 in Houston, according to chief economist Jed Kolko of the San-Francisco based real-estate firm  Trulia . Finley must have made a hell of a cherry pie after picking this data. First, higher housing per square foot doesn't necessarily equate with higher housing costs. Residents of San Francisco might live just as happily with less space than might their counterparts in Houston. Even so, San Franciscans pay be happy to pay more because they prefer it to Houston. It's a nicer city. It has more amenities. It offers more, higher-paying jobs. Yay, right? Right?? Housing in California is cheaper inland than on the coast, but good luck finding a job. Right. That's because land use policies that promote sprawl have forced people to live farther and farther from cities, to the point where jobs are inaccessible from many places where the housing is. Alternatively, liberal policies promoting higher density enable lower-income people to live closer to job centers.  The median home in Fresno costs $95 per square foot, but the unemployment rate is nearly 15%, compared with 6% in Houston. So, low housing prices are good because homes are affordable or bad because they correlate with weak employment? To say that Finley's logic is circular is an understatement. Her mind is doing donuts in a Walmart parking lot. California's staggering labor and energy costs…have helped kill hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs in California's interior. Note: Those are jobs that traditionally served as entry points to the middle class. When did California's "interior," wherever that is, have "hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs"? Note: pollution causes lung cancer and climate change. Comcast announced  in the fall that it is moving 1,000 call-center jobs out of California because of the "high cost of doing business." Facebook , eBay and LegalZoom have opened up Texas offices in the past few years, while PayPal, Yelp and Maxwell Technologies have pushed into Phoenix. So it's bad that genuine California-bred companies—many of which are shining stars on Dow Jones' ticker that still employ the majority of their workers in California—have become so successful that they can open satellite offices? Rents are prohibitive, and Sacramento takes 9.3% of every dollar over $49,000—and 13.3% over $1 million—that an individual or small business owner earns. Finally Finley cites a specific policy, and a liberal-ish one at that. How it relates to land use, I'm not sure. This tax rate places California 13 th  highest among the 50 states (New York is first, Texas is 44th; remind me what  city  Wall Street is in?).  It also takes less of that individual's real estate taxes because of Prop. 13. As for the 13.3% rate for million-dollar earners (one million dollars  per year !), that's the reason that poor people are moving out? If Finley wants poor people to remain in state, shouldn't California raise the top tax rates and lower them at the bottom so as to ease the burden on the poor? By contrast, small businesses in Texas have been sprouting like bluebonnets in the spring to meet the demands of an expanding population. Good for Texas. The population is expanding in Bangladesh too. Does that mean that Bangladesh offers a high quality of life or a favorable business climate? If population growth was an ideal economic development strategy, then we'd just ban birth control and cut taxes on liquor. More people mean more mouths to feed, bodies to clothe and homes to build. We're getting pretty low on Maslow's Hierarchy, aren't we? Ought states promote only those jobs that involve food, homebuilding, and apparel? Or should they promote something more diverse and more lucrative? And don't app developers, farmhands, and actors—i.e. people in every other economic sector—need food, clothing, and shelter too? In his State of the State address this year, Gov. Jerry Brown boasted: "We have the inventors, the dreamers, the entrepreneurs, the venture capitalists…" These are the people that Republicans used to call "job-creators."  Recall, however, that the Okies—poor as they may have been—provided a gigantic pool of labor that fueled California's postwar boom and helped transform the Golden State into the world's eighth-largest economy. Recall, however, that the Oakies were not mere migrants. They were refugees, forced to move westward under a cloud of misery and poverty. No matter how dehumanized the Oakies must have felt, just repeat after me: People are not a commodity. They are not a "pool of labor." They are not automatons to be stored in soulless boxes as night. People are individuals with talents, desires, freedom of movement and freedom of choice. I won't name the political systems that treat them otherwise, but they certainly aren't capitalism.  The Democrats who have had firm control of the state during its years of decline would do well to remember that a society's most valuable asset is always its people, regardless of their wealth or clout. And finally: California residents aren't "the state's people." They're Americans. They're free to work, come, and go as they please. Since few of Finley's arguments are actually valid, it occurs to me that the Journal's contempt is for people, companies, and, by extension, places that actually make things. In the Dakotas and Texas they pull money out of the ground, and on Wall Street many people make money out of little but spreadsheets and lies. In California—awful, depressed, repressive California—we make spacecraft that go to Mars. We make movies and music. We make iPads and iPhones and every computer-related piece of hardware and software imaginable. We make medical devices, and we devise techniques for which those devices are used. We make food. And, if spreadsheets and financiers wet your whistle, we even have venture capitalists who pay for all that stuff. What's great about living in a nation—and having a national economy—is that instead of fomenting petty (and not-so-petty) rivalries, we have the opportunity to complement each other and draw on each other's strengths. So, if Finley and her ilk want to move to shacks in a god-forsaken corner of Texas, that's their prerogative. If they want to live in a dynamic, diverse, wealthy, innovative, and, yes, sometimes turbulent place with other people who feel the same—then California's doors will always be open. And California's planners had better plan accordingly.  Fortunately for us--rich, poor, native, and newcomer alike--they already are. This column has been edited since its original posting.

After a bruising campaign that saw energy company AES spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, Redondo Beach voters have rejected a local ballot initiative that would have rezoned AES's beachfront power plant to parks and commercial uses. AES still must receive California Energy Commission approval to rebuild the plant, which must stop using ocean water to cool its steam turbines no later than 2020. Defeat of Measure A, however, makes CEC approval of continuing power plant operations more likely. A group of local residents – many of whom were also involved in the plan to kill the "Heart of the City" development plan a decade ago – placed Measure A on the ballot. The zone change could have been overruled by the Energy Commission but that would have been unlikely. "We don't understand why anybody would support building industrial blight in the harbor when we're trying to invest hundreds of millions in the revitalization of the harbor," Measure A supporter and City Council candidate Jim Light told the Daily Breeze. Light now faces Measure A opponent Jeff Ginsburg in a runoff election in May for the city council seat in District 1, located near the power plant. Measure A lost by a vote of 53%-47%. The initiative lost in every City Council district in the city except District 2, where the power plant is located. About 54% of the voters in District 2 supported Measure A. Even in District 2, however, mail voters supported the measure while precinct voters opposed it. The City Council and the Chamber of Commerce opposed the measure. The initiative's backers spent about $80,000 on their campaign, while the opponents spent more than $330,000, virtually of which came from AES.

A Sacramento Superior Court judge has – for the second time – ruled against three Peninsula cities who filed suit against the High-Speed Rail Authority under the California Environmental Quality Act. Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto originally filed suit in 2008, claiming that HSR had not adequately analyzed the Altamont Pass alignment before choosing the Pacheco Pass alignment, which will require the rail line to traverse the Peninsula. After Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny ordered HSR to make some changes to the EIR, the three cities sued again, arguing this time that because HSR is now considering a "blended" project, the environmental analysis is no longer sufficient. The "blended" project, which was approved by HSR in part because of pressure from the Peninsula cities, would be a two-track system in which the tracks are shared by HSR and the Caltrain commuter rail line. Previously, HSR had proposed a four-track system with HSR and Caltrain running on separate tracks. Kenny ruled that HSR had "fully complied" with his prior rulings. He further concluded that HSR had considered the two-track alternative in the original EIR, even though the four-track alternative was the EIR's focus. He said parts of the EIR dealt with phasing and the possibility of a blended system. He said the EIR's discussion of a blended alternative was sufficient even though the blended system was not explicitly set forth as an alternative. "Specifically, the discussion of the phased or blended system disclosed to the public, and to the decision-makers, what the changed effects of such a system would be," Kenny wrote. "That disclosure served the information purposes of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) whether the blended system in the Caltrain corridor is an interim step toward final construction or whether, as petitioners contend, it may be the final end point for construction." Pull-quote The judge said the EIR's discussion of a blended alternative was sufficient even though the blended system was not explicitly set forth as an alternative. He also rejected the cities' contention that the new emphasis on the blended approach should require the rail authority to recirculate its EIR, triggering a fresh public-review process. The environmental report's discussion of phasing and implementation of the blended system, Kenny wrote, "served the goal of meaningful public participation in the CEQA review process." The rail authority, Kenny wrote, "adequately disclosed to the public how the project would be implemented and described in adequate detail what the environmental consequences of such implementation would be." "Even if the process was not absolutely perfect, it was sufficient to comply with CEQA," Kenny wrote.