Blogs

The state Assembly has voted 46-22 to approve SB 375, the bill that ties together land use planning, transportation funding, affordable housing planning and greenhouse gas reductions.

The largely party-line vote followed a 40-minute debate in which Republican bill opponents argued the measure would erode local land use control. The mostly Democratic supporters rejected that argument, noting that the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties endorsed SB 375.

The State of California is nearly two months into the 2008-09 fiscal year, and it faces at least a $15 billion gap between current spending levels and tax revenues. Yet there is no sense of urgency at the state Capitol.

Earlier this month, I predicted that lawmakers would pass a budget by August 25 because that's the day the Democratic National Convention starts and every Democrat wants to be in Denver. Looks like I'm wrong again.

What really matters in economic development today? How about highway access – and labor cost – and energy cost?

Huh? What ever happened to the New Economy? You know, all those creative types sitting around coffee shops drinking lattes and typing on their laptops? (Which, by the way, is what I am doing right now.)

While the newspapers today are full of stories about Gov. Schwarzenegger's proposed "temporary" sales tax increase, the papers are not mentioning a proposed permanent shift of money away from local redevelopment agencies.

There's a national debate going on nowadays about how the issue of cities, metropolitan areas, and growth is lacking from our national debate. Recently, for example, UCLA planning professor Randall Crane argued that cities are the most important issue that the presidential candidates aren't talking about. But will the usual arguments about infrastructure and prosperity carry the day? Or do cities and metros need to play the climate change issue to be relevant in Washington again?

If Californians – and Americans -- are going to cut greenhouse gas emissions, they're going to have to drive less. But is wonking on policy really the best way to make this happen? Or do we have to create a compelling alternate vision for the next generation's lifestyle – a kind of Carbon-Free Futurama?