 |
Home | Issues & Actions | About |
Archive Page This page is available as an archive to previous versions of LandWatch websites. |
KUSP LandWatch
News
Week of October 4, 2010 to October 8, 2010
Week of October 4, 2010 to October 8, 2010
KUSP provided a brief Land Use Report on KUSP Radio from January 2003 to May 2016. Archives of past transcripts are available here.
Week of October 4, 2010 to October 8, 2010
- Monday, October 4, 2010
AB 32 And Proposition 23
- Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Vehicle Miles Traveled And Global Warming
- Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Can Land Use Policy Make Us Drive Less?
- Thursday, October 7, 2010
Land Use And The State Propositions
- Friday, October 8, 2010
A Ballot Measure To Save Farmland
The following Land Use Reports have been presented on KUSP Radio by Gary A. Patton. The Wittwer & Parkin law firm is located in Santa Cruz, California, and practices environmental and governmental law. As part of its practice, the law firm files litigation and takes other action on behalf of its clients, which are typically private individuals, governmental agencies, environmental organizations, or community groups. Whenever the Land Use Report comments on an issue with which the Wittwer & Parkin law firm is involved on behalf of a client, Mr. Patton will make this relationship clear, as part of his commentary. Mr. Patton’s comments do not represent the views of Wittwer & Parkin, LLP, KUSP Radio, nor of any of its sponsors.
| Monday, October 4, 2010 AB 32 And Proposition 23 |
 |
What if global warming really could cause significant disruption to the natural systems upon which human civilizations depend? What if increasing ocean acidification and the increase in ocean temperatures caused by global warming lead to the failure of coral formations around the globe, and the massive extinction of fish species upon which we depend to feed the world? What if the loss of snow pack in the Himalayas eliminates the water sources on which large parts of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh depend? Unfortunately, questions like this are far from hypothetical. There are a number of very plausible catastrophe scenarios related to the possible consequences of global warming. Plus lots of smaller problems; for instance, we can anticipate increased water supply problems in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, as global warming continues. On November 2nd, California voters will decide whether or not to take the possible consequences of global warming seriously. Proposition 23, sponsored by Texas-based oil companies would “suspend” the provisions of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, on the basis that unemployment is the target we really need to keep our eye on. This edition of the Land Use Report is giving you a heads up. There is more information on the KUSP website, and the future of human civilization may depend on your vote. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Tuesday, October 5, 2010 Vehicle Miles Traveled And Global Warming |
|
It is currently our official position, as Californians, that we want to emit fewer tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, as a way to fight global warming. Lots of techniques can be used, but one sure way is to drive less. About 40% of our greenhouse gas emissions are tied to transportation, and reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled, or VMT, is a sure strategy to fight global warming. Without being overdramatic, the future of human civilization may depend on our driving less. By enacting AB 32, “The “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” California officially declared that it would roll back the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, by the year 2020. That won’t be easy, particularly as efforts continue to “grow” the California economy. Some of the debate about Proposition 23 (which would essentially repeal AB 32), is an argument about whether carrying out our AB 32 commitments will lead to more economic growth and jobs, or to less economic growth and fewer jobs. Whichever side is right about the economic projections, it’s pretty clear, if we’re serious about AB 32, that we need to drive less (and burn less hydrocarbon fuel) to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Tomorrow, I’m talking about SB 375, a law that is supposed to help us do that. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Wednesday, October 6, 2010 Can Land Use Policy Make Us Drive Less? |
|
Senate Bill 375, enacted in 2008, is intended to help us reach our AB 32 greenhouse gas reduction goals. The foundation of the SB 375 program is a set of regional greenhouse gas reduction targets, set by the State Air Resources Board, or ARB. The idea is that new land use patterns will be established, requiring less driving, and that this will then let us reach the reduction targets. On Thursday, September 23rd, the ARB established those targets, which the building industry thought were “overreaching.” Environmental law advocates noted that the whole program will be more or less ineffective in any event. Check the references in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report for lots of information (and opinion) on SB 375. In the Monterey Bay Region, the reduction target set was “relatively modest,” to quote the Santa Cruz Sentinel. “Collectively, the jurisdictions in Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz County must maintain 2005 levels of greenhouse gas production through 2020, and achieve a five percent drop by 2035.” Since the AB 32 mandate is to roll back emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, it’s pretty clear that the ARB hasn’t figured out a formula that reflects a serious attempt to meet that goal in the transportation sector. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Thursday, October 7, 2010 Land Use And The State Propositions |
|
Voters should soon receive a ballot guide for the November 2nd election. If you have been unaware of that election, I hope you’ve now fully recovered from the accident or illness that placed you into a state of complete unconsciousness. Looking at the bright side, you have missed a lot really bad political ads! What I hope you won’t miss is that a number of the measures on the November 2nd ballot have implications for land use. Proposition 23 would essentially repeal AB 32. Unless it’s repealed, AB 32 will ultimately demand that we make real land use policy changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Proposition 21 would impose an $18 vehicle license fee to pay for State Parks. That would have a big impact in our Region. Proposition 22, if passed, would make it a lot harder to divert transportation funds to other purposes, which could mean more road projects. It could also mean less money for schools and social services. Proposition 26, if enacted, would make it really hard for local government to raise money to meet local needs, including the need to address land use related problems. If Proposition 26 passes with more votes than Proposition 21, it will also invalidate the Parks Fee Initiative, even if that measure does pass. There is a lot at stake on November 2nd. Study that ballot pamphlet! For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Friday, October 8, 2010 A Ballot Measure To Save Farmland |
|
The November 2nd election could well turn out to have watershed significance. Today, I thought I’d tell you about a local ballot initiative that will be on the ballot in Merced County, since the issue it addresses is of concern here in the Central Coast Region, too. Santa Cruz County already has a system to protect commercially viable farmland. That’s Measure J, as adopted by the voters in 1978. Most places, though, don’t provide any special protection for commercially productive farmland, and that includes Monterey County, where commercial farmland is at the foundation of the local economy, and where that farmland is arguably the “best” farmland in the world, from an economic perspective. In Merced County, which also has world-class agricultural land, a group called Citizens for Quality Growth has placed a farmland protection measure on the ballot as a citizen initiative. It’s Measure C. The organization is a diverse group of farmers, city dwellers, and concerned citizens who believe in sustainable smart growth. The “Save Farmland Initiative” will require citizen approval whenever agricultural land is re-zoned to residential. The effect of the measure is to direct housing into incorporated cities where the cost of services for police, fire, sewer, water, and schools are not a burden on County taxpayers. You can get more information on the KUSP website. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
Archives of past transcripts are available here
|
CONTACT 306 Capitol Street #101 PO Box 1876 Phone (831) 759-2824 Fax (831) 759-2825 |
|