Senator George Runner
Serving the 17th District which incorporates portions of the Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Ventura and Kern counties.

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Governor Schwarzenegger's deadline to sign or veto bills that were crafted and passed by the Legislature in 2008 was Sept. 30. The Governor rejected many good bills, saying in his veto message that due to a late budget he would only sign bills that are critical to the state.

One bill I wish he would have rejected is Senate Bill 375, which will help implement AB 32 by amending programs that are beyond the current authority of the state Air Resources Board. Specifically, SB 375 will mandate that 17 regional transportation planning agencies around the state adopt, by Sept. 30, 2010, a so-called "sustainable communities strategy" that tells the state how the region will meet specific greenhouse-gas reduction targets for 2020 and 2035, as set by the 11 unelected members of the state Air Resources Board.

In other words, the state will take a big chunk of control away from the local leaders who were elected by the People to plan our communities.

My colleague Senator Dave Cox, of Sacramento, wrote the following summary on the measure:

The intent of the sponsors of SB 375 is to change the development patterns of cities and counties inward, and away from "sprawl" that in their mind encourages long commutes, increases traffic, air pollution and global warming.

What this bill really promotes, in my mind, is social engineering by the State of California that takes away the traditional role of city councilmembers and county supervisors in planning the development of their local communities.

Let me just mention a few important points that caused me to vote against the bill.

Some people like to live in dense downtowns in small condominiums. If they do there are housing options available to them. If a family wants a two-story house on a large lot in a suburban area, they should have that option too. What SB 375 says is that if a city has too much of those kind of houses, they will lose transportation money that the city uses to build roads to those developments. In other words, these houses will be more expensive, or not be built at all.

SB 375 says that home builders who agree to build dense urban-style housing are given immunity from lawsuits that environmental organizations have used in the past to discourage development. A builder who builds a commercial or office development, or one that is defined as "sprawl," would still be subjected to these lawsuits.

SB 375 ignores the development trends that are taking place nationwide, which de-emphasize an urban core and instead develop various "job centers" both downtown and in suburban areas. Local officials have been and continue to find employers who wish to locate developments in these areas with good schools where families with children prefer to live. And these families commutes are shorter than those who choose to live downtown.
The main objection I had is the command and control aspect of SB 375. Our society is built on the concept that citizens have free choice. This bill moves toward taking some of that choice away.