yes of course they should. the alternative is where developers have to pay for improvements to roads and infrastructure to mitigate increased congestion, which only adds to the problem. this solution is better for everyone.

Definitely.

I doubt California will ever be able to pass a law that could tear Californians away from their cars, but the above sounds like a positive step. As someone who lived in New York City and spent a lot of time in Boston and Washington, D.C., cities with very efficient and widespread public transportation, I have this mindset of trying to locate myself and whatever I do with the nearest (subway, mass transit, etc.) station in mind ("How many transfers, how many blocks from a station?" Stuff like that.)

Old eastern cities have the benefit of being dense and compact, but sprawl in California (in Southern California and even the Bay Area) is particularly bad. So I was really disappointed that public transportation outside of downtown San Francisco is a bid sparse and that BART's stations are so far and few in between and really only good for long haul commuting. But say you need to get somewhere using MUNI or the BART. Especially so with the BART, the train will take you to the station, but then it's up to you to find a way to cover the last 1 or 2 miles to the destination.

The point is, public transportation at least in the Bay Area seems to have been developed as an afterthought to growth. While the tracks are laid, the sprawl was already there. It's no surprise people want to move to California, but growth and development of new communities really need to plan communities with public transportation in mind. Shops, businesses and housing should cluster around public transportation stations and transit hubs so that most places of interest are within walkable distance from the time he gets off a bus or train.

Do that, and people will at least think: drive (and pay for gas and possibly parking, valet, tolls) or take a train (fare and a 10-15 minute walk each way).

maybe after they pass this legislation they can tell us all how to chew our food too.

They should certainly try this but I don't know how effective it will be.

yes youre right serial. bart was built in the late 60s, after all of the housing tracts in the inner core of the bay area were already in place (most housing in this area was built after WWII), and it was originally designed as a commuter system for business people traveling into SF - this explains why the seats are upholstered, the trains are carpeted, and the stations more often than not feature parking lots that are larger than the actual station... it was supposed to be a plush way for these people to get to work. a lot of cities backed out of the plan at the time (the largest one would be san jose - oops! bet they wished they'd signed on now!!). fast forward 30-odd years and the bay area has changed - there are employment hubs in all areas of the bay area, not everyone is heading to one central location (SF financial district) and development on the outskirts of the area has been fast and furious (cities in the outer east bay have had 125% growth since 2000). i think bart is sincerely lacking for most commuters because of the reasons you bring up... but there is a solution - increased traffic on existing bart lines, and in cities along the line, light rail in place as a connector, with housing clustered around it.

every city in america used to have light rail in place - even LA. there were trollies everywhere. they were all destroyed and replaced by busses in the 40s and 50s thanks to the car and highway lobbies, so unfortunately the infrastructure is gone... but we're heading back in that direction now. something no one mentions that is a HUGE impediment to development of existing train lines is that the huge train companies have a lot of power when it comes to what types of trains move on their tracks. many of them are reserved for goods movement, and in order to move people they are going to have to agree to give right of way to commuter trains... something they aren't really swaying on at the moment, and something that local cities in some instances are not too keen on as it would increase noise and traffic in their neighborhoods. this is a huge problem that various agencies are working on right now.

cabaker this would be an incentive at the city/developer level. they aren't going to wrangle your car keys out of your hand, so don't worry.

isnt the real estate closer to the city already expensive? so won't this just push the poorer people out to the suburbs where they won't be able to afford the gas to drive to get to work?

we also have affordable housing requirements here... that require developers to build a certain ratio of affordable homes in each development.... and often they are required to be near transit. also...and this is bad if you own a house here... affordability is really skyrocketing in the bay area. overall, home prices have dropped about 200k in the past year.

cabaker- I really see this as a socal issue. The housing in the city is not more expensive than the housing in the 'burbs. People fled to the suburbs, and now traffic is such a huge issue there, their public transit (light rail anyway) is also an afterthought, and sprawl and poor urban planning has contributed to not only an environmental disaster, but just a real headache for commuters. In addition, they have started rebuilding the downtown in order to support some urban renewal. And poorer people there do also live in the suburbs. I lived in Pasadena, and while most areas are very nice, there are also a lot of low-income areas, low income is not concentrated to the downtown. I think it's a great move for socal, and people have been trying to encourage people to live by their workplaces there for a few years now. The thing is, the housing needs to be there!

As far as other cities, it would be good to watch and see what happens, and if there are some ideas of how to replicate that. But seriously, it is a socal urban planning issue, not an issue of liberals trying to prevent you from destroying the environment!

I don't see how development laws that consider how best to serve the people without adding to or creating problems is the government unreasonably telling people what to do. It falls under promoting the common good - and recognizes that our freedoms come with responsibilities - to the individual and to the group.

stephley- yeah, it's urban planning for all the cities that didn't master the basics of how to prevent sprawl that NYC, Portland and other cities with good public transit did. It's not like urban planning is some super new idea liberals have to tear you away from your cars; there are serious issues to address. It took me like 50 minutes to drive from Pasadena to downtown LA; a distance of about 5 miles. Luckily, I was on one of the two or three light rail lines, so I was able to take that. But the westside has NOTHING in the way of rail! And there just weren't enough places to live downtown.

I live on the Westside of LA and take the bus all the time. I've gone to Universal City Walk using the bus and subway. It was easier getting around DC on the subway there, but it is doable here. I rent a car every couple of months to run out of the way errands and do big grocery shopping, but otherwise, I do well without a car here.

I think there's a way to get to Pasadena by bus, just haven't tried yet!

Took the words out of my mouth, cabaker. If there is a demand for housing closer to the city, it will be built. The government doesn't need to tell us where to build houses.

I think suburban developments are absolutely one of the biggest contributors to vehicle emissions. Nothing is convenient or planned well enough to encourage anything but driving. I know in my parents' neighborhood, just walking to the bus stop could take twenty minutes that someone might not have, or would be willing to spare.

I think a lot of public transportation is also unreliable. People won't take a bus if they can't reasonably guarantee that they will make it to work on time.

This is a non-issue where I live. But my answer is no. Although I would say no, I am going to live wherever the hell I want to live when I am buying with my money. And as a business owner I can buy whatever land that can be sold to me and wherever it is. This kind of legislation scares the sh!t out of me.

Some of us would also rather eat glass than live in a city.

Maybe I'm not understanding the details, but people are still free to live wherever the hell they want--there are just incentives for builders to develop in certain places making commuting/public transportation easier. If the government starts forcibly moving people out of their homes and relocating them, then I'd have a problem. Besides, with America constantly b*tching about driving costs, it sounds like this is a reasonable solution to help people alleviate the stress of commuting. My family and friends are always telling me that they wish they could rely on public transportation, but it's just not available in their areas. I know not everyone wants to live in such a place, but many people do. Personally I would never live anywhere that requires a car. The suburbs scare me.

By offering incentives to build in once place, they're de facto punishing those building anywhere else.

If people really want to live closer, there will be a demand for that kind of housing and the profits will be incentive enough!

"By offering incentives to build in once place, they're de facto punishing those building anywhere else."

But they still have a choice to build elsewhere and they can charge a premium for the people who really want to live out there. I guess we are just disagreeing on whether the government has the right to protect the environment. I think they do & I'm guessing Vespa and GS think that the market will just work that out? I don't think this is any different than a luxury tax or sin tax--if you want to live extravagantly, you are free to do so, you just have to pay the price.

People who want to live in the suburbs and beyond also want taxpayers to build roads to link them to everything else, want new police facilities to protect them, want schools and hospitals built for them... there's nothing wrong with lawmakers looking at what works best for all of us in the long run.

I also don't see how it's different from a luxury tax or a sin tax, and as you might guess I'm opposed to those, too.

Regarding the extra roads and police, those are legitimate functions of government, so I would have no problem with property taxes paying for them.

Why are extra roads and police more legitimate functions of government than education or healthcare?

Because they are not something we can do ourselves, they need to be done collectively. Leaving police and roads up to the individual would be disastrous. You can't save your money to buy a road to your house. You can, however, save your money to pay for an education or for health insurance or health care.

So you have a list of what you do and don't think is fair to ask you to pay for so that you can move out into the country, but lawmakers are out of line if they say let's make the taxes go further by planning development more thoughtfully?

I don't have a list, I have a principle. If it protects me from others, it's okay. If it protects me from myself, it's not.

What about people who want to be protected from the pollution which adds to global warming which puts us all at risk? Lawmakers work for all of us, at least in theory.

Vespa, that's a good point. But where do we stand on things like people who make cigarettes? I mean, that is a product that kills people, yet it's clearly an issue of personal decision. So should the government stop a company that produced a known toxic product from being sold or is this a matter of personal choice?

Believe it or not, this is not a loaded question, I am always interested in where people fall on issues like this.

As long as we're properly warned about the dangers, I don't have a problem with selling cigarettes. It's a personal choice just like eating a cheeseburger.

People shouldn't be allowed to eat cheeseburgers either. It's a slippery slope.

Commuting far distances in gas guzzling cars is not a personal choice as it hurts everyone.
Please don't blow smoke in my face either.
And please don't make my insurance rates go up because of a personal choice to eat fatty food and not exercise.

Someday foreign oil producers will refuse to sell to us, and we will have drilled every ounce from our shores, and we won't have energy to fuel our ships, tanks, and aircraft. We will be sitting ducks then for anybody who wants to walk in and take over our country.
And then all the NRA members can shoot the enemy soldiers when they walk on their property.

"And please don't make my insurance rates go up because of a personal choice to eat fatty food and not exercise."

Right on janneth! And when we finally get socialized medicine in this country, we'll have to make sure we have compulsory aerobics sessions. Otherwise we might pay more in our taxes for lazy people!

"Someday foreign oil producers will refuse to sell to us, and we will have drilled every ounce from our shores, and we won't have energy to fuel our ships, tanks, and aircraft."

Yes, this seems reasonable. Good point.

I see since I've left the sarcastic tone hasn't died down at all. Too bad.

I wonder how people in Marin County, Ca would feel about this...

Being north of Marin, I say YES PLEASE.

Vespa, you've just made my day much easier. You responded exactly how I was planning to respond to all those comments. Bravo.

Seems like a good idea, I am not sure how successful that would be in California but its a great alternative for those that do not have cars and want to take public transportation, it gives options where people can live.

I'm very happy where I live that CTA is awesome and that if I don't want to drive - I don't have to, I don't even have to drive to the burbs outside my city. Shout out to Chicago - even with the snow.

Marin Co. being the one thing preventing BART from coming up north.

The Marin County that didn't want Habitat for Humanity building there?

"If passed by the Senate, the measure would tweak the current regional planning process by setting some new goals to reduce emissions. This would be the nation’s most comprehensive effort to cut back on sprawl and would essentially reward cities and counties that comply with efforts to minimize driving (and thereby emissions)."

Yeaaaah riiiiighhhht. I guess California must have forgotten about their own Zero-Emission Vehicle mandate from the 1990's. That would have been a revolutionary change. F*cking Alan Lloyd and CARB.

Thanks, Mich!

And Janneth, are you really trying to say the government should regulate what we eat and how much we excercise?

If you think that Janneth, I got a book you should check out. It's called 1984.

Oh I love 1984! Almost as much as the Communist Manifesto.

I escaped from California just about two years ago and this is the kind of statist thuggery that reminds me why. The weather just wasn't a good enough excuse to stay.

Probably, Steph. We've been trying to pass a 1/4 cent sales tax for years now in order to fund the transit system for the thousands of commuters that clog up the ONE main freeway every single day. Sonoma County is BEGGING for the rail system but Marin doesn't want to do it.

Man I loved reading 1984 (and the Manifesto for that matter). Does that make me weird

I think what's funny is that these sort of programs actually help existing properties increase in value. Okay, not funny, as in you would laugh out loud, but rather funny in the way that you'd furrow your brow and think: "Hmmmm. That's funny." So I guess my point is, does this really hurt people or just certain people?

SHOUT OUT to CHICAGO@

No! Most people won't change their habits (by moving, taking the bus or train) anyway