By BILL, a 36-year Santa Monica resident,
THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN HAS NOT BEEN thoroughly updated since the 1980s. Revisions are underway and two of its key elements — circulation (traffic) and land use (LUCE) — have been particularly problematic.
Over the last two years, city staff has promulgated a “Smart Growth” planning model for Santa Monica’s future that would concentrate new development downtown and along major boulevards. New housing, especially multi-family buildings, would be encouraged along transit corridors and in commercial/industrial areas complete with neighborhood serving retail. Staff has pushed pedestrian-friendly, vehicle restricting streets with narrower traffic lanes, curb bumpouts, traffic islands, wider sidewalks and “bus and bicycle only" lanes.
In recent weeks, articles in both the LA Weekly and the Los Angeles Times have debunked the Smart Growth myth. The LA Weekly (June, 1-7, 2007) called Smart Growth, “A Utopian planning vision that seeks to half urban sprawl,” cites Playa Vista as a typical Smart Growth development and said that with Smart Growth planning, "you can expect to give up the yard, the car and learn to love density.”
“Livable Santa Monica” or “Santamonica — Smartgrowth” is a 25 member Yahoo Internet group. They’ve posted their desire,“a Santa Monica that is more livable and sustainable.” Their purpose: “direct and coordinate the right kind of growth in the right places.”
They continue, “We are facing increasing traffic congestion and our streets are often unsafe for our kids to walk and bike to school. Many suffer from illness and obesity brought on by physical inactivity.”
Blaming traffic congestion for obese kids lacking physical activity is so stupefying, it must be an inside joke.
Yet, they go on to bemoan, “finding daily needs close to home and a lack of affordable housing” which doesn’t make any sense, either. However, they brag that Santa Monica is in the process of integrating Smart Growth principles into its Sustainable City Program. If that’s true, we’re headed for disaster.
According to the LA Weekly, typical Smart Growth positions are "cars are bad”and “cities should be composed of villages where residents can walk to restaurants and markets." (Humm. Sounds exactly like that horrendous 325 unit "Village” proposed for the Civic Center.) Housing and businesses should be in multi-story buildings to protect open space, preferably on big streets so residents can commute to jobs via public transit.
“Livable Santa Monica" toes the Smart Growth line. Their goal is "sustainable development that serves the economy, the community, and the environment” which is accomplished by, “creating compact, pedestrian and bike-friendly neighborhood villages located along transit corridors." It’s no surprise that their key players include local developers and their employees, clamorous environmentalists, bike/transit advocates and a surfsantamonica.com columnist who frequently touts the party line.
According to an LA Times study (June 30, 2007), “use of mass transit is based on convenience” — as I wrote in these pages, March 12, 2007, Page 4, “Are we being taken for a ride on the BBB?" If transit isn’t convenient and, I might add, pleasant and safe, people won’t climb on board no matter how gridlocked streets are.
This might come as a shock to Smart Growthers, but the LA Times concluded,“In Southern California, the new, denser transit-based housing projects could actually lead to more congestion rather than less.”
Statistics gathered by the Southern California Association of Governments show that job centers are moving away from transit lines rather than toward them." In addition, public transit users living near transit lines who changes jobs almost certainly wind up back in their cars and SUVs.
Studies indicate that building housing near transit hubs or routes does not reduce the use of cars or guarantee residents will even use transit. Even worse, neighborhood serving “retail integrated into these projects draws many more motor vehicles into the area, putting an additional traffic burden on areas where relief had been promised.”
Smart Growthers and city planners are whistling Dixie when they speculate that dedicated bus/bike only lanes, for example, will encourage more people to abandon their private vehicles. The assertion that putting physical impediments in streets that slow and jam traffic will "force” people onto bikes or busses is another myth.
The Smart Growth model is deeply flawed and will not mitigate the many negative affects of even moderately larger developments or make them palatable. With the update to the general plan and LUCE still a work in progress, there’s time to correct a disastrous course in planning direction.
And, City Council should beware of impractical and idealistic candidates vying for three open Planning Commission seats who may be locked into an agenda that’s also a giant stumble toward bedlam.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 9, 2007. Read the original PDF.