This Allen Matkins "E-Alert"
is first in a series concerning "ballot box planning." In this Part One,
we introduce the concept of ballot box planning. Part Two will discuss the
"nuts and bolts" of initiatives and referenda, including specific
strategies and potential pitfalls.
Ballot Box Planning
"Ballot box planning" is the phrase often used to
describe local ballot (election) measures that seek to control—through
local initiatives or referenda—local planning decisions and regulations.
Through this "direct legislative power," voters may, for example, seek to
enact growth management measures, approve or overturn specific development
projects, change general plan policies or enact new planning
regulations.
Modernly, ballot box planning often focuses on either
local growth issues, at either the city-wide or county-wide level, in a
particular area of the city or county, or on a specific project of a
certain size or type. This phenomenon is not new in California. Popular in
the 1970s and 1980s, growth management was overshadowed by the recession
of the early 1990s. But with the sustained economic run of property
development since the late 1990s, growth management and local ballot
measures are again in the news.
And there is no sign that the
popular interest in such voter-based efforts is waning. On a state-wide
basis, our Governor is a recent example of the power of the people's
franchise. According to an October 2000 study conducted by the Public
Policy Institute (before Governor Schwarzenegger took office), 56% of
California residents believed that ballot box decisions were better than
those made by the Governor and State Legislature, while 7 out of 10
believed that initiatives brought up important public policy issues that
had not been adequately addressed.
Variety of Approaches
Over the last few decades, local land use
initiatives have employed a variety of approaches: some set annual numeric
limitations on new development (for example, 500 homes/year or 1,000,000
square feet of new commercial development per year, etc.), others have set
annual growth rates (e.g., no more than 1% new growth), and still others
have established service and facility performance standards that limit new
growth until quantifiable service goals are achieved (for such services
and facilities as traffic, water, sewer, schools, and the
like).
While some ballot measures relate to growth in general,
others have sought a "yes" or "no" vote for a particular development
project. And many have frozen existing regulations by requiring voter
approval any time a general plan amendment, rezoning, or other action is
involved, or when a particular project is larger than a set standard
(e.g., vote needed for any project larger than 10 residential units).
Likewise, some have drawn a boundary limit around a jurisdiction,
precluding urban development beyond that line without voter approval. And
some measures combine some or all of these different
approaches.
The Political
Dilemma
Voter-sponsored local measures
are not a panacea for growth-related woes, a fact that often places local
legislative representatives—city councils and county boards of
supervisors—in a politically untenable position. On the one hand, elected
officials cannot ignore their constituents’ growing dissatisfaction
regarding growth, at least if they want to stay in office. On the other,
they often know too well that ballot measures can sometimes do as much
harm as good as relates to future planning and growth management. And they
know that any solution must strike a balance between the many competing
local, regional, and statewide issues facing Californians, not just
traffic congestion or other irritants to their
constituents.
Walking the thin line between voter dissatisfaction
and reasonable planning, city councils and county supervisors may decide
to draft their own agency-sponsored ballot measure to compete with a
voter-sponsored initiative. Yet these "countermeasures" may be fraught
with problems, as recent cases have shown. Competing growth management
measures sometimes split the vote, so that neither measure passes, despite
a majority desire for some form of growth management. Agency-sponsored
measures also can be subject to more stringent requirements, such as CEQA
compliance, and so may be more difficult to prepare.
Conclusion
Ballot box
planning is a fascinating and vital aspect of land use planning in
California today, and is not likely to lose its appeal, especially given
the increasingly political nature of land development in
California.
|
|
 |
||||
 |
