10,000 signatures vs. "out of control" traffic

  A busy day for traffic guru Steve Hymon. Here he is again:

This just in from the Republic of Santa Monica: A group calling themselves the Residents' Initiative to Fight Traffic said today that they turned in 10,295 signatures to the city to qualify a November ballot measure that would limit commercial development in the city for the next 15 years.

"Out of control" is how one member of the group described development in the city-by-the-sea. Signatures still have to be counted -- and verified. The magic number: about 5,800.

Stay tuned. And in the meantime, check out the group (RIFT, get it?) at its website.

-- Veronique de Turenne

Photo: Lori Shepler / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[David V]

Whoa--You know you're really left-wing when the LA Times starts mocking you!

[Veronique]

Awww, we're not mocking - just look at that traffic photo!

Veronique

[Matt L]

I understand and empathize with this group's concerns, but this seems like a very short-sighted and misinformed solution. No commercial development means no new taxes for Santa Monica, which means less money for roads and infrastructure, which means worse traffic in the future. Plus a stagnant city economy. Of course if this group wanted to raise their own property and/or sales taxes at the same time to offset these lost funds, then maybe you'd have something. But I seriously doubt they'd support that either. So you have the same typical California demands: No airport expansions, no new development, no new taxes; but please reduce traffic and give more money to our schools. Wouldn't it be nice if fantasies like these were really possible? Sadly miracles don't exist, so the only solution is to put our money where our (complaining) mouths are and invest in infrastructure including mass transit--even if that means raising taxes or (gasp) encouraging development to pay for it.

[Stephen L.]

Right on! We need some of this in Beverly Hills. Maybe it's not the same petition, but we need some resident action, because it seems like the residents always get the short end of the stick.

Does anyone know what "limit" means? Is it a ban in all but name?

[Kit]

Matt, I'm with you. A lot of this sort of wrongheaded thinking is covered in Thomas Sowell's "Economic Facts and Fallacies." Limiting development in Santa Monica will not limit development, it will just push it outside the city limits So, Santa Monica saves itself a few buildings and the traffic that goes with them by pushing both onto its neighbors. The existing residents of Santa Monica want to protect what they have at the expense of surrounding communities and any future new residents and businesses that might want to come into the area. It's old-fashioned NIMBYism masquerading as so-called "smart growth."

[Matt A.]

I agree with Matt and Kit: what a surprise to find two concise, intelligent comments on the problem.

I wonder why RIFT doesn't get behind the subway to the sea, or other mass transit solutions to traffic problems. Santa Monica is such a wasted opportunity, low density, no growth, no opportunity to move there without a small fortune. Santa Monica, like a lot of the Westside and South Bay has lined the pockets of its homeowners using restrictions on growth to limit the supply of housing, and thus raise the price. Development that should have happened in the 70s and 80s, which would have evolved into affordable housing for you and me today, were choked off. And so was mass transit, as Santa Monica niavely hoped its anti-development streak would freeze the city the way it was 20 years ago, when there was much less traffic.

Santa Monica's bad choices are on display in this article: still they cling to the no-density approach to solving traffic, instead of the mass-transit density approach that would fix so many other problems.

[Juanucho]

They ought to consider this for parts of Los Angeles. But this might cut the flow of developer money to the Council Members and the Mayor.

[Josh]

If Santa Monica allowed more residential development in their city, people would be able to live in the same city they work in and traffic would be dramatically reduced. Side benefit...this would also be good for the environment. I'm a Santa Monica resident and would be all for more development as a solution to the traffic. Next step, bring the rail lines to the sea!

[Richard]

The LA region's population will rise by millions in the coming decade, and they will be more traffic on the roads generally. Banning new development will not make a real difference as a result - it will only damage the economy of Santa Monica. Unless you want your town covered over by new freeways, the only solution is a subway/s. Perhaps these campaigners could organize a petition in favor of public transit construction instead of attempting to strangle their town's business?

[susan]

Santa Monica's problem is that it has built no affordable housing in ages, its old and crumbling rent-controlled properties have been largely torn down (what happens to them when landlords don't get enough rent to justify keeping the place up and would rather sell soon as they can get the tenants out), so almost everyone has to commute to work in Santa Monica.

As Bill Rosendahl, in neighboring CD11 keeps saying, Santa Monica has created a lot of jobs but no affordable housing, so all the traffic comes through L A, making West L A residents mad as hell. 80% of the traffic along Pico and Olympic is drive through from around Highland all the way through Beverly Hills, West L A and Brentwood. These areas have been screaming for traffic relief, and his is why the Mayor and CD5's Jack Weiss have instituted the Pico-Olympic plan, a much modified and less draconian version of Zev Yaroslavksy's proposesd One Way plan of last year.

But now the residents of L A are objecting to all kinds of things, from losing parking meters for an extra hour in rush hour for merchants, to residents worried about cut-through traffic in their neighborhoods. Traffic cuts to side streets when traffic is stalled, so this should have the opposite effect, but they won't hear of even trying it without an expensive EIR they're suing the city for. When the City tried to relieve the concerns about merchant meter parking by offering them temp street parking permits, the residents objected to that. So they won't cooperate with the merchants for a "fix," but have objections up every sleeve.

However, the one really legitimate concern is the one about Santa Monica, which won't participate in the Pico-Olympic Plan, which would then back traffic up into West L A. This is especially selfish since the huge bulk of traffic going through West L A is going to jobs in Santa Monica.

So, it does make sense for Santa Monica to limit new business growth until it builds affordable housing to replace what's being torn down -- they can't replace it all with high-priced luxury condos. They should also participate in a plan with L A and Beverly Hills to keep traffic moving all along the main corridors, since they're responsible for most of it. Pretty insular for such a "progressive" city.

[epm222]

Where in Santa Monica was that photo taken?

[Veronique]

That's right at the California Incline, just west (south?) of the Santa Monica Pier.

[Kit]

Straight up, Matt A, Susan and Josh. I struggle to stay in an apartment reasonably close to my job in Santa Monica, because I know what a toll commuting takes on one's health, finances and sanity. It's obvious that BH, SM and South Bay are happy to take one's labor, but don't want you living there unless you make six figures and up. "Progressive" indeed.

[PC]

TRAFFIC ISN'T CAUSED BY DEVELOPMENT. ITS CAUSED BY **CARS** CARS, CARS CARS - EVERYWHERE!! WHY NOT LIGHT RAIL? WHY NOT AN UNDERGROUND?? SOMETHING OTHER THAN BUSES??

[Brad]

The answer is auto alternatives like the subway to the sea and the expo line phase two. The answer is not to limit growth.

[Dan W.]

"Santa Monica's bad choices are on display in this article: still they cling to the no-density approach to solving traffic, instead of the mass-transit density approach that would fix so many other problems."

---------------------

Santa Monica is transit enthusiastic. The Big Blue Bus is very popular and the City is already planning for the arrival of the Expo Line. The head of the Subway to the Sea coalition is a former Mayor of Santa Monica.

Keep in mind that Santa Monica is at the end of the line and will receive the Purple Line and Expo Lines last.

There are lots of delusional NIMBYs everywhere in Southern California who mistakenly believe they will be and are entitled to live a low density, atypical suburban-within-urban, automobile-based lifestyle, and to drive and park a single-occupancy automobile anytime, anyplace, anywhere, conveniently and affordably in time and money, and that everyone else will surely do the same. Those days are over, with ever-worsening congestion and ever-increasing gas prices. People with an inflated sense of automobile-entitlement will lash out at anything -- developers, transit, whatever -- out of frustration due to the decline in the "car culture" way of life.

The limits of sprawl have been reached and with three million more people expected to migrate to Los Angeles County over the next three decades, that means just one thing -- DENSITY. This will occur whether we responsibly plan for it or not or whether we build a mass transit system or not. We need to invest as heavily in our public transit infrastructure over the next five decades as we invested in roads and freeways over the last five.

Santa Monica is NOT anti-transit though. If any city is likely to reorient itself to the new transit-friendly Southern California it will be Santa Monica. Keep in mind that rail built Southern California in the first half of the 20th Century and what we are really doing is recreating and reinventing what we lost to unsustainable social engineering in favor of the car culture.

[Marcotico]

Quite baggin' on buses. We need rail transit, AND improved busses. The best transit cities in the world have both, its just that tourists only remember the subways. Busses and Rail !!!!

[Alek F]

Those NIMBY's who are trying to prevent growth should be ashamed of themselves!
The city that has no growth or developments is called a "dying city", as one of the former mayors said, whereas a city that experiences innovations and growth, is a developing city, with a bright future.
I totally agree with PC and Brad. Indeed, a reliable PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (such as SUBWAY) is a true solution to the gridlock, but trying to block the developments is purely rediculous!!! It's like trying to say "stop moving forward" or "stop improving things".
So - I think LA should continue massive developments and construction of new hotels, condo complexes, and malls, BUT - along with that a Subway system should be built to allow effective commuting to those destinations.

[susan]

Since the Subway to the Sea may not be built for another 15-20 years even WHEN it gets the funding, saying "let's build like crazy" meanwhile and calling anyone who wants to put some breaks on growth, is naive and dumb public policy. People can't take mass transit in this city until it exists, and the notion that build, build, until it's so bad people will have to take mass transit meanwhile, is the Orwellian sort of public "planning" that is a developer's dream and community's nightmare.

Until there IS mass transit that can get people from around the city to Santa Monica, they MUST build affordable housing and cooperate with L A and Beverly Hills to manage traffic they're drawing to their city, by building job magnets but no affordable housing.