"We have regional problems, but no regional consensus or mechanisms in place to deal with those problems." As a summary of the message from the State of the Region Symposium held by the League of Women Voters of the Bay Area in January, this is far too pessimistic, since speakers and panelists at the Oakland meeting suggested several new and promising approaches to regional decision-making.
At the outset, keynote speaker Angelo Siracusa, past president of the Bay Area Council, challenged the very definition of the region. He noted that the Council, like the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and other regional agencies, defined the Bay Area as the nine counties which touch San Francisco Bay, but he now considers it a super-region of fifteen counties, with three additional counties to the east and three more to the south. Alternatively, he suggested, we could look at mini-regions (north, east, south, and San Francisco/Peninsula), or use counties or "commute sheds" to define regions within the 15-county area.
However, Siracusa asked, what difference does the definition make, if there is no way to govern it? The region is as diverse as it is cohesive; in fact, with the state and federal governments making the laws and local jurisdictions responsible for land use, the regional level is in many ways irrelevant, he argued.
Another challenge, according to Siracusa, is the region's booming economy. With new businesses, and new types of businesses, adding wealth within what he termed a "lottery economy", growth is outstripping the government structure intended to control it. The region's economy cannot continue to grow without an impact on our quality of life, he said. Ironically, our livability has attracted growth to the area—"our environment is growth-inducing". A contraction of the economy could make things worse, but he suggested that business should join environmentalists in discussing how to control growth responsibly, through efforts such as the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development. However, he was dubious that either market or political forces, as currently in place, would be successful in achieving the necessary slowing.
What factors are affecting the ability of government to deal with growth? One factor is what Siracusa termed the "Proposition 13 syndrome", which says that citizens do not trust government to handle their money responsibly. For example, he noted, businesses have been divided over SCA 3 (Burton) in the Legislature, to reduce the vote for local transportation taxes to a majority from two-thirds. While business feels strongly that infrastructure needs rebuilding, many of its members are dubious about giving more power to government to take money for that purpose, fearing it may not be used wisely.
Fiscalization of land use, coupled with the Proposition 13 syndrome, has had a major regional impact. Citizens who distrust government have also insisted on more and more control over local decisions. Siracusa deplored "overly democratized" planning, with planners acting as brokers between developers and neighborhoods. Quoting Joe Bodovitz, "There are two things people hate -- sprawl, and density!", Siracusa added that people hate sprawl as a concept, but density in practice. The result is that many infill projects, which are being looked to as the answer to sprawl, are being "de-densified" and made more expensive.
Siracusa said, "We can't have affordable housing and stop sprawl—they are mutually exclusive." In fact, he said, "Whether we think it is good public policy or not, citizens acting as consumers, in the belief that housing is their entitlement in the great American dream, are forced to go further and further away. ... Our current growth control movements are not stopping growth—they're simply moving it around and moving it out."
Despite the sprawl, Siracusa feels that some improvements are possible for traffic, although the region will never be congestion-free. Transportation solutions, however, mean money, and money, and more money. He suggested we have not done enough to "tamper with the demand side". Techniques such as time-of-use pricing and special toll lanes, attacked by some critics as elitist, could raise enough money to improve public transit in the corridors where they are used, providing traffic relief for all income levels.
Siracusa concluded that while he still believes in regional planning, and supported efforts such as Bay Vision 2020, he does not believe that voluntary cooperation can be the cornerstone of a regional planning agency. The solution, he said, is "either the creation of a different institution of government, a regional planning agency—and remember that planning is only planning if it's got teeth and therefore the regional agency would have to have police powers—or the other solution is that we keep the institutions of government in place but we do create mandates, sanctions or incentives for them to behave differently." Any solution, he urged, should be "bold and dramatic".
Panelist Fred Silva, of the Public Policy Institute of California, talked about the financial component of regional planning. He discussed how Proposition 13, by allowing state control of the property tax, changed a financing pattern which had existed since the early 1900s, when a state ballot measure designated the corporation tax for the state and property tax for local jurisdictions. With the shift of the property tax away from local government, the relationship between state and local government, and between government and the economy, has also shifted. One result is the fiscalization of land use, as local governments turn to sales tax revenues for financing.
The Public Policy Institute looked at the issue of fiscalization of land use, using interviews with city managers and a survey of how cities used sales tax revenues. They concluded that cities which had sales tax revenues did not consider sharing this funding with neighboring jurisdictions. Since it is politically impossible to raise taxes, tax revenue becomes a zero-sum game between communities. One proposal would be to shift taxes between the local jurisdictions, the state and schools so that some of the sales tax currently coming to cities and counties would go to the state, some of the property tax going to schools would go to local jurisdictions to replace that sales tax money, and the state would make up the property tax loss to the schools out of its increase in sales tax revenue. This technique would make local jurisdictions less dependent on sales tax revenue and more interested in the overall economy, which has an impact on property taxes. The inner cities, which have a higher property tax base relative to sales taxes, would also benefit.
Silva described some proposed solutions, including the Constitutional Revision Commission's sweeping proposal to move to governance charters which would allocate responsibility between communities in a county or region, with voter participation.
The Speaker's Commission on State/Local Government Finance also considered alternative government techniques. Silva noted it was particularly important that stakeholders were not included on the commission, which allowed for more innovative thinking by "civic entrepreneurs"—for example, a discussion of pooling resources at the regional level. Since this runs counter to the "home rule tradition", it would be necessary to set up a system for sharing revenues by placing a certain percentage in a regional pool. A major barrier to this is the tendency of local government to count on future increases in the sales tax when doing long-term budgeting.
Single-purpose entities make it difficult to connect the region to solve a governmental problem. Silva cited James Knox's work on behalf of Bay Area regional governance in the 1970s as proof that the connection beween political leadership and government financing for regional solutions is essential. He noted that in the long run, it would be essential to work on problems in terms of the regional interest, regional finance, and regional equity.
Panelist Judith Innes, UC Berkeley, echoed Siracusa's points about distrust of government, but disagreed with him about voluntary cooperation. Her experience with collaborative decision making led her to say that it is clear that a top-down approach to regional government is not workable. Instead, she said, with many players in today's communities -- individuals, businesses, organizations, and government -- it is important to get them working together for mutual benefit. With professional assistance, and enough time, it is possible to develop the kind of dialogues needed to agree on a shared mission, understand how to "enlarge the pie" so everyone can benefit, and participate in innovative thinking. Now, she noted, no one agrees and there is no trust in other parties' experts.
Innes described some excellent collaborative relationships built during the CalFed process, as well as her work with MTC's Partnership to build a group which would help distribute federal transportation funding. While the collaborative process did result in a scoring system for allocating funds, the group had difficulty getting a vision of the region. Instead, it struggled with whether land use should be considered as well as transportation, and how to manage congestion. Problems included too many sources of money with different formulas, and no place for regional thinking. There was also no opportunity within the Commission itself to discuss how the region works and its interdependence. Innes noted that the outside stakeholders, not those who receive funding, raised the issue of regionalism.
Innes suggested government in the region would work more effectively using "forums, arenas and courts" to assist the collaborative process. Without forums, there are not enough occasions for governments to work together on issues—ABAG's General Assembly meets only twice a year. Arenas are a method of setting up incentives, such as the need to resolve issues before receiving funding, or requiring arbitration before litigation. Courts would be the final, hopefully little-used decision point. Innes strongly recommended using this model as an alternative to either voluntary collaboration or many rules.
Additional speakers agreed with Siracusa that the multiplicity of jurisdictions was a difficulty in regional decision-making, with one calling the situation a "Tale of Too Many Cities". Jim Lawson, Vice Mayor of Milpitas, talked about the importance of making decisions at the local level, and also the importance of regional thinking. He cited the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, which includes all transportation-related stakeholders within the county, including city representatives, and is working effectively with regional and neighboring transit districts. Lawson said it works well because all the cities and the county feel ownership of the decisions. He stressed that the public must be involved in decisions as well, because "part-time" politicians learn from public input.
One speaker commented that there is a need to provide better infrastructure on the regional level to serve local jurisdictions as they work with other jurisdictions, rather than insisting on moving straight to a proposal for regional government. The Interregional Partnership is working on improving the jobs/housing balance and revenue sharing. This group includes city and county participants from five counties—San Joaquin and Stanislaus, part of the "super-region", as well as Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara (see July/August 1998 issue). The three major regional agencies—ABAG, MTC and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District—submitted an application to EPA for a "smart growth" planning grant. Although the application was denied, a second application with more innovative proposals was submitted, with expectations of success. [Note: This grant award was announced at ABAG's April General Assembly.]
There is considerable interest at the state level in regional government, including the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century. Several speakers, including Assemblymember Tom Torlakson, described recent or proposed legislation on "smart growth". Some of the measures included plans to map local General Plans to create a state growth plan, support for density bonuses in neighborhoods near transit, and financing improvements for crumbling infrastructure. Debbie Drake described the California 2000 Project, a group convened by the Hewlett and Irvine Foundations to work on fiscal, governance and land use reform issues. The League of Women Voters of California is working on a sustainability project under a Hewlett grant, and is also working with the California Futures Network.
While Siracusa performed his self-designated role as "house curmudgeon", the overall tone of the symposium was positive, and participants were encouraged to follow the legislation and learn more about the programs which were described. The event, held to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the League of Women Voters of the Bay Area and the 25th anniversary of the Monitor, may be well worth repeating in another few years, to once again assess the state of the region.
Leslie Stewart
Note: The Symposium agenda was printed in the January/February 2000 issue. Full background information on each speaker is available by contacting the LWVBA office, 925-283-7093, lwvba@lwvba-ca.org.
For more information:
Public Policy Institute of California: 415-291-4400; http://www.ppic.org
Speaker's Commission on State/Local Govt. Finance: http://speaker.metroforum.org/
Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century: 916-322-9906; http://www.clg21.ca.gov
Interregional Partnership: Gary Binger, ABAG, 510-464-7900; http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/interregional/
California 2000 Project: http://www.cal2000.org
California Futures Network: 510-238-9762 or 916-325-2533x313; http://www.calfutures.org/
LWV California: 916-442-7215; http://www.ca.lwv.org
Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development: 510-464-7978 (ABAG); http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/baasd/
Park and recreation agencies around the region, which were ecstatic when state Propositions 12 and 13 were approved by voters in March 2000, are still waiting to find out how many of the presents under the Christmas tree have their names attached. Some of the big ones are already known, because they were earmarked in the measures; these include the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy program, the San Francisco Bay Ridge Trail, Mt. Diablo State Park, and the California Academy of Sciences. Many other Bay Area projects will ultimately be eligible to receive funding under one or another of the many programs created by these propositions.
Proposition 12, the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act, will provide a total of $2.1 billion for cities, counties and special districts to finance parkland capital and preservation projects in the state. Proposition 13, the Safe Drinking Water Bond Act, authorizes the sale of $1.97 billion in bonds to finance projects such as watershed protection, water supply, safe drinking water and conservation.
Some agencies, such as the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) may be able to combine funds from the two bond measures for certain projects. For example, the Delta Science Center is named in both propositions, and will receive $2 million from each. The proposed new visitor center will showcase the natural history of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. When fully developed, it will include exhibits and activities to inform visitors about the unique Delta habitats, and will also provide resources such as a nursery to grow native plants for wetland restoration projects. The center is a joint project of EBRPD, Ironhouse Sanitary District, Los Medanos College, California State University at Hayward, Mt. Diablo Audubon Society, and several local school districts.
Another EBRPD project, which will receive $2 million, is Camp Arroyo, an environmental education camp now being constructed by a public/private partnership at Lake Del Valle near Livermore. Most of the year the camp will offer educational activities for schoolchildren; in the summer it will be used as a summer camp for terminally ill children from around the Bay Area. Funds will also assist the district in major extensions of the Iron Horse Trail which parallels I-680 in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, linking segments of the trail in the Tri-Valley area, and connecting it with the Delta De Anza Regional Trail in east Contra Costa. The trail projects will receive funding of $1.275 million.
The park district is preparing a list of projects to include in the per-capita funding program contained in the bond act. This statewide program will distribute $388 million in grants to cities, counties, and special districts, based on population, in response to grant applications for eligible projects. In addition, urban areas, including those served by EBRPD, are also eligible for funds under another section of the bond act, the Roberti-Z'berg-Harris (RZH) grant program, which will distribute $200 million according to a complex formula. The per-capita and RZH funds will be administered by the State Department of Parks and Recreation, and must first be appropriated in the state budget.
A final component of Proposition 12, in addition to earmarked projects and the per-capita and RZH grants, is a competitive grant program, which includes money for projects in a number of categories, such as urban forestation projects, urban/cultural centers, riparian habitat, and trails. Local agencies and special districts may compete for the funding available in these categories, which will probably be allocated in a series of application cycles.
For cities, counties and special districts in the region, taking advantage of the new money will require some planning and resources. The possibility that projects could qualify under several different programs set up by Proposition 12 may encourage special districts such as EBRPD to work collaboratively with cities and counties to coordinate grant applications to target the most appropriate funding sources. For example, multi-agency projects such as the Delta Science Center may be eligible for support by more than one grant, or neighboring jurisdictions may benefit from coordinating applications for a shared facility such as a trail.
Projects which will be funded by RZH grants require a 30% local match. In addition, funding from Proposition 12 and 13 is intended to purchase new land, build new facilities, enhance or upgrade existing facilities or restore historic sites, bringing public access to recreational facilities which would otherwise have been unavailable. None of it can be used for recurring operating expenses, supplies and services, routine ongoing maintenance, or purchasing vehicles and equipment. It is up to the local jurisdictions and districts to maintain both the facilities they currently have, and any new ones which result from these programs. Careful planning will help the region make the best use of this new funding.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
EBRPD, Jill Singleton, 510-544-2206; jsingleton@ebparks.org
Prop. 12: California Park and Recreation Society, 916-665-2777; http://www.cprs.org
Prop. 12: California Dept. of Parks and Recreation, 916-665-8380; http://www.parks.ca.gov/bond/bond12.htm
Just over 25 years ago, the first issue of the Bay Area Monitor appeared. The small group of League members who gathered over a quarter-century ago to plan this publication had no idea it would be published for so many years. Funded by an EPA grant, it was part of a program "aimed at motivating the public to reduce motor vehicle pollution emissions in order to achieve better air quality and improve the quality of life within the affected community". For members of the League of Women Voters of the Bay Area, formed a decade earlier by local Leagues concerned about regional issues, it was an extension of their mission to inform the public about government.
In conjunction with a slide show produced under an earlier grant, the Monitor was to be an educational tool, tightly focused on transportation and air pollution. It soon acquired ongoing support from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which had been formed not long before, and shared quarters with MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in the Claremont Hotel.
Under the first editor, Holly Hollingsworth (O'Konski), "the bay area Monitor" began appearing approximately monthly, covering MTC and transit agencies around the region. Hollingsworth remembers following the various boards, observing and meeting locally elected officials serving on regional boards whose local interests often superseded their regional ones. By contrast, when she interviewed managers of transit agencies, she found they were quite regionally focused and often ready to advocate consolidation of their agencies.
With an emerging regional agency and a multiplicity of transit operators, Hollingsworth says that it was easy to concentrate on transportation. Substantial articles often focused on the regional impacts of state and local legislation, helping readers to decide whether the programs and agencies were working as intended. Issues also featured a Here and There column which contained news briefs from the Bay Area and from elsewhere around the state, the country and even the world.
One of her favorite features was the Ghost Rider column, in which the "anonymous" rider reported on a transit trip, usually somewhere in the Bay Area, with comments on the time, cost and ease of use, a technique later copied by regional newspaper writers. A highlight of her time as editor was an interview by Harry Demoro, the San Francisco Chronicle transportation writer for many years, for an article in Mass Transit magazine. During the interview, Demoro admitted picking up article ideas from the Monitor!
The publication was produced almost completely in-house. A corps of League volunteers around the region supplied reports on relevant meetings and events and clippings from local media. Hollingsworth herself attended meetings, gathered information, wrote the copy, selected clip-art, and cut and pasted final text typed and re-typed by patient secretaries. At one point, she even designed a new masthead. The first copies were run on a duplicating machine at ABAG, followed by a series of "sometimes extremely unsatisfactory" printers. Labels were typed and hand-applied to send copies to the mailing list, which by 1980 had reached 1,500 names.
Topics covered during the late 1970s and early 1980s included the fuel shortage; the beginnings of the vehicle "inspection and maintenance" program and its evolution into Smog Check; the first Regional Airport Plan; the area's first Clean Air Plan; the long-running MTC program called PENTAP, Peninsula Transportation Alternatives Project, involving what is now Caltrain; the first trials of "flextime" and a new agency called RIDES; the formation of the California Transportation Commission; and a constant stream of funding programs, as the state and the region began to tackle transportation planning. By early 1980, the Monitor had expanded coverage to the activities of ABAG and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and acquired the California Air Resources Board as a financial supporter.
Hollingsworth's tenure as editor ended after eight years when she was hired by MTC in 1983. After a transition period with other editors, including Dale Fousel (now at BART), the League hired Ernestine DeFalco as Project Manager and Editor in early 1985. By this time, the Monitor had financial support from BAAQMD and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), in addition to its ongoing support from MTC. Within a few years, East Bay Municipal Utility District, East Bay Regional Park District, BART, and the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District had also become supporting agencies.
With a growing number of regional agencies involved, the Monitor broadened its focus. During the ten years DeFalco served as editor, the publication covered such topics as the Integrated Environmental Management Plan, toxic air contaminants, fishing and houseboats on the Bay, solid and hazardous waste (including incineration and waste-to-energy), transportation corridor studies, regional rail, access by the disabled to parks and transit, water treatment and supply, mitigation strategies, and the rise in local tax measures for transportation and other services. League observers throughout the region again assisted in information gathering, and two regular writers covered water and air quality issues. With grants from EPA and ABAG, several special issues were produced on topics such as ozone and the San Francisco Estuary Project.
DeFalco put the Monitor on a bimonthly schedule, and by the end of the 1980s, copies of each issue were being mailed to over 5000 readers. In October 1989, after the Loma Prieta earthquake, the League's downtown Oakland office was first yellow-tagged, then red-tagged, but the next issue went out on schedule two weeks later (ironically, earthquakes had been a topic of the 1989 May/June issue!) Over the next few years, other shakeups hit the Monitor, as budget cutbacks forced a change to five issues per year and a smaller mailing list. DeFalco responded by moving to computers for typesetting and layout, paving the way for a later move onto the Internet.
DeFalco remembers her tenure as a time when she had a front-row seat as regional history was made. She reported on most of the major regional issues of the time, including the Bay Vision 2020 effort to create a multi-purpose regional government, and was on a first-name basis with many influential regional decision-makers. Her role was acknowledged shortly after her retirement in mid-1995, when she received one of MTC's coveted annual awards for her coverage of Bay Area transportation issues.
In the past few years, the current editor has restored a full bimonthly schedule of six issues a year, brought the mailing list to over 3500, and completed the process of establishing a Website. Readers just received the first special issue in many years, on the new Water Transit Authority. The range of agencies and topics continues to grow, as AC Transit and the Port of Oakland are now supporting agencies, and we are proud to announce that the Caltrain Joint Powers Board will also be funding the Monitor this year.
The Monitor's many loyal readers include elected officials, regional decision makers and staff, League members and the general public. We could not have served them without the agencies which support us financially, particularly MTC, a partner for all 25 years.
The focus of the Monitor is still transportation and air qualityand also land use, parks and recreation, water quality, and the regional economy, a full range of regional issues. As we mark this milestone, we look forward to our role in reporting on these topics in the new century.
Leslie Stewart
Can you help? Our extensive Bay Area Monitor archives are missing some issues published between September 1984 and April 1985. If you have any of these, we would appreciate hearing from you.
Which year was it? These "timeless" quotes are from past issues of the Monitor—answers are below the corrections.
The article on Rapid Bus Transit in the May/June issue of the Monitor failed to draw an important distinction between "rapid bus transit", as used in the MTC Blueprint, and the name of a federal transportation program, Bus Rapid Transit. As described in the Blueprint, rapid bus transit includes both:
• Express buses - longer-distance luxury buses which make use of freeways and HOV lanes to cover considerable distances between cities; and
• Bus rapid transit - buses operating on surface streets in a way which is similar to light rail, with fewer stops and often with advance ticket purchase on boarding platforms so that passengers can board at more than one door.
The express buses which AC Transit will be offering on Transbay routes were included in the MTC proposal to the governor. The bus rapid transit which may be offered by AC Transit in the San Pablo corridor was not included; its capital costs would be funded as a pilot project of the federal program.
In the interest of clarity, the Monitor will discontinue the use of the term "rapid bus transit" in the future, unless referring to the MTC Blueprint plans, and will instead use "express bus" or "bus rapid transit" as appropriate. We apologize for any confusion our readers may have experienced. Editor
A, 3/79; B, 4/76; C, 8/80; D, 7/77 (Frank Herringer); E, 9/82; F, 12/79; G, 10/77 (Curtis Green); H, 5/81; I, 5/83; J, 3/79; K, 6/80 —all from the first decade of the publication!