Features

Commentary: The Costs of Vehicle Use By ROBERT CLEAR

Tuesday May 31, 2005

For the past 10 years California population has grown at an average rate of 1.3 percent a year, with the result that the state is now adding almost 500,000 people per year. However, from 2000 to 2003 (the years for which I found data) Alameda County grew by only 0.4 percent per year, and Berkeley actually shrank at a rate of 0.3 percent per year. There are many in Berkeley who have fought hard to achieve this. We have a zoning ordinance which limits new building heights to one-half that of some existing buildings. We have people who appeal to have buildings landmarked in order to block development plans. We have people who protest when plans trade-off an increase in units against a decrease in parking places. We have people who want an environmental impa ct report for any large, or medium-sized development. We have succeeded in halting growth in Berkeley, despite the growth in the state as a whole. 

Unfortunately, this success comes with a cost. In fact, it comes with several. The growth that didn’t occur in Berkeley and Alameda County appeared instead in Contra Costa and the Central Valley. Growth is not occurring by increasing density, but by sprawling outward, and covering over agricultural and wild land. Animals and plants are losing habitat, and, mor e directly, animals are being killed by increased vehicular traffic. Population growth is occurring in the parts of the state with the worst air quality, with the predictable consequences to public health. 

Studies have shown that vehicular use is inverse ly related to population density. Low density growth in the valley results in more vehicular use than infill that increases density in an already moderately dense city like Berkeley. We don’t even get the full benefit of at least having the traffic increa se occur somewhere else, as cars aren’t restricted to a given city. One of the subcontractors working on my recent bathroom remodel was driving in daily from Modesto, and I am sure others can tell similar stories. 

There are more direct costs too. Berkele y purports to value diversity, but it is becoming increasingly difficult for any but the rich to live here. Berkeley is a desirable place to live, but there is shortage of space, so land costs are high. In order to make prices more affordable the land cos ts could be spread out over more units. But this means covering a larger fraction of the lot or building higher, both of which are precluded by zoning ordinances meant to restrict growth. Another option is for the builder to reduce building costs, but thi s runs the risk of shoddy construction and long-term maintenance problems. One can only wonder whether the well publicized problems of our most infamous local developer might be in part due to our unrealistic building height restrictions. We seem to be managing the worst of all possible worlds; the construction is shoddy, but it is still too expensive to encourage diversity. 

If the city had the money it could maintain diversity by paying for subsidized housing, but the city gets its money in the form of property taxes. Currently our city is running severe budget short-falls. Major new construction could result in substantial increases in our property tax base, but that is currently not allowed—or at least it is not allowed by city rules. The university i s evidently not bound by our rules, and is contemplating a major hotel/convention center that presumably will violate the city building height and lot coverage rules, and won’t pay property taxes. The irony makes me gag. 

We are perhaps past the point whe n can talk about “smart growth.” At this point, it is crisis management. Do we deny that there is a problem, or do we start trying to create a sustainable future? If you believe that there really is a global warming problem, and that there really is a pot ential resource scarcity problem, then you should trying to do something about it. And locally one of things you can do is speak up for higher height limits, and more sensible restrictions on landmarking and demolition. 

 

Robert Clear is a Berkeley resident.