Community activists are watching moves on the part of county, state, and federal agencies that could add up to a concerted effort to weaken community power in land-use disputes.

The June decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in the matter of Kelo v. City of New London, for instance, strengthens the power of any governing body to apply eminent domain for the benefit of relatively narrow private interests. The continuing pressure of state housing mandates strains the already shrunken budgets of all communities.

The ongoing efforts at the county and state (and now federal) levels to “streamline” the Environmental Impact Report process could result in the stifling of any community input that might slow down a construction permit. And the recent vote of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors places the Gaviota coast in the purview of the pro-development North County.

Are communities losing control of land use issues?

“I don’t see that to be the case,” says Third District Supervisor Brooks Firestone. “There are the higher government pressures of course, like the state mandated housing. That’s not going away. In fact, there is legislation in the works right now to put real teeth into those mandates.”

Firestone is unapologetic in his support of “streamlining” the Environmental Impact Review process. “The EIR process,” he says, “has become cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive.”

The EIR is a part, an important part, of the process by which permits are issued or denied, and projects built or shelved. Another big part of that process is the gathering of public opinion on the project. What some citizens fear is that the so-called “streamlining” will involve a curtailing or suppression of public input.

“The purpose of the process is to improve efficiency while retaining public access,” says Second District Supervisor Susan Rose. “My concern is the appearance of a sense in the community that the public will be denied access to the information. I think the entire process should be completed and packaged by staff so the community can see it and understand it.”
Few issues are more provocative than the state-mandated housing quotas. Even Supervisor Firestone, at least when he was running for office, went on record in opposition to the mandates. Yet there is no obvious way to resist the orders from Sacramento - and if Firestone is correct, resistance will soon become even tougher.

Goleta City Councilmember Cynthia Brock thinks the whole process has gotten stuck traveling in the wrong direction.
“Why do people think that new housing is what will solve the affordability problem?” she asks. “Look at all the money and resources and time we spent trying to defend our rent control ordinance on mobile homes. If there is anything to be done to preserve affordable housing in this area, it is to preserve the mobile home rent control ordinance. Yet that counts for nothing so far as the state is concerned. It has to be new housing. It’s illogical.”

What Brock sees happening is mandatory growth.

“It is very frustrating to me,” she says, “that the state is, through the process of the state approval of the housing elements, imposing mandatory growth, regardless of constraints or local citizens' desires or feelings as to the carrying capacity of their community.”

Linda Krop of the Environmental Defense Center, a non-profit law firm, is also concerned about the housing mandates, as well as the weakening of environmental controls.

“We definitely recognize the need for affordable housing,” she says, “and we believe it can be accomplished, while protecting important environmental resources and ag lands. Our concern is that [the EIR] is supposed to be an objective [analysis], under control by local and public agencies. County would still be in charge, but listen to developers. Maybe more early involvement with developers is called for, but the public should be part of that process.”

Gary Earle, a private citizen, activist and member of the Coalition for Sensible Planning, has a different perspective on the state housing mandates. He opposes them, and thinks that they are literally dangerous.

“I think the state mandated housing is a serious threat to communities like ours,” says Earle. “They are attempting a one-size-fits-all zoning policy to a state that has the sixth largest GDP in the world, that is geographically larger than the country of Italy, and that has topographical variation from sea level to 8-9-10,000 feet. How can you say that what is good for Bakersfield is good for Santa Barbara is good for San Diego is good for San Francisco?”

The recent spate of natural calamities - hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, mudslides - has turned Earl’s thoughts to the South Coast’s ability to respond in emergencies.

“If you look at just our own narrow coastal plain, pinched at both ends by Gaviota and the Rincon, we have unique public health and safety problems of ingress and egress, in the event of a natural disaster, that would render those state housing mandates inapplicable by themselves. We are subject to earthquakes, to fires, to mudslides - and just recently we had a tsunami warning.”

Earle’s point is that when the state mandates a population expansion in a fragile, vulnerable area like the South Coast, it may be increasing the risk for everyone living there.

Photo by Martha Lannan