Why Old Lefty Tree-Huggers Are Slow to Embrace the New Sustainability

Wow! A very succinct and depressing assesment of the conundrum we face. The unspoken foundation of this conflict is population growth. There are just too many humans to to live happily ever after. What is truly depressing is the realization that as difficult to manage as these conflicts between the desire for housing and the need for nature and open space are here in Santa Barbara, a place that is wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of most of the world, they are impossibly difficult elsewhere. Add to this mix the rising competition for every resource on earth from food to oil to potable water and humanity's plight looks grim indeed. Malthus's curse is finally catching up to us. We can continue to quibble about how to arrange the chairs on the deck of the Titanic but it still looks likely to sink. Best of luck young people, you'll need it.

When an area is already over-developed it doesn't take a P.H.D. to understand that Smart growth = Stupid growth.

It appears that the smart-growth movement is being marketed by developers. They're willing to compromise because even some growth is extremely profitable in areas that have a reputation for being nice.

Places where the majority of people want growth, like Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Dallas are having mortgage loan problems and declining housing values so developers will cling more and more to California's corrupt State housing mandates. More sophisticated language will be designed to smooth talk unwanted projects through the process.
Remember the "Clean Skies" initiative that lowered air quality. Get ready for bogus terms like "environmental dwellings" or " sustainable eco-structures".

Oh to be young and knowledgeable as is this author. Clearly he sees the truth much more than the old timers who have been worn out by their dated "progressive" works.
Still one might suggest that Mr. Rutian's naivety is showing. Maybe a little more time on earth will allow him to develop some skepticism about the motives of "smart growth" advocates in Santa Barbara whose agenda seems to encompass only the building of hugely expensive and unaffordable warrens for the tourists and vacationers to own and occupy.
What is needed is an impetus to build more rental housing, not a couple of "affordable"condominiums.
This strategy would validate a urban core concept and provide for a more disparate and sustainable city population.

It will be a different world, and by our standards, a far lesser one. I suspect every generation has thought that as they passed along. But global population growth does not impact Santa Barbara negatively. Continual growth of employment and in-migration seems to me to eventually be what will.

If our discussions are not about the realities of how the area will be changing (see the UCSB study about the change in demographics as the world's rich retire here) we will keep trying to add everything everybody wants and never realize that the change that will happen here cannot be more people, but slowly changing our economics from what is now to what will be later.

That is planning, as opposed to reacting. We can and must plan to get what we want. I don't think we want to continue to grow incrementally until what makes this place good vanishes slowly under the crowds.

... the piece all too typically missed what new-urbanism and smart-growth is really about, but did catch some of the differences between local liberal, enviro, progressive, and growth arguments.

When urbanism is viewed through the conventional prism of politics we get just another political debate, instead of a deeper understanding of how to create a better town.

I visited SB from Australia in 2004 and was very impressed with the city. However what the author does not seem to comprehend is that what is demanded is a complete revsion of SB, which would involve a initially painfully move from mini ranch type suburbia to planned communites. This is the way that social hosuing will be created and devlopment will become sustainable. Devoloping green field sites according to the best principles of new urbanism will only move solutions further from the problem and the heart of SB. The coastal suburbia is a blight of CA generally, and only the consolidation of those suburbs in planned sustainable towns and villages can provide for the renewal of the environment, the lessening of car dependency with adequate public trasnport, the creation of actual community and walking distance ameneties. Until this occurs, and it must occur eventually, it is no wonder that reasonable people - i don't know the voting habits or the civil heritage of these people so well as the author, but until all of this occurs, it is no wonder that reasonable people remain sceptial, because essentially developers are talking about solutions away from the problem.

One crowd already has theirs, and isn't concerned with those who don't. The other crowd is working to make a place for everyone. What, really, is more "lefty" than sharing?

As an older lefty progressive, I have to agree mostly with the author. Unless SB to Santa Maria wants to look like the wasteland between LA and Ventura, the trend has to be towards greater density. You can add incentives such as priority to people who choose to not own cars (it is actually possible to get by without a car in SB, believe it or not). How to enforce these rules is of course another matter; we have already seen plenty of abuse of low-income housing regulations by greedy people. I'm confident that as soon as Wendy McCaw resigns from the NP she will gladly throw her full support behind this effort to keep SB compact and surrounded by beautiful open space.

This "new urbanism" is going to kill open space as well as create new problems like urban density and social elitist development. The vision of people walking everywhere like in San Francisco is a high-density nightmare. Stop trying to add more people to an over-crowded area. Population growth will naturally go to areas that want growth, if you let it. There's an abundance of low-cost housing in other states. Don't give developers an excuse to make big profits by ruining Santa Barbara.

Dear Mr. Rutian,

Long before there was "smart growth" and "new urbanism" there were compact towns with mixed-use, corner grocery stores and people walking to meet daily needs. Santa Barbara was one of those towns and, to a certain extent, it still is.

The neighborhoods built before 1929 (Constance Avenue to Salinas Street) would be considered today as "smart growth". In the 1930's and after WWII new zoning regulations were enacted to accommodate automobiles.

San Roque, the Mesa and, of course, Goleta were a result of those newer zoning requirements. There is nothing wrong with these areas except that they generate a lot of traffic, and you cannot really live there without a car.

Perhaps Santa Barbara should go back to the old ways, and change its zoning rules accordingly. But reducing the allowable height of buildings is not the way.

After the earthquake (1925) the town was rebuilt in a new and wonderful style, but those older buildings were not under 40'.

Thank you for writing.

People who live in small towns and suburbia have paid a premium to live there and have good reasons to protect what they have.

Increased density means increased strain on our limited natural resources such as water, increased congestion, increased traffic, increased air pollution, increased noise pollution, and a higher crime rate.

Not just some of the time. Every time.

We've seen the tragic results that higher densities have already brought to Santa Barbara. Let's not do it elsewhere.

I understand that this issue is much bigger than each of us individually, and there are many factors to consider when talking about accommodating population growth (natural resources, housing, circulation, etc).

It is apparent that there aren't enough rental units for the working class population in the urban core of Santa Barbara. If you are against higher density (to any of the opponents above), how else do you suggest we address this problem?

It has always been my opinion that the automobile, and all the accommodations for the automobile, along with densely populated neighborhoods, have been the prime reasons I have been against growth. With every home you introduce into the area, you get a package deal of at least one car. With every car introduced into the area, you increase the demand for parking, increase traffic congestion, increase the demand for more filling stations, roads, ... the list just goes on and on. Once you solve this counties transportation issues and make it more localized and pedestrian friendly, so we don't need to drive everywhere we need to go, and then sure... you can invite many more families into the area. Just look around you the next time you are on the 101 stuck in traffic... count the number of cars around you and you will be surprised at how FEW people there actually are taking up all that space... creating all that bad air, burning all that gas that we all end up inhaling. The same goes with neighborhoods. STOP with the gigantic homes, stop with the densely populated neighborhoods, live modestly, and build in a manner that can sustain the wild-life that DOES live in these undeveloped hills and vistas (they have a right to life as well) and I will budge. until then, it is these tree huggers who are saving this area from developing into the same intolerable mess many of you moved here to get away from. This bag will only hold so many potatoes.

RickWorth, while your ideas may be admirable, they aren't reasonable, because the general masses aren't reasonable. Residents of the U.S. have a love affair with automobiles and as a side affect, The Joneses vs the Smiths. "You look better if you're more visible". That's the attitude to combat.