Last Great Frontier: The Third California
Joel Kotkin and William Frey observe how the movement of high-skilled and professional jobs to rapidly growing inland California is changing the region where the "California Dream" is still possible.
"Some coastal residents regard inland California as a failed geography of rising poverty, crummy jobs and unremitting ugliness. But in recent years, more and more higher-end and professional jobs have begun moving east, and with them a new emphasis on improving the quality of life in such cities as Bakersfield, Modesto, Ontario and Riverside...the Third California is growing four times faster than the rest of state...The apparent movement of professionals into parts of inland California may signal a longer-term shift in the region's ability to compete in high-skilled industries...The wealthier newcomers are becoming a force for other improvements — revived downtowns, better schools, more parks and open space."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
Homeless at the Mall - Oct 24, 2008
What's In A Neighborhood's Name? - Jul 09, 2008
Baby Steps to Downtown Living - Jan 22, 2008
The Evolution of San Francisco - Winners & Losers - Jan 05, 2008
L.A. May Place Moratorium On Fast Food - Sep 12, 2007
Don't Worry About Paving Farmland
Don't worry about paving over the nation's best farmland. As long as we have faster economic growth, nothing else matters.
Charles Siegel
actually...
it's considered by many to be the best farmland in the world.
but you must already own *your* home.
farmland has disappeared and will continue to do so.
but there are ways to accomodate needs of the farmers and future residents of the state.
statements such as yours do nothing to solve the problem.
Good irony. Thanks.
farmland has disappeared and will continue to do so.
yes, that is what Charles is lamenting. The reason he is lamenting that fact is 3B more people on the planet means we need more farmland, not less.
And Charles' comment was a rebuttal to your comment. It's a nice irony (and worth a chuckle) that he commented way before you did.
Best,
D
still no substance
so what is your solution?
stop building in the valley entirely?
if you believe what is said in the article, that will continue to drive the middle class from California, and may even lead to its demise.
put everybody in townhomes and condos? it would be great if that's what people desired, but it isn't the case.
how about stopping population growth entirely?
here's my idea: good planning in the central valley.
what's yours?
Stop trumpeting.
First, this LAT arty is a thinly-veiled paean to growth, with no discussion of the externalities - only a trumpeting of how growth is good. IOW, one-sided.
Now. What if we have 5M more people in CA? More off-stream users. For the sake of discussion, this may seriously stress water deliveries, which may ontinue to drive the middle class from California, and may even lead to its demise.
So, your substantive solution - good planning in the GCV - is already started. Development regs and zoning is being changed to grow up, not out; this may drive the middle class from CA, and may even lead to its demise. But this is good planning.
We can't stop pop growth entirely, so that's not realistic. We will have net in-migration as long as the economy stays strong - and that will continue to drive the middle class from California, and may even lead to its demise.
Gosh, lots of intractable problems. But it gets back to what Charles said, and none of them will be solved if we pave over the farmland. That's the first solution. Enforce UGBs is second. Efficiencies and meter water in the GCV, raise water rates to cities and farmers, priveledge multimodal transportation to lessen air pollution that will continue to drive the middle class from California, and may even lead to its demise (why I moved away).
Oh, another solution: stop trumpeting the capital-before-ecosystem-growth-good model.
Best,
D
What's My Solution
To answer the earlier question about what's my solution:
As I have said in a few other comments, for people who want detached houses, we should build streetcar suburbs rather than sprawl suburbs; classic streetcar suburbs take about one-third as much land as classic sprawl suburbs. There are also many people who would be as happy with rowhouses or urban apartments as with free-standing houses, and we also should build denser neighborhoods to accommodate them.
I do already own a house -- but it is on a lot of less than 1/20 of an acre in a century-old streetcar suburb where I can walk everywhere. (The lot was originally 1/10 of an acre, but it lost some land to eminent domain many decades ago.) If all new suburbs were built with a maximum lot size of 1/10 acre in pedestian- and transit-oriented neighborhoods, we could keep building new housing, preserve most agricultural land, and slow global warming.
For one example of a good solution, see the Greenbelt Alliance report "Getting It Right" at http://www.greenbelt.org/resources/reports/report_coyotevalley.html. The mix here might not be exactly what we need to accommodate demand, but this shows that you can build detached houses as part of a walkable neighborhoods.
Charles Siegel