California Voters Still Leaning Slow-Growth

7 November 2008 - 11:00am

Bill Fulton writes that despite the real estate downtown, the slow-growth side won most California land-use measures on Tuesday's ballot. But public transit did well.

"In balloting Tuesday on local land use measures in California, slow-growth advocates won 22 of 36 elections. Opponents of development rejected an ambitious plan for the San Diego waterfront, endorsed a tight growth control initiative in Redondo Beach, and extended agricultural land protections in Napa and Solano County.

But pro-growth forces won high-profile victories in Oxnard, where a subsequent vote requirement was proposed for most projects, and in Santa Monica, San Marcos and Redwood City.

Election day was a good one for transit. Voters in Sonoma and Marin counties approved a new sales tax to fund a commuter train through the two counties. Los Angeles County voters backed a half-cent sales tax to fund numerous transportation projects, including extensive rail and bus service expansions. In a portion of the Alameda County Transit District, voters doubled the parcel tax to fund bus service. In Berkeley, voters rejected an initiative to block a bus rapid transit lane on Telegraph Avenue. And in West Sacramento, voters endorsed a plan to spend sales tax revenue on a new streetcar system."

Source: California Planning & Development Report, November 5, 2008

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The San Diego Measure

With all due respect to Mr. Fulton, San Diego voters rejected a foolish and shortsighted plan to put a 40-foot-high deck over our WORKING PORT! Many reasons why that was a bad idea. I think it's a little simplistic of him to characterize that as simply a "pro-growth -- No". San Diego is generally VERY pro-growth.

You can argue whether or not that's a good thing, sure. But it's a fact.

Bookmark and Share
The areas where we have severe blight and indications of more blight to come are basically the same as they ever were. How in the world are we ever going to move our community development selves into an alternative future that thinks differently about the challenges we face in our cities and low-income suburban and rural communities?