California's Regional Planning Examined in PPIC Report -- California Capitol Hill Bulletin -- Volume 10, Bulletin 3 -- February 14, 2003
A new study by Elisa Barbour of the Public Policy Institute of California that came out in December, 2002 traces the history of regional planning and growth management in California, and examines the question of whether the state can manage growth at the regional level in the future as well as under current governance conditions.
The study provides an overview of the state's planning reform efforts throughout the 1900-2000 period divided into three distinct waves. The first wave of the so-called Progressive Era "home rule" power and urban consolidation occurred during the early years of the 20th century. It allowed city governments autonomy to raise taxes, issue bonds, and build large-scale infrastructure needed for urban expansion without the interference from the state government. According to the study, the "home rule" period resulted in a transformation of the state's metropolitan areas into clusters of independent localities.
The second wave of reforms emerged after World War II, when single-purpose state agencies took over various policy areas of growth planning. Continuing into 1990, the second-wave agencies provided large-scale infrastructure and coordination to implement numerous policy mandates across multiple jurisdictions. However, due to the fact that such single-purpose agencies were not required to match their plans to an integrated set of state policy objectives, the second-wave reforms led to a system of fractured regionalism devoid of comprehensive coordination among agencies responsible for the oversight of a range of growth management areas.
The third and current wave, which began in the 1990s, consists of several elements, namely policy integration across functional areas and an emphasis on collaborative decision-making among existing institutions. Drawing on the Progressive Era "home rule" precedent, many reformers today advocate a kind of reform that would allow cities flexibility in tailoring their responses to the changing economic conditions, rise of global markets, and the challenges of the industrial age. According to the study, there are "twenty one "collaborative regional initiatives" now [that] promote economic competitiveness, social equity, and environmental quality across the state."
After identifying the historical background of growth management in California, Barbour assesses the viability of current reforms and whether they are well-suited for the state. The author concludes that third-wave collaborative models based on developing regional consensus and increasing cooperation among existing institutions will work well in California given greater and more active support from the state government. In order to ensure effective regional planning under new initiatives, the study suggests, state government should work on eliminating barriers to cooperation and reorienting local planning toward regional needs.
For more information on this study, please visit the Public Policy Institute of California website: www.ppic.org.
To expand communications between Washington and California, the California Institute provides periodic faxed bulletins regarding current activity on Capitol Hill which directly impacts our state. Bulletins are published weekly during sessions of Congress, and occasionally during other periods. The e-mail edition is made possible in part by in kind donations from Sun Microsystems and IBM Corp.
The California Institute for Federal Policy Research
A Source of Information on California and Federal Policy
419 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, D.C. 20003
voice: 202-546-3700 fax: 202-546-2390 ransdell@calinst.org
http://www.calinst.org