A City Growth Boundary Has Its Limits

In cities throughout the American West, Los Angeles is a dirty word. Loosely translated, L.A. stands for uncontrollable urban sprawl, emotionally crippling traffic and faceless, endless subdivisions.

The irony, of course, is that the other major cities of the West have become what they beheld. In the Bay Area, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Seattle, Denver--even Salt Lake City and San Diego--sprawl is the rule.

The notable exception in the West is Portland, Ore. In 1979, civic leaders there formed a regional government called Metro, consisting of three counties and 24 cities. Metro drew a circle, called an urban growth boundary, around the city and said that no growth was going to occur outside the circle. Although the boundary has since been expanded slightly, it has been credited with preserving Portland’s pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods and downtown, as well as a greenbelt of wilderness less than an hour’s drive away.

Which leads to the question: Would a growth boundary help contain the San Fernando Valley’s sprawl?

John Schwarze is the county zoning administrator for the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission. A 33-year veteran of the commission, Schwarze has seen growth come full circle. When he started, growth in the L.A. area couldn’t occur fast enough. Now whenever it does occur, lawsuits often follow trying to prevent it. His job is to find a balance.

Question: The urban growth boundary worked in Portland. Could it work here?

Answer: It will work awhile in Portland--until the state of Oregon and Portland start to experience the same population pressures we have down here. One of the problems down here is that the city of L.A. right now is in a mode of restricting growth. What that means is that Los Angeles County and the other 87 cities in it are coming under pressure to accept the growth that can’t happen in the city.

Look around here. There isn’t much flat land left. But there is demand and there is a growing population--so the growth has to go somewhere.

Also, the state of California is trying to position itself to be business-friendly. And I don’t see anything coming from the state telling the cities and counties to restrict growth.

Q: One common criticism is that people don’t feel Los Angeles County has room for more development--yet we keep growing. How many more housing developments can the county tolerate?

A: People will find a way to live the American dream. They all want their own house, their own lot. One way they do it is to go farther and farther out. Sometimes it’s a false dream.

Q: If it’s a false dream, why allow it to continue--especially north of the Valley? A: I have been told that during the Depression, the state sent the Highway Patrol out to the Arizona border to the people coming into California from the Dust Bowl. They would tear up their licenses and turn them around. Well, it wasn’t very surprising when eventually the courts said you couldn’t do that.

So, unless you can come up with something like that, or a birth-control program, or stop giving the elderly medical care, the growth will continue and there will be more demand for more services and housing.

Q: Would a growth boundary be politically impossible to implement here?

A: Yes. In the first place, you are not dealing with just Los Angeles County and its 88 cities. The metropolitan area here goes all the way to Ventura, maybe even Santa Barbara, and all the way down to San Diego. It’s too much to ask for them to all agree to a Portland-type of solution.

Q: If we don’t stop or slow growth, when do we reach the saturation point?

A: What’s outside your window?

Q: Chatsworth.

A: See any high-rises? There is plenty of room to go vertical here, but that is something that’s an anathema out here.

Q: Would we be better off with a higher population density--instead of those single lots and single homes?

A: There are a lot of reasons to have more vertical buildings and higher density. There’s less cost for infrastructure and you have a better concentration of population--so it’s easier to plan mass transit.

But, the demand seems to be going the other way. People want the single-family house on the single-family lot. We actually have all sorts of provisions to try to encourage people to cluster their housing closer together to leave more open space.

But it’s a lonely battle. The home builders don’t want to build that kind of stuff because it doesn’t sell. The homeowners don’t want that kind of stuff in their neighborhood because they are afraid it will lower the value of their homes.

Q: Why haven’t more cities done what Portland has?

A: Most cities have an economic view of life. They’re afraid of doing anything that might backfire and prevent growth of their cities. Let’s say you make toasters. If you limit the population, you won’t sell as many toasters.

It’s a very brave and bold move that Portland made. But let’s see if it lasts.