You wouldn’t expect a document titled “Vibrant Communities and Landscapes” to make so many people this angry.
“We are writing to express our concern and dismay over the draft ‘Vibrant Communities’ document,” wrote the Los Angeles County Business Federation (BizFed) on behalf of more than 163 business groups, 325,000 employers and 3 million jobs.
“Radical and without precedent in California public policy,” wrote Michael Lewis, senior VP of the Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition (CIAQC).
These comments were sent to Ken Alex, director of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, on Sept. 28. That was the final day of the public comment period for the draft of “Vibrant Communities and Landscapes.” It was only two weeks long.
“We strongly object to this inadequate amount of time to process a piece of policy this large and its potential impacts on the business community across not only L.A. County but the entire state,” wrote BizFed.
“We recommend that the document be scrapped,” wrote Lewis.
The “Vibrant Communities” document has cheerful photos of redwoods and sunflowers on the cover, but inside is a five-page plan to “consider land use in the context of California’s climate change policy,” and to ensure “that all Californians have equitable access to housing, health care, jobs, and opportunity.“
What does that mean, exactly?
According to the CIAQC, it’s “a new set of policies to govern every aspect of land use, transportation and air quality planning in California” written by eight state agencies without adhering to legally required procedures for new regulations.
The plan calls for policies that would allow new developments in previously-developed areas while discouraging “conversion” of open land. It envisions toll lanes (“priced express lanes”), fewer parking spaces (“reduced parking requirements for development”), and incentives for using transit in order to reduce “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT).
Driving, it seems, is the enemy of vibrancy.
But how is the government going to control how much people drive?
The answer can be found in a document released by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research last January. Thrillingly titled, “Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA,” the guidelines replace concerns about a project’s impact on traffic speed with calculations about the number and distance of vehicle trips it would generate. …
Click here to read the full article published by the L.A. Daily News
Even if the US/World did all of the hairbrained things they espouse, it would only change the temp less than a degree. And of course the liberals are SO GOOD at forecasting the temperatures 100 years from now. Never mind that the temp increase during Medieval times that allowed the colonization of Greenland and for grapes to grow in London gave us temperatures a LOT HIGHER than they are predicting now. And they completely ignore the FACT that a rise in CO2 FOLLOWS a rise in temperature, NOT CAUSE IT! No, Jerry the Incompetent his toady Mary Nichols of CARB, and Tax deLeon need to be tar/feathered/railed!
The problem is this is already being implemented throughout Orange County for sure. There is not one Republican prop this entire county; I live in Rancho Santa Margarita and sustainable city initiatives are already in effect – as well as Mission Viejo, Irvine especially, lake forest , Laguna Niguel etc.
Stanley Kurtz YouTube, regionalism Obama destroying the suburbs. Every single thing has been implemented here – in the focus for our region would be the southern California Association of governments and the director who is a former Soviet communist Who’s pulling off the same exact thing here. There is not one mayor or city Council member who has any say whatsoever and still to this day and unbelievable to me is how every city manager is not being called a new account – here in Rancho Santa Margarita, Jennifer Cervantes is a complete liberal who is been planted here from La Habra and as a former catalyst for the league of cities. I had a nerve and they cut off communication with me.