esidents of the city of Santa Monica, a municipality plagued by traffic ills due primarily to a daily influx of working commuters (see graphic to the right). In an effort to reduce automotive congestion, a group of local residents have banded together to form The Coalition for a Livable City. Their solution to the problem has been introduced on this year's ballot as Prop T, known also as RIFT (Residents' Initiative to Fight Traffic). It identifies commercial development as the principal contributor to traffic in Santa Monica. To remedy this, it calls for a cap on this building type at 75,000 square feet each year for 15 years. Opponents of the measure counter that this stringent imposition will do little to lessen the number of cars on the road, and will actually stifle future progress made by the community government's ratified redevelopment road map, the LUCE Strategy Framework. A variety of local media outlets cover the ongoing debate over the efficacy of the initiative, including ABC 7, which features a video on their website showcasing its controversy (see graphic below). Additionally, Nate Berg, assistant editor of reputable source Planetizen, offers a well-balanced discussion of RIFT. Many blogs have also been offering analysis on this proposal, positioning it as a case study of municipal
planning aimed to promote sustainable civic practices. After review of the comments made by the authors of various blogs, I felt compelled to share my thoughts on the matter. I came across a defense of Prop T by Peter Donald, a Santa Monica resident highly involved in civic affairs. His opinion piece "No On T Campaign Aims to Confuse" may be found on the Santa Monica Dispatch website, which has largely published supportive articles on the measure. Mr. Donald identifies commercial development as the prime contributor to traffic, and that private developers are putting a negative spin on the proposal. Another post comes from the blog No On Proposition T (RIFT) in Santa Monica. It is operated by Neal Payton, a native of the city who works in downtown Los Angeles at a urban design firm. He staunchly opposes the initiative, and his blog has become a preeminent resource for those in the online community who believe it would be ineffective in accomplishing its goals. Among the numerous oppositional posts on his blog, Payton features one titled, "Proposition T in Santa Monica is my Candidate for the Worst Urban Planning Idea of the Year." He writes that advocates of the measure are using the issue of traffic to mask their underlying belief in the need for less commercial development. This opinion piece is featured in the popular blog site Streetsblog. I have left my comment here because his post at this location has already generated significant discussion. While my comments can be found under the comments section of each blog, I have provided them below for convenience."No on T Campaign Aims to Confuse"
Comment:
Mr. Donald,
Thank you for your insight as to why Prop T is a viable regulatory measure for helping to reduce traffic in Santa Monica. While I am not a resident of the city, I am a proponent of initiatives that promote sustainable civic practices. In reviewing arguments put forth by supporters and opponents of the proposition, I am able to see why the topic is so divisive. With over 10,000 signatures and support from several prominent city council members, it appears that Prop T enjoys a major backing by its residents. However, I ponder the process used by proponents to substantiate advocacy of the proposal by the public. It seems to me that as is true for most political issues, the methods for garnering support can be suspect. A good deal of those cited to be in favor of Prop T may not have ever fully understood both sides of the issue at hand, instead opting to initial their approval of something they were told would be an instrument to effectively reduce traffic in Santa Monica. I tend to agree with your logic that “it seems counterintuitive that less commercial development will have no affect on reducing traffic volume.” However, while this may in fact be true, do you think that this initiative is one that adeptly addresses the identified issue? In my analysis, I only see that it only slows down the impending rate of traffic entering the city. Because of Santa Monica’s beauty and the myriad of activities it offers, it will always be a destination for tourists and individuals from the surrounding Los Angeles area. Thus, I find that Prop T would not be a viable solution in helping to reduce the basic contributors of congestion ills. Instead, it would behoove Santa Monicans to support initiatives providing incentive for locals to utilize alternative means of transportation. Furthermore, members of the community could vote in favor of building infrastructure including public transportation that would support the city’s evolution into a more transit-friendly community. Thus while I understand why you support Prop T, I see it as a measure concerning not the issue of traffic, but one that asks its residents whether or not they are fundamentally opposed to further development in their area.
"Proposition T in Santa Monica is my Candidate for the Worst Urban Planning Idea of the Year"
Mr. Payton,
I have found your critical assessment of the merits of Prop T to be quite compelling. While I am not a resident of Santa Monica, I do believe in the implementation of sustainable civic planning policies. I find your argument that the methodology used by the Coalition for a Livable City was ineffective and outdated to be very interesting. If this were indeed true, then the foundation for this measure would be based on faulty premises. I ask you though, how did you know that this was the case? You assert that "their tool is the product of a methodology born in the 1960's," but where did you locate this study? After searching through both various websites in support of Prop T and Santa Monica civic websites, I have been unable to locate the subject of your analysis. I agree with your belief that this initiative targets more than just traffic reduction. This being said, I question the motives of its backers. I understand the clear interests of private developers and the frustration this may cause some people. However, as you have intimated, if this is not singularly about traffic, what do voters who do not have an interest in commercial development have against private development? If the answer is that they have no qualms, then it seems to me that a great deal of residents in support of this issue are voting on the shallow supposition that stifled development lessens traffic. Though I am not a professional planner, based on common sense I would agree with the logic of the argument put forth by Prop T advocates that freezing commercial development would consequently facilitate a renewed emphasis on residential housing. If an underlying aim of this initiative is to offset the imbalance between commercial and residential building types, wouldn't removing an option to build more commercial thereby stimulate construction of residential housing by developers? I understand your argument that a policy of this type leaves the potential for "mono-culture" type residential buildings, but if the principle short-term issue is a lack of housing options for commuters, then enacting measures that facilitate expansion of supply seems to be a sound maneuver. Nevertheless, because of its ambiguity concerning what it is attempting to address and my lack of confidence in its degree of effectiveness, I am not in favor of Prop 10.