California Policy Watch

The role of free parking in land use, environmental and transportation policy 

Last week, the California State Senate passed S.B. 518, by Long Beach Democrat Alan Lowenthal, that would limit the amount of free parking that new developments could offer by incentivizing smart growth strategies in local planning ordinances and requiring that developers itemize the cost of each parking space.  The legislation will be referred to the Assembly, where it will go through at least one committee before qualifying for a floor vote.  At the time of publication, the bill had not been assigned to an Assembly committee.

Some legislators say free parking encourages people to drive instead of taking the bus, walking or riding a bike, which contributes to traffic jams, pollution and poor land use. The bill author, Senator Alan Lowenthal said:

“Free parking has significant social, economic and environmental costs. It increases congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.”

Republicans opposed the measure, saying the Legislature should not be meddling in how much people pay to park. The legislation is also opposed by associations representing California cities and counties. In opposing SB 518 the League of California Cities writes: 

The fact that SB 518 creates another mandate in this economy is troubling…it would be more appropriate for the Legislature to address this problem through other methods, such as studies, grants, or other forms of capacity building that respects local discretion.

The bill, supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club, provides financial incentives for cities and counties to stop providing free parking on the street and at government offices and to reduce the amount they require businesses to provide.

So, what does Lowenthal’s legislation actually do?  The legislation requires that all municipalities in California enact policies that would gain “points”.  Each community must earn 20 points by January 1, 2012.  The March article, breaks down the different ways that a municipality can earn points.  For example, any municipality that establishes or already has an ordinance that “Establish commercial parking maximums of 2 or fewer spaces per 1,000 sq. feet citywide or within the unincorporated county” earns ten points.  Municipalities that don’t meet the “20 point” requirement won’t be able to apply for certain state development or transit grants and could face sanctions from the local Air Resources Board.

Here are additional resources:

CA senate background paper: Reducing Congestion & Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Parking Policy

The Australian magazine Policy:  There is no such thing as a free parking space

The Frontier Center for Public Policy: How free is your parking?

The Obama Administration will soon announce an award to California of $2.35 billion in federal passenger rail stimulus funds with most all going towards high speed rail. The money is earmarked for four HSR segments–locally to the Los Angeles to Anaheim alignment–and for upgrades to the Pacific Surfliner route between San Diego and San Luis Obispo.

“This award will go toward specific projects,” explained Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, who is also the state’s High Speed Rail Authority Chairman, “but it will benefit every single section of our planned high-speed rail system by moving this entire vision closer to reality – closer to being the first true high-speed rail system in the United States.”

Beyond the L.A to Anaheim segment, the $2.25 billion for HSR will fund portions between San Francisco and San Jose and between Merced, Fresno and Bakersfield. Specifically, the money will go toward environmental planning and the design and construction.

The extremely bleak appraisal that California voters have had about the state’s economy over the past several years continues. According to the latest Field Poll nearly all of the state’s registered voters (95%) describe California as being in economic bad times, very similar to what was reported last March.

Weighing down current voter sentiments about the economy are big concerns that voters have about unemployment. At present, about eight in ten voters (79%) describe unemployment in the state as a very serious problem, similar to the previous record high proportion of 80% who said this in 1992 when the state was also in the midst of a severe recession.

For the third consecutive year a majority of California voters (59%) report being worse off financially than they were in the previous year. In no previous period over the past fifty years have majorities of Californians reported declining economic fortunes over a multi-year timeframe.

Voters are evenly divided about where the state’s economy is heading in the coming year. At present, 29% expect economic conditions in the state to improve, 39% foresee no change, while 29% anticipate a further worsening. Voters hold similar mixed views when asked about the state’s job outlook for the coming year, with 31% expecting job opportunities to improve, 40% seeing no change and 25% fearing a worsening of the employment picture.

When asked about their own financial expectations for the coming year, slightly more voters (27%) believe they will be better off than worse off (18%). However, by far the largest proportion (48%) anticipates no change in their own economic well-being.

Via NYTimes.com: Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

The 5-to-4 decision was a doctrinal earthquake but also a political and practical one. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision, which also applies to labor unions and other organizations, to reshape the way elections are conducted.

“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

Justice John Paul Stevens read a long dissent from the bench. He said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings. His decision was joined by the other three members of the court’s liberal wing.

Senate Bill 810, the California Universal Healthcare Act, authored by state Senator Mark Leno, was recently introduced and has the list of supporters include the California Nurses Association, the California Physicians’ Alliance, California One Care Now, the California Alliance of Retired Americans and former state Senator Sheila Kuehl, author of the two previous single payer bills.

 The bill is co-authored by Senators Alquist, Cedillo, Corbett, DeSaulnier, Florez, Hancock, Lowenthal, Padilla, Pavley, Romero, Steinberg, Wiggins, and Yee. The bill is also co-authored by Assembly Members Ammiano, Huffman, Yamada, Bass, Beall, Block, Blumenfield, Brownley, Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Hayashi, Jones, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Nava, Price, Ruskin, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, and Torrico.

What is different this time is that voters are now more aware, engaged and better educated on health care policy options and that this bill comes at a time when Schwarzenegger, termed out, could be replaced by a Democrat in November. 

Single payer healthcare legislation has passed the California Legislature twice in the past few years, and each time has been vetoed by Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

At least 500 health professional students recently demonstrated their support of the bill by marching up Sacramento’s Capitol Mall to join with more than 500 union members, seniors and health care reform advocates in a rally for State single-payer legislation.

Led by Allen Clark, president of the 40,000 member California School Employees Association, the crowd chanted loudly “All America should beware, insurance companies just don’t care,” and “Decent health care, that’s our right, We are here and we will fight,” along with “What do we want? Single Payer! When do we want it? Now!”

Via latimes.com: A panel of three federal judges has approved a court-ordered plan submitted by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to reduce overcrowding in California prisons, under a decision released today.

Schwarzenegger has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn last year’s decision by the federal judges presiding over a pair of lawsuits by inmates who said overcrowding violates their rights to adequate medical and mental healthcare.

In the meantime, the governor was required to submit a plan showing how, if the state loses, he would reduce the inmate population by up to 40,000 over two years. His first plan was rejected by the judges in October because it did not meet the required population targets or timeline.

His second, submitted in November, told the judges how the state could achieve the population reduction. Schwarzenegger said the governor would work with lawmakers to approve measures they rejected last year, including home detention with satellite tracking devices for some inmates; permitting some felony offenders to serve time in county jails instead of state prisons; and reducing sentences for property crimes.

If lawmakers refuse to go along with the plan, the judges could waive state law and order the measures implemented, Schwarzenegger said. The governor’s aides said they oppose such a solution, but would implement the orders if they lose their appeals.

The judges said they would postpone implementation of the plan pending resolution of the state’s appeal.