文章基本信息

标题：A consensus on growth?
期刊名称：Growth Strategies
电子版ISSN：0894-1297
出版年度：2000
卷号：Jan 17, 2000
出版社：FutureScan

A consensus on growth?

Historically California has ridden a boom, and-bust cycle of growth and retrenchment. No growth/slow growth sentiments gain strength when the state economy booms (as now), diminish when business and employment stagnate (as in the early 1990s). But today even environmentalists acknowledge the need for economic vitality, while business leaders recognize the need to maintain a high quality of life. The trick for the future will be to turn these common understandings into common ground.

How might this be accomplished? One promising trend are "community-indicator projects," efforts by local governments, Chambers of Commerce, enviromental activists and business\ intrests to jointly acess what types and levels of growth are both desirable and sustainable. Evaluating economic and social indicators that measure a community's quality of life and standard of living, it is hoped, reveals common problems and opportunities to all participants. The result, it is devoutly to be wished, is the building of consensus among divergent groups on solutions and plans of action.

How can California reap the benefits of both land-use planning and free-market resource development? According to Samuel Staley of the Buckeye Institute and Lynn Scarlett of the Reason Public Policy Institute, through market-oriented planning, among whose principles include:

Devolution of power. Communities ought to be able to make their own decisions on how their land should be used. Statewide land-use plans should be discouraged.

Flexibility in decision-making. City areas should be usable for many purposes. Since cities are constantly evolving as the needs and desires of residents change, master plans should be suggestions than rigid rules.

Limiting standing. Only people affected by a development should be allowed to voice their concern .S, not pressure groups.

Make developers pay for improvements - within limits. Developers should pay the cost of new roads or other infrastructure, but should have some say in how their money is spent.