That one Joni Mitchell song

Yeah, you know you know it.   It’s been used to headline (or end) a letter or two for practically any development concept in Alameda: proposed Target at Alameda Towne Centre, Alameda Theatre, Alameda Point, etc…   Even though the irony is that the proposed land is already paved or a parking lot has already existed there.   If we really wanted to talk about paving paradise, the San Francisco Chronicle has a story about sprawl and its subsequent impact on the amounts of open space aka paradise that will be left in the Bay Area if the sprawly trend is to continue.  Coupled with the downturn in the economy and housing market, perhaps it’s as good as a time as any to reexamine our collective land use patterns while the majority of folks are taking a breather from buying homes, even the ones that you have to “drive until you qualify.” Highlights:

…[Tracy] sits as a symbol of the quest by working- and middle-class Bay Area residents to find housing they can afford - a pursuit that often draws them further from the traditional job centers in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose.

…

The migration comes at costs to the environment: loss of natural habitat, increased greenhouse gases and a growing strain on the watershed.

“Sprawl is an inefficient and unsustainable use of our land resources,” said Elizabeth Adam, spokeswoman for the Bay Area Open Space Council. “It is often the default pattern of development that solves short-term problems but has very negative effects on communities over time.”

…

“Between 1980 and 2000, the number of commuters from 12 neighboring counties into the Bay Area’s nine-county core nearly quadrupled from 30,000 to 117,000 daily,” [Gabriel] Metcalf and [Egon] Terplan found. “Given that the vast majority of commuters were driving alone, nearly 90,000 new cars were added to already-congested roadways from trips alone.”

Vehicle emissions account for half the greenhouse gas emissions in California.

…

The loss of open space has altered California’s economy and ecosystem.

“We’re losing migration corridors for animals and compromising our watersheds and paving over productive farmland,” said Amanda Brown-Stevens, field director for Greenbelt Alliance, a Bay Area land conservation and urban planning organization.

…

Brown-Stevens said the demands of population growth and the search for affordable housing can’t be ignored. However, she said, there are development options that are less harmful to the environment than building on remote open lands.

One such option, she said, is the construction of compact residential developments with a mix of condos, single-family homes and apartments in cities. Ideally, they would be near stores and job centers and have easy access to public transit to make it more convenient for people to get around without driving…

While I can understand the lack of enthusiasm some folks have for welcoming new residents to Alameda and the nuisances that seemingly come with it like traffic congestion, despite the best efforts in Alameda to keep folks out in order to “protect” what it has, the population of the Bay Area and surroundings will expand even if Alamedans don’t like it.   Traffic congestion will grow on our freeways and therefore impact our ingress and egress even if nothing ever gets built ever again in Alameda.   But if we truly want to be stewards of our city, county, region, and state we should consider what impact our lack of a diversity of housing does for the region and beyond. 

And from another article in the SF Chronicle about climate change affecting our land use patterns, highlights:

…[Will] Travis also said the changing conditions might make bayside growth desirable in selected locations. Large-scale projects could serve as a sort of buffer to what already exists on landfill.

…Travis suggested. “There’s a lot of low-lying development we need to protect … we need a new type of more resilient development.”

…

For decades, critics have complained suburban sprawl covers farmland and causes air pollution because of increased automobile use. They now point out that those long commutes boost the amount of vehicle miles traveled - a major factor in carbon emissions.

Also, inland housing tracts tend to be in communities where summers are hotter, boosting energy consumption per capita.

The flip side: Much of this sprawl has occurred because of growth limits imposed by cities near the bay…

…[Ken] Kirkey said climate change alone won’t cause people to change their attitudes on growth. What’s new is an understanding of local land use’s larger ramifications.

“There’s a willingness to discuss the way we grow because of climate change,” said Kirkey, ABAG’s planning director. “People get the connection.”

As for what comes next, “This is a region that thinks of itself as a leader,” Kirkey said. “If we want to be a leader in responding to climate change, we can’t just buy Priuses. We need to talk about where and how we live.”