Former governors Gray Davis and Pete Wilson, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols, and an overflow crowd of local officials and business leaders gathered Thursday in Los Angeles to discuss implementing California’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB375). This landmark legislation, the first in the nation, requires local governments to use greenhouse gas reduction targets in developing local housing, transportation, and community plans.

Takeaways from the session:

Local leaders are determined to emphasize sustainability, quality of life, and cutting pollution in regional planning, even if climate change science comes into serious doubt.

Creating incentives for smart growth is going to be very difficult during this economic downturn, as the state has defunded transit and taken city redevelopment funds.

Existing land use planning and revenue structures run counter to the goals of smart growth and sustainability.

Flexibility in state rules for implementing cuts in greenhouse gases will be critical for inland and suburban communities that cannot replicate Northern California building and transit use patterns. “Clean up” language is needed in the legislation.

Don’t underestimate market forces – people will find ways around laws they don’t agree with.

Educating voters (“we need to deputize every Californian”) on this legislation and being sensitive to their economic concerns at this time is paramount.

Yesterday’s meeting was the culmination of several background meetings over the past several months. It brought together the regional council of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Southern California Leadership Council, and the Global Land Use and Economic Council, a business coalition.

Remarks made during the proceedings:

“The overflow crowd indicates the scope of collaboration the region will need to implement this landmark legislation…The success of implementation will be based on flexibility.” – Jon Edney, SCAG President

“If we are going to discourage autos, we have to increase funding for transit…cities have to have money for redevelopment…we need to get revenue structures in line with SB 375.” – Governor Gray Davis

“…new home building and mortgage problems are making things difficult…high-rise condos aren’t working out financially for developers.” – Greg McWilliams, Chair, Global Land Use and Economic Development

“Be careful when the science is under attack. Our science needs to be beyond the pale – people are looking to California as a leader in this effort. We need to be sure that the science is there, for example, that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by high-rise development.” – Lucy Dunn, President and CEO, Orange County Business Council

“Government should be required to take a Hippocratic oath (’First, do no harm’). Be damn careful about undertaking major changes unless you are absolutely sure they are going to make things better…It is difficult enough to create jobs in this economic climate and if we don’t reverse this, local and state government will be without revenue to do even basic things.” – Governor Pete Wilson

“It’s great to talk about Northern California type transit-oriented development, but in most areas here we can only do transit-ready development..SB 375 cannot be about greenhouse gases, it is about housing a growing population and providing jobs while we reduce greenhouse gases.” – Greg Devereaux, Ontario City Manager

“One size doesn’t fit all. The north Los Angeles County district is larger than the other four districts put together, but isn’t getting a fair share of transit funds…Structural reform is needed; not always more funds, but better distribution of funds.” – Mike Antonovich, LA County Supervisor, 5th District

“There are no representatives from school systems here…schools need to be part of this dialogue.” – Sharon Quirk-Silva, Fullerton Council member

“California can’t lose its ability to remain aspirational in tough times. I happen to believe in SB 375 and AB32…I want a toolkit and rules of engagement…whether or not the science is there, land-use planning has not worked out well for the state.” - Beth Krom, Irvine Council member

“The phrases repeated today are what we call ‘co-benefits’ – everything we do has to achieve multiple benefits: cleaning air, reducing gridlock, making communities healthier, and motivating smart growth.” – Mary Nichols, Chair, California Air Resources Board

From Patterico:

So it’s “terrorism” to hold elected officials to their word??

She “guesses” it’s about free speech, but it’s “extremely unfair”?

This is the sort of attitude we’re seeing in Sacramento. They want to do what they want to do (raise taxes ad infinitum) — and they’re so very irritated at having to deal with petty annoyances like their signed pledges, and the voters’ wishes.

And from Hot Air Blog:

There’s a lot of stupidity and tyranny locked into those few words. The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, even apart from the “free speech” issues Bass casually discards. Elected politicians are accountable to the people who elect them in a free society. Politicians do not acquire lordly status when they go to the Assembly, or anywhere else.

Usually, politicians are smart enough to at least pay lip service to getting feedback from their constituents. Instead, Bass calls them “terrorists” for … what? Calling their representatives and telling them not to raise taxes even higher, in the state with the sixth-highest per capita tax burden in the nation? Expressing their opinions? Telling politicians they won’t get their support if they vote for a tax hike? That’s democracy, not terrorism, although I’m hardly surprised that Bass can’t tell the difference.

LA Now reported on another setback to California representatives: a state court of appeals ruling last week that they can’t appropriate transportation funds to cover budget shortfalls.

Carol Platt Liebau stands up to pitches against Prop 13 and the 2/3 majority rule by batting the arguments out of the park:

Ultimately, any honest assessment of California’s plight must assign responsibility for the state’s fiscal crisis – not to the taxpayers who voted for Prop. 13 three decades ago – but to the politicians who have subsequently exploited them without mercy. Indeed, if spending had simply reflected average population growth plus the average increase in the cost of living since 1991, there would now be a $15 billion surplus. After adjusting for inflation, the state now spends nearly 20% more per capita than it did 18 years ago; even as California’s tax revenues increased by 167% during that period, state spending exploded by 189%.

And Capitol Weekly reports on Governor Schwarznegger’s proposal to reduce budget shortfalls by cutting state employee benefits and pensions – a sore subject for California taxpayers who don’t enjoy nearly the amount of health care coverage or future retiree benefits their taxes support for state workers.