Web Salon: Farmlands and the New Cities

It’s probably fair to say that the movie “Chinatown,” which depicts a dramatic struggle between orange farmers and real estate developers in the Los Angeles area, has influenced how most Californians understand farmland urbanization.

But whereas that partly fictional account relied on murder and mystery, the history of California’s rural development is likely one of cooperation as well as intense competition.

As we consider the predicted rapid growth of California’s farmlands over the next half-century, what historical instances of rural development are worth our attention?

What moments of conflict or collaboration should we revisit for a fuller understanding of what might lie ahead?

When I was interviewing residents of rural Sonoma Valley for my book on the wine country, they were acutely aware of two historical cases that didn’t want to repeat: the examples of the Santa Clara Valley and the San Fernando Valley.

In the years following World War II, both places were overwhelmingly rural. The Santa Clara Valley’s boosters promoted it as “The Valley of The Heart’s Delight,” and even though that was p.r. puffery, it’s easy to be nostalgic for the lost fruit orchards. Now the region is better known as “Silicon Valley,” and despite its economic vitality, the place is mostly a disaster of urban planning (or the lack of it) and ugly concrete sprawl.

And LA’s San Fernando Valley is still the classic example of the problems of suburban explosions. It’s astonishing that both valleys were transformed within a single generation. In my reporting I found that Sonoma’s residents were well aware that their cherished agricultural land could go the same way if they weren’t vigilant. Today Sonoma has postcard beauty, but in 50 years it might look like Silicon Valley, especially since a “Telecom Valley” began forming near Highway 101 in the ’90s.

Still, I was surprised when Sonoma County’s voters didn’t pass an initiative to lock in most of the county’s land as agricultural for the long-term, which Napa County had done many years before. Napa’s move enabled it to preserve its physical beauty and rural character. But the scarcity of land that could be developed helped to drive up real-estate prices that ultimately pushed out and excluded all but the very affluent.

So I think that Napa is the other historical example that deserves careful scrutiny.

There are a number of models to look at-within the last fifty years, right here in California, and they present a basis for comparison on a variety of levels.

One might start by looking at the growth and urbanization of Los Angeles that changed vast areas of farmland into single-family suburbs during the 1950’s and 60’s. Under pressure from the growth industries of the defense and entertainment and the mobility of the WWII GI’s, Los Angeles County changed from farmland to city quickly, opportunistically, and without much environmental oversight or consideration.

In contrast, Orange County contained the large agricultural aspirations of James Irvine. The Irvine Ranch was developed according to a master plan that provided for cities and towns, parks and open space, commercial and housing areas that cover hundreds of thousands of acres. The contrast between master planning and more random development can be seen in stark contrast to each other.

Also in Southern California, it is instructive to look at the difference between the Inland Empire Counties (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties), and San Diego. In a very general sense both areas are the result of overflow from the Los Angeles Basin. The Inland Empire is growing as a “bedroom” community providing a less expensive housing alternative for workers from both Los Angeles and Orange Counties.

San Diego, in contrast, has had voter-driven growth management policies for several decades, and while no system is without challenges and inequities, arguably San Diego has been successful in growing a job base along with housing, to provide for a fully integrated local economy and self-sufficient communities.

There are other examples-San Jose and Silicon Valley’s growth to Napa and Sonoma, Monterey and Carmel.

We don’t lack examples and/or good and bad models. We often lack political consensus and political will.

A follow-up question for Mr. Deutschman and Ms. Whiteside:

When I overlay your responses, the picture that emerges is one of clear choices clouded by political forces.

For a consensus to emerge, who will have to come together — and what kinds of sacrifices will they need to make?

For example: will California’s farmers, confronting growing competition from abroad, be more or less amenable to restrictions on their current business practices?

I think that the biggest lesson we can learn from the past (and even movies like Chinatown) is that growth is inevitable (the primary issue is in what form) and that resource allocation will drive many related economic decisions.

The Valley’s agricultural heritage is very much the result of a reliable source of water being made available to farmers. (Thanks to the visionaries that fought some thirty years to develop the State Water Project). Today, agriculture preservation efforts have become the cornerstone of efforts to manage development in the Central Valley.

Unfortunately, the retention of productive agricultural land have been affected by state actions under the previous administration which withdrew its support for the Williamson Act. While the Williamson Act was eventually retained, this signal sent shock waves through the agricultural community.

Additionally, recent state and federal efforts to reallocate water resources and the underdevelopment of water resources has resulted in growing pressure to restrict water rights. Combined with state employment policies which have increased the cost of doing business in the state, as well as national and international competition, farmers will simply find it too expensive to continue to farm and development may be the inevitable consequence.

I’d like to quote from a recent report on a predicted drought and its impact on the Central Valley Project:

Many of the contracts under which CVP water is delivered are up for renewal in 2004, and critics want farmers to pay more for their water, which they say would encourage rational changes in crops. For example, alfalfa hay consumes roughly a quarter of California’s irrigation water, but generates only four percent of California’s farm sales. Charging farmers more for water, critics argue, would end the practice of growing water-intensive crops in arid areas.

While I do not wish for us to diverge into a discussion of water and resources, I would like to suggest that some believe California’s farmers have been paying below market prices for water. If true, this may mean that a “market correction” would alter the landscape for farmers in ways that are not necessarily related to pressure from developers.

Likewise, you cite “state employment policies which have increased the cost of doing business in the state” as an important factor. Yet, there is likely a surplus of farm workers, a number of whom are, as you know, unauthorized immigrants. Again, I don’t mean to draw us into that thorny topic, but I cite these claims in the hopes that you might articulate the following:

Is growth just another threat to agriculture? Or, do you believe urbanization presents any opportunities for farmers to transform — and improve — their businesses?

Absolutely, growth always offers opportunities. A growing California population at a minimum offers market opportunities not available before.

I also believe that urbanization will force farmers to improve their business practices but I would argue that California farms are already dynamic. California farms are more efficient in their resource allocation and day-to-day business practices compared to just 20 years ago.

California farmers are far ahead of the nation and the world on pollution control efforts, pesticide application restrictions and other technology changes. This has often put them at a competitive disadvantage internationally but the value of what California farmers produce is twice as much on 4.5 million fewer acres than in 1982. Any business with any type of longevity must adapt or perish.

The issue of water pricing raises some fairness issues that cannot be resolved by simple mathematical equations. Farmers have always been willing to pay their fair share of costs but should they shoulder the sole burden of the cost shift resulting from greater urban water consumption?

Farms have already been subject to significantly reduced water allocations at the same time they are being asked to shoulder increased costs. Paying more for less always creates adverse market conditions. When farmers can make more money selling their water rights than they can earn for any type of crop, pressures for development are sure to follow.

As this discussion continues, there are a number of issues and considerations that impact feasibility-the cost and direction of development-especially in the San Joaquin Valley. Population growth and mobility, global markets, labor cost and availability, and environmental issues; water is important but not the only issue.

There is an oft-repeated idea that water should be “marketed” and sold to the highest bidder, like cars and consumer goods. Selling water almost certainly outprices most agricultural operations and forces the landowner to change crops, change land use (as the supply of affordable water decreases, the pressure to develop increases), draw more deeply from the groundwater table at the risk of increasing chemical and mineral contamination, and risking subsidence.

Though California law and policy has consistently expressed support for farming and agriculture through the state water project, the Williamson Act and the California Farmland Conservation Program, the dynamics of consumer choices and the increased values of land driven by development pressure are overwhelming public policy in many places. The realities of the costs and the impacts of growth need to be written to match 21st century reality.

The discussion about growth in the Valley (and in other places in California, as well) is about choices. Growth and change are happening and will continue. It seems to me that we should continue the discussion about the value of farmland in the context of all the related issues. How and where will we house the next ten or twenty million Californians? How will the water supply for urban, ag, and environmental uses be provided? How can we provide sufficient transportation options to meet personal as well as commercial needs? How will we pay for schools and parks, universities and public safety?

Relying on the uncoordinated decisions of hundreds of local governments, landowners, and developers will likely give us uncoordinated, inefficient and consumptive development.

A question for Ms. Gonzalez but open to all:

Should [farmers] shoulder the sole burden of the cost shift resulting from greater urban water consumption?

In your estimate, will developers be asked — and do you believe they can be forced — to approach water consumption in such a way that farmers are not adversely affected?

Might cities in the Central Valley include aggressive water conservation regulations set consumer pricing baselines as part of the “price of admission” for any new development?

First, I don’t believe the issue of growth and growth control, water consumption and conservation limits, should be confined to a discussion of what Central Valley communities must do.

Much of the growth in Central Valley is a by-product of communities outside of the Central Valley not meeting their housing needs (affordable or otherwise). The state’s housing element requirement adds to this problem since it establishes community housing targets based on projected population growth, not on the unmet housing needs of region’s workforce. As such, job rich communities are given a relative pass and families migrate to the Valley in search of affordable housing. (Ask many Central Valley to Bay Area commuters!)

As it relates to any development limits, certainly new developments must consider the available resources and meet those needs in a responsible way. Since water flows from the Central Valley to outside the region, any conservation effort must be statewide. I believe that we can create incentives such as tax credits for farmers to conserve water that will make more water resources available. Additionally, development standards will need to recognize the need for water conservation so that farmers and bedroom communities are not playing a zero-sum game.

However, I also believe we should pursue new and better water development projects. Modern science can help us develop water storage projects that will benefit all consumers, including farmers and the environment.

I agree with Deborah that growth is inevitable, that the big issue is what form does it take, and that growth does bring its own opportunities as well. How do we influence the shape of that growth? How, as Jose asks, do we build consensus and make decisions about sacrifices? Obviously that’s not easy to answer. I think it’s important to engage the entire community in long-range planning. If growth is coming, we should decide where we want it and prepare to manage it smartly rather than let it happen haphazardly.

Sometimes that means voter-driven measures such as agricultural preserves and urban growth boundaries. It might mean concentrating development in towns and cities rather than inviting boundless sprawl. It’s not enough to count on zoning to safeguard rural areas. In the past it has been all too easy for well-funded developers with political influence to get the zoning changed and put in strip malls and subdivision. For smart planning to work, it’s got to have teeth. That’s why voters have been looking to measures that lock in their land-use mandates for the long-run rather than risking the incremental incusions that inevitably come.

As scary as growth can be, it does bring opportunities. In Sonoma, for example, there are plenty of small farmers who are succeeding by gearing their production for the many good restaurants and markets there that will pay for their high-quality local products. Many parts of Europe have a closer relationship between residents and farmers than we have in America, but in some places, at least, we’re beginning to emulate their model.

I think it’s important to engage the entire community in long-range planning… For smart planning to work, it’s got to have teeth…

A follow-up question for Mr. Deutschman:

As you were researching your book on the Napa and Sonoma counties, “A Tale of Two Valleys,” did you find instances where the entire community was engaged in long-range planning?

I ask because, as you’ve already noted, these are — or have become — wealthy communities. The Central Valley is less so today. Thus, I wonder how it is that the communities of Napa and Sonoma were formed and transformed by growth.

Jose,

In response to your last question: yes, actually, I did observe a broad-based community engage in serious long-term planning in Sonoma, though the process was more effective in the town of Sonoma, which has only a few thousand residents and a few square miles, than in the county of Sonoma, which is geographically large and very diverse. The townspeople were galvanized when a developer proposed building a very high-end luxury hotel on the unspoiled hillside that’s the scenic backdrop to the village. That began months of intense debates about the town’s future.

The population was very mixed between rich and poor, actually. Sonoma has lots of trailer park enclaves and senior citizens living on fixed incomes and scrappy bohemians–artists, poets, craftspeople–as well as mansions belonging to dot-com zillionaires from San Francisco and Silicon Valley. There were strong passions on both sides of the issue: many people saw the economic opportunities of growth but others were very afraid of ruining what they loved about the place–its small scale, its sense of community, its harmony with the natural environment. You couldn’t go to any public place–the cafes, the farmers market, the bookstore, the town square–without hearing people discussing the issues. City council meetings drew big crowds and went on until after midmight. Ultimately the town had an incredibly high turnout at the polls to vote on ballot initiatives. First they voted down the luxury hotel and decided to preserve the land as a park and create hiking trails for all to enjoy. Then they voted in an urban growth boundary, which other small towns in Sonoma County had already done.

At the county-wide level, I watched the fiery debates as voters considered the Rural Heritage Initiative, which aimed to lock up most of the county’s land in an ag preserve for decades to come. It’s harder for a large county to come together in well-reasoned discussions, though. There was a richly-funded disinformation campaign that sent out mass mailings claiming that the initiative would prevent farm families from building a second residence on their property for their grown children to live in, which was uttterly untrue. Still, it was effective propaganda, and it helped defeat the measure. On a county-wide or state-wide level, the people with money to spend on advertising have a real advantage, and that can interfere with the more encouraging example of direct democracy that I witnessed in the town of Sonoma. Still, even at the county level, it was great to see voters grappling with the future of their home.

Looking at the future of the Central Valley, I wonder whether a similar pattern will emerge. It’s much easier to engage in meaningful debate at the local level than in bigger regions, and the Central Valley is certainly a geographically expansive place.

A final question for Ms. Whiteside:

In your last comments, you ended with a call for coordinated, regional leadership on growth. Certainly, we cannot underestimate the importance of a political or governmental plan to account for all the unknowns you have just cited: water, housing, transportation, schools.

We have already touched, however briefly, on the role of farmers and farm-based communities. Yet, there is another important player in this real-life drama: the developer and the consumer.

[T]he dynamics of consumer choices and the increased values of land driven by development pressure are overwhelming public policy.

Would you describe and speculate the way that consumer choices — and developer practices — will need to evolve in the Central Valley from what they are today?

Where shall I start? There are so many aspects to the dynamics of community design and development!

First of all, let me say that we all recognize the importance of consumer choice — in driving political action and in influencing the marketplace. Survey after survey reports the desire of the consumer for a single family house on a private lot — the typical suburban “American Dream” home. However, I don’t think we can overestimate how many things go into shaping and influencing that choice — the hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent in promoting it, by developers, subdivision salesmen, water faucet and window manufacturers — and even Sunset Magazine’s first “dream home” was a huge single family home on a big lot!

The federal tax subsidy for home ownership that comes through the interest deduction. That public policy alone encourages consumers to buy bigger and bigger houses and use the tax deduction to support a growth strategy in real estate investment, rather than enable moderate income home buyers to find affordable family housing. Surveys rarely test economic reality — they ask what people would “like” without posing choices based on their earning level or stage in life. Focus groups often reveal a much more differentiated marketplace, with a wide range of opinions and preferences that the marketplace has been ignoring.

So understanding all the economic and commercial drivers, there are still huge opportunities in the market to respond to the choices of an increasingly diverse consumer base.

For the first time in literally decades, downtown housing is regaining popularity, as young people, often single and without children, look for the excitement of living near coffee shops, galleries, restaurants and within walking distance of commercial areas and transit stops. In fact, they think the suburbs are boring! The sort of vibrant downtowns that are attracting people back to the big cities are a bit harder to find in the smaller cities and downtowns of the Valley, but there are still opportunities to build more choices for a variety of consumers. I once read that the Valley could accommodate all the projected growth of the next 25 years — literally millions of people — within the spheres of influence of the existing cities, if new building would take place at relatively modest densities — approximately equal to Davis and Modesto — that are arguably very livable cities. Too many town councils are afraid of the “d” word — density, in spite of the fact that some of the densest housing and developments are found in the most exciting places.

Parking spaces are another huge issue in the development business, and they absorb vast areas of land. It is one thing to use land for housing — its another to pave it over for cars only. In many communities, we are building at least three parking spaces for every car — one at home, one at the workplace and a third in the shopping area. New communities that promote walkability — not only with design and sidewalks, but also by providing services — neighborhood scale commercial areas, parks and safe paths to school provide huge benefits — less air pollution, better health, and less land consumption.

There are lots of good ideas, and even lots of great models from all over the US and the world. Curitiba, Brazil with a highly effective ubiquitous bus system; Walnut Creek, California a suburban city with a traditional and vibrant downtown, Turlock, California with a fixed urban edge that directs development away from the best farmlan…

Too often new development replicates what sold last year, and may even re-use the same design plans to create cookie cutter sub-divisions, insensitive to the context of the community. It is up to the planners and the policy makers to demand better, and to ensure that a wide array of options are produced — then we will be able to more honestly evaluate consumer choice. Californians want good places to live — good schools, safe streets, interesting neighborhoods, protected open space and a healthy environment. If we can make the case that responsible and attractive development patterns can provide housing choices, a good quality of life and a healthy environment, I am confident that consumers will respond enthusiastically.