So instead we have been blessed with some other methods to world salvation as enacted by the central planning apparatus in Sacramento. The effects of which will soon be felt in places like Sierra Madre. Unfunded development mandates being the most prevalent form these are likely to take.
But even in Sacramento they sometimes let the truth slip out, and in the process put big gaping holes right in the middle of their most carefully designed marketing campaigns. Here is how the California Planning & Development Report reported such a bean spillage:
Should California Restrict Driving In Order To Cut Greenhouse Emissions? Here's the thing nobody is quite willing to say out loud about implementing California's climate change law in the land use arena: The state may have to place an overall cap on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), even as it must accommodate more growth.
Kind of an interesting scenario. Limiting VMT would probably require some fairly unpopular regulations and law enforcement. And I guess that if somebody exceeds their weekly VMT allotment, they'd be in a lot of trouble. It doesn't take too much creativity to imagine VMT inspection stops, or maybe even on-board car computers that would alert the authorities to when an owner has just driven past their permitted mileage numbers. The penalties could be assessed in fines, with perhaps repeat offenders facing the loss of their right to drive a car altogether? You just know people would love that kind of action.
... at (the) UCLA Extension's Annual land Use Law and Planning Conference, keynote speaker Anthony Eggert, senior policy advisor at the California Air Resources Board (CARB), issued what amounted to a plea for help from the 400 land use practitioners gathered in the room ... He acknowledged that it's unlikely that the state will hit the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets contained in AB 32, the state's climate change bill, without attacking the question of VMT. Like everybody else who's addressed the question in public, Eggerts stopped short of saying that VMT will have to be capped and/or reduced in order to meet the AB 32 target.
So I guess we need to untangle this a little. Despite the many disruptions predicted by the implementation of AB 32, which include anticipated job and business revenue losses in some pretty noticeable figures, it still won't be enough to get California to the greenhouse gas emission levels deemed healthy for the environment? Now Eggerts didn't come right out an say it, but the insinuation was pretty clear. Unless you restrict automobile driving, all the rest of the Sacramento initiated "global warming solutions" won't get the job done.
Which does make AB 32 and SB 375 seem a bit superfluous. If limiting the use of internal combustion powered cars is the only real way of curbing greenhouse gases, why even bother with those two intrusive state laws? It is almost like they were passed because restricting use of what they feel is the real culprit here, automobiles, is the kind of politically toxic solution our elected officials would never dare to touch. That and both of these laws could make a lot of money for interests Sacramento favors, of course.
Bonus Coverage: Bill Coburn remains extremely upset with some of those posting comments on this site. So much so that this time he has actually transformed his cluttered SierraMadreNews.net site into The Tattler. Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery I guess, even if it's just for April Fool's Day. Now considering the nature of the unpleasant things Bill published on his site about Nancy Shollenberger and MaryAnn MacGillivray during the 2008 elections, my sympathy level for this gentleman's umbrage remains low. What's good for the goose, as they say.
However, he does have a point. Bill never did comment about the length of time the speakers at the most recent City Council meeting were permitted to discuss Joe Mosca's failure to keep his 2006 promise to the voters on the DSP vote, or his pursuit of a national political party endorsement for our nonpartisan local election, among other things. The fallacious claim that Mayor MacGillivray allowed those particular individual speakers to go on "for 15 minutes" (when the actual timed length was less than a third of that) belongs to the veracity challenged Susan Henderson, whose barking mad Mountain Views News has occasionally been graced by Mr. Coburn's contributions. That Bill sees no problem writing for a paper as truth deficient as that one, while at the same time vociferously (and repeatedly) chastising a few of the people posting comments on this blog, does seem both message divergent and obsessive.
But please, don't confuse Susan's baloney with Bill's opinions. He obviously doesn't like that. Would you?