A rational land-use policy in a state like California needs to balance the agricultural productivity against the proximity to housing demand. Though there is still more farming in LA County than you might expect, it's a tiny fraction of what you would've seen just 50 or 60 years ago. It just doesn't make sense to have orange groves in the middle of a major metropolis no matter how productive the are.
There are lots of places in California where the housing crisis could be greatly helped by converting just a few square miles of farmland into residential areas, particularly if the focus were on apartment complexes. Of these, the places where the need is most dire and the opportunity is greatest tend to run along the 99.
Check out Bakersfield, which has recently suffered some of the most explosive growth in home prices in the state despite being surrounded by unoccupied land.
If a little less than 1% of Kern County's farmland was used for housing immediately adjacent to Bakersfield, it would increase the city's residential area by one half. Obviously that would be overkill. 0.5% would be enough to largely alleviate the problem, even less would do if the development focused on medium to large apartment buildings.
Keep in mind, we are talking about developable land that is literally right next to the city. Bus lines would only have to be extended a half dozen miles. Many people could walk or bike to work and even those dependent on cars would only need to be making short drives.
Where we don't need to be having this conversation is around a car-dependent exurb about an hour from any of the cities it is likely to serve, even an exurb carved out of less productive land. This is why having the actual co-founder of California YIMBY invest in the latter is such an interesting plot twist.
No comments:
Post a Comment