What do you think about this bill taking aim at urban sprawl?

Question

Given the passage of AB 32 several years ago, isn't this a smart move?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-sprawl21-2008aug21,0,6484720.story

http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={9E153CE6-F41B-49EE-9F91-CDF977D572F4}&DE={2544B8AA-FEF7-4D1E-8849-91FF01934B25}

Answer 1

This is not a smart move, this is another example of how red the greens really are.  Not only do they want to redistribute our wealth and control how we live, now they want to control where we live.  What part of this do people not get?  

Answer 2

It is the claim that the more trees and plants that are destroyed, the less oxygen we need will be made.  The more people reproduce, live longer, and "sprawl", the more room they take up, intruding into the natural design of things.  The less land available to grow food to feed the people, the less food that will be available to eat.  Killing off animals in the name of progress is also killing off some of our food sources.  Can't eat steel and asphalt.  Add pollution to kill off even more just for money.  What good will all this money do if you cut off your basic needs for survival (food and oxygen)?

At the rate of reproduction and the higher life expectancy, we will eventually live on top of each other anyway with no food source and lack of air.  The government is merely anticipating the eventual outcome without coming right out and saying why.  Perhaps the grand scheme of things is to herd us all together and put a dome over our heads.      

Answer 3

If Urban sprawl were as big a problem as its detractors claim it wouldn't exist (since the better options would be chosen by people and would win out in the market).

If you want to save the planet you've got to replace the power plants and transportation systems with cleaner technology, not stop people from living where they want to live.

Answer 4

"Will Californians drive less to reduce global warming? Maybe not on our own -- but state officials are ready to nudge us."

Yeah, if people would only stop working for a living...they must be punished somehow...

It seems like a way of letting more cities and infrastructure deteriorate while giving those funds to certain contributors who will accept that money in the guise of "meeting climate goals."  More like "meeting financial goals."

Dana: Do you live in the suburbs?  Shouldn't you move downtown and find a job there so you can reduce your commuting time and so wildlife can have that land (that your house sits on) again?  Or are you better than everyone else for some reason?

Answer 5

One man's sprawl is another's convenience.    X number of people settle an area, cut down trees, build nice homes, and a mini mall goes in to serve the new customer base, and that's all good - then other people want to do the same thing and the first people blow the whistle on it and call it "sprawl."

Answer 6

I hope this affects Al Gore and i hope it fails. There is no Global Warming

Answer 7

Why would anyone locate in California anyway? Mudslides, fires, pollution, and high prices. I think the solution might be... Have anyone that's over 5'5" and having round eyes, moved to government isolation camps in North Dakota. At least till GW is resolved. If I remember correctly something like this was already implemented. It's focus also was based on, over reaction to fear.

Answer 8

Does no one else find all this government interference in the name of climate change or global warming, whatever it's now called, a little concerning?  

Answer 9

I think it's a smart move.  California is obviously making great efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and urban sprawl is a big contributor.  Just consider Los Angeles which has massive sprawl and massive traffic congestion.  The Bay Area isn't a whole lot better, and Sacramento's sprawl and traffic have also been growing.

It's good to see steps being taken to address this problem.