By Jim Miller

We build massive business parks, financial districts and government operations in Downtown, Kearny Mesa, and the Golden Triangle (to name few). Huge daily migrations of people and their steel wheels converge upon these job knobs. Most workers start their work journey from vast oceans of houses, interspersed with shopping centers, a few malls, convenience and liquor stores, spreading like spores from a mushroom patch. The drive is over narrow ribbons of concrete and asphalt. Thus, the picture of a collection of large dumbbells emerges, with the housing and jobs at each end and the ribbon of highway between the two ends. Despite the best our "modern" planners can give us, metropolitan areas are decried for the traffic congestion, accident rate, crime rate, stress and pollution they cause.

It has not always been thus. The older European model of the family living on the second floor over their shop was imported to America and indeed is found alive and well in many of our older, Eastern cities. Our "modern" planner have eschewed this worker friendly model in favor of the bonehead, dumbbell planning model which requires large knots of people to travel the shank of the bone to get to work.

Think. If we were to reduce the number of car trips on our roads by half, we could save tremendously on energy and auto insurance, reduce pollution and auto, accidents, extend the life of our cars. We would have more free time, less stress, get to know our families better and probably put in a better day's work.

Well, all this good news sounds great, but who is listening and who is not? The auto makers, sellers and servicers; the oil industry; the highway contractors are not listening -- for obvious reason. The kids who live to drive and can't hear us over the thunder of their car boom boxes. The public employees charged with planning are not listening -- that's pretty obvious. Who, then is listening and who cares about changing the model so we get better utilization of our natural and people resources? You should if you want a better way of life for you, your kids and grand kids.

The better model is the "Integrated Community". The model is simple and has been with us for hundreds of years. It is time tested and has proven to be a viable alternative to the urban sprawl or center-city ghetto we see now. To achieve this goal, we will have to virtually wipe out all zoning restrictions and general plans as they are now constructed and adopt a few rules which will implement the models.

Some of the principals upon which the IC is based are:

1. It is good that you work and live in the same residence.

2. It is good that you can walk or bike to work from your residence.

3. It is good that homes can exist side-by-side with buildings in which work is done.

4. It is good that production facilities serve not only the immediate needs of their workers and child care needs but also, where appropriate, larger community needs.

5. It is good that where a production facility supplies a family need or a community need, that it gets fair compensation for such services.

6. it is good that employers create work pods in other geographical areas which require only a small amount of transportation between the main work area and the remote pod.

7. It is good when workers live in the production facility or on the grounds of such facility.

8. It is good that in the integrated community, the goal is to achieve a self-sustaining community of homes, shops and work locations. Planning and promotion should be directed at achieving a balanced mix.

9. Living and working in the same community should be the rule, not the exception.

10. Community leaders should work to develop a sense of belonging among the community members by integrating them into the services offered by local governmental and charitable entities.

11. Public business should be conducted in the most open manner possible. Mechanisms for instant and vigorous feedback should be installed in every home and in all government offices. A combination of fax, phone, computer bulletin boards and on-line services would be used to reach this goal. An enlargement of the Ralph M. Brown Act ("Sunshine Law") would be in order. The California Public Records Act should be amended to require that all government files be opened except for law enforcement purposes.

12. In some cases, government should be larger and in some cases smaller. When regional planning is need for, say, a new international airport, all public agencies having an interest in the matter should join one regional super-government to make the necessary investigations and decisions. On the other hand, land use decisions, could be delegated to a local council. We are moving toward that goal by having citizen advisory councils review and advise on development plans.

Essentially, we could have each large neighborhood or small community establish a planning commission which would examine all land use proposals and existing problems and pass initial judgment, with the right of appeal to the full city council or board of supervisors. Eventually, this planning commission would metamorphose into a mini-city council and would take over most of the functions of the city council, except those which truly have city wide requirements.

Thus a local council could decide whether to use the city trash trucks or contract with a private trash hauler. The "mini-city" council's power could be delegated by the regular city council or revoked, depending on the needs of the community and how responsibly the mini-city council handled its affairs. The "mini" city could use general city staff or hire their own for planning or other city duties.

Planning by cities now is influenced by factors which in the long run, constitute poor judgment by the city planners. Sales tax is a very important source of revenue. There is probably no city planner who does not like a new retail store or shopping center. Contrarily, there is a very strong prejudice against industrial uses which generally generate little or no sales tax revenue for the city of origin.

Why have we come to our way of dumbbell planning? When factories belched black smoke and were intertwined with railroads, the worker could not wait to escape his daily grind and flee to the suburbs. Those who were less fortunate, lived in row houses, cheek by jowl with the factory.

In the bygone days, a large green front lawn and white picket fences beckoned our weary worker home each night. All he needed was an old car and a few bucks for gas each week. Driving on the nearly empty roads was almost fun.

As our cities grew and the long ribbons of concrete passed their tentacles beyond the grass lands into the foot hills, the drive between home and work become longer, more congested and dangerous. We pass taxes for more asphalt, steel and concrete so we could increase our highway speed and thus keep the trips as short as possible. Even as this dream is fading, we build rapid transit systems, high speed rail, special freeway lanes and now "rent-a-highway" toll roads. More bandages on an already broken system.

Rather than spending more billions on transportation systems which are designed to perpetuate the dumbbell model of planning, why don't we spend a few million on implementing the Integrated Community model?

We bitch and moan about the urban sprawl, the loss of wildlife habitat, about the crime rate and unmanaged growth. I say enough of this BS. If we took 90% of our excessively large front lawns and turned them into vegetable and fruit gardens, we could lower or food bill by a considerable amount. How about building zero side, front and back yards and putting the yard in the middle of the house? Or arranging four houses around a central core of gardens and landscaping?

How about the model of the family living over or on the property which provides them with a living? Why not create a community, where a variety of jobs could be provided in the immediate neighborhood. We allow home occupations to very few types of professional workers and then only on a highly restricted basis. I see nothing wrong with a person having a car repair business inside his own garage. He/she can keep the door closed.

A few years back, I was interested in locating a small scale contractor's yard and shop in Santee. I found a perfect property to buy -- about 1 acre which had a small house on it and plenty of room for a small industrial building. The zoning was light industrial -- perfect for my use. When I inquired of the city planner, I was told that the house was a non-conforming use. I could either continue renting the house as a residence or if I wanted to construct an industrial building, I would either have to tear down the residence or disable it so that no one could cook or live in the residence. My plan was to continue to rent the residence. That would have given me some income to offset the debt service and at the same time provide some degree of security. If my venture were successful and I eventually needed more building space, then I could tear off the house.

The ruling was from the City Attorney's office -- not an ordinance, not a City Council policy, not a state law, but the opinion of one person that there would be a conflict between the preexisting, non-conforming use and the new industrial use and that I could not engage in both uses concurrently. Needless to say, I totally lost interest in ever making any investment in land in the City of Santee.

Horror stories much more devastating than the above can be told by any number of non-developer, regular good-guy(gal)s about the mischievous rules of local government. The cost to reverse or modify these rules become increasingly high, given the size and complacency of our governments.

If we are to house, educate and provide work for a growing population, we must plan ahead on a model which offers some chance of success. The perpetuation of the current dumbbell method of creating great knobs of living space some distance from the work locations is going to have to give way to the Integrated Community.

Those who now live in the 'burbs are going to have to change their attitude toward the "worker-in-residence" who makes his or her living at home or in a place located within what is now exclusive residential zoning. The "NIMBY" attitude is going to have to die or the holders will die with it. If cities and counties cannot change their planning model, then we, the good citizens, are going to have to do it ourselves.

There are several ways of making the change.

THE NEW (INSERT NAME) PARTY We can form a party, put in plenty of time and money and get control of the city councils and board of supervisors. This approach is rather unlikely, given the fact that the existing NIMBY's, special interest groups, and general inertia would make this approach very costly and time consuming.

THE SPEAR CARRIERS We can form a pressure group, sponsor petitions and get our own local laws on the books. This narrow targeted approach recently succeeded in severely reducing the value of hundreds of acres of privately owned real property adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest so that it could later be bought at a bargain price and added to the public domain. Whether you believe that this is classic inverse condemnation or the preservation of forest lands is beside the point. This approach will work on very narrowly drawn issues, but is inappropriate to design and implement a long term, community wide project which would be very dynamic and require creative solutions to problems as they arose.

THE SPLINTER GROUP Another classic approach is to create a new contract city. Many of the cities in Los Angeles County were born from this womb. The cities contract with the County or other public agencies for most of their services, but make their own land use and level of service decisions. Few communities can successfully achieve this goal in San Diego since most of them (by design) are bedroom communities and lack the tax base which industrial and commercial developments provide. Shot ourselves in our own foot, have we? I think so.

THE NEW (INSERT NAME) MODEL COMMUNITY We could generate a new model which would be developed in either a new area, yet undeveloped or in an area where development is so sparse as to provide sufficient raw land for the new model community. In San Diego County that would mean going to Boulevard or Campo. The beauty of this plan is that we start fresh without a lot of hang-overs from previous civic failures. We become as self-sufficient as possible and only use the highways for exceptional needs.

We will, of course, need to create several PODS in the industrialized, polluted, congested, existing cities. A POD is simply a remote, scaled down, version of the model community. For example, the POD would be housed in an entire condominium building next to a shopping mall and perhaps just down the street from an industrial park. The POD would own the condos, one or more stores in the mall and either own or lease productive facilities in the industrial park. Workers would live and work in or near the POD and in the course of time, rotate back to the main community for R & R. The main purpose of the PODs is to generate new cash flow which in turn off-sets the cash out-flow from the main community -- the "leaky barrel" syndrome.

Given enough time and savvy, the POD could change the rules of the City and thus allow more flexibility in what the members of the POD were allowed to do. If the City were to change for the worse or simply refused to cooperate, the POD could relocate to a more user friendly environment. By frequently substituting members of the POD and the main community, there POD people would not get stale or too depressed. POD could stand for People On Deployment. We could view it is a field trip or temporary duty in a foreign country, depending on the circumstances.

If this plan is not too long a leap of faith, we should consider creating our own city in the 'boons'. We might consider British Columbia, Oregon or Idaho if a San Diego County location does not work for us. Comments, anyone?

Jim Miller

earth4.doc