Schnaubelt discusses general plan for next 20 years.

Home

About

Issues

Schnaubelt

Stepner

Darragh

Links

Other Articles

Contact

Fred Schnaubelt

New General Plan Schedules Next 20 Years

Published in San Diego Transcript Nov. 3, 2010

The County Supervisors are holding a hearing Nov. 10 on the new General Plan, the most consequential issue of their careers, decreeing how and where 627,142 people will live over the next 20 years. (sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/gpupdate/overview.html )

With an appendix the plan is over 2,000 pages -- twice as long as "War and Peace" -- and riddled with contradictions. It would take a similar length book to address its errors. It's claimed in one section, "land values were actually found to be higher," after reducing the number of potential homes sites by downzoning thousands of acres (page 100, H-10). In another section, it's claimed just the opposite that by increasing the number of potential home sites "land costs... increase rapidly as density increases" (page H1-48).

The Keyser Marston (KM) report stipulates on page six only 7,500 "feasible" units will be lost through downzoning. From the "Overview" however, 42,000 can be calculated -- currently allowable dwelling units that will be eliminated, and a staff power point states there will be "36,550 less homes" in rural areas (Oct. 20 online.) Why are these figures so critical? Because, the planning department claims property owners will suffer no monetary or equity losses due to the General Plan Update. However, using the planning department's own figure (in Table 4-1, page H1-48) of $54,000 average land value per unit -- the loss to property owners is between $405 million and a mindboggling $2.2 billion. Even if you use the lower $405 million it will be devastating. (sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/gpupdate/bos_oct2010.html)

Appraisals by a rubber ruler

General Plan consultant Keyser Marston uses a "Hedonic Appraisal" regression analysis to prove there will be no losses. "First, computer regression programs are mindless," emphasizes nationally renowned appraiser A.R. Wilson, "they simply follow a set of instructions until they are fulfilled and then print the results. A regression may be nothing more than a rubber ruler that can be stretched to provide a desired result." He cites in corroboration an IAAO certified regression whereby 19,957 estimated sales prices out of 20,000 were wrongly skewed. (Google: Albert R. Wilson, Rubber Rulers).

The County Department of Planning and Land Use still clings to failed 1990s fads such as "Smart Growth" and junk science that have been long refuted using recent case studies in dozens of books, policy reports and by U.S. Department of Energy data.

A Harvard study, "The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability," by Edward L. Glaeser, analyzes 26 metropolitan areas including San Diego. The result: "Homes are expensive in high cost areas primarily because of government regulation, i.e. zoning." (post.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2002papers/2002list.html)

A Wharton Graduate School of Business study, Superstar Cities determined: "Scarce land leads to a bidding-up of land prices and sorting of high income families relatively more into these desirable, unique, low housing construction markets, which we label "superstar cities." In other words, by artificially creating a net shortage of residentially zoned land, the General Plan will make housing less affordable and require even greater taxpayer subsidies. Superstar Cities, Joseph Gyourko et. al. (Compares 10 Superstar cities including San Diego with 10 non-Superstars). (real.wharton.upenn.edu/~sinai/papers/superstar_cities_06-16-06-final.pdf)

The General Plan's objective is to "shift 20 percent of future growth from eastern backcountry areas to western communities." This can't help but shift traffic congestion that maximizes air pollution with "cold starts" and "hot soaks" to core areas instead of being dispersed throughout the unincorporated county's 3,570 square miles.

The underlying theme in many General Plans nationwide is captured in the statement: "A major shift in human behavior and Development practices is necessary" (pages 2-12). To save the planet -- lifestyles must be altered -- people must give up their cars for trips that take twice as long by public transit to reduce energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Ever behind the curve the Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) is unaware of the U.S. Department of Energy Data Book showing since 1991 automobiles consume less energy and emit less toxic emissions than buses and light rail per passenger mile. Nonetheless millions more are advocated for public transit, which accounts for less than 3 percent of trips and surveys unsurprisingly find 98 percent of commuters favor public transit for other people. (cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml) (Table 2-13)

Even more ludicrous, the General Plan's KM analysis claims that to service the 7,500 currently allowed units if built would needlessly cost county taxpayers $2.6 million annually, or $347 each (page 7) to provide services --- thereby justifying the downzonings. It's hard to imagine that property taxes won't more than cover this. Then this claim is contradicted in another section showing that 75 percent of some backcountry units will never be built as they are terrain constrained or inaccessible (Fact Sheet 5 table). If they can't be built, how can page after page of costly analysis claim that servicing phantom housing will cost the county anything? At this point the General Plan becomes an expensive comical parody.

Unfortunately, the new science of Behavioral Economics through the "Affect Heuristic" explains (See: Wall Street Journal 10/24/10), that among government employees, "It takes unusual courage for a (planner) to stand up and say, "something must not be done," lest "something" makes the problem worse. Especially for a "General Plan" that's taken 12 years and purportedly, $16 million to produce.

Determining how and where people can live goes under the of rubric "growth control," in which land use planning is totally committed to controlling people. Controlling "human behavior," however, isn't viewed kindly under the U.S. Constitution. Interestingly, the General Plan on page 1-2 advertises itself -- a constitution. A constitution of 2,370 pages including Community Plans and Appendix that takes away the rights of the people. By contrast, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights grants rights to the people, rights unheard of prior to 1776. It maximizes individual liberty in only six pages (plus amendments). The supervisors should eliminate all downzonings and reduce the General Plan to six pages while proclaiming they still support the property rights from which individual liberty and prosperity radiate.

                   Schnaubelt, president of Citizens for Private Property Rights, has been a commercial real estate broker
                   for 39 years and was a San Diego City Councilman from 1977-81.