I was reflecting today on the provocative theme: Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way!, of the 8th Annual Ventura County Housing Conference, which was held the morning of September 30, 2009 in Camarillo. Yours truly moderated a “New Laws” Breakout Session, which discussed three pieces of legislation with drastic implications on housing in our State: AB32, SB375, and MS4.
As I prepared my remarks for the Conference, I quickly realized that, in addition to providing the factual details, timeline, and potential impacts of this legislation, it was also important to frame this discussion in terms of the “Leadership” theme for the day. AB 32 – California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, intended to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions, will bring sweeping changes in the way we work, live, and do business in California. SB 375 (dubbed the “anti-sprawl bill”) links local Land Use with AB 32 Implementation, by seeking to reduce vehicle miles traveled, through promoting “sustainable communities”.
But, for Ventura County, the most immediate and significant new legislation is the recently adopted MS4 (municipal separate storm sewer systems) permit requirements, which impose new precedent-setting storm water standards. While MS4 permits have been required since the early 1990’s, the Building Industry Association warns that the May 7, 2009 renewal permit for Ventura County represents the most stringent stormwater regulations in the United States, and includes stormwater retention requirements for new development that BIA analysts believe to be technically and economically infeasible. (More on this in a future article here.) Rather than focusing on the “nuts and bolts” of the laws themselves, I used my time at the podium to explore the genesis of these regulations, which came at a time of great economic and political uncertainty, specifically reflecting on the state of leadership as these laws were written and passed.
I think most of us can agree that today’s leaders in both government and the private sector are faced with an increasingly complex collection of priorities, problems, regulations, and constraints. Our elected officials face the added complications of unfunded mandates, budget shortfalls with limited options for increased revenues, and vocal involvement by individual residents and well-organized special interest groups. We elect our leaders to lead … to take the time to become well-informed about the issues at hand, and to make responsible decisions based on the best interest of the community or district they represent. But, so often, vocal minorities of virulent voters fill city county chambers in opposition of what might be in the long–term best interest of the overall community. Or, if some of the voters don’t like the decisions that their representatives make, a well-funded special interest group can co-opt the legislative process by going directly to the public with a referendum, promoted by sound-bite size “facts” and lots of emotional flare. In the face of such pressure, our decision makers often opt for expediency, or simply choose the path of least resistance, even when making choices with profound and far-reaching consequences. And often, the source of many of the next round of problems, are the “solutions” chosen in this type of volatile civic environment.
While there can certainly be valid reasons for voters to distrust their elected officials, I sincerely question whether the current trend of “governance by initiative” is working. We need to elect leaders who we hold to the highest standards of competence and integrity, and subsequently support them in making sound decisions. And if they don’t, we have the means to remove them from office! If we could alter the climate of distrust, by empowering our leaders to LEAD … to make the tough decisions based on a thoughtful, informed, and non-partisan assessment of the issues at hand, as well as an honest evaluation of the long-term impacts of any proposed solutions … then I believe we would be able to “get out of the way” and let the democratic process work.