In Ecology ofFear, Mike Davis contends that Los Angeles is exceptional in the number of major natural and social disasters it experiences, and that both types of tragedy are intensified through similar types of human (in)action. The former argument largely fails because Davis does not control for the enormous size of LA. Nor does he compare the results of these disasters to other dangers threatening residents. He thus makes pointless an assessment of the overall importance of these avoidable tragedies. Unfortunately, his gloomy tone has led many critics to dismiss him as paranoid and to miss the importance of the latter argument. Here, Davis relates three historical accounts where social and political factors are at least as important as the truly natural in determining the understanding and attempted management of "natural disaster." The unsupported argument that LA is exceptional and the narrative power of the case studies, combined with the rest of the nation's latent contempt for LA, may leave readers fantasizing about the ruin of the City of Angels when, in fact, they ought to be bringing this insightful analysis to bear on their own disaster policy questions.

Although land use planning and urban design are increasingly touted as powerful tools for influencing transportation behavior, only modest empirical evidence for this relationship exists. Here, the results from a two-day activity diary are combined with innovative GIS-based measures of urban form and land use pattern to statistically test potential influences on non-commute home-based mode choice. Local measurement at multiple scales is promoted as a realistic means of quantifying an individual’s perception of the neighboring urban environment, and multinomial logit models are specified for various trip purposes. In all models tested, the inclusion of measures of urban form or land use pattern improves the model. Generally, the measurable role of physical factors is small; however, their influence is relatively large in a model predicting station access mode choice.

By 2020, most forecasters agree, California will be home to between 43 and 46 million residents -- up from 35 million today. Beyond 2020, the size of California's population is less certain. Depending on the composition of the population, and future fertility and migration rates, California's 2050 population could be as little as 50 million or as much as 70 million. One hundred years from now, if present trends continue, California could conceivably have as many as 90 million residents.

Where these residents will live and work, and how future Californians will occupy the landscape are unclear. These are important issues as California plans its long-term future. Will future population growth consume ever-greater amounts of irreplaceable resource lands and habitat? Will jobs continue decentralizing, pushing out the boundaries of metropolitan areas? Will development densities be sufficient to support mass transit or will future Californians be stuck in perpetual gridlock? Will urban and resort and recreational growth in the Sierra Nevada and Trinity Mountain regions lead to the over-fragmentation of precious natural habitat?

How much water will be needed by California's future industries, farms and residents, and where will it be stored? Where should future highway, transit and high-speed rail facilities and rights-of-way be located? Most of all, how much will all this growth cost, both economically and in terms of changes in California's quality of life?

Clearly, the more precise our current understanding of how and where California is likely to grow, the sooner and more inexpensively appropriate lands can be acquired for purposes of conservation, recreation and future facility siting. Similarly, the more clearly future urbanization patterns can be anticipated, the greater our collective ability to undertake sound city, metropolitan, rural and bioregional planning.

This report presents the results of a series of baseline population and urban growth projections for California's 38 urban counties through the year 2100. Presented in map and table form, these projections are based on extrapolations of current population trends and recent urban development trends.

Outside the immediate visage of regional policy analysts and smart growth boosters, the local growth control & growth management (LGC&M) movement remains extremely active, especially at the ballot box and especially in California. Analyses show LGC&M activity to be strongly correlated with state and regional growth rates—rising during expansionary periods such as the late-1980s and late-1990s, and falling during slowdown periods such as the early-1990s. Although exact numbers are hard to come by, it is estimated that about three-quarters of California cities and two-thirds of California counties have adopted some form of LGC&M program since 1980.

Their continuing popularity notwithstanding, many questions remain about the efficacy and effects of LGC&M programs. Four are of particular interest:

(1) To what extent do different LGC&M approaches really restrict the amount, pace, or location of growth? (2) To what extent are the resulting supply restrictions reflected in local real estate prices, especially housing prices? (3) Which LGC&M programs and approaches yield their promised benefits and which do not? (4) Do LGC&M programs cause growth to be systematically displaced from more restrictive to less restrictive communities, leading to such negative outcomes as sprawl and wasteful commuting?

Using California as its lens, this report focuses on these unresolved questions. In no other US state is growth as tightly managed at the local level as California. Likewise, in no other state is there such a diversity of local growth management approaches and experiences. From a research perspective, because California lacks a statewide growth management framework, the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of growth management can be traced back to its local implementation. The report is organized into six sections: (1) Recent theoretical and empirical research into the use and efficacy of LGC&M programs; (2) An updated taxonomy of growth management and growth control measures, paying special attention to the circumstances under which such measures are likely to affect housing supplies; (3) Considering the question of efficacy by comparing pre- and post-control building permit volumes between specific growth-managed communities and carefully selected sets of comparison or peer communities; (4) Using GIS and cross-sectional regression analysis to identify empirical relationships between LGC&M programs, housing production shortfalls, and local housing prices; (5) Extending the peer-based comparison analysis to consider some of the potential benefits of growth management; and (6) Looking at the spatial displacement effects of LGC&M programs.

California is home to 64 military facilities, more than any other state. All four military service branches, in addition to the US Coast Guard, operate facilities in California. More than half of California's military facilities are located within, at the edge of, or within a stone's throw of major metropolitan areas.

California is also home to more than 34 million people, most of whom live in metropolitan areas. By 2020, the California Department of Finance projects, California's population will grow to 45 million. If past trends continue, the majority of this growth will occur at the edges of existing metropolitan areas, nearby or adjacent to active military facilities.

Many military facilities conduct operations that extend beyond their perimeter boundaries and generate significant aircraft and artillery noise. As California's population grows, the number of people living near military facilities and impacted by facility operations will also grow.

Without some degree of forward planning to reconcile the space needs of California's growing population with the operational needs of the military, the encroachment of urban growth on California military installations may significantly compromise the presence, functions, and missions of the military in California.

This report provides information regarding the potential encroachment effects of projected population growth and urban development on California military installations. It also presents and evaluates alternative planning and policy approaches for dealing with current and projected encroachment issues. Finally, it develops a web-enabled spatial database for use by civilian land use planners and military operations planners in analyzing encroachment issues and undertaking future encroachment zone studies.

Purpose

Methods and materials

Results

Conclusions

Purpose

Methods and materials

Results

Conclusions