Joe Guzzardi October 31 2002

As the California gubernatorial race thankfully enters its waning days, Gray Davis and Bill Simon are scurrying around the state trying (unsuccessfully) to convince voters that each has the answer to our myriad social and economic woes.

Among the multiple problems that the incumbent and his challenger claim to have the solution to are overcrowded schools, an overburdened health care system, energy and water shortages, excessive taxes, urban sprawl, traffic gridlock and environmental degradation.

Interestingly, neither Davis nor Simon has the slightest appetite to mention the common denominator in that laundry list ofconcerns: overpopulation.

The obvious fact is that if California had fewer residents, our education, medical and housing systems would be under less pressure. We would have more water and energy to go around and fewer cars on the road.

But bringing California’s population under control is a dicey topic. The issue is complex and the solution long-term. Those two components exclude participation by virtually every politician since most office-seekers are shallow and focused only on the next election.

In his October 25th Op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, Californians for Population Stabilization environmental consultant Ric Oberlink highlighted the problem politicians have dealing with population.

In 1994, Oberlink attended an environmental conference addressed by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Kathleen Brown.

At the end of her speech, Oberlink asked her: “In 1959, the administration of Gov. Pat Brown began with a state population of 15 million. In 1975, the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown began with a state population of 22 million. A Kathleen Brown administration would begin with a population of 32 million. Can our environment survive this never-ending population growth?

If so, how? If not, what will you do about it?”

Brown’s long pause before her vapid reply was a dead giveaway that she hadn’t a clue.

Consider the facts: in 1960, California’s population was 15.9 million; today, more than 35 million reside in California. Conservative estimates project 45 million people by 2020.

In 2001, California’s population increased by 652,000 or nearly 1,700 people a day. All will need schooling, housing and roads. Some of the unlucky ones will also need public assistance.

As pointed out by Oberlink, these statistics represent an annual growth rate of 1.9% or 50% higher than Bangladesh.

Realistically, Davis and Simon should be trying to outwit each other on whose plan to stabilize California’s soaring population would resonate better with voters.

But almost any excuse not to talk about population will serve. As an example of the nonsense used to delay serious debate about the consequences of huge California population increases consider “smart-growth.” This term, originally coined and promoted by the National Association of Home Builders, caught on as a possible method of revitalizing urban areas while building within those downtown cores. Hence, new homes would not sprawl out into undeveloped areas.

But in the few places where higher urban densities now exist—Los Angeles is the most prominent example—population pressures have not been alleviated. Again, look at Los Angeles.

Five years have passed since I first heard rumblings about smart growth. Check around you today—wherever in California you may live—and tell me what evidence you see that smart growth has been successful.

For a much better perspective about California growth read, “Sprawl in California” and “Weighing Sprawl Factors in Large U.S. Cities.” Briefly stated, the reports conclude that population growth and not land use are the overwhelming contributors to sprawl in California.

And of the 100 U.S. cities most impacted by sprawl, California has ten. They are, in order, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Riverside/San Bernardino, Sacramento, San Jose, Fresno, Oxnard/Ventura, Bakersfield and Stockton.

The reports, written by Leon Kalankiewicz and Roy Beck, are available at www.sprawlcity.org.

In the final analysis, politicians don’t talk about population because the word has become a euphemism for immigration. And immigration—as I do not need to tell you—is the most unmentionable word in the American political lexicon.

Davis and Simon have apparently entered into an informal agreement wherein if one doesn’t mention immigration, neither will the other.

Their pact is made all the more amazing when you consider U.S. Census Bureau statistics: more than 96% of California’s population growth is driven by immigration (legal and illegal immigrants and their children), most Californians are barely replacing themselves by having less than two children per year while immigrant families average more than 3.3 children per household.

Davis and Simon have their heads firmly wedged in the sand about immigration. And the losers are the millions of Californians who recognize immigration as the day’s most pressing issue.

Republicans and Democrats alike deserve better from their candidates.

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2002