BAAQMD Seeking To Require Developers to Study Air Quality

The Mercury News reported yesterday on a proposal by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District that could require some housing developers to go study air quality as part of their entitlement process. According to the article, developments within 1,000 feet of major transportation corridors seem to be those affected.

The air district already has a guideline calling for industrial developers to examine pollution effects on existing residents. Now housing developers will have to do the same thing. In its new proposal, the air district for the first time has added diesel soot and fine particles as a criteria for triggering a pollution study.

Cities and counties can choose to ignore the guidelines, but they would risk being sued by project opponents alleging a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

This is a ridiculous piece of bureaucracy. Before going down this road and asking developers to prove their developments are “safe”, I think the BAAQMD should prove that their is a higher incidence of lung cancer in densely populated locales such as New York City. In fact, if you look at the CDC map for lung cancer deaths by state, you’ll see that some of the most populated states actually have the lowest rates of death by lung cancer.

If there is a significant increase in pollution and risk from living within 1,000 feet of a major transportation corridor, then the BAAQMD should produce the results, and just require developers to disclose the study to potential buyers. But to go and require developers to study air quality is ridiculous and is another example of why California is in the mess it is in.

The second issue is that cities have worked hard on implementing “smart growth” plans, encouraging development nearby transportation corridors. For the BAAQMD to come up with this requirement would fly in the face of that. In fact, one of the reasons to grow next to transportation corridors is to reduce traffic. By having developers potentially looking farther “inland”, it seems the rules seek to do the exact opposite.

This proposal is nothing more than a reason why in California, it is best to do nothing. Because it seems that every time the government does want to do something, it makes things worse.

The proposal is up for vote on Wednesday, so we would urge everybody to contact at least their most local representative on the BAAQMD board to recommend a no vote. You can find a list of board members here.

[via Mercury News]

Similar Posts:

• New FHA Rules Make Life Tough For Condo Sellers
• Silverstone Properties Fails in its Bid to Rezone Property
• Bill Halford of Bixby Land Company: Wait
• NVIDIA Gets Go Ahead to Build 2M SF Campus in Santa Clara
• Apartment Vacancy At 30-Year High; San Jose Leads Rent Declines

Comments

Leave a comment