If you don't like the science, ignore the science

It is accepted as fact by most serious scholars of urban planning, public policy, and environmental policy that suburban sprawl is bad for the environment--more water to keep individual lawns green, more energy for heating and cooling, more air pollution and traffic congestion because everyone needs to drive a car to get anything they need.

That's why people seeking to address the issues of air pollution, global climate change, water resource sufficiency, traffic congestion, and energy conservation all want to adopt policies that stop subsidizing individual homeownership and start creating incentives for transit oriented and mixed use development.

Of course, if your whole reason for existence as a council member is that you are opposed to policies that would save energy and water, reduce traffic congestion, and combat global climate change, well, the last thing you'd want to see is those policies actually be implemented and be proven successful.

It also explains (well, sort of) why Steven Ly wants to take up city council time to get their support for a meaningless set of resolutions he wants to present to the League of California Cities.

Cleaner air, reduced energy usage, reduced water usage, and combating global climate change are things we should be working towards, but it's always easier to campaign against things that will produce diffuse benefits to future generations when you can instead grandstand about opposing government regulation and unfunded mandates.

Some examples of unfunded mandates: The Americans Disabilities Act. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and its amendments (including the ADA). The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (and amendments). The Clean Air Act. The Safe Drinking Water Act. Etc., etc. If people always did the right thing, we wouldn't need unfunded mandates. But because we know that many people will discriminate if they're allowed to, and polluters will pollute if they're allowed to, and the free market doesn't care about negative impacts on common property resources (like oceans, air, and global climate), unfunded mandates are sometimes necessary to promote the general welfare. There are plenty of situations where unfunded mandates are good, and basing your opposition to those policies on the empty shibboleth of unfunded mandates is just plain bad policy.

Code Words

Maybe "unfunded mandate" is a code word for "plain old regulations".

Unfunded mandate is a code

Unfunded mandate is a code word for "Regulations that I disagree with, but can not provide a rational argument against." That's true for pretty much any argument that degenerates into name calling.

What was the ranting against?

What was the ranting against? Mixed use?

Because fuel costs are going to make suburbs less economically desirable and viable, cities will have to come up with some way to encourage people to live near their workplaces.

I think that generally means figuring out how to have a strong mix of jobs.

The other factor is housing, and that's kind of beyond me. Some economists probably have good ideas.

I think the rant was against

I think the rant was against Steven Ly and the stupid resolutions he wanted to get passed that would block implementation of regulations aimed at curbing global warming and reducing the amount of pollution Rosemead dumps into the ocean every day.

AB32 and SB375

How can certain councilmembers say opposing implementation of AB32 was a "gutsy move"? It's the exact opposite. It's easy to stand up and say you're for jobs today. The gutsy stand would be to stand up and say that the future impact on our environment is so great that we have to be willing to accept a certain level of unemployment today. After all, what good are jobs today if we wind up losing our long-term water supply, our agricultural output, and our fisheries? How much courage does it take to say you support your sugar daddy, Mike Lewis?

Thanks. I had to look it

Thanks. I had to look it up.

It's controversial today, but in a decade it'll be as hotly debated as the Clean Water Act -- that is, it'll become a political third rail.

There are forces larger than California pushing for regulations like AB32. It's best to get on board right now and get a lead on being a locale where some clean energy and GG reduction tech companies headquarter.

Rosemead is so close to all this green space, that if they took a lead on "green" law, it would cause some leading-edge people to take notice of the city. And that would put Rosemead in a desirable environment, to paraphrase an annoying slogan.

But, as it is, with people fighting against worthy regulations, Rosemead just looks like a bunch of know-nothing, anti-science yahoos.