From Smart Growth to Sustainability:

The Challenge of Multiple Paradigm Change(1)

Sherman L. Lewis III, Professor of Political Science
California State University, East Bay
Hayward CA 94542 USA


Abstract: Metropolitan regions like the San Francisco Bay Area succeed in some ways, yet fail at sustainability. There are ways to achieve sustainability and social equity without losing prosperity. The paper discusses Smart Growth, fighting freeways, aggregate vs. per capita growth and human capital, social equity and jobs, the status of women, job location externalities and housing responsibility, fiscal reform and affordable housing, global warming, carism, and indicators. Each of these ten topics reveals a conflict between a dominant, hyper-growth paradigm and an emerging sustainability paradigm. Better measurement, economic analysis and market choice are major additions to the usual governmental policies for managing growth. Given the political infeasibility of promising ideas at this time, education is needed to develop support for sustainability.

Keywords: affordable housing, aggregate growth/per capita growth, alternative growth, carism/auto dependency, capacity model/congestion model/pricing model, cost-effective transit, elasticity, externalities, fiscal reform, freeway tipping point, gentrification/inequitable dislocation, global warming, growth projections, housing responsibility, human capital, indicators, job location externalities, job-housing balances/regional job location management, market price, migration, moving rate, paradigms, Pedestrian Neighborhood, Smart Growth, status of women, suburbia/urbia, sustainability.

Introduction.  Home

"Sustainability" requires that the environmental impacts of this generation not rob future generations of opportunities equal to ours. For some people, it primarily means making industrial technologies more productive, more energy and resource conserving, and less polluting. For others, it means recognizing that consumerism, especially American-style, cannot be sustained and is even now degrading the environment, exploiting third world workers, and causing catastrophic global warming. For many it means going beyond a narrowly defined sustainability to include goals of social equity, economic prosperity, and environmental quality.

"Sustainable community" and "sustainable growth" apply the concept of sustainability to two major urban planning and development issues, land use and transportation. In each, a dominant paradigm has supported unsustainable, unending growth and has failed to distinguish between the kinds of growth that can be sustained and those that cannot. In each issue area, a sustainability paradigm is emerging to challenge the conventional wisdom and established interests.

"Smart Growth" is the new paradigm in land use. Smart Growth involves builders, planners, and environmentalists in an uneasy alliance promoting higher urban development densities, transit orientation, and open space protection. Builders see a way to provide more housing, but are uncertain about neighborhood vetoes, buyer resistance, and just how much housing can really be built. Planners see a way to get greater efficiency in land use and marginal transit gains while still accommodating the automobile. Environmentalists see a way to gain credibility in open space fights, form new alliances with affordable housing advocates, and revive the walking-transit city. In transportation, the new paradigm is fighting freeways, supporting cost-effective transit, de-emphasizing the dominance of the automobile, serving low income people, and promoting walking and bicycling.

These land use and transportation reforms, though still part of the solution, are unlikely to achieve sustainability alone. The campaign for sustainable growth would become much more effective if it were construct a larger framework by including new paradigms emerging in other policy areas. These ideas also help explain why 1) Smart Growth and 2) Fighting freeways and supporting cost-effective transit have failed to stop sprawl and auto dependency. The larger framework would add eight emerging paradigms related to 3) aggregate vs. per capita growth and human capital, 4) social equity and jobs, 5) the status of women 6) job location externalities and housing responsibility, 7) fiscal reform and affordable housing, 8) global warming, 9) carism, and 10) indicators.

Each stream of thought has a community of scholars and activists focusing almost exclusively on it, usually only vaguely aware of the related ideas. Such focus is well-justified, because each area has tremendous complexity and challenges in its own right. Each area has a dominant paradigm of conventional policy wisdom supporting hyper-growth that reformers are intent on overthrowing.

In addition to substantive content, each policy area tends to emphasize certain modalities of action. Land use planning has traditionally emphasized design, planning, and regulation reflecting the interests of urban planners and architects. Transportation policy has emphasized central planning, political pork barrel, and tax and spend bureaucracies reflecting the interests of public works engineers and development interests. The policies new to urban growth management bring in additional modalities: deregulation, social services, indicator reform, externalities and Pigovian taxes, fiscal policy, tax swaps and elasticities, and market based pricing reforms that consider aggregate demand. These policies balance government and market, and regulation and choice. A deepened economic analysis informs policy and adds pervasive incentives to the usual "growth management" focus of traditional land use and transportation policies.


1. Smart Growth.
    Sustainability requires protecting the greenbelt and rebuilding a post-suburban "urbia" based on land development efficiency, proximity, walking, transit, and amenities.

2. Fighting freeways; supporting cost effective transit
    More highway capacity induces its own demand due to underpricing; European-quality transit works in denser corridors but cannot be cost-effective in dispersed suburbia.

3. Aggregate vs. per capita growth and human capital.
A sustainable region requires that the basis of the economy shift from aggregate growth to per capita growth based on investing in human capital.

4. Social equity and jobs.
    Jobs which provide opportunity for disadvantaged people are better than jobs which drain the rest of the world of the talent it needs for economic growth.

5. The status of women.
    Improving the status of women gives disadvantaged women and girls more opportunity for education and paid work, increases productivity, and lowers population growth.

6. Job location externalities and housing responsibility.
    Cities with severe job surpluses have the primary responsibility to increase housing, not cities with housing surpluses.

7. Fiscal reform and affordable housing
    Perverse local tax incentives encourage one city to get taxes from people who live in other cities, and penalize cities for providing affordable housing.

8. Global warming.

    People, especially Americans, have already substantially and irreversibly changed the global climate, requiring a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions.

9. Carism.

    Auto dependency has unacceptable economic, social, and environmental costs. Car use should generally be a market good (drivers pay), not a social good (public pays).

10. Indicators.
    Sustainability requires a radical change in accounting systems to include social and environmental values in income statements, balance sheets, and regional accounts.


1. Smart Growth.
Sustainability requires protecting the greenbelt and rebuilding a post-suburban "urbia" based on land development efficiency, proximity, walking, transit, and amenities.

Smart Growth is a new paradigm opposed to the dominant paradigm of high growth and sprawl. Smart Growth would stop development in the greenbelt and foster higher, transit oriented densities within urbanized areas. It would end the destruction of natural and rural values by dispersed auto-oriented development using freeways and parking lots. It would redevelop urbanized land with mixed uses and higher densities near transit. Smart Growth supports more transit, bicycling, and walking, and less auto use through such means as reduced parking, traffic calming, and other disincentives. Demand for transit would increase, supporting greater frequency and lowering transit subsidies. Typically, a five minute walk down a tree-lined walkway would lead to nearby shops and frequent transit. Tight urban limit lines and density are essential to meet housing needs in a way consistent with sustainability. While neo-traditionalism, the Ahwahnee principles, and the New Urbanism may sometimes allow dispersed development, their design concepts are otherwise part of Smart Growth. The design of Smart Growth has been best articulated by the Congress for the New Urbanism, a organization of the nation's leading architects, designers, and town planners. A catch phrase or acronym that defines Smart Growth is "COMUTO": Compact, Mixed Use, Transit-Oriented.

Synergy for system change. Smart Growth is not just buildings and density, but system change. It is not just cramming more people, cars, and pavement into less space, which can be called "smashed suburbia." Systemic change also requires better neighborhood design, transit, and transportation pricing reforms to reduce auto use, so that higher densities have less traffic and better street life with no loss of access.

System change is not accomplished by land use reform alone, in isolation from other policies. Transportation reforms, discussed next, and transportation pricing reforms (discussed under carism below), encourage system change by creating modal choices and market forces that reinforce Smart Growth land use. None alone works very well. Traditional land use planning, of course, remains important. Urban systems result, rightfully, from a combination of public policy on land use, transportation infrastructure, and market forces.

How dense is dense? Density figures are notoriously difficult to deal with because of variations on what kind of land is being looked at and whether the figure is for population or households. Smart Growth projects should be in a range of densities from about 40 to 100 people per gross neighborhood acre. Gross neighborhood acre includes properties used for housing, local streets and parking, local business, primary schools, churches and smaller parks. It excludes central business district uses, industrial areas, major institutions, larger open spaces, bigger parking areas, and major utility and transportation rights of way. It includes neighborhood shopping centers but excludes regional shopping centers. Sometimes mixed or ambiguous uses make delineation difficult. A neighborhood has from about 2,500 to 20,000 people.

Sometimes density is given on a net basis, which is just property for housing and not the other uses. Net density needs to be about doubled to estimate the gross neighborhood density. Thus, 100 people per net acre becomes about 50 per gross acre, or about 17 to 25 units per acre. Typically suburban housing has about 36 percent of its area in streets, and downtowns have about 60 percent in pavement.

Generally, as densities rise, auto use falls, and then, at even higher densities, transit use also falls as walk trips become dominant.(2) The central city of Toronto has densities of about 40 to 60 people per gross neighborhood acre that work well with street trolleys and subways.(3)

The Pedestrian Neighborhood is much denser than most Smart Growth.(4) At gross densities of about 100 per acre, walking predominates, followed by transit. Such a neighborhood would have convenient car rental when needed, but generally the rules for cars have to be different from what we are used to. The tables would be turned, so that cars are disadvantaged the way walking and transit are now. Walking and transit would have travel times comparable to suburbia, e.g., an average of about 27 minutes to get to work and about 8 minutes to get to the grocery store.

The Pedestrian Neighborhood would be a big investment. It takes a large number of people in one place to make it work. Many people in the Bay Area are probably ready to pay top dollar for a high quality, mostly car-free life style, but the banks don't know that the demand is there. The market research has not been done. Existing areas of high density, all in San Francisco, have low household auto ownership but also excessive street area and parking which reduce street function and amenity. Nevertheless, they have extremely high housing prices, suggesting feasibility.

The Pedestrian Neighborhood requires several steps of research. The research should be based on a real site of one hundred acres or more next to High Quality Transit, such as Bay Fair BART. High Quality Transit provides headways of 15 minutes or less during the main part of the day and 20 minutes or less in early morning and evening. The Pedestrian Neighborhood should be based on a "beyond transit" density of about 100 residents per acre, which requires 3 to 5 story construction. "Beyond transit" means that transit mode share declines because at this density, walk-bike becomes the dominant mode, followed by transit, then cars. The phases of the study would be:

Sketch design of a neighborhood for 10,000 people, including an area land use plan, interior floor plans, and building and street perspectives. The plan includes local-serving businesses, including car rental or shared ownership service, a par course, small local parks with two primary schools, non-profits, community buildings, and a main street with transit. Parking would be limited and costly to users. Police on foot or bicycles would serve round the clock. Emergency telephones would be scattered around the area. Energy and materials efficiencies would be designed in.

Costing of land, site preparation, structures, design, environmental review, and permitting.

Financing pro formas to establish rent and sale prices.

Marketing materials to show to prospects, including a detailed description and graphics on how their personal accessibility changes, and what the rent or sale price would be.

Market research and interviews with prospects with the demographic profile likely to be interested in order to establish demand for planning purposes.

 I think many people will get excited about this. The market research firm may get more than answers; some people may be willing to put money down or join an organization promoting the development. It does not have to appeal to the mainstream suburbanite; it would appeal to a niche market; with enough people and money, it could work. If banks (and it may take a consortium) are willing to sign off on construction loans, a pedestrian neighborhood could happen.

The phrase "Smart Growth" is being appropriated and misused by powerful old paradigm forces to include parking structures, "free" parking, and a lack of support for more car-free life styles. Smart Growth has problems on four fronts.

1) Environmentalists are being asked to support unsustainable "Smart Growth" as a way to save the greenbelt while meeting the "housing need." The Bay Area, for example, has seven million people. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), a Council of Governments, makes official projections and projects growth of a million more people by 2020. The region might be able to accommodate a total of ten million people with Smart Growth, actually more than if it had sprawl. Smart Growth is better than sprawl, but without limits it is just one more hyper-growth housing program.

There is room for much Smart Growth within urbanized areas in American cities, but not necessarily enough to meet official growth projections at current densities or even at somewhat higher densities. Here are the results of one study: Based on ABAG Projections for the Bay Area, about 722,000 new housing units from 2000 to 2020 are needed for a regional balance of jobs and housing. ABAG projects the density of the new development based on current trends at 5.1 units per acre. An extra effort could increase the density by 50 percent to 7.65 units per net acre. The study assumed 3 persons per household, so 7.65 units would have 23 people per net acre, which would have only about 12 people per gross neighborhood acre, well below the low end of real Smart Growth densities. A density of 7.65 units per acre would require 94,347 net acres. The study expanded from net to gross acres, adding in land for roads, parks, and schools at 50 percent of the net area, resulting in a need of 141,521 gross acres. The use of 50 percent seems too low, and the other estimates of the study mostly use the 1:1 ratio to expand from net to gross. The low ratio is feasible from a design point of view, and gets easier as densities increase, but 23 people per acre are going to be mostly using cars, requiring a lot of streets and parking.(5)

The study found 37,68 acres of vacant land and 101,305 acres of redevelopable land inside the urban footprint, for a total of 139,000 acres of available land. Redevelopable land was defined as vacant and minimally improved parcels, further screened to eliminate flood plain, wetland, steep sloped, superfund sites, public institutions, condominiums, and heavy industry uses. If 141,521 gross acres are needed and only 139,000 are available, about 2,500 acres of open space would need to be urbanized. The study also found that, at the current trend density of 5.1 units per acre, and the usual 1:1 ratio to estimate gross acres, the region would need to develop 283,000 acres, leaving a need to urbanize about 144,000 acres of open space. This need would substantially expand the existing urbanized area of 539,000 acres.(6)

In short, some increase in density can help, but only at higher densities are road needs reduced, transit made attractive and feasible, and open space saved. How much densification is politically feasible is, of course, very controversial.

The Smart Growth ecological footprint on land directly occupied is much smaller than sprawl, but the ecological footprint is otherwise similar to sprawl simply because of the size of the population, its consumption, and its technology. More density is a good idea, but more and more and more density, ultimately, does not work. Environmentalists should be tempted to fight every housing project and every highway in sight until there are some policies are in place to restrain population. Long, congested commutes and sky-high housing prices at least dampen aggregate growth.

2) Most "Smart Growth" is too automobile oriented, bringing auto dependency into the city where it destroys the urban values we are trying to save. For example, the Fruitvale "Transit Village" in Oakland California is not actually transit-oriented. At the end of the redevelopment around the Fruitvale BART station, there will be more "free" parking, and thus more traffic, than at the beginning.

So-called "transit-oriented" developments, such as at Hayward (Atherton Place) and Castro Valley (Strobridge Court), are based on platforms, with parking underneath and residential structure above. Everyone has subsidized and easy access to cars; increased traffic displaces pedestrians; the street level cannot be used for homes and businesses; and the street dies. The result is as much, or more, traffic and auto-dependency than when "transit-oriented" development started. Especially in a dense setting, cars can quickly create congestion that reduces mobility. "Free" parking is the problem, not the solution. Sustainability requires blowing the whistle on "transit-oriented" fraud and opposing parking that does not completely pay its own way.

3) The Smart Growth concept is also being corrupted by those who support sprawl. Some developers and even planners claim that development in the greenbelt qualifies. The Alameda County Planning Dept. claims that sprawl on North Livermore ranch land is Smart Growth. Lower density projects are often called Smart just for the buzz word, especially by groups like the National Association of Home Builders. It is not Smart Growth to have huge "free" parking lots around mass transit stations accessed by drive-alones from low density subdivisions. Ten units per net acre is not "high density" despite such suburban misconceptions about real urbanism. Well-designed density is a solution, not a problem.

4) A fourth problem, neighborhood objections to dense developments, is a complex issue. Neighborhoods sometimes object to new Smart Growth proposals and block them politically fearing they would create even more traffic and parking problems, or would attract "undesirable" kinds of people, based on race, class, and fear of crime. Some high density projects succeed, for example, in the Bay Area: Atherton Place in Hayward, and Strobridge Court in Castro Valley. While not as good as they could be, they are still more sustainable than sprawl.

Planners and neighborhoods usually have very different frames of reference. The planners want to save open space and to meet housing needs, and think Smart Growth is the best way to do it. Neighborhoods do not see any need to increase housing; everybody there already has a house. In the Bay Area, for example, planners are telling neighbors there is a legal "housing needs determination" by ABAG. From the neighborhood perspective, this comes from another planet.

Planners need to focus on a more common-sense set of ethics and responsibility. The folks who create the housing need-the businesses and cities that increase jobs ahead of housing-should have the responsibility to meet the need, or forgo more job increases. (See part 6 below.) Negative attitudes about "selfish" NIMBYs and support for overriding local wishes are usually misguided; the approach should be persuasion and dealing with specific reasonable grievances.(7)

Usually the neighborhood problem is parking and traffic. An apartment development proposal with no parking foundered in "liberal" Berkeley in 2000 because of these problems. Greater effort needs to be made to alleviate problems using parking charges, neighborhood parking permit programs, and traffic calming. Other problems may need to be worked though with the people who know the most, care the most, and will have to live with the project longer than the developers or the city. Dealing effectively with real neighborhood problems creates a better basis for getting support for a car-free development. Then neighbors can see a benefit and do not have to be told they are no-good NIMBYs because they object to housing to meet a crisis they did not create.

Regions like Portland, Oregon, have defined these trade-offs carefully and fully involved the public in making informed and reasonable decisions. People choose the densest alternative to reduce car use, increase transit use, and save open space. In neighborhoods the planning process should hold neighborhood design charettes supported by various visualization techniques developed in recent years. One of the more important is the Visual Preference Survey, which gives choices based on pictures of various development options. People usually choose well-designed, low-rise dense housing. Neighbors should support well-designed Smart Growth because, done right, it will improve their neighborhood, bringing in more local business they often want.

Even though the negotiating process is difficult, it should not be impossible, bringing us to the issue of defining who the neighbors are. Sometimes an approval process becomes dominated by a few activists with deeply held but not widely shared views, and City Councils may have to decide that most neighbors are happy enough with a negotiated project to proceed.

At the risk of contradicting the above, some special developments may have so many virtues that NIMBY vetoes should be overridden. Such projects should meet quantified criteria of density, closeness to transit, less parking and car use, affordability, and identifiable open space saved by avoiding sprawl. We should then allow intervention by the State Office of Planning and Research to approve a project if a city does not act within a reasonable time. Further, we should empower and fund the State Housing Agency to make a few criteria-meeting project proposals to cities and to support the environmental review, so that developers can reduce risk and bid for approved site plans and building permits. Some modest experiment in Smart Growth and sustainability, bringing environmentalists and builders together, should be politically possible.

The sustainability paradigm promises a new Smart Growth "urbia." The evidence is that urbia at densities of about 30 to 100 persons per gross neighborhood acre can be more livable, more economical, and more sustainable than suburbia. Denser, mostly car-free growth may initially occur in only a few key places close to transit, but it will develop and demonstrate a way of life better than suburbia. We can have the same spacious housing interiors, the same travel times, a more attractive streetscape, and we can achieve all of this with more health and safety, less pollution, resources and energy use, and at a great economic savings.

2. Fighting freeways and supporting cost-effective transit.   Home
More highway capacity induces its own demand due to underpricing; European-quality transit works in denser corridors but cannot be cost-effective in dispersed suburbia.

The paradigm change for transportation proceeds on two fronts, one, fighting freeways and promoting transit because of their comparative social and environmental impacts, and two, carism (discussed more below) which emphasizes market economics. Concerning the first front, there is an increasing aesthetic, social, and environmental rebellion against more pavement. One component is the depaving movement, part of a broader, deep ecology utopianism compelling some people toward profound changes in personal and community life styles. Another component is the social equity movement to rescue and improve urban bus service for the inner city poor, paratransit service for the disabled, and transit for TANF recipients, welfare-to-work participants, and low-wage labor. Another component is the defense of existing neighborhoods and open spaces against destruction and degradation by new freeway capacity.

The split between land use and transportation affects both paradigms. It is in some ways artificial, but in other ways, practical. Land use assumes transportation and transportation is a land use. Transportation as a land use varies enormously, from freeways to local streets with slow speeds and social functions. The amount of land needed for transportation is decided politically by the dominant paradigm rather than economically by a sustainability paradigm. Land use assumes transportation: in the dominant paradigm by expecting, planning for, and requiring space for cars; and in the sustainability paradigm, the reverse. Land use planning for structures always includes planning for most walking, while transportation planning almost never plans for pedestrian trips.

The split is also practical. In the dominant paradigm, land use planning de jure precedes transportation planning. The idea is that transportation serves land use. However, de facto, transportation facilities create the incentives for the location and kind of land use. Different bureaucracies do the planning and the decisions reach Councils and Boards separately, the General Plan revision arriving at one time, the Circulation Element many months later-or before. Even for the reformers of the sustainability paradigm, much specialization takes place just because of the great complexity of land use planning and transportation planning, the need to gain expertise, and the need to lobby governments that segregate the decisions. The land use/transportation split is, however, mostly on the surface, because each side shares a common ideology assuring coordination. The real conflict is between the paradigms.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which plans transportation for the Bay Area and controls most of the funds, emphasizes that most of its funds go to maintain the current highway, street, and transit systems. MTC rarely mentions that it still supports old paradigm projects like the Hayward Foothill Freeway which wipes out the homes of a thousand people, destroys open space, degrades neighborhoods, crosses the face of the hills, and competes directly with a parallel BART line. MTC also supports expanding the tunnel between Oakland and Orinda to carry more traffic, and widening I-880 at the Sunol grade, again resulting in more traffic.

In the Bay Area as in many other regions, transportation planning is heavily politicized by pet projects of elected officials. These projects become the priorities of cities, counties, and transit agencies, are patched together by Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) for each county, all stapled together by MTC, and called the Regional Transportation Plan.

The problem with pavement does not, however, mean that all transit is good. Much American transit is economically wasteful, obscuring the debate on the value of transit in general. When transit serves a dense corridor, provides good service, and has a high fare box recovery, it is performing well against subsidized car travel. Cost-effectiveness has to be judged against car competition.

While Americans admire European transit, few understand that its success depends on much more than the transit itself. In Europe, four other factors are at work: high auto ownership costs, high auto operating costs, high levels of auto congestion, and dense land use. People are pulled into transit because it is good, but they are also pushed out of their cars. The congestion is deceptive, based on "inadequate" roads which prevent more traffic just because they are so congested. By policy, most of these road will not be widened. Traffic, even though congested, on a small capacity network produces less air pollution than less congested traffic on a large network that encourages car travel.

In the U.S. bus transit mostly serves lower income people, who must often tolerate slow and infrequent service on zig-zag routes or over-crowded peak service crawling along behind solo drivers. Many problems exist: infrequent service, reliability and safety problems, poor equipment, few timed transfers, car traffic interference, slow ticket collection, low sidewalks, high bus floors, narrow doors, and poor pavements. As a result, buses are much slower than they could be. Improved bus service needs barrier-free ticketing, wider doors, lower floors, raised sidewalk stops, signal preferences, intersection lane innovations, more powerful motors, frequent direct service on main corridors, special bus and HOV lanes, and transit-oriented land development.

It is uneconomic to try to blanket suburbia with frequent bus service. Bus transit should be tied to Smart Growth land use; pricing reforms, transit, and density need to reinforce each other. Transit, in fact, does nothing on its own; it works as part of a larger system. Once the elements of the rest of the system are in place, transit become both necessary and cost-effective.

At the other end of the spectrum from cheap buses for the poor, we find expensive urban rail projects for the middle class and affluent. Several cities have invested in costly projects justified by politics and naive public support for wonderful trains that are just not cost-effective. MTC emphasizes its support for transit, but it really puts its money into BART even when the cost per new rider is extremely high, several times higher than more cost-effective but less glamorous projects. Often lost in the debate are high quality, cost-effective bus and rail services with large riderships.

In 1996 in the Bay Area, the Regional Alliance for Transit (RAFT), a group of analysts and advocates, put together its own plan. Besides Smart Growth land use and employee parking cash out, the RAFT plan included improved frequency of transit service, improved bus pavements, some lower transit fares, high quality bus shuttle access to transit stations, CalTrain and Fremont-to-San Jose commuter rail upgraded to urban rail, electrification of CalTrain and its extension downtown to the Transbay Terminal, rebuilding the Transbay Terminal, and so on. MTC modeling of this RAFT plan showed that from 2000 to 2010, drive-alone mode share declines and non-drive alone mode share increases significantly, with many other benefits in cleaner air and shorter commutes.(8)

The old paradigm slams transit for its heavy subsidy and low ridership. Such criticisms overlook how much cars are subsidized and how many transit systems in denser areas have much better fare box recovery. Cost-effective transit is not cheap, and is worthy of some subsidy to compete with cars. However, transit would need less subsidy if cars were less subsidized and if land use improves. Fares could then rise to recover more and more operating costs. Walking and bicycling are even more cost-effective and sustainable than transit. The new paradigm clearly opposes more pavement, and supports traffic calming and non-car modes, but is cautious about expensive transit, because it is not transit as such that works, but its functioning as part of a larger land use and pricing system.

3. Aggregate vs. per capita growth and human capital. Home
A sustainable region requires that the basis of the economy shift from aggregate growth to per capita growth based on investing in human capital.

The dominant paradigm does not distinguish between "aggregate growth" and "per capita growth," but the difference is central to using the sustainability paradigm as a way of understanding prosperity. "Aggregate growth" refers to that part of economic growth due to population increase. "Per capita growth" refers to that part of economic growth due to per capita productivity gains.
"Aggregate growth" That part of economic growth attributable to population
"Per capita growth" That part of economic growth attributable to per capita productivity

The dominant hyper-growth paradigm inextricably mixes aggregate growth with per capita growth. It cannot distinguish between urban cancer and sustainable development. It cannot separate population growth from economic growth.

As a result, the dominant paradigm 1) celebrates its success, 2) laments about crises that are about to undermine the economy, 3) overlooks the fact that its success is unaffected by its crises, and 4) ignores its externalities. The celebration of success is very comparative, so regions like the Bay Area are especially proud of their accomplishments.

Perception of crisis. The dominant paradigm also perceives the Bay Area as competing with other regions, so anything that slows regional growth-such as high housing prices, long commutes, high living costs, a labor "shortage," or, most recently, an electrical supply crisis-is seen as potentially disastrous.

Sustainability concepts don't appear in the media and political rhetoric. The dominant paradigm controls media perceptions of the problems it creates. "Objective" news stories editorialize for hypergrowth without the slightest awareness of their advocacy. The media and business often claim that the Bay Area is losing its competitive edge. For example, in the Bay Area, a recent news story quotes the leading advocate for Silicon Valley manufacturers: "This is the biggest crisis our valley has faced in the last two decades."(9) The "crisis" is a pending short term increase in the cost of electricity combined with some uncertainties about how to manage supply in the future, whether by increasing production or becoming more efficient. Electrical power problems have led many companies to develop, and a few to implement, "exit strategies" to move their production facilities elsewhere to get cheap, secure power.

Similar observations could be made about the housing "crisis," the commuting "crisis," the skills shortage "crisis," and the air pollution "crisis." Alleged crises are used to justify more unsustainable growth. Building more fossil fuel power plants, for example, will further exacerbating unbalanced hyper-growth in Silicon Valley. The dominant paradigm has enough political power to exacerbate the long-term crisis of sustainability. Using sustainability principles, these crises are not solved by even more growth.

Success is unaffected by its crises. The dominant paradigm ignores the fact of continuing economic success despite continuing problems. The perceived crises do not get solved, yet the success continues.

Ignoring externalities. The dominant paradigm creates the problems it complains about, primarily by emphasizing aggregate growth, mis-measuring success, and externalizing costs. The dominant paradigm has no way of knowing how much is enough. It understands free enterprise and supply and demand, but does not apply these concepts to larger market issues, and, thus, is so far constrained only by forces beyond its control. Succeeding sections of this paper cover aspects of this problem topic by topic; this section discusses how the dominant paradigm affects the less affluent and the real source of per capita wealth, which is productivity.

Has the dominant paradigm benefitted the less affluent? The hyper-growth paradigm assumes that aggregate growth benefits the disadvantaged, but assessing the performance of the economy over the last few years from a social equity perspective is difficult. On the positive side, in the Bay Area since the 1980s private industrial developments and military base conversions have restructured the economy, increasing wealth for the competitive. Recently, unemployment in California is low and most workers are getting pay raises and job advancement.(10) (Even more recently, the economy is slowing and the Fed has lowered interest rates.) From an individual perspective, America is the land of opportunity, and the Bay Area is opportunity squared. There are too many individual success stories to ignore.

Other analyses, using different parameters and time periods, show that many people of all races, especially the less educated, stagnate and slip in income. The Region reflects national trends; the United States has the greatest poverty and greatest inequality of income distribution of the 17 leading industrial nations.(11) The inequality is getting worse as the affluent go higher and the middle class spreads out across a wider range of income. The income distribution curve once had a high peak near a median on the left, with a long slope to the right towards fewer numbers of higher income people. Now the peak is lower and the slope to the right longer. In this sense, the U.S. is not an advanced country. The gains from the booming economy in the U.S., in California, and in the Bay Area have mostly gone to the already affluent; the bottom 60 percent by income lost ground. Two-thirds of poverty level workers lack health insurance, and 84 percent have no pension plan.(12)

Current hypergrowth policy uses the poor as a permanent excuse for aggregate growth that does not actually benefit them. Wealthy regions have large low to moderate income populations, often minorities with educational disadvantages, that persist in poverty.

There is a paradox of expanding employment without effective economic improvement. The job gains of low to moderate income people are overbalanced by income stagnation and an increasing cost of living, especially for health care and for housing. They lose jobs to better qualified and less well paid migrants coming into the region. Their incomes are also kept in check by globalization, which has resulted in the larger scale loss of blue collar manufacturing jobs abroad.

Lower income working families are increasingly squeezed between low pay and higher rents. They see housing prices go up due to pressures from the affluent native and migrant population. They can't find affordable housing, are being gentrified out onto the streets, leave the region, or crowd up. The result is the same-the income/housing cost crunch leaves them worse off. African-Americans and Latinos in California are more likely to have low income, low education, fewer college graduates, and fair to poor health, as shown in the table below. They are more likely to be unemployed and lose jobs. In the Bay Area, Latinos are under-represented in high tech employment (23 percent of population, 7 percent of high tech employment).(13)
Race, Income, Education, Health
2000 California Household Income below $20,000 Education High School or less Education col- lege graduate Health fair or poor
Anglos 8% 14% 46% 8%
Black 15% 28% 36% 14%
Latinos 26% 56% 15% 20%
Asian (English speaking) 7% 11% 64% 8%
Source: Janet Wells, "Racial divide in boom time, study reports," S.F. Chronicle, Sept. 5, 2000 p. A1, quoting from a survey by the University of California San Francisco, Institute for Health Policy Studies and the Field Institute. 

Typically, the dominant paradigm sees labor shortages as too few workers. During a growth period a local labor force at a given pay level becomes fully employed, and more jobs at that level attract migration from lower pay areas. However, shortages of labor met by more labor at the same skill level do only a little to increase incomes. More workers per se do not necessarily increase per capita wealth or help productivity and investment. They simply allow the economy to grow based on existing pay levels using existing technology; that is, they support aggregate growth without per capita growth.

The sustainability paradigm see labor shortages a result of too low pay. Higher pay stimulates innovation, capital investment in more productive technologies, investment in human capital, higher productivity, and higher compensation. Such investment dislocates old-technology workers in the short run; in the long run more people become better off. These factors propel per capita growth, and are consistent with sustainability because they allow economic growth with lower population growth. For the last two centuries economies have grown mostly because of increasing productivity per worker. Nations lacking improvements in productivity show little per capita growth no matter how much their populations grow. The new paradigm requires ideas that, in a region, reduce migration and help the resident population, and, outside the region, promote jobs the region does not need.

Sustainability, economy, equity. If sustainability is helped by, and possibly requires, a stabilizing of population growth, and if therefore migration is to play a smaller role for competitiveness, and if the more affluent are already pretty productive, then the greatest potential source for more productivity will be less affluent workers. The less affluent spectrum of workers broadly divides between educated middle class being left behind by those more successful, and the more disadvantaged, less educated strata with low to moderate incomes. Improving their earning ability improves their incomes and the regional economy in a way consistent with sustainability. Education and training could help them move up to something more productive. Income would rise in a context of stable population.

Education, health care, and enforcement against racial discrimination are needed. These three policies help current residents qualify for and get employment that employers might otherwise give to residents outside the region. Thus, the policies could reduce would-be migration while helping the disadvantaged, including migrants already here.

Education including training is highly correlated with income, and is the major expensive policy needed to improve earnings of the disadvantaged of all races. Lack of health insurance is also correlated with low income and also likely to be costly. While not as expensive as education and health, policies fighting racial discrimination deserve support. Investing in this human capital would use, to the extent possible, resources now going to support aggregate growth. Research is needed to identify more specifically those resources and how they might be shifted.

The importance of the educated middle class has been under-emphasized. California has almost 3.5 million unemployed people whose skills are clearly above entry level work, yet below the requirements of certain high tech jobs which are going begging.(14) About one fifth of these unemployed have a college degree and more than half have attended college. Most have been employed within the last three years and they average more than 15 years work experience. While predominantly minority, the single biggest group is Anglo, 42 percent. Investing in this human capital promotes per capita productivity and a more sustainable growth than importing workers for those jobs.

Next, we need to invest in those who are more disadvantaged, relating social justice to sustainable economic growth. They are the less educated and less skilled, and disproportionately minority.

The sustainability paradigm of per capita growth is based on investing in human capital to support sustainable economic growth, avoiding the cancerous "more is better" ideology of aggregate growth. Per capita growth focuses on social justice and individual productivity. Labor shortages are seen as opportunities for investment in research, new technologies and in people, not as reasons to import more workers. The thrust of the next two sections is to reduce an expansion of jobs that is unsustainable. The thrust of this section is to improve the ability of the resident population to compete for the jobs that will be created even with a reduction in the rate of job growth.

4. Social equity and jobs       Home

Jobs which provide opportunity for disadvantaged people are better than jobs which drain the rest of the world of the talent it needs for economic growth.

The theme of this section overlaps with and flows from the preceding section on growth and human capital. The focus shifts from macro-economic issues to paradigms about jobs, their location among regions, and regional competition over jobs. Just as the preceding section attacked the notion that aggregate growth is always good, this section criticizes the idea that all jobs are good. Section 6 focuses on another aspect, job location within a region.

The dominant paradigm considers all jobs to be good. Regions assume they should promote job growth, or assume that jobs, like natural increase, are inevitable and have to be planned for. Planning for the inevitable has helped the inevitability along. The sustainability paradigm distinguishes among jobs and finds that some jobs cost more than they are worth. Unending job growth is ultimately unsustainable.

Alternative growth. The multiple "crises" of housing, commuting, skills, and electrical power have dampened aggregate growth in the Bay Area and particularly Silicon Valley, yet aggregate growth continues unabated. The Bay Area loses growth due to incredible housing costs and impossible commutes. Growth is "lost" unintentionally and unconsciously as a result of the dominant paradigm leading to more growth than the region can handle. The sustainability of the region is helped by the sheer inability of the dominant paradigm to keep up with itself.

This dampening or holding down of a growth rate that would otherwise be higher contains the germ of a new paradigm: If a region can endure long crises that cost us growth and still get rich, maybe it could slow job growth intentionally and still get rich. Instead of slowing jobs with high external costs inadvertently, the region could do it on purpose and reduce the externalities. An irrational, costly, unintentional, partially if accidentally successful "policy" could be replaced with one that could reduce regional problems. The new paradigm supports cooperation among metropolitan regions for sustainability, not just competition for more money. It supports giving some of the growth away. Lost growth may compete with our exporters, but it also creates more income, some of which comes back to the region and benefits its economy, with net gains all around. This is the concept of alternative growth.

The issue, then, is not the feasibility of alternative growth, but whether we are willing to discuss a policy of supporting it in some way. The sustainability paradigm reverses the perception from one of crisis and competition to one of opportunity and cooperation. It holds that we could have less aggregate growth but not less per capita growth. We just have not thought about its importance or how to do it. The challenge to policy is to find a way to do it.

Social justice and migration. Section 6 below discusses in detail how to manage job growth and location, and argues in favor of doing so to allow housing to catch up with jobs and to trend toward sustainability. It argues for policies to restrain job growth with moratoriums on certain land use decisions in a few cities and on linking housing creation to job creation.

Alternative growth policy indirectly but necessarily affects migration by reducing job growth in a region, and migration is controversial. Migrants are favored variously for their entrepreneurship and investment, technical skills, low wage labor, tax payments, and for their contribution to diversity. We want to help people; limiting migration limits opportunity and we need to allow for family reunification and political asylum. Limits may be racially and economically discriminatory. Migrants are variously opposed for their ethnic and racial differences from the native population, labor competition, underpayment of taxes, use of public services, and anti-social or criminal behavior. Rarely, however, is migration discussed in terms of sustainability, of interregional cooperation, and of social justice for both contributing and receiving regions.

Compelling but not conclusive arguments of the dominant paradigm support economic growth based on free movement of labor, and migrants generally do contribute to aggregate growth. What are the equally compelling, contrary sustainability considerations? Most obviously, excessive migration is regionally unsustainable. We also need to consider arguments about: a) costs created by migration that are not currently measured in regional accounts, b) alternative growth that avoids the costs, c) the equity impacts on the receiving regions, and d) the equity impacts on the giving regions.

a) Concerning the costs of migration which are not in regional accounts, the problem is created not by migration as such, but by people. It would be equally productive to get current residents, especially the affluent, to leave the region, but I have not yet been able to think of a good public policy for doing so. Alternative growth seems more feasible. Generally, the more that migrants contribute to regional economic growth, the greater their environmental impacts. The Bay Area, in the process of becoming enormously wealthy with great contributions by migrants, has also suffered costs caused by people: the air is polluted, commutes are terrible, housing prices are astronomical, and open space and agriculture are being lost. The assumption of public benefit from growth is made by the media and self-interested beneficiaries, not rational measurement. The sustainability paradigm is developing better measurements, as discussed below under 10. Indicators.

b) Alternative growth could avoid the costs. Generally, the more migrants contribute economically, the greater the contribution they could have made in their region of origin. Economic growth around the world shows that the vast majority of those becoming prosperous have not migrated out of their regions. There are, obviously, places of violence, abuse, corruption, and governmental incompetence that mitigate against alternative growth, but the much larger story has been the broad expansion of the world's economy over the long run and many success stories.

c) Migration has equity impacts on the receiving regions. Benefits provided by migrants may be achieved by those already in a region. Relevant policies are discussed above in section 3 on growth and human capital and below in section 5 on the status of women. Education and training can improve the productivity of current residents and qualify them for jobs now going to migrants, thus reducing migration in a way that advances social equity within the region.

d) Migration has equity impacts on the giving regions. Totally overlooked in the context of regional planning is the potential social injustice of attracting large numbers of migrants from other regions. Migrants are not only enterprising but also educated. Growth in a receiving region is partly built on depriving the giving region of the investments it has made in the education of its citizens. The taking region can even under-fund its own local education because it can use migrants for economic growth, and they are cheaper to employ.

Brain drain, then, hides a social inequity behind policies which draw workers to a region, especially when disadvantaged workers already living there struggle to get ahead. The inequity is both to the contributing region, which loses its investment in human capital, and to people in the receiving region, who are denied adequate education and training and better jobs. Alternative growth is not only feasible, it's fair.

Alternative growth avoids impacts in a would-be receiving region, but does not guarantee reduction of impacts in a would-be giving region. Reduction of impacts can still occur, for example, if the would-be migrant can, instead of migrating, live in an existing house and not require a new subdivision, can get to work by not driving alone, and is engaged in a sustainable business. However, these outcomes are not guaranteed and it is primarily up to each region to advance its own sustainability.

Because of the dominance of the hyper-growth paradigm, employers have the power to make political claims about labor "shortages," get special exemptions in immigration laws which are already generous by international standards, and import workers at lower wages. The impact falls on local educated middle class workers, with trickle down effects limiting mobility from below. Employers also have the power to expand operations almost at will, getting fast track permitting and even subsidies from local governments, without a housing or transit responsibility. Employers have the power to provide too little training for employees and to avoid taxes through investment incentive loopholes. They even have media credibility when they complain about the lack of education and skills of the local work force. Their power is based on the popular belief in aggregate growth, and in the value of all jobs, when more careful analysis would reveal a range of costs and benefits.

Wealthier regions should not, as a rule, drain brains and muscle from elsewhere to meet the needs of a regional labor market. (Some labor markets are justifiably more international, such as top executives and top researchers.) Regions should invest more in their own brains, especially in educating the disadvantaged. Sustainability requires that regions should not import people but rather export sustainability. To achieve sustainability, we should promote some jobs and prevent others.

What is a good job? How many jobs in our economy are good jobs? Actually, quite a few. We need more research.

Preventing jobs in a region is definitely a new paradigm idea. Regions have always competed for investment and jobs. The old paradigm reacts with the accusation that crazy people are attacking jobs. Not true; the new paradigm primarily influences the location of jobs. Jobs are not lost, but move around. If one region grows a little less because of too little housing, another with housing may grow a little more. The new paradigm includes regional cooperation as well as competition because the focus is on per capita competitiveness, not more jobs. A region tries to improve its competitiveness, and also to avoid unsustainable aggregate growth.

5. The status of women.      Home
Improving the status of women gives disadvantaged women and girls more opportunity for education and paid work, increases productivity, and lowers population growth.

This topic is a special part of social equity and jobs. Improved choice over family size allows women to provide more support for fewer children, helps them to be more productive in the paid work force, and lowers the rate of natural increase of population, benefitting at once social justice, economic prosperity, and environmental sustainability. Sustainability is helped when education and productivity, not family size and low wages, are the keys to success.

The debate on population is sometimes emotionally charged by racial and class issues. The fertility factors that explain most births per woman are: education of the mother, income of the household, and education of the father. Next most important are the mother's years in the United States and her ability to speak English. Least important are her race and ethnicity. Less easily measured factors-tradition and culture, health and family programs-are also very important.

The policy should not be maligned as middle class birth control for the lower classes, nor as pressuring a particular racial or ethnic group to have fewer children. The Cairo Conference in 1994 on world population and the status of women made manifest a paradigm change at the international level. The evidence supports the conclusion that giving women legal respect and educational and economic opportunity lowers fertility, regardless of income, education, ethnicity, race, place of origin, or other factors. Improvements in the status of women universally move birth rates to sustainability. Similarly, improved status contributes to the economy and social justice. In the last two decades remarkable reductions in birth rates have occurred in Singapore, Mexico, Thailand, Kenya, and Bangladesh.

One of the many aspects of improving status of women is health care, and, within that, family planning and reproductive health services. Government at all levels should support culturally sensitive general health care, including comprehensive family services, family planning and teen health services. Government should help the disadvantaged get the same support that has allowed affluent women to improve their education and training, to get jobs, and to invest more in raising a smaller number of children. This policy will not have a major impact on population growth in affluent regions but is still important because of social justice and economic benefits.

The paradigm change manifest at the Cairo Conference needs to carry into the debate on national and urban sustainability. The challenge is to apply the international paradigm about family and health services to the American and regional context. In 1996 the President's Commission on Sustainable Development said one of the "two most important steps the US must take toward sustainability [is] to stabilize the US population promptly."

Consideration of such women's issues by American urban planners is approximately zero. The dominant paradigm takes "natural increase" as projected by demographic models and state agencies as a given, as "inevitable" and therefore to be planned for. There is no quantitative information or even estimates for specific cities of how a given investment in services such as Planned Parenthood leads to how much increased productivity and reduction in family size. Disadvantaged women do not have much choice and are not part of the sustainability debate. They are sometimes not even mentioned as part of environmental justice, which focuses on industrial pollution, education, transit, employment opportunity, small business, and stopping gentrification.

The United States continues to have the most rapid population increase of all developed countries, partly out of failure to reach effectively its disadvantaged women and teens. Disadvantaged women even in the Bay Area get inadequate support, especially low education, non-English speakers. The purpose of policy is to empower the most disadvantaged, the under-served population those with low education and low income, those who do not speak English, and teens.

In the Bay Area, Planned Parenthood Golden Gate provides family planning services, funded at about $16 million per year. Services include: client services (clinics, schools, teen clinics in health centers), trained educators who do workshop/seminars for classes, clubs and groups on many issues including Sexually Transmitted Infections, sexual decision making, and domestic violence, support for age-appropriate sex education in schools (9,694 students in 179 schools in 6 counties '99-00) without race or gender bias, and advocacy (fund raising, protecting the right to choose and privacy).

Social service agencies, particularly family planning services, are painfully aware of how even today under-funding denies opportunity to many women in otherwise affluent urban areas. Planned Parenthood Golden Gate (PPGG) states (bolding added):

"The average cost of a visit to Planned Parenthood Golden Gate is $74.48. This means that with one million dollars, our organization could provide approximately 13,346 additional medical visits to our clients, provided our existing health centers have the capacity to handle this increase. ... This substantial increase would be incredibly significant to PPGGs client population who face multiple barriers in accessing needed health care services. ... It could give immigrants, who are often very reluctant to seek health care due to their immigration status, an opportunity to access culturally sensitive medical services. It would also allow us to educate more teenagers about postponing pregnancy, strengthening sexual decision making, and reducing sexually transmitted infections."(15)

The benefits of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate services are less teen pregnancy (9% down in 1998), more healthy (full term, full weight) babies, delay and spacing of births for better nurturance, smaller families, births to infertile couples, protection of the right to choose, less HIV and related diseases, and fewer abortions.

Sustainability requires that over-looked issues concerning the status of women need to be considered as an integral part of urban planning. Investment in under-served women affects economic and demographic projections.

Notes    Home
1. Paper submitted for presentation at the Western Regional Science Association Annual Meeting, Palm Springs CA, Feb. 26-28, 2001

2.John Holtzclaw, Using Residential Patterns and Transit to Decrease Auto Dependence and Costs. Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco CA 94105, June 1994; Holtzclaw, "Designing Cities to Reduce Driving and Pollution: New Studies in Chicago, LA and San Francisco," Paper for Air & Waste Management Assn. Meeting, Toronto, June 1997; Holtzclaw, "Traffic Mitigation Measures: Density and Affordable Housing; Technical Note," Transportation Planning and Technology, forthcoming May 2000. See also

3. Sherman Lewis, "Toronto's Neighborhoods; Quantifying Walkable Densities, draft for review, July 8, 1997.

4. Sherman Lewis, "The Pedestrian Neighborhood; A Possibility for Select Older Areas," Urban Land, May 1984, pp. 16-19.

5. John Landis, "Conclusions, Initial Data Sets for Jobs-Housing Footprint Component, Regional Livability Footprint Project," Technical Advisory Team Meeting, Sept. 8, 2000 at ABAG.

6. John Landis and Ness Sandoval, table given to the Technical Advisory Team, Regional Livability Footprint Project, Bay Area Alliance, Sept. 8, 2000 at ABAG.

7. Not In My Back Yard, objecting to LULUs (Locally Unwanted Land Uses).

8. Sherman Lewis, "Land use and transportation: Envisioning regional sustainability," Transport Policy 5:3, July 1998, pp. 147-161

9. Mark Simon, "Silent Exodus in Silicon Valley," S.F. Chronicle, Jan. 13, 2001, quoting Carl Guardino, CEO, Silicon Valley Manufacturers Group. See also John Markoff, "Job Growth Slowing in Peninsula; Traffic, housing issues threaten middle class," S.F. Chronicle, Jan. 15, 2001, from the New York Times. His story is based on a report by Joint Venture, a regional planning group. He says economists such as Steven Levy, the state's leading hypergrowth economist, are worried about the inability of the region to provide sufficient transportation and housing. The focus is on the supply of transportation and housing while ignoring the demand created by jobs. Sustainability is ignored.

10. Janet Wells, "Racial divide in boom time, study reports," S.F. Chronicle, Sept. 5, 2000 p. A1.

11. Poverty: Human Poverty Index based on survival to age 60, functional illiteracy, population below poverty line, and long-term unemployment. "World Poverty." S.F. Examiner, Sept. 9, 1998, p. C-18. Income distribution: Kevin Danaher, Globalization and the Down Sizing of the American Dream, S.F.: Global Exchange, 1996. Both sources are cited in Nikhil Anand and Henry Holmes, Failed Promises...," SAGE, Earth Island Institute, San Francisco, April 2000. See also OECD, Income Distribution in OECD Counties, Social Policy Studies No. 18, Oct. 1995.

12. U.S.: Ronald Dugger, "Real Populists Please Stand Up, " in Globalization, cited above. CA: Deborah Reed, California's Rising Income Inequality, S.F.: Public Policy Institute of California, 1999, p. xxv. Silicon Valley: Chris Benner, Growing Together or Drifting Apart? Working Families and Business in the New Economy, San Jose: Working Partnerships and the Economic Policy Institute, 1988, p. 22, all from Anand and Holmes. Jennifer Coleman, "Study: California leads nation in dead-end jobs," S.F. Examiner, date missing, based on California Budget Project: more earn poverty wages than ten years ago, and median California four person family income declined. Cost of living goes up faster than compensation. Markoff, "Job Growth..." cited above, using the Joint Venture report, says "the gap widened between the region's richest and poorest households."

13. "Latinos in Silicon Valley: The Digital Divide," The Economist, Apr. 17, 1999 p. 33.

14. Janet Wells, "California's workers in a crunch," S.F. Chronicle, Sept. 4, 2000, p. 1, quoting from a survey by the University of California Institute for Health Policy Studies San Francisco and the Field Institute.

15. Dian Harrison, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, and Kim Meredith (415-441-7858), email, Oct. 3, 2000.