The name of the above article is "California Declares War on Suburbia" and is in the Wall Street Journal.
I find it reassuring that a respected organization such as the Journal is willing to publish an article on a subject that is either purposefully ignored by, or is simply a verboten subject for, the Mainstream and Leftist-controlled Media.
On previous posts concerning Agenda 21 and the ICLEI, I have asserted that a big part of the plans for implementing the UN agenda is to steadily take measures that will either create regulations that make a relocation to urban areas a financial necessity or to, at some point, just require in an outright fashion the movement of the people to those regions. I have also noted that the concept of single-family dwellings are a chief target of Agenda 21 advocates. With this comes attacks on personal modes of transportation (family-size vehicles). Personal vehicles are detested for more than one reason, they consume quite a bit of petroleum relative to the amount of people they pull around, they emit the now-notorious CO2, and possibly most dangerously of all, they allow for the movement of people from place to place without the knowledge of those who prefer that we be watched continuously (Unless of course you use credit/debit cards for fuel purchases or EZ-Pass for tolls).
Plans call for the concentration of people along densely-populated corridors, putting them squarely along either existing or planned mass-transportation routes. An example of planned routes are the High-Speed railways that the Obama administration so enthusiastically pushed on State governments. To this we must add the admission by Obama's Energy Secretary Stephen Chu* that, far from having any intention of taking measures to reduce the price of fuel, the administration likes things the way they are as they encourage people to use less fuel (And thus see living in urban areas a more tempting thought). Let's get Americans to dump their cars and get on the buses and trains.
*"Shortly before he became President Barack Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu declared, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" -- which were around $8 per gallon at the time"
The thought of reducing millions more to the dependence on Mass transit brings to the fore a possible outcome that is even darker than simply "not having wheels". If we are in fact faced with a no-ride list** for trains, buses have got to be next. Without the family car, one will not be able to move from place to place without boarding a plane, train, or bus. With a no-fly list evolving into a no-ride list, an American without a car will have to show his ID to go just about anywhere. Unless you plan on riding a bicycle, walking, or paying high fees for private transportation (And we don't know if these vendors too will need to keep records of their clients), you will not be able to go anywhere without leaving a electronic or paper trail. Also, considering the fact that the Left, having been stung by the SCOTUS decisions on Heller v. The District of Columbia and McDonald V. Chicago, obtains another way to restrict firearms. If you want to take your firearms (Assuming the UN Small Arms Treaty does not get forced upon us) to a shooting range, one will have a fairly difficult time getting approval to bring your guns onto those buses and trains that may very well be the only means to travel. They will in all probability not have the shooting ranges on their routes or stops anyway.
During the moribund days of the Soviet Union in the 70's, stubborn Marxist holdouts tried to concoct explanations for the problems that State was facing. Food lines, for example, were chalked up to excessive discretionary spending money. Although excuses like this were of course laughable, Western apologists for Marxism, to my knowledge, never tried to candy-coat one part of Soviet society - the requirement to have your traveling papers on your person. We are looking at that spectre right now.
A link to an earlier post on Agenda 21. The post also has multiple links for posts on the same subject at its bottom:
The following are excerpts from the above article from the Wall Street Journal. It is written by Wendell Cox, an individual who worked with the Los Angeles Transportation Commission.
Referring to the fact that, in addition to businesses, people are leaving California in droves:(All Italics and bolding are mine)
Metropolitan area governments are adopting plans that would require most new housing to be built at 20 or more to the acre, which is at least five times the traditional quarter acre per house. State and regional planners also seek to radically restructure urban areas, forcing much of the new hyperdensity development into narrowly confined corridors.
In San Francisco and San Jose, for example, the Association of Bay Area Governments has proposed that only 3% of new housing built by 2035 would be allowed on or beyond the "urban fringe"—where current housing ends and the countryside begins. Over two-thirds of the housing for the projected two million new residents in these metro areas would be multifamily—that is, apartments and condo complexes—and concentrated along major thoroughfares such as Telegraph Avenue in the East Bay and El Camino Real on the Peninsula.
For its part, the Southern California Association of Governments wants to require more than one-half of the new housing in Los Angeles County and five other Southern California counties to be concentrated in dense, so-called transit villages, with much of it at an even higher 30 or more units per acre.
To understand how dramatic a change this would be, consider that if the planners have their way, 68% of new housing in Southern California by 2035 would be condos and apartment complexes. This contrasts with Census Bureau data showing that single-family, detached homes represented more than 80% of the increase in the region's housing stock between 2000 and 2010.
The campaign against suburbia is the result of laws passed in 2006 (the Global Warming Solutions Act) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in 2008 (the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act) on urban planning. The latter law, as the Los Angeles Times aptly characterized it, was intended to "control suburban sprawl, build homes closer to downtown and reduce commuter driving, thus decreasing climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions." In short, to discourage automobile use.
If the planners have their way, the state's famously unaffordable housing could become even more unaffordable.
Over the past 40 years, median house prices have doubled relative to household incomes in the Golden State. Why? In 1998, Dartmouth economist William Fischel found that California's housing had been nearly as affordable as the rest of the nation until the more restrictive regulations, such as development moratoria, urban growth boundaries, and overly expensive impact fees came into effect starting in the 1970s. Other economic studies, such as by Stephen Malpezzi at the University of Wisconsin, also have documented the strong relationship between more intense land-use regulations and exorbitant house prices.
The love affair urban planners have for a future ruled by mass transit will be obscenely expensive and would not reduce traffic congestion. In San Diego, for example, an expanded bus and rail transit system is planned to receive more than half of the $48.4 billion in total highway and transit spending through 2050.
Ali Modarres of the Edmund G. "Pat" Brown Institute of Public Affairs at California State University, Los Angeles has shown that a disproportionate share of migrating households are young. This is at least in part because it is better to raise children with backyards than on condominium balconies. A less affordable California, with less attractive housing, could disadvantage the state as much as its already destructive policies toward business.