by Garrison Frost

At the risk of mirroring the bad rhetorical headlining by Fox News (Pelosi Siding With Terrorists?), we have to wonder if South Bay public sentiment has finally turned against the developers. Even before Manhattan Beach's latest moves to slow down the mansionizing of its city, there were larger trends at work. First, there was the general slowdown in the housing market. Then, there was the drop in prices. All of which could have been expected to have some effect everywhere, including the South Bay. But over the last few months, one has definitely seen a growing anti-development trend. Let's just take a look at the events:

• Manhattan Beach: Council says no to proposed lot merger on Strand and sets itself to implement a moratorium on future mergers until appropriate limits can be decided upon.
• Hermosa Beach: Initiative underway to reverse City Council decision that allows downtown businesses to increase square footage without paying city for additional parking.
• Redondo Beach: Initiative underway to place strict new requirements and approval processes on proposed developments.
• Torrance: Anti-development sentiment plays major role in recent election that sees a new mayor and council majority seated. New mayor immediately calls out Del Amo developer for inconsistencies, putting project into doubt.
• Palos Verdes: Residents divided over plan to introduce mixed-use development into central commercial corridor.
• San Pedro: Residents applying serious pressure on city to reduce size and impact of Ponte Vista development.

That seems like a lot, but I must be leaving some out. Still, opponents shouldn't get their hopes up. While large-scale development captures headlines and solidifies public opinion, small-scale development takes its toll on communities every day. One shouldn't forget that there are more than a thousand real estate agents and mini-developers in the South Bay, all of them putting together deals. Each of these deals is pretty small, but taken as an aggregate, they can rapidly change whole cities, block by block, property by property.

So, does all this amount to a trend? My first inclination is to say no. Developers have a lot of momentum, and they have the ears of most public officials and business groups. If they fail in one place, they will just try again somewhere else. But there does seem to be a lot of public awareness of these issues at the moment, and in that is an opportunity for leadership to make long-range decisions about smart growth.

We'll just have to see if anything comes of that opportunity.

A conversation with someone at the center of one of these development debates recently reminded me that there are still a lot of people who believe that property rights end at one's property line -- and that this is both an empowering and limiting reality. The idea is that people should be able to do whatever they want on their own property, but should be unable to limit what anyone else does on theirs. To these folks, every city is merely a republic of tiny autonomous states, bounded by individual property lines. It would seem, however, that this philosophy -- long held in this area -- is slowly falling out of favor. More and more you hear people arguing that their property's intrinsic values relies on the commonalities of the community: small town atmosphere, trees, wide streets, neighborhood aesthetics, etc.

These two philosophies have been doing battle in the South Bay since property first began to go nuts in the 1980s. And I wouldn't expect the battle to end anytime soon.

(April 6, 2007)

© Copyright 1999-2007 The Aesthetic