Transforming California: A Political History of Land Use and Development.

• Author: Luesebrink, Marc
• Position: Review

TRANSFORMING CALIFORNIA: A Political History of Land Use and Development, by Stephanie Pincetl(*)

I.

INTRODUCTION

Stephanie Pincetl's recently published work, Transforming California: A Political History of Land Use and Development, catalogues the political workings behind California's development history beginning with its admission into the United States in 1850. Transforming California not only serves a useful function by recording an important aspect of California's history, but also presents a compelling view of how institutional structure influences the ability of ordinary citizens to participate in the political process. To her credit, Pincetl accomplishes this ambitious task without getting bogged down in political minutiae.

Pincetl's analysis of natural resource politics attributes great importance to the structural changes in government and appears to view these changes as ineffective. In fact, Pincetl seems to believe that, notwithstanding the many reforms made over the years, the public has not been given adequate opportunity to participate in the political process. According to Pincetl, the deficiencies in political structure date back to the 19th century when, as a new state, California was not equipped to deal with the conflicts over natural resources that resulted from the emerging capitalistic, industrial economy. Politicians subsequently recognized this as a problem, but a tradition of special interest dominance of government prevented implementation of the reforms necessary to fix the system. As a result, the political shortcomings remain, more or less, to the present day. Hence, the closing section of the book includes the following diagnosis of the current situation:

If the process is such that there is not true public engagement, nor genuine opportunity for people to become educated about issues and to engage in deliberation, then democracy is a shell, manipulated by the few who are insiders.(1) Not surprisingly, given her views on California's political system, Pincetl characterizes the environmental outcome of the political struggle mostly as a failure. With respect to forestry, Pincetl states that "[d]ecades of activism on behalf of the forest ... had achieved little due to the regulatory structure put in place by Progressive reforms and its enduring political ideology."(2) As for open space/land use, Pincetl concludes that "growth-control and growth-management proposals came in all shapes and forms, each crafted to meet local needs. Yet all of these local efforts did little to manage California's growth in the 1980's."(3) Pincetl also takes a negative view of the recent efforts to market water rights in the state, seeing the introduction of marketable water rights as "the end of an era in California, even if that era was made up more of dreams than reality. It is the end of the possibility of a Central Valley that might have included family farms and small towns rich in services, retail outlets, and jobs."(4)

Thus, Pincetl's thesis may be summarized as follows. The political structure and institutions in California do not permit the public to participate meaningfully in the management of natural resources. The elite, including legislators, understand the political inadequacies, but do nothing because of their own investment in the status quo. The failure of government to properly take into account the public interest has allowed California's natural environment to deteriorate. Therefore, if we could only prevail upon our own government to make the necessary changes (i.e. design a more effective political system), decisionmakers would hear the public's voice, make better choices concerning resource management, and begin to resuscitate the natural environment.

While Pincetl's careful political history is commendable and her version of how California's natural resources have fared reasonable, a major premise of her thesis deserves a closer look. Specifically, one might examine the fact that Pincetl seems to attribute the woeful state of the environment primarily to developers and other capitalists who consistently manipulate the political system and configure political institutions to forward their own interests. After reading Transforming California, one might just as easily puzzle over the role of the public in California's development history. Pincetl, though, shies away from suggesting that the problem with California's environmental management might lie with the voters, who consistently send to Sacramento and Washington politicians that seemingly favor development at the expense of natural resources.(5)

In fact, one may interpret California's political history as it pertains to natural resource management differently than does Pincetl in Transforming California. The same progressions and events that Pincetl seemingly interprets to be a thwarting of the public interest can be seen as efforts to facilitate public involvement in the political process. Under this view, one could look at the current situation and find a political landscape replete with opportunities to participate. Here, the focus shifts to the public. If the opportunity exists, then why hasn't the public sent the "right" signals or made the "right" choices. One could decide either that the decisions have been "right" or that the public simply doesn't understand the relationships between political decisions and the natural environment. Furthermore, these alternative understandings dictate very different remedies than those offered by Pincetl.

This review looks at three episodes addressed in Transforming California to show how a different perspective on the role of the public...