Sometimes I wonder if agencies like the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) make it past their own headlines and read the rest of the newspaper. The above-the-fold front page headline in Thursday’s Tri Valley Herald reads, “Air board gets jump on pollutants,” and goes on to explain a new set of thresholds requiring builders to conduct pollution reduction studies before developing projects that fall within the typical range of what cities call “infill development.” Infill development has helped many cities replace blighted areas in their downtown areas with new, affordable housing for residents who want to work in the cities and enjoy short, often public transportation-enabled, commutes.

While the executive director of the BAAQMD, Jack Broadbent, was patting himself and the agency on the back for being the first to adopt such guidelines, business leaders and advocates of affordable housing were not so enthusiastic. Adding additional legal hurdles to the development of badly needed urban housing in California only serves to slow down progress on projects that would vastly improve the quality of life for mid-to-low income Californians who often must commute long distance (causing air pollution along the way) to get to their places of employment.

The article mentions that Bay Area cities and counties are not legally bound to adopt BAAQMD’s standards, but “they may ignore them at their own peril. They could face time-consuming lawsuits by development opponents who could argue that the air district is the best judge of pollution guidelines.”

Did you all catch that? An agency of 14 people can arbitrarily come up with pollution standards, and essentially hijack the development of housing projects for young college grads who want to live and work in the city, and lower income families who want decent housing and shorter commutes.

Now…flip to the Business section of that same day’s paper, and what do you read? San Jose-based giant, Cisco, is working with Asian governments and builders to develop over 100 new cities with populations exceeding 1 million EACH, in the next 10 years. And guess what…these cities will emit less than one-third the greenhouse gas emissions of similar sized cities in the U.S. 

BAAQMD members…do you realize that builders in California have a choice? The same day’s paper that heralds your policy to make life difficult for developers, reveals a gargantuan exit hatch to a much bigger and better market. Do you really believe that builders will just keep putting up with more and more regulation in California? Try to understand what the rest of us see…that you are forcing them out of the state, and our infrastructure will continue to crumble. We need technology to solve our pollution problems, not lawsuits based on the consensus of 14 people.

So what does California have to show for all of its navel-gazing and reaching for superlatives that show that we were first to develop every regulation and policy under the sun? A better economy? A better quality of life for residents? Fervent investment on the part of companies that could restore the cutting-edge infrastructure we once enjoyed? None of the above.

As our government agencies measure success by being “first” with policies and pieces of paper, other governments are reaching for better superlatives that make life better for their citizens. I’m not against environmental protection policies.  After all, Ronald Reagan signed California’s Environmental Quality Act when he was our Governor. But I would like to see our agencies tout superlatives like: “most” barrels of oil saved; “most” gallons of water conserved; “lowest” administrative costs per BTU of electricity saved; and “highest” environmental savings per full time equivalent (FTE) of government employees.

Being “first” does not always equate to being best, and it’s high team leaders of government agencies in California start measuring success in ways that demonstrate a real return on investment for taxpayers.