Santa Clara County needs committee to hash out growth plans

One of the assumptions of our society is that economic growth is good. There are many excellent reasons to believe that is true, but it’s also true that some of the most serious problems we face in our region are the result of our economic success.

Rapid job growth creates opportunity, but it also puts more cars on the road and contributes to traffic jams. High wages can benefit workers, but they also drive up housing prices, making it difficult for many residents to afford housing. Growth is far better than joblessness, but it brings its own problems that can cause real pain.

Cities have the power to regulate how growth happens, and to decide how to deal with traffic problems or meet the demand for housing. No single city can solve these problems on its own, but sometimes cities end up fighting over growth rather than working together.

The city where I serve has recently had friction with its neighbors over new development projects along our borders. My observation has been that cities offer to start talking to each other when disputes arise over development projects, but there generally isn’t a forum for cities to have ongoing conversations about how to address the challenges of growth outside the context of a dispute.

This wasn’t always the case. Back in the 1970s, another period of rapid growth, the County of Santa Clara facilitated a group known as the Planning Policy Committee, which was made up of one council member and one planning commissioner from every city in the county, along with a member of the Board of Supervisors.

The purpose of the committee was to coordinate on land use issues across the county. Staff in the County Planning Department, which at that time had an Intergovernmental Planning Unit, supported the committee’s work.

The combination of countywide engagement and staff support allowed them to complete countywide planning projects.

I think we can learn from how our predecessors coordinated in past decades and perhaps consider reviving a body like the Planning Policy Committee. It wouldn’t solve every problem or end every dispute, but there is great value in municipalities sitting down on a regular basis to discuss the challenges that growth brings.

Talking to each other doesn’t solve problems in itself, but sometimes good communications is where solutions start.

There are more recent examples of how the county has convened other jurisdictions to talk about solutions. In 2015, the county established a Housing Task Force made up of representatives from across the county, including myself as a representative of San Jose.

The task force made recommendations on how to tackle the problem of homelessness. Some of those recommendations have been successfully implemented — most notably, the recommendation that an affordable housing funding measure be placed on the ballot in 2016.

The county is not the only organization that could facilitate a countywide discussion of land use issues. The Cities Association, for example, does good work on countywide coordination. But the county is wellsuited to host a forum with a tight focus on land use issues.

First, the county has a planning department, and with sufficient resources it could add staff to deal with countywide planning challenges. Second, the county could be an impartial facilitator if disputes arise between cities over new development. The county’s jurisdiction extends across city boundaries, so it doesn’t need to take sides.

Traffic, housing and other challenges of growth are among the most serious problems that our county faces. We will make the most progress on these challenges if we work together.

I think we can learn from how our predecessors coordinated in past decades and perhaps consider reviving a body like the Planning Policy Committee. It wouldn’t solve every problem or end every dispute, but there is great value in municipalities sitting down on a regular basis.