https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article272572379.html
Housing projects in Fresno that add to sprawl deny the reality of climate change
By KEN WALL FEBRUARY 22, 2023
Ever wonder who pays for sprawl? Sprawl costs everyone who lives in and travels around the Fresno region with traffic congestion and increased air pollution, but it turns out we all offer financial support as well. I read the news that the Biden administration has set aside $25 million for road improvements in rural Madera County, specifically getting a four-mile stretch of Highway 41 between Avenues 12 and 15 freeway-ready. The primary purpose of this project is said to be for “improving access to some of the fastest-growing communities in Madera County.” There has been considerable residential development in that general area in recent years, so it’s no wonder there is now more traffic congestion. It seems federal taxpayer money is to be used to solve the traffic congestion problem created by sprawl. As an aside, any traffic congestion relief from higher-capacity roads is apparently temporary. According to Matt Turner, a PhD economist who studies such things, “If you keep adding lanes because you want to reduce traffic congestion, you have to be really determined not to learn from history.” Roadway expansion apparently does not relieve traffic congestion, at least not for long.
A recent Fresnoland article described the potential 1,000-acre Leo Wilson project on a rural part of Sheppard Avenue near Clovis. The article says that taxpayer money from Measure C in the amount of $33 million was earmarked for this project, not only for road improvements, but to fund high-speed internet access for the new development’s residents. Measure C, the Fresno County transportation sales tax, was up for early renewal in the November 2022 election, but came up short of the required two-thirds majority. During the same election, Madera County’s version of a transportation measure funded by sales taxes, Measure T, failed to achieve enough voter support and was turned down. To me, residential development in the two areas I described represents sprawl. Sprawl contributes to climate change and more air pollution primarily because it encourages more vehicle traffic to and from outlying areas. Sprawl also can have a negative impact on the quality of communities far from the new developments because the transportation needs of existing neighborhoods often are neglected, over time, in favor of newer, more affluent developments in rural areas.
It is helpful to remember that Measures C and T provide funding for transportation projects using a sales tax, a type of tax that imposes an equal burden on all purchasers of goods subject to the tax. Accordingly, such a tax is a relatively heavier financial burden for lower-income residents than for higher-income residents because they can less afford higher prices; air quality is also worse for residents in lower-income communities. I wonder if this is what the voters felt or had in mind when they voted down renewal of Measure C and implementation of Measure T in November. I wonder if voters are convinced that, with the evident local and federal political support for sprawl, there is no way to stop rapid residential developments in Fresno / Madera agricultural areas. But maybe voters are saying no to using local taxpayer money, raised through regressive sales taxes, to contribute to the sprawl, no matter what other good outcomes Measures C and T might have achieved. It’s clear that climate change is upon us, and that a rapid and effective response from all levels of government is required to limit the impact of the changing climate. Continuing the business-as-usual approach to land use and transportation decisions, specifically encouraging sprawl, is inconsistent with the climate challenges we see now and with others that are surely coming. That it causes additional grief to lower-income communities makes it even worse to continue the sprawl mindset.
Measures C and T, and federal transportation spending, should reflect these realities, with decisions that avoid sprawl and which benefit existing communities. Deciding to curtail sprawl likely would lead to entirely different ways of thinking about planning transportation projects that do not contribute to climate change, poor air quality or the neglect of existing communities in Fresno and Madera counties. That would be worth considering.
