As Los Angeles struggles to rebuild following January’s devastating wildfires, one thing is clear: Our broken policies didn’t just fail to prevent this disaster—they’re making it harder to rebuild. Decades of misguided regulations have restricted the housing supply and inflated building costs, leaving communities struggling to recover.
Helping fire victims rebuild quickly has prompted efforts to speed permits and insurance claims. But this disaster also raises a bigger question: Why do we accept policies that ration housing, water and energy—driving up the cost of land and building materials—as beyond debate? These rules, meant to protect the environment, often do more harm than good, especially for low- and middle-income Californians.
For decades, state and local laws and ordinances have discouraged what antagonists call suburban “sprawl.” They promote “infill” development—building within existing urban areas instead of expanding into open land. But building dense, multi-story housing in cities is far more expensive per square foot than constructing single-family homes, and urban land costs more per acre to develop.
Contrary to popular belief, California doesn’t have a land shortage. Only 5 percent of the state is urbanized, yet 94 percent of Californians live within that small area, making our cities the most densely populated in the country. Hundreds of square miles of open land along Highway 101 and Interstate 5 remain undeveloped. Even if we built new homes for 10 million people—with four people per household—on quarter-acre lots, along with an equal amount of space for roads, parks, schools and businesses, we would increase California’s urban footprint only modestly, from 5 percent to 6.2 percent.
Another misconception is that there is nothing we can do about California’s chronic water shortages. But the state’s water woes are the result of bad policy, not nature. Instead of investing in solutions to increase supply, state officials have embraced rationing, placing the burden on residents to use less water while ignoring policies that have made it artificially scarce.
We have the technology to fix this. California can boost its water supply by recycling wastewater, advancing desalination and capturing storm runoff. New designs could allow us to safely withdraw millions of gallons of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta during major storms and bank it underground for future use.
Why not turn Los Angeles back into a Garden City? Why not rehydrate the city by replacing xeriscapes with more lawns and trees? For years, city officials have treated lawns as a wasteful extravagance. But lawns retain moisture and reduce the urban heat island effect. Instead of banning these cooling and percolating features, we should restrict overused herbicides and pesticides applied to lawns and discourage highly flammable trees.
Imagine a greener and cooler city with ample water and a revitalized Los Angeles River flowing through its heart. It’s possible if California’s leaders adopt practical policies that promote innovation and water abundance.
These proposals underscore a fact that is often lost on environmentalist planners. Los Angeles, like the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Santa Monica Mountains, will never return to its primeval state. That’s obvious for a major city, but it’s just as true for the Delta, reshaped by levees, and the mountains and canyons surrounding Los Angeles, where fire suppression and nonnative grasses have permanently altered the landscape.
The real debate isn’t about preserving a past that no longer exists. It’s about how we manage these transformed landscapes moving forward.
Which begs the question: Why are the hills around a megacity off-limits to new development? With over 10 million people in the city, expanding into these areas could provide much-needed housing while also improving wildfire management.
Related Articles
California put the wealthy on welfare—and you’re paying for it Carrying my son’s legacy by standing with dying Californians. Pass SB 403. Sales tax increases slam the middle class in California Lawmakers considering major tax hikes as they return from spring break Politics as usual will not stop Trump’s unconstitutional acts While some parkland should be preserved for public use, fire-hardened neighborhoods could be allowed to spread further into the hills, with owners required to keep adjacent land clear of dead brush. Private landowners would have a stake in maintaining the land through grazing, controlled burns and clearing dry vegetation—measures that reduce fire risk far more effectively than leaving it untouched.California is 95 percent rural, yet strict greenbelt policies around our cities choke urban expansion. The choice isn’t between total preservation and reckless sprawl—it’s about responsible growth that balances safety, affordability and environmental stewardship.
We don’t have to choose between growth and preservation. Expanding our cities and reforming outdated policies can provide abundant water, energy and housing while still preserving the vast majority of California’s unspoiled wildland. Striking this balance will make California more affordable for everyone, including those struggling to rebuild their homes.
Edward Ring is the Director of Water and Energy Policy at California Policy Center. He is the author of “The Abundance Choice – Our Fight for More Water in California” (2022).
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Rebuilding requires reimagining environmentalism )
Also on site :
- Over 20 feared dead in terror attack targeting tourists in India’s Kashmir
- Glenview man, woman returning home from night out robbed at gunpoint: Police
- Where Is 'Tiger King' Joe Exotic Now and Is He Married? Find Out the Latest on the Ex-Zoo Owner