Publications
Fall 2001 Newsletter
Urban Parks, Schools & Quality Of Life Prioritized Can
New Paradigms Break Through Historic Logjam?
California
has always been proactive when dealing with the environment. However,
this attention has been focused mainly on pristine open space
at the fringe, forcing the inhabitants of dense, urban metropolises
to be all but forgotten. Asm. Dario Frommer, author of AB 1841,
hopes to change that paradigm by incentivizing, not only urban
parks, but joint-use. NSBN is pleased to present this interview
in which Dario talks about urban parks and schools, as well as
the environmental ramifications and funding mechanisms that go
with them hand-in-hand.
Asemblymember Frommer, you crafted AB 1841 to allocate
money for neighborhood parks and joint-use projects. Give our
readers some background on that bill. Why is it important? And
how will it change the way our parks and schools are designed
and constructed?
California has a reputation for being very progressive when it
comes to protecting our environment and setting aside pristine
land for environmental protection. Yet, we've failed to afford
our cities the same priority and because of that they have fallen
well below the national average for parkland and open space. AB
1841 focuses on remedying that problem and working with communities
to help them build parks and preserve open space.
And given the fiscal uncertainties ahead of us, what's
the likelihood that Gov. Davis will sign it?
There's a very good chance of the measure being signed because
it works in tandem with a $2.6 billion bond measure aimed at allocating
additional monies for parks. The intention of AB 1841 is to act
as a complement to that bond so that we have a new framework for
allocating that bond money.
Part of this new paradigm that you are trying to create
includes the encouragement of joint-use projects and agreements
between school districts and parks departments. We have seen some
agencies embrace this mindset and work collaboratively with the
public and private sector, i.e. San Diego Unified. And then there
are other districts, such as LAUSD, which have historically stood
apart from every other jurisdiction and wanted to be in total
control. What would your bill do to move everybody in the same
direction?
We want to encourage entities to team up and invest in joint-use,
particularly in areas like L.A. County, where much of the landscape
is built out. So, if a city and a school district decide they
want to turn a gated playground into a neighborhood park, that
project would get priority under AB 1841. The historic paradigm
of one entity controlling everything will not work in our evolving
urban environments. We need public entities to be creative if
we are going to put a dent in the school facilities and open space
shortages.
Another bill you have proposed is AB 1511, which aids
school districts in dense settings by allowing them to lease space
in commercial buildings that are Field Act compliant. What's the
status of that bill? And is this change sufficient to encourage
the aforementioned creativity you mention?
One of the problems inherent in dense, urban areas is that school
districts are forced to purchase property, tear down the existing
structure and build anew. Yet, buildings that were constructed
after 1980 are built to the same seismic standards as school facilities.
It begs the question, why can't we use existing buildings that
comply with Field Act standards? Many school districts tell me
that they would much prefer to acquire a building, remodel it
for school needs and move forward rather than tear down an existing
structure and build a "school."
AB 1511 was on its way to the Governor's desk, but we pulled
it back at the Governor's request. We have agreed to work with
him to create a task force that will draft specific guidelines
whereby school districts would be able to lease existing buildings
and use them for school facilities.
Dario, let's talk about the whole school facility reform
effort and its funding. In the spring, the Legislative Analyst's
Office issued a rather critical report on how school bond funds
had been utilized over the last decade. Those recommendations
failed to garner much interest in the Legislature. How difficult
is it to make substantive structural reform at the state level
in the way we fund school facilities in California?
It's a David versus Goliath fight right now. You have a certain
cadre of interest groups in Sacramento who believe they know it
all. They're not interested in hearing criticism, new ideas or
new philosophies. And because of them, those of us advocating
for reform are having a difficult time being heard. That's why
the 2002 School Bond Measure has yet to be approved.
Let me hone in on this reform effort and get a better
understanding of why it's so difficult. The LAO report says, "We
recommend the Legislature develop a new blueprint for the state-district
school facilities partnership. In our view, this new blueprint
should include three conceptual changes: first, the Legislature
should create an ongoing revenue stream for school facilities
finance to replace its existing system of bond financing. Second
the Legislature should redirect the state's focus away from funding
specific lists of school projects. In its place the Legislature
should establish a program oriented toward helping all districts
provide educational facilities for children. Lastly, the state
should clarify the state and the district's role and responsibilities
regarding school facilities." It seems easy enough. Why are
such recomendations not law today?
School siting should have an ongoing revenue stream. But what
happens during an economic downturn? What if revenues are lower
than projections? That uncertainty begs the question of how to
integrate bond financing into the school construction framework.
Ultimately, there should be a mix between a long-term allocation
and bond finance that can change and flex depending on the economy.
We also need to revise the current definition of responsibility.
We have focused on the needs of un-housed children--which is extremely
important in terms of reducing overcrowding and multi-track schools--but
there are other issues that we must face. Some districts have
aging facilities that must be revamped. Other districts desperately
need new facilities. And those problems are not restricted to
the large urban districts like LAUSD, they include the rural areas
of the state which have seen very little of the current allocation.
Each district in the state has unique problems and we need to
devise a system that can address the problems of each district
individually, regardless of whether it is an urban district in
Southern California or a rural district in Central California.
We need to make sure that there is money for both rural and urban
districts.
Well said, but let's continue to hone in on why it's so
difficult to implement these changes and thus increase the collaboration
among school districts and their city partners for the planning
and the siting o new school facilities.
Simply put, there is a reticence to change. There is an institutional
way of doing things and nobody wants to alter that. Many school
districts simply do not want to be collaborating with other agencies
at any level unless they have to.
Most school districts are more concerned with maxing out their
share of the state allocation money so that they can return to
their constituencies and say, "See. We delivered school construction
funds to you." Often this is done without regard to the best
policy for today or for the future.
What we really need to do is bring together legislators, parents,
planners and others who have really called this process into question
and have them put pressure on both the Legislature and these school
districts. That's the only way we are going to bring about a new
type of philosophy that's more reflective of the state's long-term
goals, not just the short-term goals of politicians.
Obviously, Belmont is a landmark case dealing with the
integration of health and safety and school facilities planning.
In the Sept. issue of our sister-publication Metro Investment
Report Angelo Bellomo, LAUSD's Director of Environmental Health
and Safety stated, "Despite an increased commitment from
the school district to build safer schools, there is substantial
potential for delay imposed by the state. To be sure the process
is onerous at times. But for the vast majority of sites, the sledgehammer
approach of the state is overly burdensome." Is he right?
Is there a legislative remedy needed?
The state passed a law after the Belmont debacle that requires
school districts to get an additional approval on new school sites
from the Department of Toxic Substance Control, yet nobody thought
to give the DTSC additional employees to review and process those
environmental reviews. Compound that with the already cumbersome
process whereby school districts are forced to deal with a multitude
of different agencies at the state to receive a bevy of ancillary
approvals and the school construction process becomes extremely
laborious.
I'd like to see a one-stop shop where we combine all the necessary
functions into a single office of public school construction.
Let's work with districts to inform them of what they need to
have in their plans and their applications. Let's have people
that are empowered to cut through red tape to get reviews done.
We obviously want to make sure our schools are safe, but we must
find a way to speed up this process.
Angelo went on to argue a similar point as you, but recommended
that perhaps the state should designate the Department of Education
as the lead agency. Is he right?
The Dept. of Education is one possibility, but other departments
such as the State Architect or Department of Public School Construction
would be just as qualified.
However, it won't work if you simply combine all of those functions
into a single office. We must empower somebody to be a facilitator,
to make sure there's a conversation going on with the districts.
They need to understand what the timeframe is for their plan,
their review and what potential pitfalls may lie ahead. We need
to put someone there who will work aggressively to communicate
with the districts so that we can minimize the number of surprises,
revisions and resubmittals and really streamline this process.
Don't you think one of the unintended consequences of
all this aftermath of Belmont is that the community has been shut
out of the collaborative process with school districts because
the districts have to make sure that they have done all the environmental
reviews before they can even consult with communities? Is that
an unintended negative consequence?
School districts obviously will want to put their best foot forward.
And that will necessitate attempts to get environmental clearance
and due diligence completed before they present to the community.
At this point in time that could be considered one unintended
consequence, but it will take some time to see how prevalent that
is.
However, with the current revisions underway in terms of the
2002 school bond measure, those concerns may not materialize further.
We are currently reworking the language of that bill so that smarter
school construction--such as smaller schools, joint-use projects
and linkages between parks, libraries, community centers and health
centers--is encouraged. Those creative approaches will make schools
centers of community development. And that kind of structure will
address the community and involve them in the school construction
process as well as provide a way to leverage bond money for a
variety of community issues.
Let's conclude with a question about the state budget
and what's happened in the last six months. Give us some insight
into the havoc being caused by the lingering effects of 9/11,
the energy crisis and the possibility of an impending recession?
There has been an economic and political earthquake in terms of
our state and our country. Because of that we are now saddled
with the burden of unspeakable possibilities of terrorist scenarios
upon our water supplies, roads, bridges, power plants and public
buildings. These are a new slew of dangers that were unheard of
just 1 month ago. And those concerns will create a further burden
on the state's already stretched budget and on our slowing economy.
To compound that, the PUCs unwillingness to move forward and
enable the Treasurer to sell power bonds is further crippling
our state. That reluctance puts the General Fund on the hook for
billions of dollars. And that, in turn, threatens all the programs
we have mentioned above as well as a lot of programs that may
become necessary because of 9/11. We are in a very precarious
position and if we are not careful we will be forced to cut programs
that we care very deeply about--from public schools to health
care--and that would be tragic.
|