California has signed legislation into law which will attempt to limit "sprawl" (click here for story). I admire the attempt to build communities near centers of work. However, some very obvious problems seem to stick out to me.

(The picture is from La Citta Vita)

1) Would people really want to live near factories, or other plants which pollute (air or noise or whatever)?

2) Usually, neighborhoods close to industry/business exist, but are undesirable. Does this law mean that these neighborhoods will be reclaimed (re-urbanized, or re-vitalized) so that property values rise exponentially driving the current inhabitants away? This seems to be the usual pattern in cities of "sprawl". Then they tend to bulldoze the existing structures to build larger houses. I'm not sure that this process would help the environment.

3) Will this law guarantee that the people who work at these places can afford to live in the planned community nearby? I would love to live in downtown Fort Worth, where I could walk to any store I would like. But, the price is triple (or more) what I currently pay in the suburbs for half the space (and no garage!). If only the elite can afford to do this, the environment will not really be helped by this process. In addition, the very people who currently live in that regional environment will become the subject of an unfair type of oppression by the elite.

Until these questions can be answered I don't think the California legislation will be effective, no matter how hard the "Terminator" threatens.