To the editor: The article about stalling population growth in California, plus the opinion piece bemoaning the lack of housing in L.A., got me to thinking (“Foreign-born population falls by 1.5 million amid Trump policies. California economy under threat,” Jan. 27; “Los Angeles is sabotaging itself on housing,” Jan. 27). Is perpetual growth the only way to assure prosperity?
Of course, there is plenty of land to build houses on, but is that what we really want? California is unique among states in the diversity, majesty and grandeur of its natural lands. Yes, we have national and state parks to preserve the most unique and precious features, but should the rest of it be developed into limitless vistas of tract homes with only these few outdoor museums remaining to show what once was everywhere?
Cities understand the value of zoning, restricting the density of housing — with the most desirable neighborhoods having big enough lots that you usually can’t see or hear your neighbors, with plenty of nature in between. Why can’t the state say when enough is enough, to curb endless runaway growth by zoning California statewide to limit density permanently?
People have gravitated here because it is so special. Unless we establish limits, it won’t be special forever. Maybe growth flatlining is a solution, not a problem. Lots of open land is a way to preserve prosperity by preserving the value of what’s still here.
Robert C. Huber, Yorba Linda
..
To the editor: It’s great to hear that there’s a population plateau in California. It seems the reason why we were so busy trying to build apartment buildings in single-family neighborhoods was because we were having too much population growth.
Well, that’s apparently no longer the case — good. Now the city can stop complaining about housing and focus on affordability of the housing we already have.
Linda Bradshaw Carpenter, Los Angeles
