Platform : Developers, Activists: Trading Places

The Times asked Southern California environmental activists and land developers to try stepping into the other side’s shoes for a moment to consider fresh ways to solve the problem of having enough housing and still preserving the land. Here’s what they said:

JILL SWIFT: Sierra Club activist, Tarzana

In lean times (if I were a developer) I’d look for cost-saving ways to get a good return on my investment. I would choose areas that would not require heavy environmental impact reports--areas that would not be replete with natural values highly regarded by environmentalists.

I’d probably look for cheap land, land with infrastructure already there--pockets in the city where you have police, fire, schools, transportation systems in place but which are deteriorating. Create small, intact communities of low-income housing. (It’s called) “in-fill housing.”

In California there’s always this thing of moving up, (not) down. But people (aren’t) moving up because they’re not even moving in.

JOHN BARONE: Senior project manager, The Fieldstone Co., San Diego

As an environmentalist, I would put first priority on really working cooperatively to do large-scale regional planning to determine where the most sensitive resources exist and then put a priority on working with Congress in an attempt to secure as much funding as possible to offset the economic loss. Private property owners (and governmental) jurisdictions could then set land aside, eliminating the economic use of that land.

If all the planning is done, if all the other steps are taken properly and cooperative planning has been worked out, (then if) the economic dispute is unavoidable it’s time to really work on the national level to secure the funds necessary to get the job done.

ANDY LIPKIS: Founder and president of TreePeople, Los Angeles

I’d start with the intention that my development will actually play a net environmentally healing role; that if I do it right it’s possible to affect water supply, water quality (and) the amount of pollution my project produces. I would build a sustainable development that helps the city get better in the long term rather than deplete more resources.

For energy purposes I would build and landscape in such a way that (the buildings were cooled) naturally by shade trees. The spinoff from that is less air pollution generated by making electricity. I’d use building materials made of recycled substances (but only) materials that are not toxic. Most importantly, I would manage landscaping as if it were watershed so I could conserve the amount of water I need. Fifty percent of the water L.A. uses is for landscaping and yet there’s no agency in the city that deals with the land as watershed.

MONICA FLORIAN: Senior vice president, The Irvine Co., Newport Beach

Most fundamentally, if I were an environmentalist, I would find a way to make having natural habitat a value to the landowner as opposed to a liability--to make it a good thing to have. To make it something everyone can come to the table talking about how to manage and do something with it instead of (making natural habitat) an albatross around someone’s neck. A lot of people are really starting to think about that and it’s one of the foundation principles in the conservation planning effort now being experimented with. The second thing would be to try to take a more positive tack to bring people together to understand the value of this habitat and why it is in everyone’s interest to preserve it--working with government, landowners, citizens’ groups to show how this fits into the broader goals of the community.