A
common question people ask of the Coalition is this: Why
go for the whole bundle? Why do you want to preserve this
entire piece of land rather than accept moderate, clustered
development of 75, or 30, or even as few as 10 units, with
the rest of the land put into a conservancy? This is a good
question and one to which the SMFC has given much serious
thought. But every time we think it through, our conviction
only grows stronger that this 377-acre parcel ought to be
preserved in its entirety. Here are some of the points that
persuade us. We hope you will consider them.
In
researching the natural resources of San Marcos Foothills,
discussed in Part IV of this Plan, we were repeatedly impressed
by two features of this stretch of land. One is its astonishing
diversity of fauna and flora. Part of our astonishment,
of course, is that such diversity can thrive within the
urban context. A key to this diversity is the unique combination
of geological formations that have enabled a concentrated
variety of habitats. So that is the first thing: the richness
of the area’s natural diversity. The second feature
that repeatedly impressed us is how integrated this diversity
is. In effect, these habitats mutually support each other
and enjoy an extensive natural system of connectivity that
allows both predators and prey to forage and survive.
So
to begin with, any disruptive development—even, potentially,
a small cluster of single units—will not only permanently
damage the visual impact of these hills, but it will have
a ricochet effect on the entire, integrated, biological
complexity of this parcel. Such an intrusion, simply by
its presence, will inevitably weaken the structure of ecological
co-dependence and, as a consequence, reduce its diversity.
But development also brings with it a host of other intrusive
elements—domesticated pets, exotic flora, herbicides,
noise, nighttime lights—all of which create an alien
invasion against which the natural community is powerless
to defend itself. And despite the best efforts of planners
and developers, there are really no effective ways of mitigating
this impact. At the present time, San Marcos Foothills represents
a delicate ecological balance that no amount of developmental
counter-measures can preserve. There are, of course, creatures
who survive development, but they are the ones with which
we are all too familiar—the possums, crows, rats, and
ants that thrive on urban waste.
The
second point we make is addressed to the argument that moderate
development of the foothills is inevitable, that it is something
we just have to live with, and that to think we can suddenly
reverse this natural expression of the American way of life
is foolish and quixotic. For this argument, we need some
historical perspective. The inevitable process people are
referring to is really a scant 150 years old. In 1848, there
were barely 6,000 people of European descent in all of California,
along with a badly decimated Native American population.
It was only after 1848 that population exploded. This wasn’t
a “natural” explosion but the result of the discovery
of gold. Early in the 20th Century, the population of southern
California exploded again, and again the explosion was not
through natural causes but through the artificial importation
of water. The point is that, if human beings can abruptly
change the course of history by unnatural means (the arbitrary
value of gold, the construction of the viaduct), they can
just as effectively use the same energy to preserve the
natural environment. And since there is nothing natural
about houses in the foothills—as they are a mere by-product
of unnatural processes—nothing is lost by changing
this pattern of development. And much is gained.
