Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

S 501MBS

Authors

S 501MBS

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3711 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_501MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "201391" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(81445) "PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Growth Mark Baldassare Senior Fellow and Survey Director May 2001 Part of the Growth, Land Use, and Environment Series In Collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The James Irvine Foundation The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Public Policy Institute of California The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens – William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller – recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Preface The PPIC Statewide Survey consists of an ongoing series of surveys designed to provide policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the opinions and public policy preferences of residents throughout the state of California. Begun in April 1998, the surveys have now generated a database that includes the responses of over 36,000 Californians. This is the eighteenth PPIC Statewide Survey and the first in a new series of surveys that will focus on population growth, land use, and the environment. This new series – which will be carried out in addition to the traditional PPIC surveys – will be conducted in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. There will be a total of eight surveys in the series – two per year for four years. The intent of the surveys is to inform policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about the growth, land use, and environment issues facing the state. This initial survey focuses in particular on perceptions of population growth and its consequences. This survey report presents the responses of 2,001 adult residents throughout the state. It examines in detail the public's views on local, regional, and statewide issues; explores the extent to which residents are aware of and concerned about population growth and its implications; and looks closely at the public's response to the state energy crisis. More specifically, it focuses on the following: • Local and regional growth issues, including perceptions of current and future growth, traffic congestion, and air pollution; the performance of local government in handling growth issues; the adequacy of funding for infrastructure; and the willingness to consider local development restrictions even if this meant having less economic growth. • State growth issues, including reactions to the 2000 U.S. Census findings concerning the state’s population growth, racial and ethnic change, and regional population shifts; perceptions about the causes and consequences of the state’s population growth; growth policy preferences; and perceptions of the effects of future population growth on the state. • California's electric power problem, including perceptions of the relationship between population growth and electricity shortages; the effects of the electricity crisis on confidence in the state government’s ability to handle planning for future growth and infrastructure needs; thoughts about who's responsible for the situation; preferences for solving the electricity situation; and whether air quality standards that regulate power plants should be relaxed. • Political, social, and economic issues, including performance ratings of President Bush and Governor Davis; perceptions of quality of life in the state; opinions about the near-term economic future of the state; and attention to state news stories on growth and other issues. • Variations in perceptions, attitudes, and policy preferences across the four major regions of the state (the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay area, Los Angeles area, and the rest of Southern California), between Latinos and non-Hispanic whites, and across age, socioeconomic, and political spectrums. Copies of this report or other PPIC Statewide Surveys may be ordered by e-mail (order@ppic.org) or phone (415-291-4400). The reports are also posted on the publications page of the PPIC web site (www.ppic.org). -i- Contents Preface Press Release Local and Regional Growth Issues State Growth Issues California’s Electricity Problems Political, Social, and Economic Trends Survey Methodology Survey Questions and Results Survey Advisory Committee i v 1 5 11 17 21 23 29 - iii - Press Release SPECIAL SURVEY ON GROWTH GROWING PAINS: ENERGY, ECONOMY CREATE ANXIETY ABOUT POPULATION SIZE Broad Support for Higher Electricity Rates Vs. Cuts in State Programs; Residents Fatalistic About Growth, But Believe Planning Could Alleviate Problems SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 21, 2001 — Reeling from an escalating energy crisis and a decelerating economy, Californians are increasingly bearish about population growth and its side effects, according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Despite the positive social and economic effects of California’s past meteoric growth, Californians now believe that future population increases will make the state a less desirable place to live and say that the electricity situation — which they link to growth — has given them pause about government’s ability to plan for a more crowded future. The large-scale public opinion survey of 2001 Californians finds that for the first time since the mid-90s, more Californians believe that the state is headed in the wrong direction (48%) rather than the right direction (44%). More Californians also expect bad economic times (56%) in the next year instead of good times (38%). The attitude adjustment has been swift: In January, a majority of residents still believed the state was headed in the right direction (62%) and expected good times financially in the coming year (51%). As their economic outlook dims, residents find little to cheer about in the latest census numbers or future population projections. Eighty-two percent believe that population growth over the next two decades will make the state a less desirable place to live. Half of state residents also call the increase of 4 million people in the past decade a “bad thing,” while only 14 percent say it is a “good thing” and 36 percent say it has made no difference. Energy problems are adding to Californians’ concern about future population increases: Three in four Californians believe that there is a link between the state’s population growth and the recent electricity crisis, with 43 percent saying that population growth has contributed “a lot” to the supply problem. The crisis has also taken a toll on the public’s trust in state government to handle future growth. Sixty-seven percent of residents say that the electricity situation has made them less confident in the state government’s ability to plan and build for the future. “Californians clearly see the electricity crisis as a harbinger of other growth-related problems,” says PPIC Statewide Survey Director Mark Baldassare. “This crisis and general economic uncertainty have severely undermined public confidence in California’s future and in its leaders.” Indeed, approval ratings for Governor Gray Davis have dropped by a large margin since January. Fewer than half of all Californians (46%) now say they approve of the way he is handling his job as governor, well below his 63 percent approval rating in January. Residents also remain highly critical of the governor’s handling of the electricity crisis -v- Press Release specifically, with 60 percent saying they disapprove. While he maintains higher overall ratings (57%), President George W. Bush also receives low marks on his handling of the state’s electricity problem, with 56 percent saying they disapprove. Interestingly, while Governor Davis and President Bush get poor marks on electricity, they have largely escaped blame for the problem. Residents are much more likely to fault utility companies (32%) and the formergovernor and legislature (26%) for the electricity situation than they are the current governor and legislature (10%), power generators (10%), the Bush Administration and federal government (8%), or California consumers (8%). Overall, 43 percent of Californians now say that electricity is the most important issue facing California today, followed by growth (13%), education (6%), and jobs and the economy (6%). In January, residents named schools and electricity evenly at about 25 percent each. Ninety-five percent of residents believe that the cost, supply, and demand for electricity is a problem, with 82 percent saying it is a “big” problem. And the problem has amplified their general pessimism about the economy: 86 percent say that electricity issues will hurt the economy over the next few years, with 62 percent believing it will hurt the economy a “great deal.” Eighty-two percent say they are closely following news stories about the crisis. When asked to consider solutions to the electricity problem, Californians prefer building more power plants (43%) to re-regulation of the industry (27%), conservation (18%), federal price controls (8%), or higher rates (1%). In January, residents most favored re-regulation (37%) and power plant construction (32%). But despite their support for the development of more supply, residents are not willing to relax the air quality standards that regulate power plants at this point in the crisis: 70 percent say they are unwilling to accept this tradeoff. However, they are willing to make a key financial tradeoff: 58 percent say they would rather the state issue bonds that will be paid by consumers through higher rates than use taxpayer funds that would otherwise go to state programs such as schools, health, and infrastructure. “Despite the hard times brought about by the electricity crisis, residents want planning and building for the state’s future to take place. And they appear willing to ante up,” says Baldassare. Planning a Priority, But By Whom? Although many Californians (58%) believe that population growth in the state is inevitable, a solid majority (66%) also say that most growth-related problems can be avoided with good planning. However, residents are conflicted about who should be doing the planning. On one hand, they are adamant that cities and local governments (74%) rather than state government (24%) control local growth and development. On the other, they are more likely to believe that local voters should make growth-related decisions by voting on local initiatives (63%), rather than local elected officials taking action after planning reviews and public hearings (35%). Perhaps as a consequence of a slowing economy, fewer Californians today (51%) than one year ago (58%) say they would support a local initiative to slow down the pace of development in their city or community, even if it meant having less economic growth. On the whole, most Californians (60%) think their cities and communities have been growing rapidly — and most (60%) also expect rapid growth to continue in their region — but they see their local government as having done little to manage the consequences. Only 7 percent give their city government “excellent” ratings for their handling of growth issues, while 33 percent rate them as “good,” 36 percent “fair,” and 17 percent “poor.” This - vi - Press Release ambivalence may help to explain in part why a majority of residents say they would oppose paying a higher sales tax to help local government in their region pay for roads, transit, and other infrastructure projects even though more residents than not (48% to 43%) also believe that their local government does not have adequate funding for those projects. Different Regions View Growth Differently Most Californians believe that the broader regions they live in have growth-related problems. Specifically, most say that traffic congestion (83%), the availability of affordable housing (73%), population growth and development (66%), air pollution (64%), and the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs (61%) are problems in their area. However, the perception of each of these problems varies greatly from region to region. San Francisco Bay Area residents, for example, are far more likely than residents in other parts of the state to view traffic (96%) and housing (91%) as problems, while more Central Valley residents view the lack of well-paying jobs (73%) as a problem, and Los Angeles County residents express greater concern about air pollution (78%). Asked about the biggest problem associated with growth, residents from Los Angeles (33%) and other Southern California counties (31%) say traffic congestion, Central Valley residents (33%) mention urban sprawl and the loss of open space, and Bay Area residents (39%) cite high housing costs. Californians are also divided along regional lines when it comes to the question of where new growth should occur. Residents of the Bay Area (54%) and the Central Valley (51%) say that they prefer new growth take place within the developed areas of a region, while residents of Los Angeles (59%) and other Southern California counties (56%) believe it is better if new growth happens in the undeveloped areas on the outskirts of a region. Finally, while there is agreement across the state that an improving economy (41%), followed by increasing racial and ethnic diversity (23%), are the most positive consequences of population growth to date, residents are more at odds about the most important priority for growth planning. Residents of the Central Valley (50%), Los Angeles (42%), and other Southern California counties (45%) say that improving the economy should be the top priority, but Bay Area residents are evenly divided between improving the economy (36%) and environmental protection (36%). “Californians are experiencing the state’s rapid growth in many different ways, a fact that goes a long way toward explaining their desire to decide growth issues on a local level,” says Dennis Collins, President of the James Irvine Foundation. “The key is to develop the capacity at the local level to manage growth wisely, while opening a statewide dialogue about the best ways to address our common concerns.” Other Key Findings • Where Does Growth Come From? (page 6) Most Californians (55%) believe that the single biggest cause of California’s population growth is immigration, even though demographers cite births to current residents as the major factor. • Diversity Celebrated (page 5) Throughout the state and across racial and ethnic groups, more residents say that the state’s majority-minority status is a “good thing” (40%) than a “bad thing” (16%). - vii - Press Release About the Survey The survey on growth is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. It is the first in a four-year, multi-survey series on growth, land use, and the environment being produced in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The purpose of this series is to inform policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about the critical growth, development, and environmental challenges facing the state. Findings of the current survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed from May 1 to May 9, 2001. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. For more information on survey methodology, see page 21. Dr. Mark Baldassare is a senior fellow and program director at PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder and director of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has conducted since 1998. Dr. Baldassare is the author of numerous books, including California in the New Millennium: The Changing Social and Political Landscape (University of California Press, 2000). PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to objective, nonpartisan research on economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The Institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www.ppic.org) on May 21, 2001. ### - viii - Local and Regional Growth Issues Local Population Growth Most Californians think the population of their cities and communities is growing rapidly, but far fewer rate their city governments as good or excellent at handling local growth issues. For the state overall, 60 percent of residents believe their cities have experienced rapid growth. Although Los Angeles residents are slightly less likely than others to see rapid growth, the perception holds over all regions of the state and across political and demographic groups. This high perception of rapid growth is not matched by high confidence in how city governments are handling growth-generated issues. Although four in 10 residents rate their city's performance as good or excellent, only 7 percent confer an "excellent" rating. More than 50 percent give a "fair" or "poor" rating. Again, there is little difference across racial and ethnic groups, regions of the state, demographic groups, and the political spectrum. Among those who see rapid growth, only 37 percent say their city governments are doing an excellent or good job on the issues. In contrast, among those who say that they have experienced slow growth, half give their city governments good or excellent marks. "In the past few years, do you think the population of your city or community has been growing rapidly, growing slowly, staying about the same, or declining?" Growing rapidly Growing slowly Staying the same Declining Don't know All Adults 60% 20 15 2 3 Central Valley 65% 19 12 2 2 Region SF Bay Area 66% 18 12 1 3 Los Angeles 54% 20 21 2 3 Other Southern California 63% 20 13 1 3 Latino 59% 21 15 2 3 "How would you rate the performance of your city government when it comes to handling growth issues?" Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know, not in city All Adults 7% 33 36 17 7 Central Valley 7% 32 36 18 7 Region SF Bay Area 6% 34 36 16 8 Los Angeles 7% 33 37 17 6 Other Southern California 8% 31 35 18 8 Latino 7% 35 39 15 4 -1- Local and Regional Growth Issues Local Growth Control Initiatives Past surveys have shown that lack of confidence in government to solve problems goes hand-inhand with Californians' tendency to seek solutions through the initiative process. That evidently goes for growth issues, as well. A slight majority (51%) say they would vote “yes” on a local initiative that would slow down the pace of development, even if it meant having less economic growth. Nevertheless, public support for slowing growth has softened: When we asked this same question a year ago, 58 percent of residents said they would support a local growth control initiative. Public support for a local growth control initiative is strongest in the San Francisco Bay area and weakest in the Central Valley. Latinos are divided on slowing down the pace of development (46% to 48%), while non-Hispanic whites tend to favor local growth control (53% to 39%). Older, college educated, and higher-income residents are more likely to support local growth controls. Republicans, Democrats, and independent voters all show more support than opposition. Those residents who perceive rapid growth in their area are most likely to support local growth controls. "If an election were held today, would you vote yes or no on a local initiative that would slow down the pace of development in your city or community, even if this meant having less economic growth?" Yes No Don’t know All Adults 51% 41 8 Central Valley 47% 47 6 Region SF Bay Area 56% 34 10 Los Angeles 49% 42 9 Other Southern California 52% 41 7 Latino 46% 48 6 Regional Problems Most Californians believe that regions as well as cities have growth-related problems. They rate traffic congestion (83%), the availability of housing they can afford (73%), population growth and development (66%), and air pollution (64%) as at least “somewhat of a problem.” By comparison, 61 percent say a lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs is at least somewhat of a problem. Traffic congestion (60%) and the availability of affordable housing (47%) have the highest ratings as “big” problems, followed by air pollution (30%), growth and development (29%), and lack of good job opportunities (29%). Across regions, San Francisco Bay Area residents are by far the most concerned, while Central Valley residents are the least concerned, about traffic congestion, high housing costs, and growth and development. Conversely, Central Valley residents are the most likely to note the lack of well-paying jobs in their region, while San Francisco Bay area residents are the least likely to say this issue is a problem. Los Angeles residents are the most likely to rate air pollution as a big problem. Latinos are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to say there is a big problem with air pollution (36% to 27%) and the lack of well-paying jobs (39% to 24%) and less inclined to rate traffic (53% to 60%), housing (41% to 49%), and growth (24% to 31%) as serious regional problems. A year ago, Californians were less likely than today (44% to 60%) to say that traffic is a big problem, while their ratings of growth and air pollution remain unchanged. - 2- Local and Regional Growth Issues "In your region today, how much of a problem is ..." Region All Central Adults Valley Traffic congestion Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem 60% 23 17 34% 30 36 Don't know 00 The availability of housing you can afford Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don't know 47% 26 25 2 26% 28 43 3 Population growth and development Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don't know 29% 37 32 2 23% 36 41 0 Air pollution Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don't know 30% 34 36 0 33% 33 34 0 The lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don't know 29% 32 35 4 40% 33 24 3 SF Bay Area 82% 14 4 0 74% 17 8 1 39% 40 19 2 22% 41 37 0 18% 30 49 3 Los Angeles 69% 20 11 0 40% 34 24 2 28% 38 31 3 46% 32 22 0 31% 33 32 4 Other Southern California 58% 27 15 0 45% 25 28 2 28% 35 36 1 25% 37 38 0 25% 33 38 4 Latino 53% 26 21 0 41% 31 26 2 24% 36 38 2 36% 32 32 0 39% 32 26 3 -3- Local and Regional Growth Issues Preparing for Regional Growth Most Californians expect growth in their regions, and most believe that local governments do not have adequate funding to prepare for that growth. Nevertheless, the majority opposes paying higher taxes to meet the infrastructure needs of a growing population. When asked about future population growth, six in 10 residents say they expect their regional population to grow rapidly. People living outside of Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area are the most likely to expect rapid growth. That belief is consistent with current trends and with population projections predicting more rapid growth outside of the urban coastal region than inside these two areas. Nearly half of Californians believe that their local government does not have adequate funding for the roads and other infrastructure needed to handle future growth in their regions. That belief is shared by a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independent voters. However, Los Angeles residents are more likely than residents of other regions, and Latinos are more likely than nonHispanic whites (51% to 39%), to believe that local government does have adequate funding. Concern about inadequate funding does not open many wallets. A solid majority (56%) of the state’s residents say they are opposed to paying a higher sales tax so that local governments would have more money to prepare for future growth in their region. Although the majority in every region opposes this suggestion, residents in the northern part of the state show more willingness than those in the south to pay higher taxes. Democrats are divided on this issue, while Republicans and independent voters are solidly opposed. Money concerns aside, Californians overwhelming agree that local governments should work together on local growth issues (89%) rather than make decisions about growth issues on their own (8%). "Overall, do you think your local government does or does not have adequate funding for the roads, transit, and other infrastructure projects that are needed to prepare for future growth in your region?" Does Does not Other/Don't know All Adults 43% 48 9 Central Valley 41% 51 8 Region SF Bay Area 37% 51 12 Los Angeles 49% 43 8 Other Southern California 43% 46 11 Latino 51% 43 6 "Some say that local governments will have to spend much more money on new roads, transit, and other infrastructure projects to prepare for future growth in your region. Would you favor or oppose paying a higher sales tax for this purpose?" Favor Oppose Don’t know All Adults 41% 56 3 Central Valley 45% 53 2 Region SF Bay Area 45% 53 2 Los Angeles 37% 59 4 Other Southern California 40% 57 3 Latino 47% 49 4 - 4- State Growth Issues Census 2000 and State Population Trends The population trends outlined in the recently released 2000 Census are troubling to many Californians. Although half said it made no difference to them, state residents were more likely to consider it a bad thing (33%) than a good thing (15%) that the state’s population has now reached 33.9 million. When growth is couched in terms of how many more people were added to the population, the reaction to growth is more negative: Although 14 percent still see this increase as a good thing, 50 percent see it as bad. State residents were more divided about news that the state’s inland regions grew faster than the coastal regions: 32 percent said it was a good thing, 24 percent said it was a bad thing, and 44 percent said it made no difference. As for the Census finding that got the most headlines—the state no longer has a majority racial or ethnic group—Californians were much more likely to say this was a good thing (40%) than a bad thing (16%), and 44 percent said it made no difference. San Francisco Bay area residents are the most positive. Response to this news did not differ across racial and ethnic groups. "For each of the following census figures, please tell me if you think it is a good thing or a bad thing or if it makes no difference to you." Region All Adults Central Valley SF Bay Area The state has reached a population of 33.9 million people Good thing Bad thing No difference, don’t know 15% 33 52 16% 32 52 13% 36 51 The state has 4 million more people than it did 10 years ago Good thing Bad thing No difference, don’t know 14% 50 36 17% 49 34 14% 52 34 The state’s inland areas grew faster than the Bay Area and Los Angeles Good thing Bad thing No difference, Don’t know 32% 24 44 32% 33 35 38% 22 40 The state has no racial or ethnic group in the majority Good thing Bad thing No difference, don’t know 40% 16 44 37% 14 49 47% 16 37 Note: "Don’t know" responses range from 1 to 3 percent for the questions in this table. Los Angeles 16% 34 50 14% 49 37 29% 22 49 38% 17 45 Other Southern California 13% 31 56 13% 48 39 31% 22 47 38% 16 46 -5- Latino 22% 29 49 19% 43 38 33% 27 40 37% 20 43 State Growth Issues Primary Cause of the State’s Growth According to demographers, the factor most responsible for the state's population growth is births to current residents. Most Californians think otherwise: 55 percent believe immigration is the single biggest factor in the growth, while 25 percent name migration from other states, and 7 percent say state and local policies. Only 8 percent point to births. Latinos are somewhat more likely than non-Hispanic whites to cite births to current residents as the most important cause. Nevertheless, in all racial and ethnic groups and in every region, immigration and migration were named as the top two causes of population growth. "Which of the following do you think is the single biggest factor that is causing the state’s population to grow?" Foreign immigration Migration inside the U.S. Births State and local policies Other/Don't know All Adults 55% 25 8 7 5 Central Valley 56% 20 12 7 5 Region SF Bay Area 55% 28 5 6 6 Los Angeles 61% 20 10 5 4 Other Southern California 51% 29 7 7 6 Latino 47% 21 14 11 7 Negative Consequences of the State’s Growth What are the most negative consequences of this growth? Overall, residents are almost equally likely to name traffic congestion (29%), high housing costs (27%), and urban sprawl and loss of open space (24%). However, response varies significantly by region. For Central Valley residents, sprawl tops the list; for the San Francisco Bay Area, high housing costs; and for Los Angeles and the rest of Southern Californian, traffic. Latinos were more likely than non-Hispanic whites to name housing (33% to 22%) and less likely to focus on sprawl (18% to 28%). "Which of the following do you think is the most negative consequence of the state’s population growth?" Traffic congestion High housing costs Urban sprawl, loss of open space Pollution Other/Don't know All Adults 29% 27 24 16 4 Central Valley 19% 22 33 22 4 Region SF Bay Area 27% 39 22 7 5 Los Angeles 33% 22 21 20 4 Other Southern California 31% 25 22 17 5 Latino 27% 33 18 18 4 - 6- State Growth Issues Positive Consequences of the State’s Growth What are the most positive consequences of population growth? Improving the economy was named most (41%), followed by increasing social diversity (23%) and more state and local tax revenues (21%). Only 8 percent of residents see improvement of services and amenities as the most positive result of growth. In all groups, the economic benefits are mentioned more often than other issues. However, in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area—the most racially and ethnically diverse regions—residents are more likely than others to cite increasing diversity as the top benefit. Latinos and non-Hispanic whites have similar views about the benefits of the state’s growth. Improving economy Increasing diversity Tax revenues Services, amenities Other/Don't know "Which of the following do you think is the most positive consequence of the state’s population growth?" All Adults 41% 23 21 8 7 Central Valley 42% 21 21 9 7 Region SF Bay Area 43% 28 18 6 5 Los Angeles 36% 25 23 9 7 Other Southern California 45% 20 21 7 7 Latino 42% 20 24 10 4 State Growth and the Future The California Department of Finance has predicted that by 2020 California will have 10 million more people, bringing the state population to 45 million. Response to this projection is overwhelmingly negative: 82 percent of residents believe this growth will make the state a less desirable place for them to live in; only 13 percent believe it will make it a more desirable place of residence. The public’s attitude toward this population trend is mostly negative in all regions, political parties, and in racial and ethnic and other demographic groups. "By 2020, California is predicted to reach a population of 45 million, gaining 10 million more people. Please tell me if you think this will make California a more desirable or a less desirable place for you to live." More desirable Less desirable No difference/Don’t know All Adults 13% 82 5 Central Valley 18% 78 4 Region SF Bay Area 10% 85 5 Los Angeles 15% 80 5 Other Southern California 13% 80 7 Latino 23% 74 3 -7- State Growth Issues Inevitability of Growth and Its Problems A solid majority of Californians see population growth as inevitable. However, an even larger majority believes that growth problems could be avoided through good planning. Will growth just happen or does it depend on the state's ability to absorb new residents? Fiftyeight percent of Californians believe that population growth will take place no matter what the circumstances. However, 39 percent believe growth depends on providing roads, housing, and infrastructure. The perception of inevitability does not vary by region but does vary by ethnicity. Non-Hispanic whites (63%) are more likely than Latinos (50%) to see population growth as inevitable. The perception that growth is a “given” increases with education and income. Can potential growth problems be avoided? Two-thirds of Californians think that good planning can forestall growth problems; 33 percent disagree. This balance of perceptions persists across the state’s major regions and is not significantly different across political, racial and ethnic, and other demographic groups. "Is the first or the second statement closer to your views?" Population growth in this state is inevitable Population growth in this state depends on roads, housing, and other infrastructure Other/Don't know All Adults 58% 39 3 Central Valley 60% 38 2 Region SF Bay Area 57% Los Angeles 57% Other Southern California 59% 40 39 38 3 43 Latino 50% 45 5 Most growth problems can be avoided with good planning Most growth problems cannot be avoided Other/Don't know All Adults 66% 33 1 Central Valley 67% 32 1 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles 69% 66% 30 33 11 Other Southern California Latino 67% 64% 32 35 11 - 8- State Growth Issues Local and State Government Roles Although Californians give their city governments rather lukewarm ratings for handling growth issues, they would prefer that local government—rather than the state—guide local growth and development. They would prefer even more that local voters make growth decisions by initiative rather than have local elected officials make those decisions. Only 24 percent of residents say that state government should take a more active role in guiding local growth and development. In contrast, 74 percent say that city and county governments should make the decisions on growth issues. This preference persists across regions and ethnic groups, as well as all political and demographic groups. However, Los Angeles residents are more likely than residents of other regions, and Latinos (34%) are more likely than non-Hispanic whites (19%), to want the state government more involved. By a two-to-one margin, Californians choose the local initiative process over their local elected officials when asked how growth-related decisions should be made. This preference for “direct” over representative democracy is evident across political parties but declines with age, education, and income. "Is the first or the second statement closer to your views?" State government should take a more active role in guiding local growth and development City and county governments should decide local growth and development Other/Don't know All Adults 24% 74 2 Central Valley 20% 78 2 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California 21% 32% 23% 76 65 76 331 Latino 34% 63 3 All Adults Local elected officials should make growthrelated decisions after going through a process of planning reviews and public hearings 35% Local voters should make growth-related decisions by voting on local initiatives 63 Other/Don't know 2 Central Valley 36% 63 1 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles 40% 33% 58 64 23 -9- Other Southern California Latino 32% 29% 65 69 32 State Growth Issues Important Priorities for Growth Planning Given a choice among three priorities for growth planning, Californians, overall, put improving jobs and the economy first (43%). The next priority is environmental protection (34%), with providing for social needs a distant third (21%). These numbers mask some significant differences across regions and groups. San Francisco Bay area residents give the environment and the economy equal priority, while Central Valley residents see the economy as much more important. Independent voters choose protecting the environment over improving the economy (42% to 32%), Republicans strongly favor the economy over the environment (49% to 27%), and Democrats are equally likely to choose the economy or the environment (39% to 38%). Improving the economy is the top priority among Latinos, lower-income households, and less-educated residents. "What do you think should be the most important priority in planning for growth?" Improving the economy Protecting environment Providing social needs Other/Don't know All Adults 43% 34 21 2 Central Valley 50% 34 14 2 Region SF Bay Area 36% 36 25 3 Los Angeles 42% 33 23 2 Other Southern California 45% 35 19 1 Latino 47% 33 18 2 Where Should Growth Occur? Californians are divided about where they want new growth to take place: 45 percent want new growth to take place in the developed areas inside the region, while 51 percent want new growth in the undeveloped areas on the outskirts of the region. There is a North-South split on this question. Central Valley and San Francisco Bay area residents are most inclined to want growth inside the region, while Los Angeles and the rest of Southern California prefer growth on the outskirts. NonHispanic whites (49%) are somewhat more likely than Latinos (40%) to favor growth inside the region. Support for growth inside the region increases with income and education. There are no differences across political parties. "It is better if new growth takes place ..." Region In the developed areas inside the region In the undeveloped areas on the outskirts of the region Other/Don't know All Adults 45% 51 4 Central Valley 51% 45 4 SF Bay Area 54% 42 4 Los Angeles 37% 59 4 Other Southern California 40% Latino 40% 56 56 44 - 10 - California’s Electricity Problems Most Important Issue Californians have electricity very much on their minds. Forty-three percent named electricity price, supply, and demand as the most important state issue. In the three-year history of the PPIC Statewide Survey, no other issue has been named the top problem by so many Californians. After electricity, the issue named most frequently—growth and overpopulation—was 30 points lower at 13 percent. Even the slowing economy (6%) failed to get much interest relative to electricity. Moreover, schools and education, which dominated the public’s concerns in past Statewide Surveys, have now fallen to single digits. As recently as January 2001, responding to a slightly different question wording, Californians named schools and electricity equally at about 25 percent each. For the two previous years, schools and education had been the top issue on residents’ lists of concerns. Although electricity is easily the most important issue for all areas of the state, Los Angeles residents (33%)—who are somewhat insulated from the power crisis—are noticeably less likely than those who live in the rest of Southern California (44%) and the Central Valley or the San Francisco Bay area (48% each) to mention the electricity problem. After the electricity problem, Los Angeles residents are more concerned than residents of other regions about schools (10%) and jobs (9%). San Francisco Bay area residents are more concerned than others about growth (17%) and housing (8%). Latinos are less concerned than non-Hispanic whites about electricity (35% to 47%) and growth (7% to 15%) but are much more concerned about jobs (12% to 3%). Republicans (50%) and Democrats (42%) cite electricity problems more often than do other voters (39%) and nonvoters (37%). Mention of electricity increases with age, income, and education. Men (49%) are more likely than women (37%) to put the electricity problem at the top of their lists of policy concerns. "What do you think is the most important issue facing California today?" Electricity price / supply / demand Growth, overpopulation Schools, education Jobs, the economy, unemployment Environment, pollution Traffic and transportation Housing costs, housing availability Immigration, illegal immigration Crime, gangs Other Don’t know All Adults 43% 13 6 6 4 4 4 3 3 9 5 Central Valley 48% 10 7 7 4 2 2 2 3 12 3 Region SF Bay Area 48% 17 5 3 2 4 8 3 1 7 3 Los Angeles 33% 10 10 9 6 5 1 5 4 10 7 Other Southern California 44% 13 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 9 5 Latino 35% 7 8 12 4 4 3 4 5 10 8 - 11 - California's Electricity Problems Problem Seriousness Almost all Californians (95%) agree that the cost, supply, and demand for electricity is a problem, and 82 percent believe it is a “big” problem. Concern over the seriousness of this issue has increased significantly since the January survey, when 74 percent said the electricity situation was a “big” problem. Electricity is perceived as a serious problem by large majorities in all regions, although Los Angeles residents (77%) are less likely than others to view it as a “big” problem. There are no differences between Latinos and non-Hispanic whites on this ranking of problem seriousness and only slight variations across political and demographic groups. Will electricity problems today hurt the state's economy in the next few years? Eighty-six percent think it will. Sixty two percent believe the effect on the economy will be severe and 24 percent believe it will be modest. Again, public concern is increasing over time: In January, 56 percent said electricity problems would hurt the economy “a great deal.” Public perceptions about negative effects on the economy vary modestly between the northern and southern regions of the state: San Francisco Bay area (65%) and Central Valley (68%) residents are somewhat more likely than residents of Los Angeles (60%) and the rest of Southern California (62%) to say the electricity problem will hurt the economy a great deal. Latinos (62%) and non-Hispanic whites (63%) are just as likely to think the negative effects will be large. There are no large differences in the perceived effects of the electricity problems across demographic or political groups. "How much of a problem is the cost, supply, and demand for electricity in California today?" Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not much of a problem Don't know All Adults 82% 13 5 0 Central Valley 85% 13 2 0 Region SF Bay Area 83% 13 3 1 Los Angeles 77% 16 6 1 Other Southern California 86% 9 4 1 Latino 83% 13 4 0 "In the next few years, do you think the issue of the cost, supply, and demand for electricity will hurt the California economy or not?" Yes, a great deal Yes, somewhat No Don't know All Adults 62% 24 12 2 Central Valley 68% 20 10 2 Region SF Bay Area 65% 24 9 2 Los Angeles 60% 24 14 2 Other Southern California 62% 24 12 2 Latino 62% 26 11 1 - 12 - California’s Electricity Problems Causes Governor Gray Davis has seen his approval ratings fall since the January Statewide Survey, and most Californians are unhappy with his handling of the electricity situation. Nevertheless, Californians are not putting the primary blame for the situation on Governor Davis and the current legislature. Residents are most likely to blame the electric utility companies (32%) and the former governor and legislature (26%) and much less likely to blame the current state government (10%), the power generators (10%), the Bush administration (8%), or consumers (8%). In January, given a slightly different list of choices, 47 percent of adult residents chose the deregulation of the state’s electricity industry as most to blame for the problem. This was followed by the electric companies (25%), consumers (10%), and the current governor and legislature (9%). Thus, the tendency to lay the blame on the current governor and legislature has not increased. Compared to other regions, the San Francisco Bay area is more likely to blame the former governor and legislature (33%). Latinos are less likely than non-Hispanic whites to blame the former state government (22% to 28%) and more likely to blame consumers (14% to 6%) and the utilities (35% to 31%). Republicans are more likely than Democrats to blame the current governor and legislature (18% to 5%) and less likely to blame the Bush administration (4% to 11%). There are several important variations in perceptions of blame across demographic groups. Younger adults, lower income households, and less educated residents are much less likely to blame the former state government, while they are more likely to blame consumers, Bush, and the electric companies. "Who do you think is most to blame for the current electricity situation in California?" The electric utility companies The former Governor and legislature The current Governor and legislature The power generators The Bush administration and federal government California consumers Don’t know All Adults 32% 26 10 10 8 8 6 Central Valley 31% 23 13 10 8 7 8 Region SF Bay Area 29% 33 10 10 7 6 5 Los Angeles 31% 23 11 9 10 9 7 Other Southern California 34% 26 8 13 6 7 6 Latino 35% 22 6 8 10 14 5 - 13 - California's Electricity Problems Solutions How would Californians prefer to get out of the situation? Forty-three percent favor building more power plants; only 1 percent opt for raising electricity rates. After building more plants, re-regulation (27%) is the most preferred solution, followed by conservation (18%), and federal price controls on power generators (8%). In January, given a list of options that did not include federal price controls, Californians most favored re-regulation (37%), followed by building more power plants (32%), conservation (20%), and raising electricity rates (1%). Thus, building more power plants appears to have gained, while re-regulation has lost, popularity. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to support building plants (53% to 39%), while Democrats are more in favor of conservation (17% to 12%) and re-regulation (30% to 25%). Preferred solutions vary little by region. Compared with non-Hispanic whites, Latinos favor conservation more (24% to 15%) and re-regulation less (22% to 28%). There is also a large generation gap: 18-to-24-yearolds support conservation much more than those 55 and older do (27% to 11%), while the oldest age group is more likely to support building more plants (54% to 38%). Lower-income and less-educated residents tend to support conservation and oppose re-regulation more than do others. "Which of the following solutions for the current electricity situation in California do you most prefer?" Build more power plants Re-regulate the state’s electricity industry Encourage consumers to conserve energy Federal price controls on power generators Raise electricity prices Other/Don’t know All Adults 43% 27 18 8 1 3 Central Valley 48% 22 20 6 1 3 Region SF Bay Area 42% 27 Los Angeles 42% 27 18 20 88 31 22 Other Southern California 44% 27 Latino 46% 22 15 24 96 10 42 Energy Supply and Environmental Tradeoffs Are Californians willing to relax air quality standards for power plants in order to increase the energy supply? At this point in the electricity crisis, most are not: 70 percent oppose relaxing environmental standards; 27 percent are in favor. Opposition is strong in every part of the state, but there is more support for this idea (31%) in the area of Southern California outside of Los Angeles. Although a majority in all political groups oppose this tradeoff, Republicans (58%) are less opposed than Democrats (77%) or other voters (72%). Even among those who most prefer building more plants, 58 percent oppose doing so at the expense of air quality. Non-Hispanic whites are only slightly more likely than Latinos (29% to 25%) to favor relaxing air quality standards. Those 55 or older were more likely than younger adults (35% to 25%) and women were less likely than men (21% to 34%) to favor the tradeoff. There were no significant differences by income or educational level. For all demographic and political groups, maintaining air quality standards was more important than increasing the electricity supply. - 14 - California’s Electricity Problems "State officials are looking for ways to increase the electricity supply. Do you favor or oppose relaxing air quality standards that regulate power plants, even if it means more air pollution?" Favor Oppose Don’t know All Adults 27% 70 3 Central Valley 26% 71 3 Region SF Bay Area 25% 73 2 Los Angeles 26% 72 2 Other Southern California 31% 64 5 Latino 25% 73 2 Energy Costs and Fiscal Tradeoffs What method would residents prefer for paying the billions of dollars the state has incurred in electricity debts: issuing bonds paid by consumers through higher electricity rates or using taxpayer funds that would otherwise go to state programs? Fifty-eight percent choose issuing bonds; 32 percent prefer using taxpayer funds. Although San Francisco Bay Area residents are more likely than others to favor bonds paid for by higher rates, this preference is consistent across all four regions. Republicans (32%) are somewhat more likely than Democrats (26%) and other voters (29%) to favor using taxpayer funds, but a solid majority in all political groups prefer bonds. A greater percentage of Latinos (40%) than non-Hispanic whites (29%) prefer taking state funds from other programs. Although a majority of all major demographic groups favor bonds paid for by higher rates, there are differences by income and education level: People in households making less than $40,000 are less likely than those in households making $80,000 per year (53% to 67%) to favor bonds. Similarly, adults with no college are less likely than college graduates (47% to 67%) to prefer bonds. "Which do you prefer for paying the billions of dollars in state debts from buying electricity over the past few months?" Issue bonds that will be paid by consumers through higher electricity rates Use taxpayer funds that would otherwise go to state programs such as schools, health, and infrastructure Other/Don’t know All Adults 58% Central Valley 56% 32 33 10 11 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California Latino 67% 57% 52% 54% 25 32 36 40 8 11 12 6 - 15 - California's Electricity Problems Growth and Infrastructure Three in four Californians believe population growth has contributed to the current electricity crisis, and 43 percent say it has contributed a lot. Residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (50%) are more likely than others, while Los Angeles (40%) residents are the least likely, to hold this view. Perceptions of local population growth seem to matter: Half of those who said their city or community has been growing rapidly think growth has contributed a lot to the energy crisis. Among other residents, a third believe population growth has had a big effect. The electricity crisis has also taken a toll on the public’s faith in state government to prepare for growth. Two-in-three residents say the electricity crisis has made them feel less confident in the state government’s ability to plan for the future, including building the necessary roads and infrastructure. This lack of trust in state government is similar across all four regions. None of the political groups expresses much trust, but Republicans (74%) are somewhat more likely than Democrats (64%) and independent voters (67%) to say that the electricity crisis has made them less confident in the state government’s ability to plan for infrastructure. Non-Hispanic whites (70%) are more likely than Latinos (63%) to say they now have less confidence in the state government’s planning abilities. "How much do you think population growth in California has contributed to the current electricity supply problems?" A lot Some Not much Don’t know All Adults 43% 33 23 1 Central Valley 44% 33 22 1 Region SF Bay Area 50% 31 18 1 Los Angeles 40% 32 27 1 Other Southern California 42% 34 23 1 Latino 42% 34 23 1 "Does the electricity situation make you more confident or less confident in the state government’s ability to plan for the future—including building the necessary roads and other infrastructure—or does it make no difference to you?" More confident Less confident No difference Don’t know All Adults 7% 67 25 1 Central Valley 8% 66 24 2 Region SF Bay Area 6% 65 28 1 Los Angeles 7% 67 25 1 Other Southern California 9% 68 22 1 Latino 11% 63 25 1 - 16 - Political, Social, and Economic Trends Governor’s Approval Ratings Governor Gray Davis’ job approval ratings have dropped by a large margin since the January PPIC Statewide Survey. Today, fewer than half of all Californians (46%) say they approve of the way he is handling his job as governor. This approval rating is well below those he received in September 2000 (66%), October 2000 (60%), and January 2001 (63%). While his overall job approval rating has slipped, Governor Davis’ ratings among Democrats (59%) are much higher than among Republicans (31%) and other voters (41%). The ratings are also higher among Latinos (56%) than among non-Hispanic whites (40%). Approval declines as age, income, and education levels rise, but these trends also reflect partisan differences. The governor’s approval ratings are similar across regions, and there are no differences in ratings between men and women. Concerning the governor's handling of the electricity problem, there has been no significant change since January. At that time, 62 percent disapproved; in this survey, 60 percent disapprove. Disapproval varies across political groups: Among Republicans, 72 percent disapprove of Davis' handling of the electricity problem, compared with 52 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of other voters. Latinos (54%) are less likely than non-Hispanic whites (64%) to disapprove of his performance on this issue. Disapproval of the governor on this issue increases with income and education, but there are no regional, age, or gender differences in the approval ratings. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California? Approve Disapprove Don’t know Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling the issue of the electricity problem in California? Approve Disapprove Don’t know Party Registration All Adults Democrat Republican Other Voters 46% 41 13 59% 31 10 31% 61 8 41% 44 15 29% 60 11 38% 52 10 19% 72 9 25% 65 10 Not Registered to Vote Latino 47% 31 22 56% 32 12 33% 53 14 36% 54 10 - 17 - Political, Social, and Economic Trends President’s Job Approval Ratings A solid majority of Californians, 57 percent, approves of the way that President George W. Bush is handling his job, while 36 percent disapprove. This is similar to his national approval ratings in early May in a Newsweek poll (57%) and Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll (53%). Bush’s approval ratings show strong party influence: 88 percent of Republicans approve of the job he is doing in office, compared with 37 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of other voters. Bush’s ratings do not vary much by age, education, or income. Non-Hispanic whites (59%) are a little more positive toward Bush than are Latinos (54%), and men (60%) are somewhat more approving than women (54%). These demographic trends, however, also reflect partisan differences. The president's approval ratings also vary by region: They are lower in the San Francisco Bay area (47%) and Los Angeles (52%) than in the rest of Southern California (65%) and the Central Valley (63%). When it comes to the president's handling of the energy crisis, the approval ratings are much lower. In fact, 56 percent of Californians disapprove of the way President Bush is handling this issue. This rating also varies by political group: 57 percent of Republicans approve of his handling of the problem, while 73 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of others voters disapprove. Latinos (59%) are more disapproving than non-Hispanic whites (53%), and there are large regional differences: Disapproval is much higher in the San Francisco Bay area (68%) and Los Angeles (59%) than in the rest of Southern California (48%) and the Central Valley (54%). There are no differences in the specific approval ratings across age, gender, education, and income groups. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as President? Approve Disapprove Don’t know Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling the issue of the electricity problem in California? Approve Disapprove Don’t know All Adults Party Registration Democrat Republican Other Voters Not Registered to Vote Latino 57% 36 7 37% 55 8 88% 10 2 54% 41 5 55% 31 14 54% 36 10 33% 56 11 17% 73 10 57% 33 10 31% 60 9 33% 51 16 30% 59 11 - 18 - Political, Social, and Economic Trends Overall Mood As this year goes on, Californians are progressively more pessimistic about the state’s economy and general direction. Today, only 38 percent say the state can expect good economic times in the coming year—a 13-point drop since last January and a 34-point drop since August 2000. For the first time since we began asking this question in September 1999, the majority of Californians think there will be bad economic times in the state during the next 12 months. Currently, 44 percent of Californians believe the state is headed in the right direction, down from 62 percent in January of this year. This decline comes after three years of hovering around 60 percent. For the first time in the three years we have asked this question, a higher percentage of Californians think the state is headed in the wrong direction than in the right direction. Across the state’s regions, Central Valley residents (34%) are less likely to expect good economic times than those living in the San Francisco Bay area (41%), Los Angeles (38%) and the rest of Southern California (38%). San Francisco Bay area residents (37%) are less likely than those living in Los Angeles (48%), the rest of Southern California (46%), and the Central Valley (43%) to say the state is headed in the right direction at this time. Latinos (51%) are more likely than non-Hispanic whites (41%) to think that things in California are going in the right direction. However, Latinos (60%) are also more likely than non-Hispanic whites (54%) to predict bad economic times ahead for the state. Californians earning more than $80,000 (44%) are more likely than those earning between $40,000 and $80,000 (39%) and those earning less than $40,000 (35%) to predict good financial times ahead. However, upper-income residents are only a little less likely (43%) than those in the middleincome (45%) and the lower income categories (47%) to say that the state is headed in the right direction. The energy crisis plays a role in Californians’ confidence about the economy. Among those who say the issue of the cost, supply, and demand for electricity will hurt the California economy, 64 percent predict bad times ahead for the state. "Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times?" Good times Bad times Don't know Sep 99 72% 23 5 All Adults Dec 99 Feb 00 76% 78% 19 15 57 Aug 00 72% 21 7 Jan 01 51% 38 11 May 01 38% 56 6 "Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?" Right direction Wrong direction Don't know May 98 56% 34 10 Sep 98 57% 34 9 Dec 98 63% 28 9 Sep 99 61% 34 5 Dec 99 62% 31 7 All Adults Jan 00 Feb 00 66% 65% 26 27 88 Aug 00 62% 30 8 - 19 - Oct 00 59% 32 9 Jan 01 62% 29 9 May 01 44% 48 8 Political, Social, and Economic Trends News Attentiveness California’s energy woes have clearly made it onto the radar screen of the state’s residents: 82 percent say they very or fairly closely follow news about the state’s electricity problems. Attention to other news stories asked about is lower, including news about the stock market and U.S. economy (59%), the 2000 U.S. Census and California’s population (47%), and the state budget (43%). The public is following news stories about the electricity situation as closely now as it was in January 2001 (84%) and sharply more than in October 2000 (60%). Eight in ten Californians in all regions of the state closely followed news of the electricity crisis. Latinos (76%) were less likely than non-Hispanic whites (85%) to be following news about the electricity situation. There were regional variations in attention to news about the 2000 U.S. Census and California’s population and news about the stock market and U.S. economy. Latinos were less likely than nonHispanic whites to follow the news about the economy (45% to 65%). "Tell me if you followed this news story very closely, fairly closely, not too closely, or not at all closely..." News about the cost, supply, and demand for electricity in California Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely News about the stock market and U.S. economy Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely News about the 2000 U.S. Census and California’s population Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely News about the California state budget Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely All Adults 43% 39 12 6 26% 33 20 21 14% 33 29 24 13% 30 32 25 Central Valley 44% 38 13 5 16% 33 25 26 13% 29 31 27 15% 29 27 29 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California Latino 45% 38 11 6 41% 40 12 7 46% 38 11 5 46% 30 17 7 33% 33 18 16 26% 31 23 20 29% 34 16 21 19% 26 24 31 13% 37 26 24 12% 29 35 24 17% 37 27 19 14% 29 33 24 12% 30 32 27 13% 32 31 24 19% 31 26 23 16% 29 29 26 - 20 - Survey Methodology The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, with research assistance from Eric McGhee and Mina Yaroslavsky. The survey was conducted in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation; however, the survey methodology and questions and content of the report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare. The survey benefited from consultation with Kimberly Belshé, Michael Fischer, Michael Mantell, and others at PPIC and the three foundations who offered their expertise to this special survey on growth. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed from May 1 to May 9, 2001. Interviewing took place on weekend days and weekday nights, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers, ensuring that both listed and unlisted telephone numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible for calling. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to five times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing by using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Each interview took an average of 20 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. Maria Tello translated the survey into Spanish. We used recent U.S. Census and state figures to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of California's adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the census and state figures. The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,001 adults is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. The sampling error for the 1,550 registered voters is +/- 2.5%. Sampling error is just one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we refer to four geographic regions. “Central Valley” includes Butte, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. “SF Bay Area” includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. “Los Angeles” refers to Los Angeles County, and “Other Southern California” includes the mostly suburban regions of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. These four regions were chosen for analysis because they are the major population centers of the state, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population; moreover, the growth of the Central Valley and “Other Southern California” regions have given them increasing political significance. We present specific results for Latinos because they account for about one in four of the state's adult population and constitute one of the fastest growing voter groups. The sample sizes for the African American and Asian subgroups were not large enough for separate statistical analysis. We contrast the opinions of Democrats and Republicans with “other” or “independent” registered voters. This third category includes those who are registered to vote as “decline to state” as well as a fewer number who say they are members of other political parties. In some cases, we have used earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time. National comparisons are from polls by Newsweek and by Gallup/CNN/USA Today in May. - 21 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: CALIFORNIANS AND THEIR GOVERNMENT MAY 1-9, 2001 2,001 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS; ENGLISH AND SPANISH MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. Which of the following best describes the place where you now live—is it a large city, a suburb, a small city or town, or rural area? 29% 21 40 9 1 large city suburb small city or town rural area other answer 2. Overall, how would you rate your city or community as a place to live? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, or poor? 31% 46 18 5 0 excellent good fair poor don't know 3. In the past few years, do you think the population of your city or community has been growing rapidly, growing slowly, staying about the same, or declining? 60% 20 15 2 3 growing rapidly growing slowly staying about the same declining don't know 4. How would you rate the performance of your city government when it comes to handling growth issues—excellent, good, fair, or poor? 7% 33 36 17 3 4 excellent good fair poor not applicable/not in a city/no growth issues don't know 5. If an election were held today, would you vote yes or no on a local initiative that would slow down the pace of development, even if this meant having less economic growth? 51% yes 41 no 8 don't know We are interested in your opinions about the region or broader geographic area that you live in. I am going to read you a list of problems other people have told us about. For each one, please tell me if you think it is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region. (rotate questions 6 to 10) -23- 6. How about traffic congestion on freeways and major roads? 60% 23 17 0 big problem somewhat of a problem not a problem don't know 7. How about population growth and development? 29% 37 32 2 big problem somewhat of a problem not a problem don't know 8. How about the availability of housing you can afford? 47% 26 25 2 big problem somewhat of a problem not a problem don't know 9. How about the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs? 29% 32 35 4 big problem somewhat of a problem not a problem don't know 10. How about air pollution? 30% 34 36 0 big problem somewhat of a problem not a problem don't know 11. Thinking about the next 10 years, do you think that the population in your region will grow rapidly, grow slowly, stay about the same, or decline? 60% 23 14 2 1 grow rapidly grow slowly stay about the same decline don't know 12. Overall, do you think your local government does or does not have adequate funding for the roads, transit, and other infrastructure projects that are needed to prepare for future growth in your region? 43% 48 9 does have adequate funding does not other/don't know 13. Some say that local governments will have to spend much more money on new roads, transit, and other infrastructure projects to prepare for future growth in your region. Would you favor or oppose paying a higher sales tax for this purpose? 41% favor 56 oppose 3 don't know 14. Do you think that local governments should decide growth issues on their own, or should local governments in a region work together on growth issues? 8% 89 3 local governments decide on their own local governments work together both/don't know 15. Thinking now about the state as a whole, what do you think is the most important issue facing California today? (code don’t read) 43% electricity prices, electricity deregulation, energy prices 13 growth, population, overpopulation 6 jobs, the economy, unemployment 6 schools, education 4 environment, pollution 4 housing costs, housing availability 4 traffic and transportation 3 crime, gangs 3 immigration, illegal immigration 1 drugs 1 government regulations 1 health care, HMO reform 1 poverty, the poor, the homeless, welfare 1 race relations, racial and ethnic issues 1 state government, governor, legislature 1 taxes, cutting taxes 1 water 1 other (specify) 5 don't know 16. Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 44% 48 8 right direction wrong direction don't know 17. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 38% good times 56 bad times 6 don't know 18. Thinking about the quality of life in California today, do you think things are going very well, somewhat well, somewhat badly, or very badly? 10% 58 25 6 1 very well somewhat well somewhat badly very badly don't know 19. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California? 46% approve 41 disapprove 13 don’t know 20. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Davis is handling the issue of the electricity problem in California? 29% approve 60 disapprove 11 don't know California population figures from the 2000 Census appeared recently in the news. For each of the following census figures, please tell me if you think it is a good thing or a bad thing or if it makes no difference to you. 21. The state has a population of 33.9 million people. 15% 33 51 1 good thing bad thing no difference don't know 22. The state has 4 million more people than it did 10 years ago. 14% 50 35 1 good thing bad thing no difference don't know 23. The state has no racial or ethnic group in the majority. 40% 16 41 3 good thing bad thing no difference don't know 24. The inland areas of the state—that is, the Central Valley and Inland Empire—grew faster in the last 10 years than the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. 32% 24 41 3 good thing bad thing no difference don't know - 24 - 25. Which of the following do you think is the single biggest factor that is causing the state’s population to grow? 55% 25 8 7 5 immigration from other countries migration from other states children born to current residents state and local policies other/don't know 26. Which of the following do you think is the most negative consequence of the state’s population growth? 29% 27 24 16 4 traffic congestion high housing costs urban sprawl and the loss of open space pollution other/don't know 27. Which of the following do you think is the most positive consequence of the state’s population growth? 41% 23 21 8 7 improving job market and economy increasing social diversity more state and local tax revenues more services and amenities other/don't know 28. By 2020, California is predicted to reach a population of 45 million, gaining 10 million more people. Please tell me if you think this will make California a more desirable or a less desirable place for you to live? 31. (a) Most of the problems that are caused by growth can be avoided with good planning. (b) Most of the problems that are caused by growth cannot be avoided. 66% 33 1 growth problems can be avoided growth problems cannot be avoided other/don’t know 32. (a) Local elected officials should make growthrelated decisions after going through a process of planning reviews and public hearings. (b) Local voters should make growth-related decisions by voting on local initiatives. 35% 63 2 local elected officials make decisions local voters make decisions other/don’t know 33. (a) State government should take a more active role in guiding local growth and development. (b) City and county governments should decide local growth and development. 24% 74 2 state government should take a more active role city and county government should decide other/don’t know 34. It is better if new growth takes place: (a) in the developed areas inside the region; (b) in the undeveloped areas on the outskirts of the region. 45% 51 4 in developed areas inside the region in undeveloped areas outside of the region other/don’t know 13% 82 5 more desirable less desirable no difference/don't know 29. As far as your own plans are concerned, do you see yourself living in your current county of residence five years from now or living somewhere else. (if elsewhere: Is that inside or outside of California?) 62% 16 18 4 living in current county living elsewhere inside California living elsewhere outside California don't know People have different ideas about growth issues. Please tell me if the first statement or the second statement in the following questions comes closer to your views—even if neither is exactly right. (rotate questions 30 to 34) 35. What do you think should be the most important priority in planning for growth—improving jobs and the economy, providing for social needs, or protecting the environment? 43% 21 34 2 improving jobs and the economy providing for social needs protecting the environment other/don’t know 36. On another topic, how much of a problem is the cost, supply, and demand for electricity in California today? Is it a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not much of a problem? 82% 13 5 0 big problem somewhat of a problem not much of a problem don't know 30. (a) Population growth in this state is inevitable. 37. In the next few years, do you think the issue of the (b) Population growth in this state depends on the cost, supply, and demand for electricity will hurt the amount of roads, housing, and other infrastructure. California economy or not? (if yes: Do you think it 58% 39 3 growth is inevitable growth depends on infrastructure other/don't know will hurt the California economy a great deal or only somewhat?) 62% yes, a great deal 24 yes, only somewhat 12 no 2 don’t know - 25 - 38. Which do you prefer for paying the billions of dollars in state debts from buying electricity over the past few months: (a) issuing bonds that will be paid by consumers through higher electricity rates; (b) using taxpayer funds that would otherwise go to state programs such as schools, health, and infrastructure? 58% 32 10 paying through higher electricity rates using taxpayer funds that would go to state programs other/don’t know 39. Who do you think is most to blame for the current electricity situation in California? (rotate) 32% 26 10 10 8 8 6 the electric utility companies the former governor and legislature the current governor and legislature the power generators the Bush Administration and federal government California consumers more than one / other answer (specify) / don’t know 40. Do you think that population growth in California has contributed a lot, somewhat, or not much to the current electricity supply problems? 43% 33 23 1 a lot somewhat not much don’t know 41. Does the electricity situation make you more confident or less confident in the state government’s ability to plan for the future—including building the necessary roads and other infrastructure—or does it make no difference to you? 7% 67 25 1 more confident less confident no difference don't know 42. Which of the following solutions for the current electricity situation in California do you most prefer? (rotate) 43% 27 18 8 1 3 build more power plants re-regulate the state’s electricity industry encourage consumers to conserve energy federal price controls on power generators raise electricity prices more than one / other answer (specify) / don’t know 43. State officials are looking for ways to increase the electricity supply. Do you favor or oppose relaxing air quality standards that regulate power plants, even if it means more air pollution? 27% favor 70 oppose 3 don’t know I will read a list of some recent news stories covered by news organizations. As I read each one, tell me if you followed this news story very closely, fairly closely, not too closely, or not at all closely. (rotate questions 44-47) 44. News about the California state budget. 13% 30 32 25 very closely fairly closely not too closely not at all closely 45. News about the 2000 U.S. Census and California’s population. 14% 33 29 24 very closely fairly closely not too closely not at all closely 46. News about the cost, supply, and demand for electricity in California. 43% 39 12 6 very closely fairly closely not too closely not at all closely 47. News about the stock market and U.S. economy. 26% 33 20 21 very closely fairly closely not too closely not at all closely 48. On another topic: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president? 57% approve 36 disapprove 7 don’t know 49. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling the issue of the electricity problem in California? 33% approve 56 disapprove 11 don’t know - 26 - 50. On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain you are registered to vote? (if yes: Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent?) 38% 26 3 14 19 yes, Democrat yes, Republican yes, other party yes, independent no, not registered 51. Would you consider yourself to be politically very liberal, somewhat liberal, middle-of-the-road, somewhat conservative, or very conservative? 8% 20 34 25 11 2 very liberal somewhat liberal middle-of-the-road somewhat conservative very conservative don't know [52-58. Demographic Questions] 59. Some people have thought a lot about growthrelated issues, and others have not. How much thought had you given to growth issues before they were raised in this survey—a lot, some, or not much? 33% a lot 40 some 27 not much 60. How much had you made up your mind about the solutions to growth issues before they were raised in this survey—a lot, some, or not much? 22% a lot 42 some 36 not much 61. Would you be willing to take part in a local discussion group with other residents about the issues we discussed in this survey? 42% yes 58 no - 27 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Angela Blackwell President Policy Link Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley Dennis A. Collins President The James Irvine Foundation Matt Fong Attorney Sheppard Mullin William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Monica Lozano Associate Publisher and Executive Editor La Opinión Donna Lucas President NCG Porter Novelli Max Neiman Director Center for Social and Behavioral Research University of California, Riverside Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Richard Schlosberg President The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Carol Stogsdill Senior Vice President Foundation for American Communications (FACS) Cathy Taylor Editorial Page Editor Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center -29-" } ["___content":protected]=> string(102) "

S 501MBS

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(98) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-special-survey-on-growth-may-2001/s_501mbs/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8109) ["ID"]=> int(8109) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:34:56" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3212) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(8) "S 501MBS" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(8) "s_501mbs" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_501MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "201391" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(81445) "PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Growth Mark Baldassare Senior Fellow and Survey Director May 2001 Part of the Growth, Land Use, and Environment Series In Collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The James Irvine Foundation The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Public Policy Institute of California The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens – William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller – recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Preface The PPIC Statewide Survey consists of an ongoing series of surveys designed to provide policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the opinions and public policy preferences of residents throughout the state of California. Begun in April 1998, the surveys have now generated a database that includes the responses of over 36,000 Californians. This is the eighteenth PPIC Statewide Survey and the first in a new series of surveys that will focus on population growth, land use, and the environment. This new series – which will be carried out in addition to the traditional PPIC surveys – will be conducted in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. There will be a total of eight surveys in the series – two per year for four years. The intent of the surveys is to inform policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about the growth, land use, and environment issues facing the state. This initial survey focuses in particular on perceptions of population growth and its consequences. This survey report presents the responses of 2,001 adult residents throughout the state. It examines in detail the public's views on local, regional, and statewide issues; explores the extent to which residents are aware of and concerned about population growth and its implications; and looks closely at the public's response to the state energy crisis. More specifically, it focuses on the following: • Local and regional growth issues, including perceptions of current and future growth, traffic congestion, and air pollution; the performance of local government in handling growth issues; the adequacy of funding for infrastructure; and the willingness to consider local development restrictions even if this meant having less economic growth. • State growth issues, including reactions to the 2000 U.S. Census findings concerning the state’s population growth, racial and ethnic change, and regional population shifts; perceptions about the causes and consequences of the state’s population growth; growth policy preferences; and perceptions of the effects of future population growth on the state. • California's electric power problem, including perceptions of the relationship between population growth and electricity shortages; the effects of the electricity crisis on confidence in the state government’s ability to handle planning for future growth and infrastructure needs; thoughts about who's responsible for the situation; preferences for solving the electricity situation; and whether air quality standards that regulate power plants should be relaxed. • Political, social, and economic issues, including performance ratings of President Bush and Governor Davis; perceptions of quality of life in the state; opinions about the near-term economic future of the state; and attention to state news stories on growth and other issues. • Variations in perceptions, attitudes, and policy preferences across the four major regions of the state (the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay area, Los Angeles area, and the rest of Southern California), between Latinos and non-Hispanic whites, and across age, socioeconomic, and political spectrums. Copies of this report or other PPIC Statewide Surveys may be ordered by e-mail (order@ppic.org) or phone (415-291-4400). The reports are also posted on the publications page of the PPIC web site (www.ppic.org). -i- Contents Preface Press Release Local and Regional Growth Issues State Growth Issues California’s Electricity Problems Political, Social, and Economic Trends Survey Methodology Survey Questions and Results Survey Advisory Committee i v 1 5 11 17 21 23 29 - iii - Press Release SPECIAL SURVEY ON GROWTH GROWING PAINS: ENERGY, ECONOMY CREATE ANXIETY ABOUT POPULATION SIZE Broad Support for Higher Electricity Rates Vs. Cuts in State Programs; Residents Fatalistic About Growth, But Believe Planning Could Alleviate Problems SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 21, 2001 — Reeling from an escalating energy crisis and a decelerating economy, Californians are increasingly bearish about population growth and its side effects, according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Despite the positive social and economic effects of California’s past meteoric growth, Californians now believe that future population increases will make the state a less desirable place to live and say that the electricity situation — which they link to growth — has given them pause about government’s ability to plan for a more crowded future. The large-scale public opinion survey of 2001 Californians finds that for the first time since the mid-90s, more Californians believe that the state is headed in the wrong direction (48%) rather than the right direction (44%). More Californians also expect bad economic times (56%) in the next year instead of good times (38%). The attitude adjustment has been swift: In January, a majority of residents still believed the state was headed in the right direction (62%) and expected good times financially in the coming year (51%). As their economic outlook dims, residents find little to cheer about in the latest census numbers or future population projections. Eighty-two percent believe that population growth over the next two decades will make the state a less desirable place to live. Half of state residents also call the increase of 4 million people in the past decade a “bad thing,” while only 14 percent say it is a “good thing” and 36 percent say it has made no difference. Energy problems are adding to Californians’ concern about future population increases: Three in four Californians believe that there is a link between the state’s population growth and the recent electricity crisis, with 43 percent saying that population growth has contributed “a lot” to the supply problem. The crisis has also taken a toll on the public’s trust in state government to handle future growth. Sixty-seven percent of residents say that the electricity situation has made them less confident in the state government’s ability to plan and build for the future. “Californians clearly see the electricity crisis as a harbinger of other growth-related problems,” says PPIC Statewide Survey Director Mark Baldassare. “This crisis and general economic uncertainty have severely undermined public confidence in California’s future and in its leaders.” Indeed, approval ratings for Governor Gray Davis have dropped by a large margin since January. Fewer than half of all Californians (46%) now say they approve of the way he is handling his job as governor, well below his 63 percent approval rating in January. Residents also remain highly critical of the governor’s handling of the electricity crisis -v- Press Release specifically, with 60 percent saying they disapprove. While he maintains higher overall ratings (57%), President George W. Bush also receives low marks on his handling of the state’s electricity problem, with 56 percent saying they disapprove. Interestingly, while Governor Davis and President Bush get poor marks on electricity, they have largely escaped blame for the problem. Residents are much more likely to fault utility companies (32%) and the formergovernor and legislature (26%) for the electricity situation than they are the current governor and legislature (10%), power generators (10%), the Bush Administration and federal government (8%), or California consumers (8%). Overall, 43 percent of Californians now say that electricity is the most important issue facing California today, followed by growth (13%), education (6%), and jobs and the economy (6%). In January, residents named schools and electricity evenly at about 25 percent each. Ninety-five percent of residents believe that the cost, supply, and demand for electricity is a problem, with 82 percent saying it is a “big” problem. And the problem has amplified their general pessimism about the economy: 86 percent say that electricity issues will hurt the economy over the next few years, with 62 percent believing it will hurt the economy a “great deal.” Eighty-two percent say they are closely following news stories about the crisis. When asked to consider solutions to the electricity problem, Californians prefer building more power plants (43%) to re-regulation of the industry (27%), conservation (18%), federal price controls (8%), or higher rates (1%). In January, residents most favored re-regulation (37%) and power plant construction (32%). But despite their support for the development of more supply, residents are not willing to relax the air quality standards that regulate power plants at this point in the crisis: 70 percent say they are unwilling to accept this tradeoff. However, they are willing to make a key financial tradeoff: 58 percent say they would rather the state issue bonds that will be paid by consumers through higher rates than use taxpayer funds that would otherwise go to state programs such as schools, health, and infrastructure. “Despite the hard times brought about by the electricity crisis, residents want planning and building for the state’s future to take place. And they appear willing to ante up,” says Baldassare. Planning a Priority, But By Whom? Although many Californians (58%) believe that population growth in the state is inevitable, a solid majority (66%) also say that most growth-related problems can be avoided with good planning. However, residents are conflicted about who should be doing the planning. On one hand, they are adamant that cities and local governments (74%) rather than state government (24%) control local growth and development. On the other, they are more likely to believe that local voters should make growth-related decisions by voting on local initiatives (63%), rather than local elected officials taking action after planning reviews and public hearings (35%). Perhaps as a consequence of a slowing economy, fewer Californians today (51%) than one year ago (58%) say they would support a local initiative to slow down the pace of development in their city or community, even if it meant having less economic growth. On the whole, most Californians (60%) think their cities and communities have been growing rapidly — and most (60%) also expect rapid growth to continue in their region — but they see their local government as having done little to manage the consequences. Only 7 percent give their city government “excellent” ratings for their handling of growth issues, while 33 percent rate them as “good,” 36 percent “fair,” and 17 percent “poor.” This - vi - Press Release ambivalence may help to explain in part why a majority of residents say they would oppose paying a higher sales tax to help local government in their region pay for roads, transit, and other infrastructure projects even though more residents than not (48% to 43%) also believe that their local government does not have adequate funding for those projects. Different Regions View Growth Differently Most Californians believe that the broader regions they live in have growth-related problems. Specifically, most say that traffic congestion (83%), the availability of affordable housing (73%), population growth and development (66%), air pollution (64%), and the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs (61%) are problems in their area. However, the perception of each of these problems varies greatly from region to region. San Francisco Bay Area residents, for example, are far more likely than residents in other parts of the state to view traffic (96%) and housing (91%) as problems, while more Central Valley residents view the lack of well-paying jobs (73%) as a problem, and Los Angeles County residents express greater concern about air pollution (78%). Asked about the biggest problem associated with growth, residents from Los Angeles (33%) and other Southern California counties (31%) say traffic congestion, Central Valley residents (33%) mention urban sprawl and the loss of open space, and Bay Area residents (39%) cite high housing costs. Californians are also divided along regional lines when it comes to the question of where new growth should occur. Residents of the Bay Area (54%) and the Central Valley (51%) say that they prefer new growth take place within the developed areas of a region, while residents of Los Angeles (59%) and other Southern California counties (56%) believe it is better if new growth happens in the undeveloped areas on the outskirts of a region. Finally, while there is agreement across the state that an improving economy (41%), followed by increasing racial and ethnic diversity (23%), are the most positive consequences of population growth to date, residents are more at odds about the most important priority for growth planning. Residents of the Central Valley (50%), Los Angeles (42%), and other Southern California counties (45%) say that improving the economy should be the top priority, but Bay Area residents are evenly divided between improving the economy (36%) and environmental protection (36%). “Californians are experiencing the state’s rapid growth in many different ways, a fact that goes a long way toward explaining their desire to decide growth issues on a local level,” says Dennis Collins, President of the James Irvine Foundation. “The key is to develop the capacity at the local level to manage growth wisely, while opening a statewide dialogue about the best ways to address our common concerns.” Other Key Findings • Where Does Growth Come From? (page 6) Most Californians (55%) believe that the single biggest cause of California’s population growth is immigration, even though demographers cite births to current residents as the major factor. • Diversity Celebrated (page 5) Throughout the state and across racial and ethnic groups, more residents say that the state’s majority-minority status is a “good thing” (40%) than a “bad thing” (16%). - vii - Press Release About the Survey The survey on growth is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. It is the first in a four-year, multi-survey series on growth, land use, and the environment being produced in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The purpose of this series is to inform policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about the critical growth, development, and environmental challenges facing the state. Findings of the current survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed from May 1 to May 9, 2001. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. For more information on survey methodology, see page 21. Dr. Mark Baldassare is a senior fellow and program director at PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder and director of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has conducted since 1998. Dr. Baldassare is the author of numerous books, including California in the New Millennium: The Changing Social and Political Landscape (University of California Press, 2000). PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to objective, nonpartisan research on economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The Institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www.ppic.org) on May 21, 2001. ### - viii - Local and Regional Growth Issues Local Population Growth Most Californians think the population of their cities and communities is growing rapidly, but far fewer rate their city governments as good or excellent at handling local growth issues. For the state overall, 60 percent of residents believe their cities have experienced rapid growth. Although Los Angeles residents are slightly less likely than others to see rapid growth, the perception holds over all regions of the state and across political and demographic groups. This high perception of rapid growth is not matched by high confidence in how city governments are handling growth-generated issues. Although four in 10 residents rate their city's performance as good or excellent, only 7 percent confer an "excellent" rating. More than 50 percent give a "fair" or "poor" rating. Again, there is little difference across racial and ethnic groups, regions of the state, demographic groups, and the political spectrum. Among those who see rapid growth, only 37 percent say their city governments are doing an excellent or good job on the issues. In contrast, among those who say that they have experienced slow growth, half give their city governments good or excellent marks. "In the past few years, do you think the population of your city or community has been growing rapidly, growing slowly, staying about the same, or declining?" Growing rapidly Growing slowly Staying the same Declining Don't know All Adults 60% 20 15 2 3 Central Valley 65% 19 12 2 2 Region SF Bay Area 66% 18 12 1 3 Los Angeles 54% 20 21 2 3 Other Southern California 63% 20 13 1 3 Latino 59% 21 15 2 3 "How would you rate the performance of your city government when it comes to handling growth issues?" Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know, not in city All Adults 7% 33 36 17 7 Central Valley 7% 32 36 18 7 Region SF Bay Area 6% 34 36 16 8 Los Angeles 7% 33 37 17 6 Other Southern California 8% 31 35 18 8 Latino 7% 35 39 15 4 -1- Local and Regional Growth Issues Local Growth Control Initiatives Past surveys have shown that lack of confidence in government to solve problems goes hand-inhand with Californians' tendency to seek solutions through the initiative process. That evidently goes for growth issues, as well. A slight majority (51%) say they would vote “yes” on a local initiative that would slow down the pace of development, even if it meant having less economic growth. Nevertheless, public support for slowing growth has softened: When we asked this same question a year ago, 58 percent of residents said they would support a local growth control initiative. Public support for a local growth control initiative is strongest in the San Francisco Bay area and weakest in the Central Valley. Latinos are divided on slowing down the pace of development (46% to 48%), while non-Hispanic whites tend to favor local growth control (53% to 39%). Older, college educated, and higher-income residents are more likely to support local growth controls. Republicans, Democrats, and independent voters all show more support than opposition. Those residents who perceive rapid growth in their area are most likely to support local growth controls. "If an election were held today, would you vote yes or no on a local initiative that would slow down the pace of development in your city or community, even if this meant having less economic growth?" Yes No Don’t know All Adults 51% 41 8 Central Valley 47% 47 6 Region SF Bay Area 56% 34 10 Los Angeles 49% 42 9 Other Southern California 52% 41 7 Latino 46% 48 6 Regional Problems Most Californians believe that regions as well as cities have growth-related problems. They rate traffic congestion (83%), the availability of housing they can afford (73%), population growth and development (66%), and air pollution (64%) as at least “somewhat of a problem.” By comparison, 61 percent say a lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs is at least somewhat of a problem. Traffic congestion (60%) and the availability of affordable housing (47%) have the highest ratings as “big” problems, followed by air pollution (30%), growth and development (29%), and lack of good job opportunities (29%). Across regions, San Francisco Bay Area residents are by far the most concerned, while Central Valley residents are the least concerned, about traffic congestion, high housing costs, and growth and development. Conversely, Central Valley residents are the most likely to note the lack of well-paying jobs in their region, while San Francisco Bay area residents are the least likely to say this issue is a problem. Los Angeles residents are the most likely to rate air pollution as a big problem. Latinos are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to say there is a big problem with air pollution (36% to 27%) and the lack of well-paying jobs (39% to 24%) and less inclined to rate traffic (53% to 60%), housing (41% to 49%), and growth (24% to 31%) as serious regional problems. A year ago, Californians were less likely than today (44% to 60%) to say that traffic is a big problem, while their ratings of growth and air pollution remain unchanged. - 2- Local and Regional Growth Issues "In your region today, how much of a problem is ..." Region All Central Adults Valley Traffic congestion Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem 60% 23 17 34% 30 36 Don't know 00 The availability of housing you can afford Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don't know 47% 26 25 2 26% 28 43 3 Population growth and development Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don't know 29% 37 32 2 23% 36 41 0 Air pollution Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don't know 30% 34 36 0 33% 33 34 0 The lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don't know 29% 32 35 4 40% 33 24 3 SF Bay Area 82% 14 4 0 74% 17 8 1 39% 40 19 2 22% 41 37 0 18% 30 49 3 Los Angeles 69% 20 11 0 40% 34 24 2 28% 38 31 3 46% 32 22 0 31% 33 32 4 Other Southern California 58% 27 15 0 45% 25 28 2 28% 35 36 1 25% 37 38 0 25% 33 38 4 Latino 53% 26 21 0 41% 31 26 2 24% 36 38 2 36% 32 32 0 39% 32 26 3 -3- Local and Regional Growth Issues Preparing for Regional Growth Most Californians expect growth in their regions, and most believe that local governments do not have adequate funding to prepare for that growth. Nevertheless, the majority opposes paying higher taxes to meet the infrastructure needs of a growing population. When asked about future population growth, six in 10 residents say they expect their regional population to grow rapidly. People living outside of Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area are the most likely to expect rapid growth. That belief is consistent with current trends and with population projections predicting more rapid growth outside of the urban coastal region than inside these two areas. Nearly half of Californians believe that their local government does not have adequate funding for the roads and other infrastructure needed to handle future growth in their regions. That belief is shared by a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independent voters. However, Los Angeles residents are more likely than residents of other regions, and Latinos are more likely than nonHispanic whites (51% to 39%), to believe that local government does have adequate funding. Concern about inadequate funding does not open many wallets. A solid majority (56%) of the state’s residents say they are opposed to paying a higher sales tax so that local governments would have more money to prepare for future growth in their region. Although the majority in every region opposes this suggestion, residents in the northern part of the state show more willingness than those in the south to pay higher taxes. Democrats are divided on this issue, while Republicans and independent voters are solidly opposed. Money concerns aside, Californians overwhelming agree that local governments should work together on local growth issues (89%) rather than make decisions about growth issues on their own (8%). "Overall, do you think your local government does or does not have adequate funding for the roads, transit, and other infrastructure projects that are needed to prepare for future growth in your region?" Does Does not Other/Don't know All Adults 43% 48 9 Central Valley 41% 51 8 Region SF Bay Area 37% 51 12 Los Angeles 49% 43 8 Other Southern California 43% 46 11 Latino 51% 43 6 "Some say that local governments will have to spend much more money on new roads, transit, and other infrastructure projects to prepare for future growth in your region. Would you favor or oppose paying a higher sales tax for this purpose?" Favor Oppose Don’t know All Adults 41% 56 3 Central Valley 45% 53 2 Region SF Bay Area 45% 53 2 Los Angeles 37% 59 4 Other Southern California 40% 57 3 Latino 47% 49 4 - 4- State Growth Issues Census 2000 and State Population Trends The population trends outlined in the recently released 2000 Census are troubling to many Californians. Although half said it made no difference to them, state residents were more likely to consider it a bad thing (33%) than a good thing (15%) that the state’s population has now reached 33.9 million. When growth is couched in terms of how many more people were added to the population, the reaction to growth is more negative: Although 14 percent still see this increase as a good thing, 50 percent see it as bad. State residents were more divided about news that the state’s inland regions grew faster than the coastal regions: 32 percent said it was a good thing, 24 percent said it was a bad thing, and 44 percent said it made no difference. As for the Census finding that got the most headlines—the state no longer has a majority racial or ethnic group—Californians were much more likely to say this was a good thing (40%) than a bad thing (16%), and 44 percent said it made no difference. San Francisco Bay area residents are the most positive. Response to this news did not differ across racial and ethnic groups. "For each of the following census figures, please tell me if you think it is a good thing or a bad thing or if it makes no difference to you." Region All Adults Central Valley SF Bay Area The state has reached a population of 33.9 million people Good thing Bad thing No difference, don’t know 15% 33 52 16% 32 52 13% 36 51 The state has 4 million more people than it did 10 years ago Good thing Bad thing No difference, don’t know 14% 50 36 17% 49 34 14% 52 34 The state’s inland areas grew faster than the Bay Area and Los Angeles Good thing Bad thing No difference, Don’t know 32% 24 44 32% 33 35 38% 22 40 The state has no racial or ethnic group in the majority Good thing Bad thing No difference, don’t know 40% 16 44 37% 14 49 47% 16 37 Note: "Don’t know" responses range from 1 to 3 percent for the questions in this table. Los Angeles 16% 34 50 14% 49 37 29% 22 49 38% 17 45 Other Southern California 13% 31 56 13% 48 39 31% 22 47 38% 16 46 -5- Latino 22% 29 49 19% 43 38 33% 27 40 37% 20 43 State Growth Issues Primary Cause of the State’s Growth According to demographers, the factor most responsible for the state's population growth is births to current residents. Most Californians think otherwise: 55 percent believe immigration is the single biggest factor in the growth, while 25 percent name migration from other states, and 7 percent say state and local policies. Only 8 percent point to births. Latinos are somewhat more likely than non-Hispanic whites to cite births to current residents as the most important cause. Nevertheless, in all racial and ethnic groups and in every region, immigration and migration were named as the top two causes of population growth. "Which of the following do you think is the single biggest factor that is causing the state’s population to grow?" Foreign immigration Migration inside the U.S. Births State and local policies Other/Don't know All Adults 55% 25 8 7 5 Central Valley 56% 20 12 7 5 Region SF Bay Area 55% 28 5 6 6 Los Angeles 61% 20 10 5 4 Other Southern California 51% 29 7 7 6 Latino 47% 21 14 11 7 Negative Consequences of the State’s Growth What are the most negative consequences of this growth? Overall, residents are almost equally likely to name traffic congestion (29%), high housing costs (27%), and urban sprawl and loss of open space (24%). However, response varies significantly by region. For Central Valley residents, sprawl tops the list; for the San Francisco Bay Area, high housing costs; and for Los Angeles and the rest of Southern Californian, traffic. Latinos were more likely than non-Hispanic whites to name housing (33% to 22%) and less likely to focus on sprawl (18% to 28%). "Which of the following do you think is the most negative consequence of the state’s population growth?" Traffic congestion High housing costs Urban sprawl, loss of open space Pollution Other/Don't know All Adults 29% 27 24 16 4 Central Valley 19% 22 33 22 4 Region SF Bay Area 27% 39 22 7 5 Los Angeles 33% 22 21 20 4 Other Southern California 31% 25 22 17 5 Latino 27% 33 18 18 4 - 6- State Growth Issues Positive Consequences of the State’s Growth What are the most positive consequences of population growth? Improving the economy was named most (41%), followed by increasing social diversity (23%) and more state and local tax revenues (21%). Only 8 percent of residents see improvement of services and amenities as the most positive result of growth. In all groups, the economic benefits are mentioned more often than other issues. However, in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area—the most racially and ethnically diverse regions—residents are more likely than others to cite increasing diversity as the top benefit. Latinos and non-Hispanic whites have similar views about the benefits of the state’s growth. Improving economy Increasing diversity Tax revenues Services, amenities Other/Don't know "Which of the following do you think is the most positive consequence of the state’s population growth?" All Adults 41% 23 21 8 7 Central Valley 42% 21 21 9 7 Region SF Bay Area 43% 28 18 6 5 Los Angeles 36% 25 23 9 7 Other Southern California 45% 20 21 7 7 Latino 42% 20 24 10 4 State Growth and the Future The California Department of Finance has predicted that by 2020 California will have 10 million more people, bringing the state population to 45 million. Response to this projection is overwhelmingly negative: 82 percent of residents believe this growth will make the state a less desirable place for them to live in; only 13 percent believe it will make it a more desirable place of residence. The public’s attitude toward this population trend is mostly negative in all regions, political parties, and in racial and ethnic and other demographic groups. "By 2020, California is predicted to reach a population of 45 million, gaining 10 million more people. Please tell me if you think this will make California a more desirable or a less desirable place for you to live." More desirable Less desirable No difference/Don’t know All Adults 13% 82 5 Central Valley 18% 78 4 Region SF Bay Area 10% 85 5 Los Angeles 15% 80 5 Other Southern California 13% 80 7 Latino 23% 74 3 -7- State Growth Issues Inevitability of Growth and Its Problems A solid majority of Californians see population growth as inevitable. However, an even larger majority believes that growth problems could be avoided through good planning. Will growth just happen or does it depend on the state's ability to absorb new residents? Fiftyeight percent of Californians believe that population growth will take place no matter what the circumstances. However, 39 percent believe growth depends on providing roads, housing, and infrastructure. The perception of inevitability does not vary by region but does vary by ethnicity. Non-Hispanic whites (63%) are more likely than Latinos (50%) to see population growth as inevitable. The perception that growth is a “given” increases with education and income. Can potential growth problems be avoided? Two-thirds of Californians think that good planning can forestall growth problems; 33 percent disagree. This balance of perceptions persists across the state’s major regions and is not significantly different across political, racial and ethnic, and other demographic groups. "Is the first or the second statement closer to your views?" Population growth in this state is inevitable Population growth in this state depends on roads, housing, and other infrastructure Other/Don't know All Adults 58% 39 3 Central Valley 60% 38 2 Region SF Bay Area 57% Los Angeles 57% Other Southern California 59% 40 39 38 3 43 Latino 50% 45 5 Most growth problems can be avoided with good planning Most growth problems cannot be avoided Other/Don't know All Adults 66% 33 1 Central Valley 67% 32 1 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles 69% 66% 30 33 11 Other Southern California Latino 67% 64% 32 35 11 - 8- State Growth Issues Local and State Government Roles Although Californians give their city governments rather lukewarm ratings for handling growth issues, they would prefer that local government—rather than the state—guide local growth and development. They would prefer even more that local voters make growth decisions by initiative rather than have local elected officials make those decisions. Only 24 percent of residents say that state government should take a more active role in guiding local growth and development. In contrast, 74 percent say that city and county governments should make the decisions on growth issues. This preference persists across regions and ethnic groups, as well as all political and demographic groups. However, Los Angeles residents are more likely than residents of other regions, and Latinos (34%) are more likely than non-Hispanic whites (19%), to want the state government more involved. By a two-to-one margin, Californians choose the local initiative process over their local elected officials when asked how growth-related decisions should be made. This preference for “direct” over representative democracy is evident across political parties but declines with age, education, and income. "Is the first or the second statement closer to your views?" State government should take a more active role in guiding local growth and development City and county governments should decide local growth and development Other/Don't know All Adults 24% 74 2 Central Valley 20% 78 2 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California 21% 32% 23% 76 65 76 331 Latino 34% 63 3 All Adults Local elected officials should make growthrelated decisions after going through a process of planning reviews and public hearings 35% Local voters should make growth-related decisions by voting on local initiatives 63 Other/Don't know 2 Central Valley 36% 63 1 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles 40% 33% 58 64 23 -9- Other Southern California Latino 32% 29% 65 69 32 State Growth Issues Important Priorities for Growth Planning Given a choice among three priorities for growth planning, Californians, overall, put improving jobs and the economy first (43%). The next priority is environmental protection (34%), with providing for social needs a distant third (21%). These numbers mask some significant differences across regions and groups. San Francisco Bay area residents give the environment and the economy equal priority, while Central Valley residents see the economy as much more important. Independent voters choose protecting the environment over improving the economy (42% to 32%), Republicans strongly favor the economy over the environment (49% to 27%), and Democrats are equally likely to choose the economy or the environment (39% to 38%). Improving the economy is the top priority among Latinos, lower-income households, and less-educated residents. "What do you think should be the most important priority in planning for growth?" Improving the economy Protecting environment Providing social needs Other/Don't know All Adults 43% 34 21 2 Central Valley 50% 34 14 2 Region SF Bay Area 36% 36 25 3 Los Angeles 42% 33 23 2 Other Southern California 45% 35 19 1 Latino 47% 33 18 2 Where Should Growth Occur? Californians are divided about where they want new growth to take place: 45 percent want new growth to take place in the developed areas inside the region, while 51 percent want new growth in the undeveloped areas on the outskirts of the region. There is a North-South split on this question. Central Valley and San Francisco Bay area residents are most inclined to want growth inside the region, while Los Angeles and the rest of Southern California prefer growth on the outskirts. NonHispanic whites (49%) are somewhat more likely than Latinos (40%) to favor growth inside the region. Support for growth inside the region increases with income and education. There are no differences across political parties. "It is better if new growth takes place ..." Region In the developed areas inside the region In the undeveloped areas on the outskirts of the region Other/Don't know All Adults 45% 51 4 Central Valley 51% 45 4 SF Bay Area 54% 42 4 Los Angeles 37% 59 4 Other Southern California 40% Latino 40% 56 56 44 - 10 - California’s Electricity Problems Most Important Issue Californians have electricity very much on their minds. Forty-three percent named electricity price, supply, and demand as the most important state issue. In the three-year history of the PPIC Statewide Survey, no other issue has been named the top problem by so many Californians. After electricity, the issue named most frequently—growth and overpopulation—was 30 points lower at 13 percent. Even the slowing economy (6%) failed to get much interest relative to electricity. Moreover, schools and education, which dominated the public’s concerns in past Statewide Surveys, have now fallen to single digits. As recently as January 2001, responding to a slightly different question wording, Californians named schools and electricity equally at about 25 percent each. For the two previous years, schools and education had been the top issue on residents’ lists of concerns. Although electricity is easily the most important issue for all areas of the state, Los Angeles residents (33%)—who are somewhat insulated from the power crisis—are noticeably less likely than those who live in the rest of Southern California (44%) and the Central Valley or the San Francisco Bay area (48% each) to mention the electricity problem. After the electricity problem, Los Angeles residents are more concerned than residents of other regions about schools (10%) and jobs (9%). San Francisco Bay area residents are more concerned than others about growth (17%) and housing (8%). Latinos are less concerned than non-Hispanic whites about electricity (35% to 47%) and growth (7% to 15%) but are much more concerned about jobs (12% to 3%). Republicans (50%) and Democrats (42%) cite electricity problems more often than do other voters (39%) and nonvoters (37%). Mention of electricity increases with age, income, and education. Men (49%) are more likely than women (37%) to put the electricity problem at the top of their lists of policy concerns. "What do you think is the most important issue facing California today?" Electricity price / supply / demand Growth, overpopulation Schools, education Jobs, the economy, unemployment Environment, pollution Traffic and transportation Housing costs, housing availability Immigration, illegal immigration Crime, gangs Other Don’t know All Adults 43% 13 6 6 4 4 4 3 3 9 5 Central Valley 48% 10 7 7 4 2 2 2 3 12 3 Region SF Bay Area 48% 17 5 3 2 4 8 3 1 7 3 Los Angeles 33% 10 10 9 6 5 1 5 4 10 7 Other Southern California 44% 13 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 9 5 Latino 35% 7 8 12 4 4 3 4 5 10 8 - 11 - California's Electricity Problems Problem Seriousness Almost all Californians (95%) agree that the cost, supply, and demand for electricity is a problem, and 82 percent believe it is a “big” problem. Concern over the seriousness of this issue has increased significantly since the January survey, when 74 percent said the electricity situation was a “big” problem. Electricity is perceived as a serious problem by large majorities in all regions, although Los Angeles residents (77%) are less likely than others to view it as a “big” problem. There are no differences between Latinos and non-Hispanic whites on this ranking of problem seriousness and only slight variations across political and demographic groups. Will electricity problems today hurt the state's economy in the next few years? Eighty-six percent think it will. Sixty two percent believe the effect on the economy will be severe and 24 percent believe it will be modest. Again, public concern is increasing over time: In January, 56 percent said electricity problems would hurt the economy “a great deal.” Public perceptions about negative effects on the economy vary modestly between the northern and southern regions of the state: San Francisco Bay area (65%) and Central Valley (68%) residents are somewhat more likely than residents of Los Angeles (60%) and the rest of Southern California (62%) to say the electricity problem will hurt the economy a great deal. Latinos (62%) and non-Hispanic whites (63%) are just as likely to think the negative effects will be large. There are no large differences in the perceived effects of the electricity problems across demographic or political groups. "How much of a problem is the cost, supply, and demand for electricity in California today?" Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not much of a problem Don't know All Adults 82% 13 5 0 Central Valley 85% 13 2 0 Region SF Bay Area 83% 13 3 1 Los Angeles 77% 16 6 1 Other Southern California 86% 9 4 1 Latino 83% 13 4 0 "In the next few years, do you think the issue of the cost, supply, and demand for electricity will hurt the California economy or not?" Yes, a great deal Yes, somewhat No Don't know All Adults 62% 24 12 2 Central Valley 68% 20 10 2 Region SF Bay Area 65% 24 9 2 Los Angeles 60% 24 14 2 Other Southern California 62% 24 12 2 Latino 62% 26 11 1 - 12 - California’s Electricity Problems Causes Governor Gray Davis has seen his approval ratings fall since the January Statewide Survey, and most Californians are unhappy with his handling of the electricity situation. Nevertheless, Californians are not putting the primary blame for the situation on Governor Davis and the current legislature. Residents are most likely to blame the electric utility companies (32%) and the former governor and legislature (26%) and much less likely to blame the current state government (10%), the power generators (10%), the Bush administration (8%), or consumers (8%). In January, given a slightly different list of choices, 47 percent of adult residents chose the deregulation of the state’s electricity industry as most to blame for the problem. This was followed by the electric companies (25%), consumers (10%), and the current governor and legislature (9%). Thus, the tendency to lay the blame on the current governor and legislature has not increased. Compared to other regions, the San Francisco Bay area is more likely to blame the former governor and legislature (33%). Latinos are less likely than non-Hispanic whites to blame the former state government (22% to 28%) and more likely to blame consumers (14% to 6%) and the utilities (35% to 31%). Republicans are more likely than Democrats to blame the current governor and legislature (18% to 5%) and less likely to blame the Bush administration (4% to 11%). There are several important variations in perceptions of blame across demographic groups. Younger adults, lower income households, and less educated residents are much less likely to blame the former state government, while they are more likely to blame consumers, Bush, and the electric companies. "Who do you think is most to blame for the current electricity situation in California?" The electric utility companies The former Governor and legislature The current Governor and legislature The power generators The Bush administration and federal government California consumers Don’t know All Adults 32% 26 10 10 8 8 6 Central Valley 31% 23 13 10 8 7 8 Region SF Bay Area 29% 33 10 10 7 6 5 Los Angeles 31% 23 11 9 10 9 7 Other Southern California 34% 26 8 13 6 7 6 Latino 35% 22 6 8 10 14 5 - 13 - California's Electricity Problems Solutions How would Californians prefer to get out of the situation? Forty-three percent favor building more power plants; only 1 percent opt for raising electricity rates. After building more plants, re-regulation (27%) is the most preferred solution, followed by conservation (18%), and federal price controls on power generators (8%). In January, given a list of options that did not include federal price controls, Californians most favored re-regulation (37%), followed by building more power plants (32%), conservation (20%), and raising electricity rates (1%). Thus, building more power plants appears to have gained, while re-regulation has lost, popularity. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to support building plants (53% to 39%), while Democrats are more in favor of conservation (17% to 12%) and re-regulation (30% to 25%). Preferred solutions vary little by region. Compared with non-Hispanic whites, Latinos favor conservation more (24% to 15%) and re-regulation less (22% to 28%). There is also a large generation gap: 18-to-24-yearolds support conservation much more than those 55 and older do (27% to 11%), while the oldest age group is more likely to support building more plants (54% to 38%). Lower-income and less-educated residents tend to support conservation and oppose re-regulation more than do others. "Which of the following solutions for the current electricity situation in California do you most prefer?" Build more power plants Re-regulate the state’s electricity industry Encourage consumers to conserve energy Federal price controls on power generators Raise electricity prices Other/Don’t know All Adults 43% 27 18 8 1 3 Central Valley 48% 22 20 6 1 3 Region SF Bay Area 42% 27 Los Angeles 42% 27 18 20 88 31 22 Other Southern California 44% 27 Latino 46% 22 15 24 96 10 42 Energy Supply and Environmental Tradeoffs Are Californians willing to relax air quality standards for power plants in order to increase the energy supply? At this point in the electricity crisis, most are not: 70 percent oppose relaxing environmental standards; 27 percent are in favor. Opposition is strong in every part of the state, but there is more support for this idea (31%) in the area of Southern California outside of Los Angeles. Although a majority in all political groups oppose this tradeoff, Republicans (58%) are less opposed than Democrats (77%) or other voters (72%). Even among those who most prefer building more plants, 58 percent oppose doing so at the expense of air quality. Non-Hispanic whites are only slightly more likely than Latinos (29% to 25%) to favor relaxing air quality standards. Those 55 or older were more likely than younger adults (35% to 25%) and women were less likely than men (21% to 34%) to favor the tradeoff. There were no significant differences by income or educational level. For all demographic and political groups, maintaining air quality standards was more important than increasing the electricity supply. - 14 - California’s Electricity Problems "State officials are looking for ways to increase the electricity supply. Do you favor or oppose relaxing air quality standards that regulate power plants, even if it means more air pollution?" Favor Oppose Don’t know All Adults 27% 70 3 Central Valley 26% 71 3 Region SF Bay Area 25% 73 2 Los Angeles 26% 72 2 Other Southern California 31% 64 5 Latino 25% 73 2 Energy Costs and Fiscal Tradeoffs What method would residents prefer for paying the billions of dollars the state has incurred in electricity debts: issuing bonds paid by consumers through higher electricity rates or using taxpayer funds that would otherwise go to state programs? Fifty-eight percent choose issuing bonds; 32 percent prefer using taxpayer funds. Although San Francisco Bay Area residents are more likely than others to favor bonds paid for by higher rates, this preference is consistent across all four regions. Republicans (32%) are somewhat more likely than Democrats (26%) and other voters (29%) to favor using taxpayer funds, but a solid majority in all political groups prefer bonds. A greater percentage of Latinos (40%) than non-Hispanic whites (29%) prefer taking state funds from other programs. Although a majority of all major demographic groups favor bonds paid for by higher rates, there are differences by income and education level: People in households making less than $40,000 are less likely than those in households making $80,000 per year (53% to 67%) to favor bonds. Similarly, adults with no college are less likely than college graduates (47% to 67%) to prefer bonds. "Which do you prefer for paying the billions of dollars in state debts from buying electricity over the past few months?" Issue bonds that will be paid by consumers through higher electricity rates Use taxpayer funds that would otherwise go to state programs such as schools, health, and infrastructure Other/Don’t know All Adults 58% Central Valley 56% 32 33 10 11 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California Latino 67% 57% 52% 54% 25 32 36 40 8 11 12 6 - 15 - California's Electricity Problems Growth and Infrastructure Three in four Californians believe population growth has contributed to the current electricity crisis, and 43 percent say it has contributed a lot. Residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (50%) are more likely than others, while Los Angeles (40%) residents are the least likely, to hold this view. Perceptions of local population growth seem to matter: Half of those who said their city or community has been growing rapidly think growth has contributed a lot to the energy crisis. Among other residents, a third believe population growth has had a big effect. The electricity crisis has also taken a toll on the public’s faith in state government to prepare for growth. Two-in-three residents say the electricity crisis has made them feel less confident in the state government’s ability to plan for the future, including building the necessary roads and infrastructure. This lack of trust in state government is similar across all four regions. None of the political groups expresses much trust, but Republicans (74%) are somewhat more likely than Democrats (64%) and independent voters (67%) to say that the electricity crisis has made them less confident in the state government’s ability to plan for infrastructure. Non-Hispanic whites (70%) are more likely than Latinos (63%) to say they now have less confidence in the state government’s planning abilities. "How much do you think population growth in California has contributed to the current electricity supply problems?" A lot Some Not much Don’t know All Adults 43% 33 23 1 Central Valley 44% 33 22 1 Region SF Bay Area 50% 31 18 1 Los Angeles 40% 32 27 1 Other Southern California 42% 34 23 1 Latino 42% 34 23 1 "Does the electricity situation make you more confident or less confident in the state government’s ability to plan for the future—including building the necessary roads and other infrastructure—or does it make no difference to you?" More confident Less confident No difference Don’t know All Adults 7% 67 25 1 Central Valley 8% 66 24 2 Region SF Bay Area 6% 65 28 1 Los Angeles 7% 67 25 1 Other Southern California 9% 68 22 1 Latino 11% 63 25 1 - 16 - Political, Social, and Economic Trends Governor’s Approval Ratings Governor Gray Davis’ job approval ratings have dropped by a large margin since the January PPIC Statewide Survey. Today, fewer than half of all Californians (46%) say they approve of the way he is handling his job as governor. This approval rating is well below those he received in September 2000 (66%), October 2000 (60%), and January 2001 (63%). While his overall job approval rating has slipped, Governor Davis’ ratings among Democrats (59%) are much higher than among Republicans (31%) and other voters (41%). The ratings are also higher among Latinos (56%) than among non-Hispanic whites (40%). Approval declines as age, income, and education levels rise, but these trends also reflect partisan differences. The governor’s approval ratings are similar across regions, and there are no differences in ratings between men and women. Concerning the governor's handling of the electricity problem, there has been no significant change since January. At that time, 62 percent disapproved; in this survey, 60 percent disapprove. Disapproval varies across political groups: Among Republicans, 72 percent disapprove of Davis' handling of the electricity problem, compared with 52 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of other voters. Latinos (54%) are less likely than non-Hispanic whites (64%) to disapprove of his performance on this issue. Disapproval of the governor on this issue increases with income and education, but there are no regional, age, or gender differences in the approval ratings. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California? Approve Disapprove Don’t know Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling the issue of the electricity problem in California? Approve Disapprove Don’t know Party Registration All Adults Democrat Republican Other Voters 46% 41 13 59% 31 10 31% 61 8 41% 44 15 29% 60 11 38% 52 10 19% 72 9 25% 65 10 Not Registered to Vote Latino 47% 31 22 56% 32 12 33% 53 14 36% 54 10 - 17 - Political, Social, and Economic Trends President’s Job Approval Ratings A solid majority of Californians, 57 percent, approves of the way that President George W. Bush is handling his job, while 36 percent disapprove. This is similar to his national approval ratings in early May in a Newsweek poll (57%) and Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll (53%). Bush’s approval ratings show strong party influence: 88 percent of Republicans approve of the job he is doing in office, compared with 37 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of other voters. Bush’s ratings do not vary much by age, education, or income. Non-Hispanic whites (59%) are a little more positive toward Bush than are Latinos (54%), and men (60%) are somewhat more approving than women (54%). These demographic trends, however, also reflect partisan differences. The president's approval ratings also vary by region: They are lower in the San Francisco Bay area (47%) and Los Angeles (52%) than in the rest of Southern California (65%) and the Central Valley (63%). When it comes to the president's handling of the energy crisis, the approval ratings are much lower. In fact, 56 percent of Californians disapprove of the way President Bush is handling this issue. This rating also varies by political group: 57 percent of Republicans approve of his handling of the problem, while 73 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of others voters disapprove. Latinos (59%) are more disapproving than non-Hispanic whites (53%), and there are large regional differences: Disapproval is much higher in the San Francisco Bay area (68%) and Los Angeles (59%) than in the rest of Southern California (48%) and the Central Valley (54%). There are no differences in the specific approval ratings across age, gender, education, and income groups. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as President? Approve Disapprove Don’t know Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling the issue of the electricity problem in California? Approve Disapprove Don’t know All Adults Party Registration Democrat Republican Other Voters Not Registered to Vote Latino 57% 36 7 37% 55 8 88% 10 2 54% 41 5 55% 31 14 54% 36 10 33% 56 11 17% 73 10 57% 33 10 31% 60 9 33% 51 16 30% 59 11 - 18 - Political, Social, and Economic Trends Overall Mood As this year goes on, Californians are progressively more pessimistic about the state’s economy and general direction. Today, only 38 percent say the state can expect good economic times in the coming year—a 13-point drop since last January and a 34-point drop since August 2000. For the first time since we began asking this question in September 1999, the majority of Californians think there will be bad economic times in the state during the next 12 months. Currently, 44 percent of Californians believe the state is headed in the right direction, down from 62 percent in January of this year. This decline comes after three years of hovering around 60 percent. For the first time in the three years we have asked this question, a higher percentage of Californians think the state is headed in the wrong direction than in the right direction. Across the state’s regions, Central Valley residents (34%) are less likely to expect good economic times than those living in the San Francisco Bay area (41%), Los Angeles (38%) and the rest of Southern California (38%). San Francisco Bay area residents (37%) are less likely than those living in Los Angeles (48%), the rest of Southern California (46%), and the Central Valley (43%) to say the state is headed in the right direction at this time. Latinos (51%) are more likely than non-Hispanic whites (41%) to think that things in California are going in the right direction. However, Latinos (60%) are also more likely than non-Hispanic whites (54%) to predict bad economic times ahead for the state. Californians earning more than $80,000 (44%) are more likely than those earning between $40,000 and $80,000 (39%) and those earning less than $40,000 (35%) to predict good financial times ahead. However, upper-income residents are only a little less likely (43%) than those in the middleincome (45%) and the lower income categories (47%) to say that the state is headed in the right direction. The energy crisis plays a role in Californians’ confidence about the economy. Among those who say the issue of the cost, supply, and demand for electricity will hurt the California economy, 64 percent predict bad times ahead for the state. "Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times?" Good times Bad times Don't know Sep 99 72% 23 5 All Adults Dec 99 Feb 00 76% 78% 19 15 57 Aug 00 72% 21 7 Jan 01 51% 38 11 May 01 38% 56 6 "Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?" Right direction Wrong direction Don't know May 98 56% 34 10 Sep 98 57% 34 9 Dec 98 63% 28 9 Sep 99 61% 34 5 Dec 99 62% 31 7 All Adults Jan 00 Feb 00 66% 65% 26 27 88 Aug 00 62% 30 8 - 19 - Oct 00 59% 32 9 Jan 01 62% 29 9 May 01 44% 48 8 Political, Social, and Economic Trends News Attentiveness California’s energy woes have clearly made it onto the radar screen of the state’s residents: 82 percent say they very or fairly closely follow news about the state’s electricity problems. Attention to other news stories asked about is lower, including news about the stock market and U.S. economy (59%), the 2000 U.S. Census and California’s population (47%), and the state budget (43%). The public is following news stories about the electricity situation as closely now as it was in January 2001 (84%) and sharply more than in October 2000 (60%). Eight in ten Californians in all regions of the state closely followed news of the electricity crisis. Latinos (76%) were less likely than non-Hispanic whites (85%) to be following news about the electricity situation. There were regional variations in attention to news about the 2000 U.S. Census and California’s population and news about the stock market and U.S. economy. Latinos were less likely than nonHispanic whites to follow the news about the economy (45% to 65%). "Tell me if you followed this news story very closely, fairly closely, not too closely, or not at all closely..." News about the cost, supply, and demand for electricity in California Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely News about the stock market and U.S. economy Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely News about the 2000 U.S. Census and California’s population Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely News about the California state budget Very closely Fairly closely Not too closely Not at all closely All Adults 43% 39 12 6 26% 33 20 21 14% 33 29 24 13% 30 32 25 Central Valley 44% 38 13 5 16% 33 25 26 13% 29 31 27 15% 29 27 29 Region SF Bay Area Los Angeles Other Southern California Latino 45% 38 11 6 41% 40 12 7 46% 38 11 5 46% 30 17 7 33% 33 18 16 26% 31 23 20 29% 34 16 21 19% 26 24 31 13% 37 26 24 12% 29 35 24 17% 37 27 19 14% 29 33 24 12% 30 32 27 13% 32 31 24 19% 31 26 23 16% 29 29 26 - 20 - Survey Methodology The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, with research assistance from Eric McGhee and Mina Yaroslavsky. The survey was conducted in collaboration with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation; however, the survey methodology and questions and content of the report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare. The survey benefited from consultation with Kimberly Belshé, Michael Fischer, Michael Mantell, and others at PPIC and the three foundations who offered their expertise to this special survey on growth. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed from May 1 to May 9, 2001. Interviewing took place on weekend days and weekday nights, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers, ensuring that both listed and unlisted telephone numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in California were eligible for calling. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to five times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing by using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Each interview took an average of 20 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. Maria Tello translated the survey into Spanish. We used recent U.S. Census and state figures to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of California's adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the census and state figures. The survey data in this report were statistically weighted to account for any demographic differences. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,001 adults is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. The sampling error for the 1,550 registered voters is +/- 2.5%. Sampling error is just one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. Throughout the report, we refer to four geographic regions. “Central Valley” includes Butte, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. “SF Bay Area” includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. “Los Angeles” refers to Los Angeles County, and “Other Southern California” includes the mostly suburban regions of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. These four regions were chosen for analysis because they are the major population centers of the state, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population; moreover, the growth of the Central Valley and “Other Southern California” regions have given them increasing political significance. We present specific results for Latinos because they account for about one in four of the state's adult population and constitute one of the fastest growing voter groups. The sample sizes for the African American and Asian subgroups were not large enough for separate statistical analysis. We contrast the opinions of Democrats and Republicans with “other” or “independent” registered voters. This third category includes those who are registered to vote as “decline to state” as well as a fewer number who say they are members of other political parties. In some cases, we have used earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time. National comparisons are from polls by Newsweek and by Gallup/CNN/USA Today in May. - 21 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: CALIFORNIANS AND THEIR GOVERNMENT MAY 1-9, 2001 2,001 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS; ENGLISH AND SPANISH MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. Which of the following best describes the place where you now live—is it a large city, a suburb, a small city or town, or rural area? 29% 21 40 9 1 large city suburb small city or town rural area other answer 2. Overall, how would you rate your city or community as a place to live? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, or poor? 31% 46 18 5 0 excellent good fair poor don't know 3. In the past few years, do you think the population of your city or community has been growing rapidly, growing slowly, staying about the same, or declining? 60% 20 15 2 3 growing rapidly growing slowly staying about the same declining don't know 4. How would you rate the performance of your city government when it comes to handling growth issues—excellent, good, fair, or poor? 7% 33 36 17 3 4 excellent good fair poor not applicable/not in a city/no growth issues don't know 5. If an election were held today, would you vote yes or no on a local initiative that would slow down the pace of development, even if this meant having less economic growth? 51% yes 41 no 8 don't know We are interested in your opinions about the region or broader geographic area that you live in. I am going to read you a list of problems other people have told us about. For each one, please tell me if you think it is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem in your region. (rotate questions 6 to 10) -23- 6. How about traffic congestion on freeways and major roads? 60% 23 17 0 big problem somewhat of a problem not a problem don't know 7. How about population growth and development? 29% 37 32 2 big problem somewhat of a problem not a problem don't know 8. How about the availability of housing you can afford? 47% 26 25 2 big problem somewhat of a problem not a problem don't know 9. How about the lack of opportunities for well-paying jobs? 29% 32 35 4 big problem somewhat of a problem not a problem don't know 10. How about air pollution? 30% 34 36 0 big problem somewhat of a problem not a problem don't know 11. Thinking about the next 10 years, do you think that the population in your region will grow rapidly, grow slowly, stay about the same, or decline? 60% 23 14 2 1 grow rapidly grow slowly stay about the same decline don't know 12. Overall, do you think your local government does or does not have adequate funding for the roads, transit, and other infrastructure projects that are needed to prepare for future growth in your region? 43% 48 9 does have adequate funding does not other/don't know 13. Some say that local governments will have to spend much more money on new roads, transit, and other infrastructure projects to prepare for future growth in your region. Would you favor or oppose paying a higher sales tax for this purpose? 41% favor 56 oppose 3 don't know 14. Do you think that local governments should decide growth issues on their own, or should local governments in a region work together on growth issues? 8% 89 3 local governments decide on their own local governments work together both/don't know 15. Thinking now about the state as a whole, what do you think is the most important issue facing California today? (code don’t read) 43% electricity prices, electricity deregulation, energy prices 13 growth, population, overpopulation 6 jobs, the economy, unemployment 6 schools, education 4 environment, pollution 4 housing costs, housing availability 4 traffic and transportation 3 crime, gangs 3 immigration, illegal immigration 1 drugs 1 government regulations 1 health care, HMO reform 1 poverty, the poor, the homeless, welfare 1 race relations, racial and ethnic issues 1 state government, governor, legislature 1 taxes, cutting taxes 1 water 1 other (specify) 5 don't know 16. Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction? 44% 48 8 right direction wrong direction don't know 17. Turning to economic conditions in California, do you think that during the next 12 months we will have good times financially or bad times? 38% good times 56 bad times 6 don't know 18. Thinking about the quality of life in California today, do you think things are going very well, somewhat well, somewhat badly, or very badly? 10% 58 25 6 1 very well somewhat well somewhat badly very badly don't know 19. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gray Davis is handling his job as governor of California? 46% approve 41 disapprove 13 don’t know 20. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Governor Davis is handling the issue of the electricity problem in California? 29% approve 60 disapprove 11 don't know California population figures from the 2000 Census appeared recently in the news. For each of the following census figures, please tell me if you think it is a good thing or a bad thing or if it makes no difference to you. 21. The state has a population of 33.9 million people. 15% 33 51 1 good thing bad thing no difference don't know 22. The state has 4 million more people than it did 10 years ago. 14% 50 35 1 good thing bad thing no difference don't know 23. The state has no racial or ethnic group in the majority. 40% 16 41 3 good thing bad thing no difference don't know 24. The inland areas of the state—that is, the Central Valley and Inland Empire—grew faster in the last 10 years than the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. 32% 24 41 3 good thing bad thing no difference don't know - 24 - 25. Which of the following do you think is the single biggest factor that is causing the state’s population to grow? 55% 25 8 7 5 immigration from other countries migration from other states children born to current residents state and local policies other/don't know 26. Which of the following do you think is the most negative consequence of the state’s population growth? 29% 27 24 16 4 traffic congestion high housing costs urban sprawl and the loss of open space pollution other/don't know 27. Which of the following do you think is the most positive consequence of the state’s population growth? 41% 23 21 8 7 improving job market and economy increasing social diversity more state and local tax revenues more services and amenities other/don't know 28. By 2020, California is predicted to reach a population of 45 million, gaining 10 million more people. Please tell me if you think this will make California a more desirable or a less desirable place for you to live? 31. (a) Most of the problems that are caused by growth can be avoided with good planning. (b) Most of the problems that are caused by growth cannot be avoided. 66% 33 1 growth problems can be avoided growth problems cannot be avoided other/don’t know 32. (a) Local elected officials should make growthrelated decisions after going through a process of planning reviews and public hearings. (b) Local voters should make growth-related decisions by voting on local initiatives. 35% 63 2 local elected officials make decisions local voters make decisions other/don’t know 33. (a) State government should take a more active role in guiding local growth and development. (b) City and county governments should decide local growth and development. 24% 74 2 state government should take a more active role city and county government should decide other/don’t know 34. It is better if new growth takes place: (a) in the developed areas inside the region; (b) in the undeveloped areas on the outskirts of the region. 45% 51 4 in developed areas inside the region in undeveloped areas outside of the region other/don’t know 13% 82 5 more desirable less desirable no difference/don't know 29. As far as your own plans are concerned, do you see yourself living in your current county of residence five years from now or living somewhere else. (if elsewhere: Is that inside or outside of California?) 62% 16 18 4 living in current county living elsewhere inside California living elsewhere outside California don't know People have different ideas about growth issues. Please tell me if the first statement or the second statement in the following questions comes closer to your views—even if neither is exactly right. (rotate questions 30 to 34) 35. What do you think should be the most important priority in planning for growth—improving jobs and the economy, providing for social needs, or protecting the environment? 43% 21 34 2 improving jobs and the economy providing for social needs protecting the environment other/don’t know 36. On another topic, how much of a problem is the cost, supply, and demand for electricity in California today? Is it a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not much of a problem? 82% 13 5 0 big problem somewhat of a problem not much of a problem don't know 30. (a) Population growth in this state is inevitable. 37. In the next few years, do you think the issue of the (b) Population growth in this state depends on the cost, supply, and demand for electricity will hurt the amount of roads, housing, and other infrastructure. California economy or not? (if yes: Do you think it 58% 39 3 growth is inevitable growth depends on infrastructure other/don't know will hurt the California economy a great deal or only somewhat?) 62% yes, a great deal 24 yes, only somewhat 12 no 2 don’t know - 25 - 38. Which do you prefer for paying the billions of dollars in state debts from buying electricity over the past few months: (a) issuing bonds that will be paid by consumers through higher electricity rates; (b) using taxpayer funds that would otherwise go to state programs such as schools, health, and infrastructure? 58% 32 10 paying through higher electricity rates using taxpayer funds that would go to state programs other/don’t know 39. Who do you think is most to blame for the current electricity situation in California? (rotate) 32% 26 10 10 8 8 6 the electric utility companies the former governor and legislature the current governor and legislature the power generators the Bush Administration and federal government California consumers more than one / other answer (specify) / don’t know 40. Do you think that population growth in California has contributed a lot, somewhat, or not much to the current electricity supply problems? 43% 33 23 1 a lot somewhat not much don’t know 41. Does the electricity situation make you more confident or less confident in the state government’s ability to plan for the future—including building the necessary roads and other infrastructure—or does it make no difference to you? 7% 67 25 1 more confident less confident no difference don't know 42. Which of the following solutions for the current electricity situation in California do you most prefer? (rotate) 43% 27 18 8 1 3 build more power plants re-regulate the state’s electricity industry encourage consumers to conserve energy federal price controls on power generators raise electricity prices more than one / other answer (specify) / don’t know 43. State officials are looking for ways to increase the electricity supply. Do you favor or oppose relaxing air quality standards that regulate power plants, even if it means more air pollution? 27% favor 70 oppose 3 don’t know I will read a list of some recent news stories covered by news organizations. As I read each one, tell me if you followed this news story very closely, fairly closely, not too closely, or not at all closely. (rotate questions 44-47) 44. News about the California state budget. 13% 30 32 25 very closely fairly closely not too closely not at all closely 45. News about the 2000 U.S. Census and California’s population. 14% 33 29 24 very closely fairly closely not too closely not at all closely 46. News about the cost, supply, and demand for electricity in California. 43% 39 12 6 very closely fairly closely not too closely not at all closely 47. News about the stock market and U.S. economy. 26% 33 20 21 very closely fairly closely not too closely not at all closely 48. On another topic: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that George W. Bush is handling his job as president? 57% approve 36 disapprove 7 don’t know 49. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that President Bush is handling the issue of the electricity problem in California? 33% approve 56 disapprove 11 don’t know - 26 - 50. On another topic, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain you are registered to vote? (if yes: Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent?) 38% 26 3 14 19 yes, Democrat yes, Republican yes, other party yes, independent no, not registered 51. Would you consider yourself to be politically very liberal, somewhat liberal, middle-of-the-road, somewhat conservative, or very conservative? 8% 20 34 25 11 2 very liberal somewhat liberal middle-of-the-road somewhat conservative very conservative don't know [52-58. Demographic Questions] 59. Some people have thought a lot about growthrelated issues, and others have not. How much thought had you given to growth issues before they were raised in this survey—a lot, some, or not much? 33% a lot 40 some 27 not much 60. How much had you made up your mind about the solutions to growth issues before they were raised in this survey—a lot, some, or not much? 22% a lot 42 some 36 not much 61. Would you be willing to take part in a local discussion group with other residents about the issues we discussed in this survey? 42% yes 58 no - 27 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Angela Blackwell President Policy Link Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley Dennis A. Collins President The James Irvine Foundation Matt Fong Attorney Sheppard Mullin William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Monica Lozano Associate Publisher and Executive Editor La Opinión Donna Lucas President NCG Porter Novelli Max Neiman Director Center for Social and Behavioral Research University of California, Riverside Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Richard Schlosberg President The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Carol Stogsdill Senior Vice President Foundation for American Communications (FACS) Cathy Taylor Editorial Page Editor Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center -29-" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:34:56" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(8) "s_501mbs" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:34:56" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:34:56" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/S_501MBS.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }