Proposal to curb growth divides group

Friday, March 16, 2001 | 5:56 a.m.

A proposal to force the Sierra Club to confront immigration issues has divided the national organization for at least the third time in 10 years.

A ballot question is being mailed to members from a faction that wants to curb immigration to protect the U.S. environment from population growth that has added almost 80 million people in 30 years.

The question refers to "U.S. population stabilization," which supporters admit means asking the government to limit immigration.

The leadership of the nation's largest environmental organization, with more than 600,000 members, isn't happy with the initiative. The current strategy is to emphasize sound planning -- "smart growth" -- as a means of controlling the urbanization of rural land. Other groups working on sprawl issues follow the same strategy.

That strategy is doomed to fail, according to the dissident faction. It is promoting a study that argues population growth is the single largest factor causing sprawl. The study, to be released Monday, defines sprawl as conversion of rural land to suburban and urban uses.

Many previous studies rely on population density. They find that metropolitan areas such as Las Vegas are doing well because these regions are putting more people into less land.

About 4,500 people, on average, live on a square mile in the Las Vegas area. That compares favorably with other growing cities in the Southwest. Portland, Ore., a city that gets high marks from environmentalists for sprawl control, has about 3,900 people per square mile.

Phoenix has only about 2,500 people per square mile.

Per capita land use in Las Vegas declined 35 percent between 1970 and 1990, leading some to say that sprawl isn't a big problem in the area.

That's a conclusion that comes as a surprise to people living on the edge of the urban area, where small farms and ranches are rapidly being replaced by subdivisions and strip malls.

"Las Vegas is the perfect example of the No. 1, most important finding," study co-author Roy Beck said. "You can focus forever on 'smart growth' measures -- good population density -- but if you have high population growth, you're still going to get eaten up by sprawl."

Beck, a Washington journalist for 20 years, wrote "Weighing Sprawl Factors in Large U.S. Cities" with natural-resource planner Leon Kolankiewicz, formerly with the Orange County, Calif., Environmental Management Agency.

More than three dozen advisers are listed in the study. They include academic professionals, environmentalists and political office-holders from across the country.

Among the advisers is former Las Vegas City Councilman Steve Miller, who said his political views don't always correspond with environmentalists, but in this case they do.

"I really am concerned as to whether sprawl is diminishing our quality of life in the valley," he said.

Numbers game

The study relies heavily on U.S. Census Bureau numbers to argue that population growth affects the environment around urban areas. Beck argues that "almost all" of the population growth of the past three decades -- growth that has swelled the U.S. population to about 270 million -- is because of immigration.

Census numbers roughly back up his argument. A 1997 report said about 55 million of the 267 million U.S. residents were foreign born or "of foreign born or mixed" parentage, meaning at least one parent was an immigrant.

The Census Bureau reported last week a huge population increase for Clark County -- almost 86 percent -- and the state -- 66 percent.

Much of that increase was driven by migration of Hispanics or people with Asian or Pacific Island backgrounds. The Hispanic population rose 264 percent since 1990 to 302,000 in the county.

The number of Asian or Pacific Islanders rose by more than 200 percent to nearly 79,000. Although those ethnic groups are still a fraction of the 1.4 million in the county, the growth of those groups far surpasses the total population growth of 86 percent.

Census officials said Wednesday that they have a hard time tracking the number of people entering and leaving the country, especially because of illegal immigration. Their projections between the 1990 and 2000 censuses fell short of the actual growth of those populations.

Beck predicts that many people from across the political spectrum will reject the two principal conclusions of his study. One is that the only local way to affect urban sprawl is to slow economic development, making the area less attractive to job-seekers.

The other is that the federal government has to make immigration a lot more difficult, a proposal rejected by business, Hispanic activists and many environmentalists, including the Sierra Club's leadership.

The debate over immigration is clearly not one that the organization wants to air.

Sierra Club staff members in Las Vegas and Washington were told not to discuss the issue. Questions were referred to club Executive Director Carl Pope.

Pope characterized the anti-immigration effort as short-sighted. He agreed population growth has a profound effect on the environment, but said efforts to control that growth have to be global to have any effect.

"The ballot initiative is the wrong way to go about this," Pope said.

However, 17 of 65 chapters nationwide have asked the national organization to incorporate U.S. population stabilization as a component of the group's anti-sprawl campaign.

Members are now receiving the ballots to vote on the issue. The results should be known in April.

Effects of growth

Although he lives and works in the San Francisco Bay Area, Pope realizes population growth has affected the Las Vegas Valley.

Pope frequently refers to three satellite photos of the valley in the '70s, '80s and '90s that show the dramatic increase in population and developed land.

He recently visited Southern Nevada several times to urge area governments and planners to make better decisions on land use.

Environmental jewels all over the world need protection, he said. For example, a wave of violence in Indonesia recently dislocated 100,000 people, who moved into and destroyed a rain forest.

It would be far better for the global environment if those 100,000 people had moved to the United States, Pope said.

The dissident faction, dubbed Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization, says it knows its effort will be an uphill battle.

"It is kind of a challenge to the establishment power structure," said Bill Elder, population issue coordinator of the Cascade, Wash., chapter.

The national organization fears being tagged as racist, as most of the immigrants arriving in this country are Hispanic or Asian-American, he said.

"The club needs to stand up to that phony, red-herring charge," Elder said. "Where people come from has absolutely nothing to do with it.

"Population's connection with sprawl is being ignored while everybody is focusing on the politically correct smart growth."

Pope said that claims the club fears the racism charges are "absolute garbage."

The current stand was approved by its national board and represents a long-term view of what constitutes environmental protection, he said.

Jane Feldman, a local chapter board member, agreed. She said the 13-member local board unanimously rejected the ballot initiative in January. As a member, rather than a staffer, she is free to talk to the media.

The dissident faction is composed of "extremists, selfish and short-sighted," she said.

"That's nothing more than a 'not in my back yard' philosophy," the activist said. "I don't see my environment here as being any more special or important than the mountain forests in Mexico.

Global issues

"We have to consider these issues globally and not stop at the border," Feldman said.

Beck's and Kolankiewicz's conclusion that limiting sprawl also includes limiting economic growth won't work, she said.

"Saying, 'Put the brakes on economic development' is politically crazy," she said. "It won't have the support in the community, nor from decision-makers."

The Southern Nevada Home Builders Association rarely agrees with Sierra Club leadership, but on this issue it does.

Monica Caruso, association spokeswoman, said limiting economic expansion in the Las Vegas Valley would threaten the jobs of 75,000 construction workers, the region's No. 2 industry.

Caruso, whose grandparents immigrated to the United States, said the core argument promoted by the Beck study is "bigoted and racist."

More labor urged

"We need more labor," she said of the region's construction industry. "We don't care where they come from if they are good quality workers."

Clark County Commission Chairman Dario Herrera, a likely candidate for Congress next year, agreed.

"America is a land built on immigration," he said. "I don't think we should point to immigrants as the reason for encroachment on environmentally sensitive lands."

Hispanic activists, including Elizabeth Carrasco, said those targeting immigration policy as the source of environmental problems are scapegoating.

"When groups make connections between sprawl and immigration, it is a veiled attempt to spread anti-immigrant sentiment and fear-mongering," she said.

Carrasco, born in Mexico City but a U.S. citizen for 18 years, said she is deeply concerned about environmental issues.

"Instead of looking for someone to blame, we should be looking at the problem, looking for real solutions," the Las Vegas resident said.

One thing all agree on: Population growth affects environmental quality, here and throughout the world.

But Feldman and Pope said the way to tackle the issue is to educate people in developing nations and improve their economies and quality of life.

These measures will give people less incentive to come to the United States and at the same time reduce the population explosions in those countries, they argue. Population forecasters believe as quality of life and education levels rise, birth rates will decrease.

Beck, a Sierra Club member, said he shares a concern for the global environment. He insists that he isn't a racist and doesn't care where immigrants to this country come from.

Nevertheless, Beck argued that something has to be done to protect environmental assets within U.S. borders. Good planning is great, but it won't solve the problem, he said.

"As long as Americans acquiesce to rapid national population growth, smart growth might at its best be able to cut sprawl in half," Beck said. "So it might take twice as long to pave over the same area. But the bottom line is, it will still be paved over."

archive