Cocoposts

Current Settlement Patterns

Excellent excerpt from Ezra Klein - American Prospect on density and How We Live Now:

There's often a tendency to assume that the status quo is the most "natural" way for things to be, and that rejiggering the relevant subsidies is somehow more artificial and presumptuous. But the current system was built atop a massive structure of subsidies and tax breaks. The mortgage tax deduction advantaged bigger homes; funding schools through inequitable property taxes encouraged families to move out of cities where the property taxes were low and into richer suburbs where the schools would be wealthy; putting billions into costly and little-used roads made far-flung developments appear cheap to those who only saw the finished product; underfunding public transportation heavily influenced development patterns, and so on and so forth. And that doesn't even get into the racial unrest, social dysfunction, and crime levels that helped drive white flight -- and thus sprawl -- in the 60s and 70s.

Indeed, there's nothing natural about our current settlement patterns, and no reason preserving them should be seen as a nod to expressed preference rather than, as it actually is, a status quo bias in favor of the current subsidies and their associated winners. Nobody's saying we should make suburbs illegal. But we don't have to abide by public policy that makes them look far cheaper and more economical than they are.

After this nail-head hitting, a chorus of whining erupts in the comments.  The predictable responses include how density kills, planning sucks and New Urbanism will never work because there is no space for the Hummers.    

My favorite is the Bad Neighbor argument for sprawl.  "Ezra, you've never had a really bad neighbor, have you? One that drove you from your residence?"      I can't help but picture this unhappy critic in his college dorm room.

Planning and Suing

Some of the well-planned cities we can think of were built by one developer, corporation or king. On the other hand, community-based "planning" is a messy exercise - a struggle to define and refine goals and visions for the future.  The theory is that the community can shape community through planning.  Nice theory.

In reality it is a ongoing struggle to generate long term community  interest and involvement among jaded and overworked participants while addressing opposition from well-paid market idealogues who represent private interests in short term profit.   

And then they sue.

Image:  Ebenezer Howard via Fleck

TIDD Circus

I love a circus. 

 Witnessing the choreography of  public meetings about Tax Increment Development Districts was sort of  like a circus.  Instead of trapeze acts there are back flips of logic and  tightrope walking with the truth.  TIDD's - exotic and intriguing circus beasts - appeared center ring only briefly and with canned fanfare.  Then handlers moved them out of the big top  and clowns gathered up fat reports left behind like important poop.         

The SunCal spokesman said this in the conclusion to his editorial hawking the TIDD show:  (...) Protecting the city's TIDD ordinance from unreasonable amendments ensures a future of progress for the entire community.

Protecting  TIDD's is important.  They are probably endangered in their native habitat.  But they surely can't be comfortable in those cages in the back under the tarps - guarded by multiple bureaucracies and shepherded along by those who would exploit them.  And if you try to peek or poke at one with a stick you might get an arm taken off.

The men say move along, move along.  Nothing to see here folks.   No conflicts at all.  Just carrying water for elephants.

 

Sprawl Eats its Young

From a post on Counterpunch by Alan Farago via Laura Paskus at High Desert Reports:

(...) We all know that to understand politics, follow the money. But in this case-of a mortgage crisis whose repercussions will dwarf the savings and loan meltdown of two decades ago-you can't follow the money because billions-hundreds of billions-have disappeared down the rat hole of suburban sprawl dug under the disinterested eye of Congress and the White House.

There is still no discussion about how to change the equation of sprawl and of a Growth Machine that is running the U.S. economy off the rails. But the electorate is growing restive and investors are furious, as they should be.

 

TIDD Lovefest

A resolution approving nine (9) tax increment financing districts was approved at the County Commission.  Heavy hitters with the business community piled on in support. 

The esteemed Sherman McCorkle did his spot-on Bush imitation.  He kept calling TIDDs ethical.  And my favorite, good planning.  It may be preferable to the wicked-crooked way that developers otherwise seek utility extensions on the public dime.  It sure must beat lobbying for pork at the legislature.  It creates more of a one-stop-shop for all your development subsidies. 

There was much more bluster about  misinformation provided by the opponents than about the absence of  information about the proposal in the first place.  The TIDDs resolution and master plan wasn't / isn't online.  Staff's presentation was one awkward sentence.  The SunCal rep got two minutes - which was not even enough time to outline hinted-at promises.

Proponents seemed slightly frantic and the testimony was over the top with optimism.  Perhaps they do really believe that there is no national economic trend that could possibly change their rosy assumptions.  Perhaps they really do believe that building new buildings constitutes sustainable economic development. 

Urgency is the tone behind this.  Seems it is a race, of sorts, between a bunch of vacant land on the edge over there and a bunch of vacant land on the edge over there.   From here, it looks like a race to the edge either way.  What lies between doesn't fit in this paradigm.  This is about investment in that edge land using this "amazing finance tool."   In a hurry. 

Take this Pipeline

This Arizona Republic story, "Pipeline raises concerns for Phoenix developers, airport", describes  a consequence of Arizona's passage of a knee-jerk private property rights and land use takings proposition in 2006.    

Phoenix leaders may be forced to choose between the city's two economic heavyweights: downtown renaissance and the airport. Lofty plans envision the Jackson Street Entertainment District - a cluster of shops, music venues, nightclubs and bars - that would add a key ingredient to downtown nightlife. Plans are causing concern, though, not because of the site, but because of what  runs underneath it. (...)

A pipeline break could create a deadly 300-foot flume of fuel, according to a July report by a consultant for the airline group.  The Phoenix jet-fuel pipeline has had repeated leaks and corrosion problems during the years. Most of those accidents have been on the airport's property. The last accident was in 2003, when 13,100 gallons leaked into containment vault and 300 gallons seeped into a storm sewer.

The city, airlines, state leaders and developers share concerns, but they say they aren't responsible for policing development near the pipeline or are powerless to do so. A 2006 voter-approved state law virtually has tied the city's hands on the issue, Phoenix officials say. Proposition 207 allows property owners to seek compensation if cities change land-use rules in ways that make their land less valuable. Because of that, Phoenix can't afford to impose development restrictions, Deputy City Manager David Cavasos said.

Others say the city of Phoenix is using  Prop 207 to take the easy way out and do nothing but mediate or maybe move the pipeline again.   

Long snarky online comments to the story blame "planners" and government bureaucracy.  First, believe the crock about private property rights and vote to kill government.  Next, complain about how it isn't working. 

Watered Down Planning

The Journal opines:  Water Board Should Keep Focus on— Water

In the high desert, water is at the center of any discussion of urban growth. The city and county have a unified approach to water-resource planning, under the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority.

On the contrary, it is a fragmented approach to have three separate governments doing the work of one.  It fragments  planning, oversight and public participation. 

City Councilor Michael Cadigan would like to see the Water Authority take on a much larger role. Cadigan, currently a member of the water board, proposes that the board look at all growth issues.  ...

This would be a radically different agenda for the Water Authority, which was created by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Bill Richardson at the county's behest and over the city's vehement objections. In fact, it is the agenda you normally find at meetings of the city and county planning boards, or at the City Council and County Commission. (sic)

Wuh?  Re-read about a dozen times and still makes no sense.

As it relates to issues other than water, development and the rules that govern it are the business of those governing bodies. The water board was not created to make social policy.  The full City Council and County Commission are responsible for urban growth decisions, and are held accountable by voters. A board whose membership is appointed, not elected, to deal with water issues should not second-guess governments explicitly authorized to make planning decisions.

Wait, wait, wait.  Can't have it both ways.  Can't tout unified water resources planning  and then sniff at  urban growth decisions as  "social policy."  Water planning without social policy is simply engineering.   

The fact that water is key does not make the Water Authority king.

I beg to differ. 

Greenfields and Marty Chavez

Mayor Marty vetos the TIDD amendments that would have restricted the use of tax increment financing.   Tosses away his responsibility and spins it as city-county cooperation.   1st and 10, Developers.   

Marty throws the ball to the Board of County Commissioners - who'll hide it where no one but Geraldine Amato can find it.  Soon will emerge multiple agreements in a  flurry of many-dead-tree- paperwork that no one will want to read before Christmas.  Hurry before the Legislature tries to block Pandora.    

Carter Bundy on Heath Haussamen presented all the reasoning on why Mayor Marty Chavez should not do what he did before he did it.  He is damning greenfields.   Greenwashing that developer touchdown will be playing on astroturf.   

Tremendously Idiotic Development Districts

I posted about TIDDs on the Fix. 

TIDDs are not a planning tool.  This is not a way to manage growth.  It is a way to pay for it. 

A recurring thesis of this blog is that public utility decisions are political decisions. They are made through development agreements, not through a public planning process.  This is by design.  Water, sewer, roads and storm drainage - the big four up front costs for sprawl developers - are dealt with on a development by development basis.   TIDDs may bring a little order to funding new infrastructure, but don't mistake that for planning.

Planning might look like phasing of capital improvements - a capital improvements plan that prioritizes available funding as a component of a comprehensive plan that gets updated through a highly visible community-wide process. 

We don't do that.  We've smothered our comprehensive plan with a pillow and shoved it in the closet.  We've truncated administration of the largest utility in the state from the land use authority of its largest city.

And now we're further fragmenting responsibility for the economic health of our public tax base by creating multiple districts to bond and build public improvements.

Santa Fe Neighborhood Conservation Districts

The Journal North covers a proposal by a Santa Fe City Councilor to create neighborhood districts. 

"Planning" isn't mentioned in the story except to lightly backhand bureaucrats in the planning department who are reportedly lukewarm on this prospect.   Probably because the idea is stupid.    

From the Journal story (my emphasis):

It might be too late for the residents of Juanita Street who opposed the towering three-story condominium currently being erected in their neighborhood. But a proposal to create neighborhood conservation districts— in which residents would decide what they do and don't want in their neighborhood— could put the kibosh on future construction deemed to be out of sync with the residents' wishes.

...  (City Councilor) Heldmeyer said Thursday many Santa Fe neighborhoods have up to now had little to no voice in their own evolution. "There are a lot of neighborhoods that really have been screwed up," she said. "Hopefully, this will prevent more neighborhoods from being screwed up."

(...) Under the current proposal, neighborhood residents could define boundaries and establish rules on such issues as building heights, density, landscaping and more.
Two-thirds of the property owners within the neighborhood would have to approve of the standards in order for them to take effect. City staffers would then be in charge of explaining the restrictions to anyone submitting a building plan.  "It's made to be very simple, not bureaucratic," Heldmeyer said. "This is something that's very grassroots."

Residents voting to enact zoning restrictions is a lot like residents voting to enact new taxes on themselves.   It will have unintended consequences and create wicked inequities.    Planning and zoning, in theory, attempt to balance land use impacts.  Multiple zoning rules for multiple self-serving neighborhood associations would enable neighborhoods to restrict development - pushing uses perceived as undesirable into less powerful neighborhoods.   

Down this path lies a parochial nightmare. This is an attempt to delegate what is the Santa Fe City Council's responsibility for sound growth and tough planning decisions. 

Talk about screwed up.