[See also Sprawl costs us all]
The following comments about land use planning are based on more than a decade and a half's experience as a real estate broker. During that time I brokered, bought and sold property, appraised property professionally, and was a loan officer (mortgages, and for a brief time, SBA loans). I also sat on a Sacramento County Community Planning Advisory Council (CPAC) for nearly half that time, as Vice Chairman. So, in addition to participating in many real estate transactions, I saw plenty of Sacramento County’s planning process and sat in many hearings about land use proposals large and small.
So...this is perhaps an informed opinion. Probably not perfect, but certainly not just some random flight of fancy.
My conclusion after those years observing the process is best expressed by this editorial that appeared in the Business Journal in 1993. Not much has changed. The process is designed to fail, and working as designed. Its failure deprives the public of many amenities and is the source of some large private fortunes. Countries whose land use practice differs significantly (e.g. Germany) have a robust public realm, and things like free tuition for their universities (even for foreigners, in Germany). In the U.S., we're subjecting our students to debt peonage, and privatizing the public realm, making the economy into a series of toll booths for the benefit of some toll-collecting rentiers.
We've also heard from some of the shills for the land speculators since that 1993 editorial appeared. One of them, former Folsom Mayor Bob Holderness, appeared at a local political club to promote a developer's projects, where he regaled those present with charming stories of Folsom’s early days. What he didn’t tell those present was that the people he used to regulate were paying him to promote their project and to be their attorney. He also didn’t mention his presence on the legal team that sued to block an initiative requiring a vote of the public to approve major land use changes, like the project he was promoting. We can't have that pesky democracy interfering with developer profits!
Working for those he previously regulated is corrupt enough, in fact it’s the definition of corruption to use one’s public position to promote private interests, but appearing as their advocate in court was certainly icing on the cake. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Holderness denied that the only motivation to approve the South-of-50 development he was promoting was profit for his clients after I reminded him the region has 20 years worth of infill that’s cheaper and simpler to develop, at least for the local jurisdictions.
But the real motive for outlying development is that the speculators can buy the land cheap, and sell it to builders, once they get permission to develop, for 50 - 100 times what they paid for it (income tax free!). It’s a very profitable racket. It impairs the population's health, lengthens commutes and infrastructure runs, and ultimately impoverishes its inhabitants unnecessarily.
Some other Folsom residents shared their enthusiasm about their city over coffee, telling me that South-of-50 development was inevitable. I’m afraid my frustration about the failure of land use planning locally overwhelmed whatever graciousness I might have mustered to respond, and I argued against the inevitability. I’m not even sure how “inevitability” enters into human experience since none of us can be absolutely sure we’ll wake up tomorrow...but, knowing what I know, I told them that sense of inevitability for south-of-50 development was baloney. I suppose we'll see, eventually. I do know of at least one other initiative that's in the works to require a public vote to approve major plan changes like south-of-50.
Despite my grumpy reaction, my coffee-drinking friends responded that they loved their homes, and even loved the way Folsom ran public policy. As nearly as I can tell, they knew much less about the alternative to their sprawl neighborhoods, but were willing to put that alternative down as noisy, densely packed homes where no one would want to live.
Actually, traditional, non-sprawl neighborhoods can be as urban or as rural as you like. Here is a diagram of the variety of densities available in such neighborhoods (from here):
Contradicting the conventional narrative that no one would want a traditional neighborhood, one traditional, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood (McKinley Park), is the most valuable real estate in the Sacramento region. Actual buyers spending their money made it so, not just my opinion. Certainly traditional neighborhoods do accommodate more compact development more gracefully than sprawl.
If public policy and conventional bank underwriting didn't make it so difficult to build traditional neighborhoods, impairing the supply, and if so many people weren’t bidding up prices in McKinley Park, my coffee-drinking friends could choose to live in something similar to their current circumstance--houses with yards that separate them from the neighbors--while the arrangement of home, commerce and offices (i.e. the mixed use) would let them walk to many destinations, including transit stops. Sprawl kills even the possibility of viable (i.e. non-subsidized) transit.
To make those destinations, including the transit, economically viable, the coffee drinkers would have to accept multi-family homes in their neighborhoods, but even this is not entirely unfamiliar since current sprawl standards typically permit duplexes on street corners. Four- or eight-plexes in those locations would make possible viable transit and neighborhood commerce, and would make available more affordable housing, too. Multiple stories of housing above retail centers could serve the same purpose, but conventional sprawl mall development avoids that too. And yes, while internet shopping threatens the economic viability of conventional malls, the market favors shopping centers that include housing.
Currently, the income monocultures of sprawl neighborhoods divide and alienate social classes from each other, magnifying the effects of the already egregious wealth inequality in our country. If you look at the photos in the linked McKinley Park web pages, you can see mansions next to multi-family dwellings, next to cottages, next to commerce (restaurants, etc.) next to offices (typically legal and medical). These different uses and different incomes coexist without conflict. In fact traditional neighborhoods are typically safer since there are more eyes on the street, and the public spaces are well-surveiled.
Contrary to the standard sprawl narrative, denser development does not make crime occur. NY City has a lower per-capita crime rate than sprawling Phoenix, AZ.
To appreciate the contribution poor people can make--and generosity is among their gifts--then living with them essential. Otherwise, sympathy for the poor is just some abstract talk, without much substance.
But don't traditional neighborhoods cost more to build? No. Literally nothing about the construction costs in traditional neighborhoods exceeds sprawl, and since traditional neighborhoods can accommodate density more gracefully, their infrastructure maintenance costs are more sustainable. If you do the research, you’ll see Sprawl Costs the Public More Than Twice as Much as Compact Development.
Then why is sprawl cheaper when buyers look at homes? The short version: buyers see many more such neighborhoods, and that bigger supply exists largely because of misguided current public policy (in Sacramento sprawl-to-pedestrian-friendly new construction is something like 200-to-1) and more sprawl-favoring subsidies from governments and banks mean more sprawl is what builders build.
Banks are reluctant to lend to build anything unconventional, so now that sprawl is the default, traditional neighborhoods sometimes have a harder time getting construction money. This practice originated with the racist red-lining practices of previous years. The suburbs and their sprawl were the destination of white flight.
The developers of Village Homes in Davis (currently a very desirable non-sprawl neighborhood there) had to struggle to find a bank for their construction money. Pedstrian-friendly Laguna West had to settle for lower densities than would make their commerce and transit viable because the banks would not make apartment construction loans when it was being built out.
Nevertheless, once they are built, traditional neighborhoods attract enough buyer interest that they typically sell for premiums. This is true nation-wide, not just locally. Some examples of those premiums: 40% for Kentlands, MD, 40% for Orenco Station, OR, and as much as 600% for lots in Seaside FL, compared to nearby sprawl.
The differences in the health of these neighborhoods' inhabitants are striking too. Sprawl means every single trip must be in a car, yet even a 10-minute daily walk can lead to significantly fewer late-life health problems. So it’s not a big surprise that sprawl is the nexus of the diseases of chronic inactivity--obesity, heart and artery disease, diabetes, etc.
The accessibility of various uses also means the non-driving elderly and youth can still get around and lead full lives without a chauffeur, or the expense of elder-care facilities. The requirement that everyone own a car to get around is the most regressive of our “taxes,” cruelly crushing poor people. Our cities are apparently designed for car dealers--and the absurdly wide sprawl streets are designed for garbage trucks--more than for people.
I don’t expect to persuade my coffee companions that the alternative would be nicer. They apparently are satisfied with their current circumstances. But Folsom, which saw the alternative presented by Andres Duany in 1989 when he lectured there, could have had nicer neighborhoods, more valuable, more sustainable, and healthier living conditions. Folsom's public policy makers preferred sprawl.
It’s also worth remembering that traditional neighborhoods reduce vehicle miles traveled by roughly half. Global warming is no joke. We need to do what we can to curtail it, and halving our CO2 emissions would be helpful. Building more sprawl to lengthen commutes, especially while the fastest growing demographic is the over-85 seniors who are losing their licenses, is repeating the same thing, expecting a different outcome. It's crazy.
Here’s Duany's lecture, like the one he delivered in Folsom in ‘89--it's nine 10-minute segments delivered in San Antonio. You might also read the book he co-authored: Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. At least take a look at the video to understand the design alternative to sprawl.
I am not alone in saying "modern" land-use planning is misguided. Here's one planning authority's comment: "The pseudo-science of planning seems almost neurotic in its determination to imitate empiric failure and ignore empiric success....to put it bluntly, [sprawl planners] are all in the same stage of elaborately learned superstition as medical science was early in the [19th] century, when physicians put their faith in bloodletting." —Jane Jacobs The Life and Death of the Great American City
...or, consider Houston. It has minimum lot sizes and road standards, nothing else qualifies as "planning." It has no zoning, not even a planning department. I'd defy anyone to point out a significant design difference between Houston and Sacramento. Planning, at least as Folsom and many other local governments do it, is a waste of time...but doesn't need to be.
Some Good News
There are some good recent developments worth mentioning. The State of California now mandates "Complete Streets" for new development. These streets do more than accommodate autos, they give access to pedestrians and cyclists, too. The State also now requires builders focus on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rather than level of service (LOS) when designing streets. That should encourage more traditional, pedestrian-friendly designs.
What Additional Public Policy Changes Need to Happen?
The following are changes that would make the planning process more rational, not, as it is currently, just cover for handing public money to land speculators and their shills:
That 1993 editorial
Duany's San Antonio Lecture
Update: Sacramento News & Review covers the South of 50 Development, elaborating and expanding on the web of questionable connections to this proposal.
The following comments about land use planning are based on more than a decade and a half's experience as a real estate broker. During that time I brokered, bought and sold property, appraised property professionally, and was a loan officer (mortgages, and for a brief time, SBA loans). I also sat on a Sacramento County Community Planning Advisory Council (CPAC) for nearly half that time, as Vice Chairman. So, in addition to participating in many real estate transactions, I saw plenty of Sacramento County’s planning process and sat in many hearings about land use proposals large and small.
So...this is perhaps an informed opinion. Probably not perfect, but certainly not just some random flight of fancy.
My conclusion after those years observing the process is best expressed by this editorial that appeared in the Business Journal in 1993. Not much has changed. The process is designed to fail, and working as designed. Its failure deprives the public of many amenities and is the source of some large private fortunes. Countries whose land use practice differs significantly (e.g. Germany) have a robust public realm, and things like free tuition for their universities (even for foreigners, in Germany). In the U.S., we're subjecting our students to debt peonage, and privatizing the public realm, making the economy into a series of toll booths for the benefit of some toll-collecting rentiers.
We've also heard from some of the shills for the land speculators since that 1993 editorial appeared. One of them, former Folsom Mayor Bob Holderness, appeared at a local political club to promote a developer's projects, where he regaled those present with charming stories of Folsom’s early days. What he didn’t tell those present was that the people he used to regulate were paying him to promote their project and to be their attorney. He also didn’t mention his presence on the legal team that sued to block an initiative requiring a vote of the public to approve major land use changes, like the project he was promoting. We can't have that pesky democracy interfering with developer profits!
Working for those he previously regulated is corrupt enough, in fact it’s the definition of corruption to use one’s public position to promote private interests, but appearing as their advocate in court was certainly icing on the cake. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Holderness denied that the only motivation to approve the South-of-50 development he was promoting was profit for his clients after I reminded him the region has 20 years worth of infill that’s cheaper and simpler to develop, at least for the local jurisdictions.
But the real motive for outlying development is that the speculators can buy the land cheap, and sell it to builders, once they get permission to develop, for 50 - 100 times what they paid for it (income tax free!). It’s a very profitable racket. It impairs the population's health, lengthens commutes and infrastructure runs, and ultimately impoverishes its inhabitants unnecessarily.
Some other Folsom residents shared their enthusiasm about their city over coffee, telling me that South-of-50 development was inevitable. I’m afraid my frustration about the failure of land use planning locally overwhelmed whatever graciousness I might have mustered to respond, and I argued against the inevitability. I’m not even sure how “inevitability” enters into human experience since none of us can be absolutely sure we’ll wake up tomorrow...but, knowing what I know, I told them that sense of inevitability for south-of-50 development was baloney. I suppose we'll see, eventually. I do know of at least one other initiative that's in the works to require a public vote to approve major plan changes like south-of-50.
Despite my grumpy reaction, my coffee-drinking friends responded that they loved their homes, and even loved the way Folsom ran public policy. As nearly as I can tell, they knew much less about the alternative to their sprawl neighborhoods, but were willing to put that alternative down as noisy, densely packed homes where no one would want to live.
Actually, traditional, non-sprawl neighborhoods can be as urban or as rural as you like. Here is a diagram of the variety of densities available in such neighborhoods (from here):
Contradicting the conventional narrative that no one would want a traditional neighborhood, one traditional, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood (McKinley Park), is the most valuable real estate in the Sacramento region. Actual buyers spending their money made it so, not just my opinion. Certainly traditional neighborhoods do accommodate more compact development more gracefully than sprawl.
If public policy and conventional bank underwriting didn't make it so difficult to build traditional neighborhoods, impairing the supply, and if so many people weren’t bidding up prices in McKinley Park, my coffee-drinking friends could choose to live in something similar to their current circumstance--houses with yards that separate them from the neighbors--while the arrangement of home, commerce and offices (i.e. the mixed use) would let them walk to many destinations, including transit stops. Sprawl kills even the possibility of viable (i.e. non-subsidized) transit.
To make those destinations, including the transit, economically viable, the coffee drinkers would have to accept multi-family homes in their neighborhoods, but even this is not entirely unfamiliar since current sprawl standards typically permit duplexes on street corners. Four- or eight-plexes in those locations would make possible viable transit and neighborhood commerce, and would make available more affordable housing, too. Multiple stories of housing above retail centers could serve the same purpose, but conventional sprawl mall development avoids that too. And yes, while internet shopping threatens the economic viability of conventional malls, the market favors shopping centers that include housing.
Currently, the income monocultures of sprawl neighborhoods divide and alienate social classes from each other, magnifying the effects of the already egregious wealth inequality in our country. If you look at the photos in the linked McKinley Park web pages, you can see mansions next to multi-family dwellings, next to cottages, next to commerce (restaurants, etc.) next to offices (typically legal and medical). These different uses and different incomes coexist without conflict. In fact traditional neighborhoods are typically safer since there are more eyes on the street, and the public spaces are well-surveiled.
Contrary to the standard sprawl narrative, denser development does not make crime occur. NY City has a lower per-capita crime rate than sprawling Phoenix, AZ.
To appreciate the contribution poor people can make--and generosity is among their gifts--then living with them essential. Otherwise, sympathy for the poor is just some abstract talk, without much substance.
But don't traditional neighborhoods cost more to build? No. Literally nothing about the construction costs in traditional neighborhoods exceeds sprawl, and since traditional neighborhoods can accommodate density more gracefully, their infrastructure maintenance costs are more sustainable. If you do the research, you’ll see Sprawl Costs the Public More Than Twice as Much as Compact Development.
Then why is sprawl cheaper when buyers look at homes? The short version: buyers see many more such neighborhoods, and that bigger supply exists largely because of misguided current public policy (in Sacramento sprawl-to-pedestrian-friendly new construction is something like 200-to-1) and more sprawl-favoring subsidies from governments and banks mean more sprawl is what builders build.
Banks are reluctant to lend to build anything unconventional, so now that sprawl is the default, traditional neighborhoods sometimes have a harder time getting construction money. This practice originated with the racist red-lining practices of previous years. The suburbs and their sprawl were the destination of white flight.
The developers of Village Homes in Davis (currently a very desirable non-sprawl neighborhood there) had to struggle to find a bank for their construction money. Pedstrian-friendly Laguna West had to settle for lower densities than would make their commerce and transit viable because the banks would not make apartment construction loans when it was being built out.
Nevertheless, once they are built, traditional neighborhoods attract enough buyer interest that they typically sell for premiums. This is true nation-wide, not just locally. Some examples of those premiums: 40% for Kentlands, MD, 40% for Orenco Station, OR, and as much as 600% for lots in Seaside FL, compared to nearby sprawl.
The differences in the health of these neighborhoods' inhabitants are striking too. Sprawl means every single trip must be in a car, yet even a 10-minute daily walk can lead to significantly fewer late-life health problems. So it’s not a big surprise that sprawl is the nexus of the diseases of chronic inactivity--obesity, heart and artery disease, diabetes, etc.
The accessibility of various uses also means the non-driving elderly and youth can still get around and lead full lives without a chauffeur, or the expense of elder-care facilities. The requirement that everyone own a car to get around is the most regressive of our “taxes,” cruelly crushing poor people. Our cities are apparently designed for car dealers--and the absurdly wide sprawl streets are designed for garbage trucks--more than for people.
I don’t expect to persuade my coffee companions that the alternative would be nicer. They apparently are satisfied with their current circumstances. But Folsom, which saw the alternative presented by Andres Duany in 1989 when he lectured there, could have had nicer neighborhoods, more valuable, more sustainable, and healthier living conditions. Folsom's public policy makers preferred sprawl.
It’s also worth remembering that traditional neighborhoods reduce vehicle miles traveled by roughly half. Global warming is no joke. We need to do what we can to curtail it, and halving our CO2 emissions would be helpful. Building more sprawl to lengthen commutes, especially while the fastest growing demographic is the over-85 seniors who are losing their licenses, is repeating the same thing, expecting a different outcome. It's crazy.
Here’s Duany's lecture, like the one he delivered in Folsom in ‘89--it's nine 10-minute segments delivered in San Antonio. You might also read the book he co-authored: Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. At least take a look at the video to understand the design alternative to sprawl.
I am not alone in saying "modern" land-use planning is misguided. Here's one planning authority's comment: "The pseudo-science of planning seems almost neurotic in its determination to imitate empiric failure and ignore empiric success....to put it bluntly, [sprawl planners] are all in the same stage of elaborately learned superstition as medical science was early in the [19th] century, when physicians put their faith in bloodletting." —Jane Jacobs The Life and Death of the Great American City
...or, consider Houston. It has minimum lot sizes and road standards, nothing else qualifies as "planning." It has no zoning, not even a planning department. I'd defy anyone to point out a significant design difference between Houston and Sacramento. Planning, at least as Folsom and many other local governments do it, is a waste of time...but doesn't need to be.
Some Good News
There are some good recent developments worth mentioning. The State of California now mandates "Complete Streets" for new development. These streets do more than accommodate autos, they give access to pedestrians and cyclists, too. The State also now requires builders focus on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rather than level of service (LOS) when designing streets. That should encourage more traditional, pedestrian-friendly designs.
What Additional Public Policy Changes Need to Happen?
The following are changes that would make the planning process more rational, not, as it is currently, just cover for handing public money to land speculators and their shills:
- Use-based planning that tries to anticipate whether parcels will be residential, commercial, etc. decades in advance of market demands does not and cannot work. If we want to guide development in reality, we must implement form-based planning. Form-based planning specifies building sizes and development intensity, not uses as is currently done.
- Since Proposition 13, building fees must cover the local jurisdiction’s actual infrastructure costs. In the Sacramento region, those building fees have varied wildly ($10,000 a door to $70,000 a door) while costs remain the same for those neighboring jurisdictions. If fees do not reflect actual costs, any new development starves existing neighborhoods of infrastructure. For rational planning, jurisdictions must explicitly state the calculation of these costs and building fees, and make that calculation available to the public.
- The unearned increment--the difference between the cost of land proposed for rezone and the value of the rezoned land--is an enormous subsidy for land speculation. Taxing this unearned increment, or doing as the Germans do--making developers sell the land to local government at the ag land price, then re-purchase it at the upzoned price--is the obvious remedy to this drain on civic resources.
- Rather than holding repeated hearings, the jurisdiction could empanel what amounts to a grand jury about big projects and hold a single hearing. No CPACs, and no planning commissions or other hearings would insulate those making the decision from public outrage or approval. In such “grand juries,” citizens could get educated and advocate for unbiased public good, rather than biased NIMBYism. This would provide a disinterested perspective in hearings otherwise full to overflowing with bias and contentiousness.
- The jurisdiction needs to employ facilitators who summarize the arguments of the different sides in a hearing...pro, con and "Grand Jury"... It can provide baseball hats of different colors so, at a glance, policy makers can see the size of the crowds for each point of view. This avoids endless hearings in which dozens, even hundreds of citizens line up to say “I don’t like it!” again and again, while taking account of the size of public support or dissent. The current exhaustive redundancy grinds any intelligent policy making to dust.
- Finally, we need a study of public banking, and founding public banks for public purpose. Private banking guided by profit, not public interest, currently hold a veto on design and development outcomes. If nothing else, a public bank would be able to underwrite projects in the public interest that weren’t necessarily so profitable--things like affordable housing. By offering a line of credit, they could also eliminate the need for government’s need for large reserves.
That 1993 editorial
Duany's San Antonio Lecture
Update: Sacramento News & Review covers the South of 50 Development, elaborating and expanding on the web of questionable connections to this proposal.
No comments:
Post a Comment
One of the objects if this blog is to elevate civil discourse. Please do your part by presenting arguments rather than attacks or unfounded accusations.