What does the term "Smart Growth" mean to you? It's one of those terms whose original meaning has been washed away under a deluge of rhetoric, obfuscation, bureaucratic co-option and developer-marketing brochures.
Two things reminded me of what we ought to be thinking about, if we're trying to grow in a smart way in this region.
Today, I ran across this article (link) from David Crossley of Houston Tomorrow about a Texas Smart Growth bill that Gov. Rick Perry vetoed. Crossley writes that Perry (and many large developers) prefer the status quo of land speculation and intense government subsidies of sprawl development. It's an interesting look at how another fast-growing Sun Belt state is dealing (or not dealing with) with its challenges.
That piggybacked on a discussion yesterday with Rebecca Yarbrough of the regional CONNECT effort (in which two Charlotte area Councils of Government and the Charlotte Regional Partnership are working on regional growth/environment initiatives). She was trying to describe what happens when incremental growth decisions add up to a larger, more costly future.
Imagine a Farmer Jones, she said. He's getting old and decides not to farm anymore. So he starts selling off his land, piecemeal, to developers. After all, his land is his version of a pension or a 401(k) – his retirement fund. He's perfectly free to make these decisions, of course. We all make decisions like that.
But as his land is developed over time into several subdivisions, those decisions have significant impacts on the taxpayers of his county. That's because government services to suburban subdivisions typically cost more than the government recoups in taxes. (Numerous studies bear this out, although obviously it isn't universally true. Very expensive or very dense mixed-use subdivisions would show different results.) The subdivisions also cost more than the services typically provided to farmland. So Farmer Jones' private and understandable decisions about retirement eventually add significant costs to his county government – and his county's taxpayers.
A smart county trying to make smart decisions about its growth would recognize that it needs to help the Farmer Joneses AND make growth decisions with more forethought than simply reacting to the ad hoc results of disconnected private decisions. That the challenge that many metro regions face.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Is it Smart Growth or something else?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
40 comments:
"Smart Growth" is and always has been a dishonest phrase meant to imply that anyone opposed to whatever is advertised under its banner is an advocate of "dumb" growth.
Other such arrogant terms that mean to intimidate and suffocate reasoned debate are "21st century thinking", "affirmative action", "progressive", and most recently, "public option".
Liberal meddling? Choo choos?
There's a catch in all this that the author failed to mention. If Farmer Jones was smart he wouldn't sell his land because his pension plan is the regular check he receives in government subsidies. It's the best and most lucrative annuity out there. If govco got rid of farm subsidies his land wouldn’t be valued as high and the city could recoup a much larger portion of the infrastructure costs without increasing costs to the developer and ultimately the home buyers. That would significantly lower the true cost of 'smart growth' and put an end to a large amount of tax money wasted on useless entitlement programs. It’s a win/win for all....well except for Farmer Jones because he’ll actually have to work for his money by farming instead of getting a handout for not growing crops.
I have been very critical of your stand on illegals but on this I agree 100%. Why is growth good. Can growth continue for hundreds of years. I hope not. We actually have way to many people in this county and the world.
The poster that just made the farm subsidy comments above couldn't be more wrong.
Protecting the food supply of this country is and should be one of the top priorities of our government. The cost of our farm bills are largely overstated and a bit of a problem since many programs fall under it. The vast majority is used for school lunch programs, WIC, and other poverty progams. A lesser portion goes to the farmers that we rely on.
Do some research on what other country's around the world get in terms of subsidies and you'll notice that the USA has much fewer subsidies, yet the cheapest food in the world.
Thank you American Farmer and the gov for taking care of them.
Smart Growth is far from a dishonest phrase. It is an idea that has been dilluted and watered down from its original good intentions. The article is right that it does need to step in and help the farmer either by buying the land or intiating impact taxes and fees for those that want to live that far from the city and still require its water, roads, and power. Portland, Oregon is where Smart Growth was started and as you can see by there it has worked successfully. The problem is that each city has taken Smart Growth and dilluted and changed its goals, and then other cities adopt those ideas and then change it as well therefore reducing its meaning and its value to nothing.
Farm subsidies are one of the biggest entitlement programs out there. If a farmer can't make it farming, maybe he/she needs to find another capitalistic endeavor.
I love that you look to Texas and their great governor Rick Perry for answers to our problems.
NC or SC could only be so lucky to have a governor so great. We need a Texas A&M Aggie up here as well to right the ship.
Good article Mary.
If you think farmers are making money hand over fist and getting $$$ like crazy.....why don't you start farming?
The truth is, it's tough even with limited support. Many are barely getting by and many are failing. It's a challenging occupation.
Any idea what farm input costs are like nowadays?
You are out of touch. Where are these millionaire farmers you hate so bad?
Smart Growth is a phrase that urban planners and landscape architects use to justify their jobs. Not that they can do it because of all the sprawl that has occured. Growth is just that, GROWTH. It expands, enlarges, fills up, GROWS.
And don't forget this tree huggers, retail/office/industry follows the home construction, not ahead of it.
Maybe the term should be "Smarter Growth" in that land development methods should be constantly improved by learning from inefficiencies and mistakes from the past. Government development regulations should also be improved or modified. Too many times the government regulators or planners think that their principles are correct 100% of the time and do not need to be flexible. It's funny to watch the land planners require shorter block lengths thereby requiring more streets and sidewalks while the water quality regulators levy more taxes on the impervious areas that the planners policies spawn.
I love the argument that residential growth is a burden on existing tax payers. Mary, there are numerous other articles that state otherwise. What you (and any other new-urbanist types) fail to realize is the business aspect of it...first come the roof tops, then comes the commericial space and eventually then come the jobs/industrial. You see, residential DOES pay for itself but it doesn't happen overnight. If you studied the live-work concept a little more you would know that commercial isn't viable in these areas as a stand alone business. Birkdale would not survive if it wasn't for all of the neighborhoods around it. One last thing...I am not sure when you moved to Charlotte, but at one point either you or your parents were "newcomers" to Charlotte as well. There had to have been some growth to allow you to move to the area and my guess is that existing residents welcomed you with open arms...why is it that you write articles which don't allow the same opportunity for someone else looking ot move to the area?
In my mind:
Growth - the development of land.
Smart Growth - the development of land for a community.
Its perfectly legal, as it should be, to buy a piece of land, build a store and walk away with profits. This is growth. Smart growth would also consider how the store impacts the city, ie traffic in front of the school across the street, noise created at the neighborhood next door, sidewalks for people who need to walk back and forth safely to places on either side of the store but don't need to go in.
I do not like the term 'smart growth' that people can sell and market. Doing whats best for you and others is just responsibility.
(defining responsibility, is where we all fail)
Anonymous 1:23, unless you were being facetious, you completely missed Mary's point about Gov. Perry.
One thing most people forget is that it is the JOBS that come first. Jobs bring people to the area, they buy houses, shops and services follow, providing more jobs, and the cycle repeats. Want to control growth? Really? Then don't allow any new jobs, and as companies close, don't allow new one's to fill the vacancy. Very shortly, you won't have a growth problem at all. If there are no jobs here, people will move to where the jobs are. Eventually, we can get rid of the newspapers, and this author, and go back to farming and living off the land. That is the logical conclusion of what this author and her ilk advocate. They just haven't thought the process through, imagine that. So if they really want to see more farmland and less growth, crank the bus and start the procession youself.
Anon at 2:43, I totally agree.
personally, I think the egg came before the chicken.
I disagree with the liberal author of this story. She is so misinformed and is the reason why I will never spend any money on advertising in this paper. I think she writes this crap just to stir the pot and get people fired up. Little does she know that she is chasing away advertising $$$.
Furthermore, residential growth does pay for itself. Property taxes are only a small piece of the puzzle. It creates jobs for local workers and is necessary to house the thousands of newcomers to this Metro area each year. Residential growth also provides employment to the many "smart growth" planners in the planning departments. Controlling this growth is easy if local and state government will just back up....it's called the economy. The current economy is doing a fine job of slowing this growth.
Your article leads me to believe you are a thinking person, but you do not appear to be in pictures.
Another "not-so-subtle" attempt at trying to convince everyone that "urban" living is the best way to live. Where do you draw the line on sprawl. I live way out and enjoy the peace and quiet. If I had to live uptown or even somewhere like Myers Park, I would go ballistic if I had to put up with neighbors that I could actually see. When you try to cram the entire population into a radius of five miles to center city, I guess Myers Park and Dilworth would have to be bulldozed because of how close they are uptown to make room for high-rise buildings.
Well, from my perspective:
Anyone who thinks that farming is lucrative and is laden with subsidies needs to look again. This isn't the 1970's. Many of the subsidies are gone, and the capitalization costs for farming are dramatic. Farmer Jones isn't getting any special breaks here.
Residential growth does NOT pay for itself. The only studies or research I know of that makes this argument is funded by realtors and others who have a vested interest in residential construction. Most objective assessments find that unless the value of the home is very high-end, it will cost more in services that it will generate in revenues or economic benefit. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen of course, it is a key component of a well-planned and vibrant community. But it must be smartly done. Hmm. smart...growth.
But it is not the engine driving the train.
To me, "Smart Growth" incorporates roads, sidewalks and other means of transportation (i.e. Greenways) in order to get around your local area or community. For example, you should be able to go to a few restaurants or a grocey store nearby without having to use a car much. It would involve high density development coupled with conveniences that most people living nearby could easily access. Ultimately, this would be more convenient for people living in that type development and reduce pollution and traffic for everyone else. Therefore, it does benefit everyone to have "Smart Growth."
If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say that all they really want is "a nice house on 5 acres of land in the country", I would be rich. Personally, I just don't get the appeal, but to each his/her own.
All I know is that the growth of human settlement has to come to an almost complete stop. We humans are destroying the earth. The current hot topic is global warming from all the carbon dioxide that we put out. (yes, I know cows put out c02 also).
We are just coming off 2 years of severe drought. It seems reasonable that there probalby is not enough water to support our population here in NC over the long term. So the availability of fresh and clean water is also a big problem. There is also light pollution. Can anyone in Charlotte see lots of stars at night? I can't. Sometimes a few of the bright ones come through. There are so many good reasons to limit the growth of human real estate development that many books can be written on the topic. Of course, we can continue to destroy the earth and eventually growth will stop - just like after an algae bloom. We won't have air to breath or water to drink so we will die. Disease and lack of food will also get lots of us.
hey "anonymous" who posted at 6:26 - so what is your great idea to have "zero population growth" If human consumption of resources is bothering you that bad how about taking yourself out of the mix. That way you won't consume anything and we won't have to listen to your liberal BS. In fact, I kinda wish your parents had practiced zero population growth as it would accomplish the same thing!
Smart Growth is not having more kids than you can support in housing that you can afford long-term that is located in a dense enough setting to make optimum use of tax-funded services and public transportation so that we have more trees to scrub the CO2 out of the atmosphere and less polluting machines running amok and driven by folks who, if they had followed that model to being with, wouldn’t be worrying about an economic downswing.
Anon 6:46 Totally agree.
Hey as far as I am concerned if the developer wants to build on that farm more power to him. That is if they are willing to pay the actual cost of the development. Just add a fee on to the deal for the new school. A portion of the new lane on the interstate, the new water line and so on. I have a feeling once those things are added in you might have a lot of developers asking for maps of the existing sewer lines so they can find the extra capacity. The problem with the current system is that developers make the big money by getting the taxpayer to pay the up front cost. Then they cash out and leave the taxpayers to deal with the long term cost.
"Smart Growth" is ANYTHING that is NOT Atlanta-style growth. Anything.
The same people who say taxes are theft, voted for Bush-twice. By far the most catastropic, criminal administration in the history of this country.
And the Bush voters sat there for 8 years with their fingers stuck in their mouths.
Oh yeah! You guys really do care about small govt. and low taxes. Give me a break. Go read a book.
Consultant:
I doubt the Bush voting fanatics had their fingers stuck in their mouths. Think further south.
I develop most of my political philosophy while drunk.
This allows me to take advantage of the Main Propositions: I am faster than the Flash, I am Invisible, and I am Bulletproof.
This little set of Founding Principles allows me to build the most glorious philosophical edifices.
The First Corollaries are, I Am Infinitely Rich, I Can Dig Myself out of Any Hole, and I Have an Alibi.
Huh???!!!
I thought this was an English language blog. What lanquage was that above?
Irony. No one uses it around here so I really ought to stop.
Bush was nothing more than a big gov't politician. The same as OBAMA. And yes TAXATION IS THEFT! And no I did not vote for either candidate.
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates" Tacitus
The Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT) announced in today’s Charlotte Observer an Obama-style stimulus plan to “green-walk” the city with rubber sidewalks.
Test strips are being laid along The Plaza and West 28th Street. While the city will wait until test results have been evaluated before diving whole-hog into the scheme, officials are already touting the benefits: rubber is cooler on the tootsies, and unlike concrete doesn’t burn unless temperature rise to 500 degrees, something that happens frequently here in the summertime.
More importantly, Charlotte’s large number of trees will benefit, since rubber sidewalks stretch when pushed by tree roots, while concrete sidewalks merely crack. “Sure, rubber sidewalks may end up looking like roller coaster tracks, but we’ll save on repairing the concrete,” explained 95-year-old I. M. Greene, a Plaza-Midwood resident and optimist who will walk the test strips daily to note their wear and tear. He felt that the test would probably last at least 10 years, the time required to see the true impact of root growth on the rubbery walkways. “Just think about those big trees lining Queens Road West. Isn’t the city constantly working on those Myers Park sidewalks? What! What do you mean ‘No’?” queried citizen Greene.
The cost of rubber sidewalks also meshes favorably with government tendencies to overspend. A CDOT official commented that concrete costs about $20 per linear foot, while the rubber costs about $80 per linear foot. The life span of concrete sidewalks is usually 50 to 60 years, while rubber sidewalks last more than 15, or maybe 30 if you flip them regularly.
Undaunted, the city is still proceeding with financing the test strips, goaded by City Councilwoman Susie Hemlock Willowoak, who first suggested the rubber sidewalks. Her efforts have not gone unnoticed by her fellow Democrat in the White House. The Prez told AP this week that he was delighted to learn of another outlandish stimulus bailout to aid the nation’s stricken tire and auto industry.
Washington, D.C., police are under fire from the NAACP, Harvard University, the Seven Dwarfs and the Three Little Pigs after arresting a black man who claims he was just breaking into his own residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Police, responding to a 911 call from a neighbor, Lafayette Park, entered the large home, which tax records show is owned by the People of the United States of America. Inside they encountered The Man, one B. H. Obama II, who told police he had just returned from a trip to Europe and realized he had lost his key to the front door.
He said he then forced his way inside by using his usual method of block voting and glib promises.
When officers asked Obama for identification, according to the report, he allegedly became confrontational, yelling “you know who I am!”
“Who does this guy think he is, Marion Barry? We know who the real owners of that house are,” explained Sgt. Pepper Band, one of two African-American policemen who investigated the incident. “So we asked for some ID. And we hauled him down to headquarters for further questioning because he presented a somewhat suspect birth certificate as proof he was eligible to be there. The only thanks we got for doing our jobs were for him to call us ‘racists’”.
Lafayette Park said he was confused about the episode. “We participate in a Neighborhood Watch program around here. You see something suspicious, you’re supposed to call the cops and have them check it out. But I guess Mr. Obama feels that he is above having to undergo the potential aggravation that sometimes goes with the program.”
“He’s a great guy,” Park continued. “But he has an opinion about everything - sort of a control freak. Last year he told everybody who would win the NCAA basketball title, as though we really care. And he’s always inviting guys to come over there an sit down with him for a beer bash.”
Police records show that in 2008, Mr. Obama was suspected of stealing an election from the wife of a former resident of the house.
Post a Comment