I was appointed to the newly created 58-member Wake County Sustainability Task Force. The TF has a listserv so that TF members can communicate between the monthly meetings. As illustrated by the exchange below, the listserv is turning into a debating forum.
Michael Sanera is wise to point to problems in the implementation of smart growth. However, I don?t hear too many planners advocating ?governmental force? to achieve smart growth. First of all, there is no such ?governmental force? in NC, not with our still-omnipotent development lobby, land-use plans that are little more than elaborate ?suggestions?, and multiple rezonings that render moot much of the comprehensive planning going on here. Rather, what I see happening is planners at the forefront in fostering public-private partnerships to achieve livable and sustainable communities. Private funding and innovative public financing strategies ? not ?governmental force? – is what will get us there.
As for O?Toole, he is just another economist convinced that the unfettered ?free market? will solve all of our problems, hence his belief that government-sponsored land planning should be abolished. Right. The end product of ?the market? coupled with maladapted development rules is the very thing that has brought us to the mess we?re in. If you have any doubts on where O?Toole stands, then peruse one of his website ?fronts?: http://ti.org/antiplanner/
My response:
I must respectfully disagree. While individuals freely selecting the way they want to live
and the transportation that best suits their needs have shaped our urban
landscape, so has the use of governmental force. In most cities over the last 100 years, zoning has
determined what can be built where. Residents of cities all across the country who wanted to live in
mixed-use developments were prevented by the planning ideology that required
the separation of uses into residential, commercial and industrial areas. Zoning prevented developers from
building mixed-use buildings to serve that proportion of a community, somewhere
between 10 and 20 percent, that wanted to live in a mixed building. If a
developer were so foolish to build in violation of the zoning regulations,
government would use force to make him modify the building or tear it
down. Ask 84 year-old Kate Hearn
who built a covered carport in violation of the historic
preservation regulations in Oakwood. The N&O reports here: ?So far, she’s been assessed a $500 fine, though
city officials have indicated that could be waived if she gets rid [tears down
her new $4,000 carport] of the carport.? I think you will agree that is using
governmental force.
Regarding Mr. O?Toole?s research, I would rather discuss the
numbers he uses to back up his conclusions about Portland. For example, ?more than 97 percent of
all motorized passenger travel in Portland area is by automobile.? ?Since 2002
it [transit?s share of motorized passenger travel] has stagnated or slightly
fallen.? Over the last 35 years it
has never been higher than 2.6 percent. One measure of urban sprawl is population density. Higher densities mean
less sprawl. Between 1990 and 2000
Portland?s urbanized area density increased by 10.6 percent compared to Kansas
City 39 percent, Phoenix 34 percent, Dallas-Ft. Worth 33 percent. Where are the people going? They are
moving outside the urban-growth boundary to Vancouver, Washington and Salem,
Oregon where they can afford to buy a larger house with a front and back
yard. More congestion: ?between
1982 and 2003, the amount of time the average commuter wasted in traffic
increased more rapidly in Portland than in Atlanta, Boston, Denver, Los
Angeles, New York, Phoenix or San Francisco?more, in fact, than in almost any
other U.S. urban area.?
