And Occasionally We Still Have The Good Corporate Citizen

In my previous post I commented on Pfizer pulling out of New London after the city went to the mat to provide the company with everything they could have hoped for. I commented on the concept of many corporations not being good corporate citizens and making a commitment to their communities.

HOWEVER, it is always thrilling to see that some entities recognize what the spirit of community means. Hats off to Sterilite for all it has done for the Town of Townsend! Hopefully others will follow such an example.

A grand gift to the town from the man you can’t see

Kelo Redux

These articles crossed my desk this week.

Pfizer's Leaving – But New London Opportunities Remain

Pfizer to Leave City That Won Land-Use Case

A Turning Point for Eminent Domain?

Given all the hoopla that was stirred up when Kelo V. New London first happened, I am surprised there has not been more about this occurrence. Unfortunately for New London, and perhaps equally unfortunate for anyone in the economic development field, Pfizer's decision to pull out of New London casts a dark shadow over the eminent domain discussion.

As the "Turning Point" discussion points out, the Kelo decision was not about Pfizer. It was about the extent to which a community could pursue eminent domain proceedings to better a community. However, the Pfizer move is clearly an example of how tenuous economic development can be. Long ago the idea of corporate responsibility to a community started to lag and disappear. Corporate tax breaks and land deals have promoted a footloose and fancy free approach for most corporations that are driven more by a bottom line than being good economic citizens in a community. This example only tends to reinforce that notion.

A Few Choice Quotes From The NY Times

The NY Times had an interesting article/opinion piece today, Home Builders (You Heard That Right) Get a Gift. The article deals with a new tax relief program that provides benefit home builders. That, however, is not the focus of my interest. Back several months ago I was comenting on several articles in the Boston Globe related to housing. Those articles were blaming the state's economic crisis on inadequate home building and suggesting we would be better off being more like Florida or California. Here are the quotes:

"Among the biggest beneficiaries are home builders, analysts say. Once again, at the front of the government assistance line, stand some of the very companies that contributed mightily to the credit crisis by building and financing too many homes. "

"But dropping helicopter money on the home builders — the folks who massively overbuilt in community after community — seems decidedly less urgent (unless you are one of these companies, of course). Given that the supply of housing far outstrips demand, it is unlikely that these companies will use these tax breaks to hire workers (unless they go into a completely new line of business)."

Hopefully those who believe the lower levels of housing constuction in Massachusetts will soon understand that balancing supply and demand is more appropriate than hoping "if you build it they will they will come."

On The Front Lines Of Being Green

We are all looking for ways to save on our energy bills. Sometimes all we need to do is to look to our past. How many of us remember fresh sheets or towels straight off the clothesline? Who would have thought these simple devices would wind up defining the battlefield over being green, energy savings, and property rights? The following articles from the NY times provides a little enlightenment:

Debate Follows Bills to Remove Clotheslines Bans

A Line in the Yard: The Battle Over the Right to Dry Outside

Recently, local energy companies have challenged us to reduce our energy use by 3%. Given both these aticles suggest that dryers consume 6% of household energy use, line drying would make this an easy to accomplish goal.

For years homeowners associations have been trying to enforce uniformity, establishing prohibitions on clotheslines, placing requirements on lawn cutting, etc. They see it as "protecting property rights." But whose rights are they protecting? In establishing these "protections" they are trampling all over the rights of individual property owners.

Clotheslines are just one restriction. Many also restrict solar panels and other energy savings devices that may change the look of the outside of the home. It is clearly time for homeowners associations to realize that the "rights" they are protecting are actually infringements on the rights of many.

Right Sizing

Make the Motor City Smaller, I have seen several articles lately about how Detroit is changing. Much of it addressing how the city is adjusting to the loss of jobs and over a million residents. The changes taking place will be interesting to follow. Right sizing the city could create many new opportunities for promoting the greening of the city, urban gardening and new, urban, homesteading. However, the changes also could threaten many historical resources. Thereby losing much of what created the Motor City. You can look at some of our older cities here in Massachusetts at similar impacts, but on a smaller scale. The Valley Arena in Holyoke had a great history, hosting many famous boxers. It became vacant, burned, and was never replaced. Many of the paper and silk mills in Holyoke are also gone, or are barely shells of their old selves. As cities right size, we will all have to work towards preserving the history, through promoting reuse, that will otherwise be lost forever.

WOW! Harsh

Saw this article last week, Appeal of 'illegal' Milford two-family house denied, there is one quote I found telling. The comment that the owners of the million dollar homes were the only ones who mattered when it came to the vision for that particular neighborhood. There is no denying the property owner in question violated zoning and was in the wrong. It is too bad though that the people who seem to have recently moved to the area believe that the people who do all the grunt work do not deserve to live near the water.

And We Thought The ANR Process Was Bad...

It is not statewide, but can you imagine a zoning by-law that essentially gave family land transfers a free walk when it came to subdivision? That is what the following article suggests is allowed in Suffolk Virginia. From the tone of the editorial, the process if far more ripe for abuse than even our Approval Not Required process!

Developers chummy with family land law

Interesting Smart Growth Discussions

A couple of interesting items on "Smart Growth." What makes them interesting is that they point out some of the flaws in the thought process.


New study shows promise and pitfalls of 'smart growth' planning


Smart Growth Policies

The Lincoln Institute Survey, and the New Jersey Conservation Foundation opinion piece point out that smart growth should not be taken up in a piece-meal fashion where everyone gets a piece of everything. The Pinelands, Meadowlands and Highlands regions of New Jersey are highlighted. I have been to a couple presentations on the Pinelands Commission and can recognize what they are doing, at the regional level, is far superior to some proposals currently floating around.

The idea of smart growth needs to start with the idea that not all areas are equal. Some areas should be seen for their value as recreational areas, some as farm lands, and some as urban nodes. Not every community will have all three. Certain parts of the state need to be recognized for their ability to meet a set of needs, and be protected against competing state interests.

For instance, housing is important in areas where there are jobs, transit facilities and pedestrian access. Housing replacing farmland because everybody must have more homes, simply is not smart growth. These policies cost us open space, increase the use of the automobile and places needy families into areas without job support. Hardly smart.

As the discussions continue on zoning reform, an emphasis needs to be placed on knowing what particular regions of the state are all about, and establishing a zoning reform package that can really achieve this. The Community Planning Act comes close to achieving these goals.

Pulling The Rug Out From Under The Recovery

Mortgage deductions may change Scary story. Just as the housing market has begun to recover, changes are being contemplated to change the ground rules.

The mortgage tax deduction is a political minefield. On the one hand, renters are not provided an opportunity to deduct any portion of their rent from their income. Thus making the mortgage deduction an easy target in the name of housing equity.

However, the mortgage deduction is quite attractive to homebuyers and removing the mortgage interest deduction will make many by-pass home ownership. This in turn will eliminate many of the jobs that are just beginning to recover from the past couple of years downturn.

Just something to think about.

A Dangerous Affordable Housing Mandate Precedent

I saw the article below and started to worry. We have towns that have met their Chapter 40B requirements in the state. We have already seen how the statute has been used to suggest that a community which has met its target can still be required to approve a project that came forward before they had achieved the target. Basically rendering the Chapter 40B attainment meaningless.

The entire Chapter 40B concept has followed closely the affordable housing policies and legal path that has occurred in New Jersey, the case discussed below puts a further burden on communities in New Jersey by establishing that, even though they may meet their mandate, that achievement means nothing and they are still subject to even greater affordable housing levels.

Nonprofit wins appeal to build low-income houses

I know the posts here suggest that I have a problem with affordable housing. That is not the case. We clearly need affordable housing. However, we need to see protections put into place for wetlands, appropriate design, and sustainable densities.

Several communities on the Cape are faced with a double whammy, pursuing Chapter 40B while also facing down sewer mandates that may be put into place under litigation. Chapter 40B clearly puts into place densities that are not always sustainable. We need to recognize this and protect our communities, in appropriate means. This can only be done with proper planning. The Community Planning Act provides such a mechanism for proper planning to achieve appropriate local goals - including appropriate levels of affordable housing.