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.