More on Erosion and Takings

A New York Times article, A Stake in the Sand, provides more information on a subject I wrote about back in December. Given all the flooding issues I have been reading about lately, I find some of the landowner arguments humorous. On the one hand we have the state taking steps to protect private property owners from the destructive forces of the sea. In doing this, the state is establishing a stake in the newly created beach area (formerly submerged) for the public. The private property owners, who were at risk of losing their homes without the government intervention are arguing that they should be the sole people able to enjoy the benefits of this public investment, adding to their private land holdings, and ultimately their financial value.

I find the humor in this, in that the recent flooding in the northeast has pointed out just how much we tempt fate with our land development. We build in flood plains along our rivers. We build on top of coastal dunes. When it is suggested that these areas are unsafe, and that these areas require additional flood insurance we scream and shout about the expense. But when we are flooded, or washed away, we turn around and ask the government to cover our rebuilding expenses, and to protect us from the ocean or rivers.

The great-great-grandson of the founder of Destin said it right:

“people didn’t build over there, because only a fool would live over there....”

High Speed Rail and Sprawl

I saw this article today and had to share it, High-Speed Rail As a Conduit of Sprawl. Years ago, when I wore my Transportation Planner hat, I made similar assertions regarding Commuter Rail services between Boston and Worcester. I argued, based upon data for residential development patterns along other rail lines, that the rail network between the two cities would open up new areas between them for additional sprawl. I based this upon basic travel times. If the average commuter is willing to spend XX amount of time commuting and we open up new areas to that travel time, why wouldn't you expect people to locate in those areas?

When I offered this argument, nearly twenty years ago, I was soundly criticized as being anti-transit and anti-rail. So i feel somewhat vindicated by reading quotes such as the one below. The authors are correct, before we expand high speed rail, we need to address suburban and exurban land use.

“High-speed rail will simply add another layer of access to the far-flung suburbs/exurbs and Central Valley, resulting in more mass-produced subdivisions,” warns Robert Cervero, director of the University of California Transportation Center and author of Development Around Transit.

Approval Not Required and Zoning Freezes

An interesting article out of Easthampton, MA, Easthampton Landowners move to 'defend' Route 10 property for possible development. Without getting into the merits of the zoning proposal, the article is quite revealing relative to the absurdity of grandfathering in Massachusetts. These Approval Not Required Plans lock in land use "rights" even when, in the words of one land owner, "There are no plans to develop the parcel immediately."

It really is amazing that one can vest "rights" for something that has not been even conceived in ones imagination. This truly illustrates the need to do away with the "Approval Not Required Plan".

Fair Housing Problems - Giving Children a Place To Play

A couple of news stories:

Children's play restrictions spur suit

Single moms file bias complaint against condo manager

Lately I have been seeing more and more stories about people in multi-family condominium living arrangements having problems. Obviously living in the close quarters such as a condominium project, where there are limited private yards is going to lead to a conflict between those with children and those without. Unfortunately, it appears that these conflicts are leading to attempts to drive out children.

As planners this private conflict becomes also a public one. Many condominium projects come forward as means to either protect open areas on a site, or to make allowances for more affordable housing. Often, achieving these lofty goals, leave behind the idea of creating a user friendly environment.

As we review multi-family housing, as planners we need to remember that we are placing people in very close quarters. We need to remember that the big back yard of a traditional single family subdivision is lost, in exchange for common area. These common areas need to be designed to provide for areas where different residents can find solace, or active entertainment. A project with multiple bedroom units clearly needs to include areas specifically designated for children to play. These areas need to address areas for playing baseball or basketball or skateboarding. Things that often take place in lower density neighborhoods.

The designs should also look at more quite, contemplative areas. Areas for the older, empty-nest residents to enjoy away from the hustle and bustle of children play areas.

Passive open space, perhaps needs to be traded off to create these active areas in condominium projects.

As the two situations described above points out, we also may need to include conditions in site approvals that protect the rights of children to play.

This Is Just So Wrong On So Many Levels

I subscribe through RSS to Planning and Zoning Headlines. It provides me with an opportunity to see news reports from around the country on various planning issues. I have found it to be quite interesting to read about various planning initiatives in other areas. It is quite amazing the number of different news stories that come up everyday. However, occasionally an article comes along that makes you ask "is this for real?"

The following story out of Greensboro provides one such example, Zoning Says Students, Chemicals a Good Mix. The article clearly points out the importance of Master Planning, and sticking to it. To think that residents would essentially use other people as the "canary in a coal mine" to try to force out a long-time business is astounding. The fact that the zoning panel in the article actually agreed with the neighbors who supported a rezoning so that people would be living on top of a chemical plant is dumbfounding.

No one in the article is quoted as saying the paint factory should be rezoned. The description of the land uses in the article clearly illustrate that the heavy industry zoning for the property is appropriate. The idea of rezoning land, located on top of such a zoning district to any form of residential seems mistaken.

Perhaps We Need a New Approach

Recently the Barnstable Old King's Highway Historic District Committee denied the erection of a wind turbine at Cape Cod Community College. This action was not an isolated incident as there are examples of similar actions across the country in historic areas. Some states have even taken to stripping historical commissions of their authority to review wind and solar installations.

Perhaps, proponents of wind and solar need to pursue a new approach. The National Park Service, among many others, has raised concerns about the impacts of acid rain on historic structure, What are we doing about acid rain?

Perhaps, we need to pursue this angle. We have focused much of our discussions on the energy savings - and dollar amount - saved by entities seeking to use solar and wind in historic areas. It might be time to quantify the savings in tons of pollutants removed, reductions in acid rain producing compounds in the environment.

As planners we might want to direct our historic committee members to read a few of the documents that are out there on the impacts of acid rain, such as Acid Rain and Our Nation's Capital which discusses the impacts of acid rain on limestone and granite buildings. We need to direct them to the impacts on homes, Acid Rain's Effect on Your Home, to illustrate the increase in maintenance costs, costs which can be quite extensive on historic properties. We need to point out, ultimately, that acid rain is directly related to fossil fuel burning for electricity.

We need to point out that, for every megawatt of energy produced by a wind or solar installation, 20 tons of sulfer dioxide and nitrogen oxide (the two leading contributors to acid rain) are avoided.

Finally, we need to point out that the same chemicals which cause acid rain also produce smog and haze, ruining most peoples views of our lovely part of the world.

Perhaps this approach needs to be explored prior to stripping historical commissions of some of their review powers.