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.

When In Doubt Change The Rules?

Base redevelopment is never easy. It is even more difficult when there are several communities involved. I grew up near Westover Air Force Base when it was closed. I would say that it has never met its full potential. When I worked in NH I got to see first hand the process with Pease Air Force Base. Even there, the redevelopment process has always been a challenge.

At Fort Devens the redevelopment process has three towns to satisfy. This is a real challenge. The process requires endorsement by all three communities. If one community says no, then a zoning action is vetoed. This recently happened:

BASE NEWS: Towns deadlock on ex-base redevelopment
Fort Devens' Vicksburg site abandoned since '96 closure

Now some may say that the action of one community should not be able to block the development desires of the other participants. It actually provides an interesting twist on home-rule, should one town be able to veto the vote of the other two participants in the process? However, should two communities be able to dictate to a neighbor? Clearly base redevelopment is tricky and requires agreement at the beginning of the process. That agreement appears to have been put into place at Fort Devens. However, as the article notes, the single town veto has raised the ire of those with particular development desires. Now they want to change the rules.

Without getting into the merits of a particular zoning plan, the idea that changing the rules when you cannot get what you want just does not sit well. Rules need to be agreed to at the beginning for a multi-community effort, otherwise, why should towns consider surrendering even a slice of their home rule powers.

Hopefully those at Fort Devens seeking to change the agreed to rules will reconsider and pursue a new development strategy that leads to buy in by all involved, rather than trying to force one community to do something the town does not believe to be in their best interest.

How Can This Be A Chapter 40B Project?

Reading Boston.com and saw the following article:

His home for sale, Hastings says he’s fine

What struck me in this article was that the particular developer had a Chapter 40B project with "market rate" housing units selling for over $1 million while the affordable housing was selling in the $170,000 range. This seemed like quite the range of prices. The story below provides information on these affordable units.

Affordable housing available in Hingham

Looking further at the project the "market rate" units start at $825,000. These "market rate" housing units exceed the average household in Hingham's ability to pay by nearly doble what they could pay. The median household income in Hingham being $110,699 in 2007 which would qualify them for just under a $400,000.

In fact, this affordable housing project, if it could be called that, will mix households with incomes of about $60,000 with households of about $170,000 to almost $275,000 annually.

Chapter 40B is intended to provide "equivalent" housing, such that you cannot tell the difference between the Chapter 40B units in a project and the market rate housing units. In a project with and 800% difference in unit sales prices, it is hard to imagine that the units are equivalent on the inside and outside.

Perhaps, the project in question could have been of greater benefit to Hingham than the 5 units (as a Chapter 40B project 25% would require at least 12 of the units be affordable???) of housing described by the Patriot Ledger article had the developer been required to provide a local housing trust with 25% of the gross project value to be used for development of appropriate mixed income housing.

Scaling The Hill: 40-B Abuse

I have posted a few discussions on Chapter 40B. This post is linked to a blog posting by the Massachusetts Senate Republican Caucus. It points out some of the problems. Their proposal will provide a start on reforming Chapter 40B, but there will still be a long way to go.

Scaling The Hill: 40-B Abuse

Farms and Residential Neighbors

I saw the following two stories this week and they kind of brought me back to an earlier time. While in high school and college I worked on a farm in Hadley. Over the years some neighboring farms were converted to residential developments (some using Chapter 40B). These developments created conflicts for the remaining farmers as the new neighbors had many complaints. They were concerned with what we were spraying on the farms. They were concerned about the early and late hours of the farm operations. They did not like the dust that was kicked up during the spring and fall. They did not like the 7 day a week operations. It was quite clear that the proximity of the houses to the active farm operations were not a "marraige made in heaven."

So, I have to agree with the farmers in New country dwellers worry some regional farmers I believe that they are right. The new neighbors will be complaining about the farm operations. You only need to look at this more nearby story, Town To Keep Eye On Pigs' Stinky Situation, the farm operation has expanded, in the words of the neighbors. If you Google this farm, Krochmal Farm, and look at the cached pages (it looks like the farm took down its website) you find that the farm has been in existence for a hundred years. The houses clearly came to them.

Why am I going on about this? It simply once again points out that, without a comprehensive land use policy at all levels, we will continue to promote land conflicts. Chapter 40B, the Land Use Partnership Act and many other state growth policies conflict with our state's agricultural history and our needs to protect our farms and open spaces.

"Where Are We Going to Charge Our Cars?"

Planetizen provided the following teaser for a Wall Street Journal story Where Are We Going To Charge Our Cars? I found the question interesting. Twelve years ago I left the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. At that time I had been working for several years through the Clean Cities Program to promote the development of electric vehicle facilities. The MBTA has located EV charging facilities in Braintree and Alewife Stations. These facilities were powered with solar panels.

The program was to be a model for all to follow. Boston Edison, one of the participants, and the MAPC were promoting the concept of electric vehicle recharging facilities at major employment centers and shopping centers. Opportunity recharge was a big part of preparing the Boston Region for the introduction of EV's. In addition, Boston Edison was working to promote paddle type electric vehicle chargers, known as fast chargers, at gasoline stations. The fast charge was intended to provide a five minute or less charge, in line with normal gasoline refilling. Unfortunately, the state backed off of the ZEV requirements (pushed by EPA I believe), if not, we would not be asking this basic question today.

I know after I left MAPC, the agency lost interest in the Clean Cities Program and the Electric Vehicle Pilot Program. The project was picked up by DOER and has moved forward cautiously ever since. The new push for EV's may be just what the Clean Cities Program needs to gain momentum once again.

In Massachusetts, the model is there for EV recharging. Just dust off the Electric Vehicle Pilot Program from the early and mid 1990's that was spearheaded by MAPC and DOER.

Why Propose A Development So Out Of Line With Zoning?

This article from the Boston Globe is simply astounding. Zoning in this section of Boston allows for 15 stories, the proposal calls for 50 to 70 stories, almost five times the height limit. The article notes an 18 to 24 month review, why? It would seem that since zoning does not allow it, the project should be a non-starter.

While I know the City of Boston has its own zoning rules, the question clearly arises, why would a person buy a property with a zoning limit 1/5th of what he desires, unless he knew he could get around the limits? Just one of he strange things we all have to ponder.

"Instead of just waiting for the economy to come around, how do we shape our future?"

Technorati Tags: Town Planning,Master Plan

The post title is a question posed by Governor Patrick that will be addressed at an upcoming State Economic Summit. The Governor states in the Boston Globe article he wants to "bring together key business, financial and state officials from important job sectors and different regions in the state." It is unfortunate that local government is being left out of this discussion. I know we could be a major asset to the process.

I think we could start by pulling together a comprehensive state wide planning process. Not the piecemeal right-hand not knowing what the left-hand is doing process that is currently in place.

The framework needs to look at all the required planning documents impacting local government and move forward from there. Every five years we are required to pull together an Open Space and Recreation Plan a major goal of which is to identify land preservation needs. We are now also required to prepare a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan which requires us to identify areas at risk of flood, wind, fire or other hazards and to identify methods for reducing or eliminating the potential for risk to human life or property. We are also required to prepare a Local Housing Action Plan to address the creation of affordable housing.

It is interesting that while the above are required, the idea of having an up-to-date Local Comprehensive Plan is optional. Also, while some towns have created Economic Development Plans these plans are also optional.

So, "how do we shape our future?" It is a good question, lets start with the plan. We need an Office of State Planning. The Office would be above Housing and Economic Development, above Transportation, and above Energy and Environment. They would direct the activities of these other agencies and pull together the state comprehensive plan.

Local Comprehensive Plans would also need to be required. These local plans would need to address and pull together all the items we currently are required and encouraged to study. Open Space, Housing, Hazards, Economic Development, Infrastructure, Waste Water Management all need to be pulled into a single document.

This is taking a long term view, and will not address the immediate economic situation. However, the long term view will set us up for a stronger economic future.