Carless on Cape Cod: Expanding The Walking Area

After walking for a few days I have noticed that in 20 minutes I can cover more distance, bringing my "market" area to about a mile from home.  This brings our village center into consideration.  Unfortunately, as with many villages on Cape Cod, the mix of uses lend themselves to the tourism market and not the day to day needs of area residents.

Yes you can find fine coffees and teas, sandwiches, pizzas and snack foods.  But the people who live and work here must leave the area for their basic needs.  Not to mention those who live in the surrounding neighborhoods. Overall, the village fails as a live-work-shop location.

Expanding beyond the 20 minute walk, to 30 minutes, brings a chain convenience store into play. Better prices, but still a very limited selection. The walk score of 20 sure seems generous, on a sustainability rating I think is far lower.

Carless on Cape Cod - Trash Day

So Sunday is supposed to be trash day.  We actually live within walking distance of the tansfer station by way of an old paper street.  The right of way currently has a trail that is used by hikers and mountain bikers. So you would think that we could dispose of our trash without a car.

No such luck.

Our town requires you to be a "resident" of town to dispose of your trash.  You would think that residency could be easy to show, after all there are so many ways to show residency.  Not so fast.  Those "non-resident taxpayers" don't deserve to throw their trash away at resident rates, thus the tax bill is not a valid measure for access to the transfer station. Voter roll, also unacceptable.  The Town has chosen to use where you register your vehile, and every pass is tied to your vehicle.

No vehicle, no access to dispose of your trash.  Car sharing programs (Zip Car) and rental cars do not cut it. you get to buy a pass based upon paying your vehicle excise tax

So trash day does not pass the carless test.

Carless on Cape Cod: The Farm Stand

Walkscore.com gives our neighborhood an index of 20, this means we are considered "car dependent." Check out your score here: walkscore.com. 

The convenience store I previously talked about is about 3/4's of a mile from our house.  Walkscore shows the farm stand as a "grocery" as well.  After being disappointed by the selection at the convenience store, we chose to walk to the farm stand.

From spring to fall this stand provides fresh vegetables, eggs and other homemade items such as pies, salad dressings and preserves.  Since we did not find anything we wanted at the other store, we hoped for more luck at the Farm Stand. Today we were looking for potatoes, carrots, salad items and dressing. Found everything but the carrots, substituted zucchini as the days vegetable of choice.

Overall, at least during the growing season, we could survive on what we can buy at the Farm Stand. Walkscore also notes that the Farm Stand is only a third of a mile from the house.  It could be a doable walk, even in the rain.

Carless on Cape Cod - The First Trip To The Store

Now we start to test whether where we live can support a car-less lifestyle.

First, it is clear I cannot make my commute.  I am 51 and well beyond the years I rode over 20 miles each way for work.  So I start from the position that I must have a vehicle for the most basic of needs.

Taking the next step, what errands are possible by foot.  The convenience store nearby advertises that it has "groceries."  Well, you probably could sustain yourself, minimally, on the cold cuts and tv dinners, but the food selection is limited.  There is no fresh fruit or vegetables to be found in the store.  The store would hardly sustain a healthy diet and given alcohol products make up at least half the shelf space, it is more of a package store than the convenience market/grocery that it bills itself as.

Size wise, the store probably could serve as a grocery, but it needs a wider variety of food products.  Its offerings are clearly limited by its clientele.  Most in the neighborhood probably do not think of this store as a destination for meeting one's day to day needs.  Needing to survive financially, it lives down to those expectations.  In the end, one has to conclude that this store does not support a car-less of car-free lifestyle.

I guess this neighborhood is sinking fast into being one where a car is mandatory.

Chapter 40B and Land Use Reform

The next few months should be quite interesting. Two sides are squaring off on the question of whether Chapter 40B should be repealed. Many of the same parties are involved in discussions of whether or not the current land planning structure in the Commonwealth should be overhauled.

All to often in these discussions the good ideas get mixed in with not so good ideas, and we wind up with campaigns that are as much innuendo as fact.

Take Chapter 40B. There is little argument that Chapter 40B has created housing. There is quite the debate though as to what it has meant to housing affordability. One side wants you to consider the pure numbers of housing units created. The other side argues the growing affordability gap illustrates the failure of the system.

Looking at the arguments, both are right. Chapter 40B has succeeded in seeing affordable housing built. Chapter 40B has also promoted the construction of between 3 and 4 market rate housing units for every affordable housing unit constructed. If 75% or 80% of the units constructed are market rate, it becomes quite apparent that Chapter 40B is contributing to the continued growth of higher end housing in numbers larger than that of the affordable units.

Moving to Local Planning and Zoning, much of the same issues play out. Communities have many diverse interests. Many of these are directed by various state or federal mandates. Here are a few examples:

• Recent flooding has illustrated the problems with growing urbanization. Fewer areas are available for storm water to absorb into the soil. Federal flood initiatives direct communities to work on plans to improve storm water storage for flood management. Various forums have even suggested undeveloping areas to reduce flood risks.
• We are also all directed to develop and maintain local Open Space and Recreation Plans. These plans direct communities to provide particular amounts of open land areas for recreational purposes based upon the number of residents. These plans are also directed to promote methods to implement open space initiatives in the State Comprehensive Opens Space and Recreation Plan. Again, planning documents directed to protecting development.
• The state has mandated towns develop housing creation plans. These plans are intended to identify the strategies cities and towns are going to pursue to meet local affordability targets. When developed locally, these plans can be crafted cooperatively with the two planning projects noted above.

Recently, efforts have started to push to reform the state planning act. These efforts have come from two sides, much like under Chapter 40B. There is the side that calls for improving the planning and zoning process to give communities more control over their own future. This control coming in the form of new local planning requirements, and improving the zoning process.

The alternate proposal calls for changes to planning and zoning focusing on a development approach to planning and zoning, as opposed to the more traditional community vision approach. The push for these efforts have come from the side of the equation that feels that local visions, local development controls, etc., are stymieing the state economy. To some extent, the changes proposed ignore, if not walk all over, the other local mandates.

The arguments over planning and zoning reform face the same issues as reforming Chapter 40B. One side strongly believes that the system is broken and that communities cannot properly address the growth needs of the Commonwealth. The other side argues that the current system is broken and that provisions such as approval not required land division, and generous grandfathering rights destroy local planning abilities before a community could ever properly develop a city or town vision.

While both sides agree that provisions in the current planning and zoning structure in the state need to be fixed, there is clear disagreement on what is broken and how it should be fixed.

The Chapter 40B discussion ought to be interesting, if not for any other reason than to learn if community interests or land development interests will prevail. One sure thing, a reasoned approach to affordable housing will be the ultimate loser. This reasoned approach can only come about by looking at the broken system, and developing a consensus that promotes properly created affordable housing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Erosion of Home Rule Redux

Back in June I wrote about the proposal to modify wind energy siting, a proposal that has been likened to Chapter 40B for energy companies. The following link will provide you with more information on this proposal and provide you with the opportunity to speak out on the subject:

http://greenberkshires.com/

The petition has been signed by residents across the state from all walks of life. Simply put, wind power is an important part of our future. However, wind power must be properly and carefully sited so as not to detract from the overall economy of a region.

Erosion of Home Rule

I have spent a lot of time harping on how the Land Use Partnership Act infringes on Home Rule Authority of Massachusetts cities and towns. There is a second piece of legislation which is an equal intrusion into community affairs. This legislation has to do with wind turbines. The proposal calls for changing the review process at the local level for wind turbines of 2 megawatts or larger - the largest of the largest turbines. In areas identified by a state commission, these turbines will receive an expedited review by a committee comprised of one Planning Board member, one Zoning Board member and one Conservation Commission member. The proposal will be reviewed at the local level based upon criteria established by the state. While the proposal may be rejected by the city or town, such an action will be reviewed by the State Facilities Siting Board for determination as to whether the action is consistent with state plans. It has been referred to as a Chapter 40B for the utility companies. The following link will take you to a Cape Cod Times editorial on the subject:

End Of Home Rule?

When too Many Forces Collide

Yet another article on the housing debacle in Florida. This article is clearly worth reading. It actually reinforces many of my thoughts on the contrasts between the Land Use Partnership Act and the Community Planning Act. The former, along with Chapter 40B, really espouses growth everywhere at all costs. While the latter espouses proper planning for local resources and capabilities.

The article is important in that it points out that, even in the greatest real estate failure on record, proper development in the urban core of Dade County, things are not so bad. However, in the uncontrolled sprawl areas disaster is a kind word when talking about the conditions.

Just something to think about

Proper Planning Is Making Some Progress Against All The Pushback

Recently with all the discussions about the Zoning Act reforms, the entire discussion of whether planning is improving, and lasting reforms are being made. The Mass Audubon Society has released its latest report on land use which you can find here: Mass Audubon report.

The report illustrates that gains are being made to protect the state's critical resources. Even the Boston Globe has published a positive review of this report, Boston.com story, on the report. Given all the rhetoric recently, much of it covered far more extensively than the state's need to protect its resources, about how the state is not meeting its housing growth needs, it was actually a breathe of fresh air to see the Globe not make negative comments about how protecting open space will hurt the state's housing market.

Before the naysayers jump onto this report, or at least use the findings to attack communities on housing policy, it is important to look at this shift towards increased land protection as having occurred while the state housing supply has grown by 0.55%, a rate faster than its population growth, and added twice the number of housing units of any other New England state.

As a planner, I applaud my fellow planners for realizing that housing and open space preservation do work together, and, in spite of the ideas being espoused at the state level, planning and zoning in the state is not broken.

Smart Growth or Not So Smart Growth?

As we continue the discussion of the Land Use Partnership Act (LUPA) and Community Planning Act II (CPA II) there are many issues to think about.  Here is one article that needs to be considered.   A key quote to consider is "Just having the ability to walk or bike to recurring destinations, such as a food store, school or workplace, makes it more likely people will be more active...."  Is Chapter 40B smart?  Can LUPA make the grade?  What about CPA II?

Are specified housing targets smart growth?  Is a program to construct housing in every community to achieve 10% affordability promoting sprawl?  Is setting a target for 5% housing growth in every community, every ten years smart growth, or is it promoting more automobile  travel? 

Is placing restrictions on a community's ability to require sidewalks as mitigation for development impacts improving people's health or promoting driving? 

Just some things to think about.

Latex, A Response

Usually I would not clear an anonymous comment, however, for the sake of better exploring the issues with latex I posted a comment made to my previous discussion. I did this more to address the issues, some of which I have seen in a number of sources, about the supposed issue of latex and tires. The basic comment about children playing on tire swings for a century with no problem is a significant position of the latex industry.

The fact is, yes children have been playing on tire swings for a century. Has there not been any problems? Far from certain. Latex allergies have only been recognized for a very short time. Exposure issues quite likely have been around since we first started using latex, people just did not know what to ascribe the problems to. I would suggest that it is entirely too late to ask anyone who ever had a rash after playing on a tire swing to get tested for sensitivity to the latex protein.

It is also generally agreed that the vuclanized version of latex in a tire is more stable than the latex used in gloves or swim caps. However, there is significant documentation that as tires wear, and after tires are de-vulcanized (frozen to extreme temperatures so that they can easily be crushed to remove the steel lining) that the latex protein is released.

The following data sources provide significant information that essentially supports a more cautious approach than the scraptires site or the author of the comment:

A Case Study of Tire Crumb Use on Playgrounds: Risk Analysis and
Communication When Major Clinical Knowledge Gaps Exist

A couple key passages:

Regarding our central question of potential harm to children, the published literature
contained some information about the product, including an in vitro toxicity
model, but traditional published resources and a network of environmental health
experts could not establish the product’s safety in use with children. (Gapin Children Research page 1)

Risks may exist in working with the product, but the question regarding hazards posed tochildren playing on the amended playgrounds is left unanswered. (Gapin Children Research page 3)

Impacts of Tire Debris

The interaction between inhaled particles and lung cells is described in literature [66,67], as well as the correlation between tire particles and the release of latex allergy proteins [23,68].

In this study the latex protein extracted from car tires is nearly as high as the latex protein found in latex gloves, the study notes that it had expected the vulcanization process to destroy natural latex proteins, the authors found it notable that the presence of latex allergens in tire tread was confirmed across several different tests.

The commentor also noted:

There are hundreds of millions of tires in use on motor vehicles today. These tires wear off particles of rubber into our environment during their normal use with no known long term health hazard. Once removed from service, their composition does not change. If they are made up of materials that are hazardous to any portion of the population then we need to stop their production, unless there is no significant hazard here.

The following comments will illustrate that, in fact, there is a known problem.

Latex Allergens in Tire Dust and Airborne Particles

In conclusion, the latex allergens or latex cross-reactive material present in sedimented and airborne particulate material, derived from tire debris, and generated by heavy urban vehicle traffic could be important factors in producing latex allergy and asthma symptoms associated with air pollution particles.

As tires wear out, rubber is presumably deposited on the road
surface. Where is all that rubber?

All over the place, bud--including maybe in your lungs. For a long time conventional wisdom had it that tire particles were too coarse to do much harm and simply wound up as one more component of urban grit. Now we know better. Asthma and latex allergies have been on the rise in recent years, and some think tire dust is why.

Fine rubber particles, whether latex or synthetic, can lodge in your lungs and even enter your bloodstream. The Environmental Protection Agency has a whole category designated for such problematic particles: PM2.5, or particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size. Excessive exposure can lead to reduced lung capacity, bronchitis, asthma, accelerated heart disease, and death. One study claims that nearly 60 percent of airborne tire particles are small enough to be easily inhaled.

Paving, Asphalt, Tires and Latex Allergies:
What is the Relationship?

If you are a latex allergy victim and you experience any type of reaction around streets that are being paved, or asphalt that is being added to roof structures, there is a very good reason. Asphalt, when combined with ground up tires in the paving process, contains natural rubber.

A study of blood samples from asthmatics and healthy persons from the Los Angeles area showed a high correlation in the increased incidence of latex allergen antibodies in asthmatics. Victims of latex protein hypersensitivity should avoid areas that are being paved or roofed when asphalt is being used. The airborne particles of natural latex proteins emitted in these processes are known to cause reactions in latex allergic individuals.

This particular study explores the impact of heat on latex. It is commonly thought that the vulcanization process will reduce the latex protein in tires. However, as the Groce article in the Latex from Tires notes, the heating process of rubber tires when included in asphalt releases the latex protein into the air. Why is this important in the framework of the poured rubber surface and rubber tiles surfaces at the playgrounds? From what we have found is that these surfaces use devulcanized rubber, devulcanization is a process to breakdown the binding aspects of vulcanized rubber to extract the natural latex rubber from the hardened tire. The devulcanized rubber appears to free the latex protein that may have been bound up in the hardening of the vulcanization process.

Latex Allergy in 2004
What’s Known, What’s Now, What’s Next

There is not yet good research about many aspects of preventing or managing latex allergy. For example, the use of recycled tires for surfacing playgrounds and athletic tracks is controversial. Given the current knowledge about latex allergy, we recommend that:

• In the general healthcare environment, non-latex or low-allergen unpowdered gloves should be the standard. This will reduce future sensitization.

• All individuals with spina bifida and related conditions should have a latex-safe environment from birth. This means in hospital, at clinics, in school and camp and in the community at large, including restaurants and shopping malls.


While this is a report provided for patients with Spina Bifida, the recommendations hold true for any latex allergic person.

So, back to the rubber industry quote “after all children have been swinging on tires for a century…” as a means of supporting the use of tires in playgrounds. Personally we recognized a problem on the Wing School Playground over two years ago when our son experienced hives when playing on the equipment. The contact hives were determined to generate from the black rubber bridge that was on the playground. This bridge was one element removed on the playground to make the area safer for latex allergic children. Of course, the starting point is recognizing the existence of a latex allergy in a child. Without that, connections are not made. A child could go into shock due to a latex allergy, and if that child is not known to be one of the between 2% and 8% of the general population considered to be allergic to latex the connection will not be made (Looking out for Latex).

So, anyway, yes tires can be landfilled in some states. Many, if not most landfills discourage such disposal of tires as they do not decompose (even though a properly sealed landfill will never decompose any of the buried material). I am far more familiar with the tire piles that have led to major pollution problems - especially when they have caught on fire:



Problems associated with landfilling of scrap tires Landfilling of scrap tires causes serious environmental pollution and health problems. Of the 283 million scrap tires generated in the United States in 2003, nearly one-fourth wound up in landfills. This is in addition to more than 300 million tires already stockpiled across the country. The estimated cost of cleaning up the existing tire stockpiles in the United States is in the range of $800 million to $1 billion. The most obvious hazard with the stockpiling of scrap tires is the potential for large uncontrolled fires. Scrap tires are petroleum-rich products, and as tires burn, they release particulate pollutants to the atmosphere and hazardous chemicals into groundwater. Several uncontrolled fires have recently occurred in tire stockpiles (e.g. California, 1999), which have posed tremendous hazards to the environment. Tire piles are also prime breeding grounds for mosquitoes and other vermin, which are vectors for human diseases such as Dengue fever, Malaria, and West Nile virus. The World Health Organization estimates that over two billion people live in areas at risk for epidemic transmission of these diseases.

Finally, in closing (while I have a tremendous number of other sources including ones looking at the dust on artificial football fields using rubber dust for the base) I found this post while writing this reply:

How Safe is Your Child’s Playground? Recycled Tire Cushioning Poses Health Concerns

"The next time my kids want to play on a recycled tire playground, I think we will walk on by to a playground made with safer materials."

Planning For Everyone

This post may seem unrelated to the functions of most planners. However it relates to an issue that is near and dear to my heart, and it reflects a set of issues that we need to all think carefully about. I am talking about ensuring that our planning efforts are designed to be as inclusive as possible.

My son is a prime example, he is among a growing segment of society that is allergic to the latex protein. The allergy leads to hives, breathing difficulties and ultimately could lead to shock and death. This allergy has led my wife and I to have to look carefully at many aspects of life that others take for granted. We need to ensure that he uses leather basketballs, not latex ones for instance. And, even with these, he has to be reminded that the bladder is latex rubber and to let someone else fill the basketball if it needs air.

Where am I going with this? And, why is it a planner's issue?

Latex rubber is a problem. It has been a growing problem since the first rubber tires were rolled off the assembly line, and will remain so long after the last tire is removed from the market.

Tires cannot be land-filled. Tires should not be stockpiled as they become fire and other biological problems.

So, planners and other solid waste experts are looking for new ways to re-use tires. Spreading the toxic latex further into society than ever before. Used latex tires are being crushed and the crumb rubber being re-used in many ways. Some nearly permanently sealing the latex protein in other binders, such as when used in asphalt. Others re-uses are increasing direct exposure to latex to hazardous levels.

Especially for latex allergic people.

It is this latter re-use that many planners are involved with, not just the solid waste experts, but many of us. Crumb rubber is being used for playgrounds, athletic fields and numerous other items that bring latex into closer proximity to children than ever before. Some, in smaller particles than ever before.

Crumb rubber is being crushed and used as the soft surface under swing sets to replace wood chips. There are reports about young children ingesting these crumbs directly.

Crumb rubber is being rebound and used for solid tiles under swing sets as well. These tiles are intended to make these play areas more accessible to wheel chairs. However, the use is excluding a new group of people from these play areas - some who are even those targeted for improved access. While these tiles are more secure than the crumb rubber noted above they still may release latex into the air due to heating and simple wear and tear.

Finally, crumb rubber is being promoted for new artificial athletic surfaces as the new fields do not require watering, reducing water demand. However, if you watch a football game on these fields, such as the one in Foxborough, watch the little clouds of dust every time a player is tackled. These clouds include fine particles of rubber dust. Players are inhaling this dust. While for most this may simply be an irritant, and in itself poses a problem for asthmatics, it is a deadly risk for a latex allergic child or adult who is introducing an allergen directly into their respiratory system.

As planners, we have many decisions to make. As a parent of a latex allergic child, I want to encourage all planners to consider all possible allergens as we plan for public facilities. Especially public facilities that are intended to serve our young.

Land Use Partnership Act - Random Thoughts on Changes

Yesterday I received an email with the following query:

"I have reviewed LUPA a number of times via my work here .... My understanding is that the annual target in LUPA is .5% per year over 10 years year. Your posts reference 1% per year. Did this change or are you referencing a different requirement?"

While Section II of the proposed statute is NOT my primary focus for fixing this legislation, the exchange illustrated the amount of grey area within the proposal. And, as we all know at the local level, grey areas in regulations always take the most anti-community interpretation when they wind up in court.

The issue is, that the questioner's read of the legislation is that a certified plan community must only meet a 0.5% annual growth figure. This is taken from the definition of the "Housing Target Number" in combination with the number of years the plan will be approved for (10 years).

• "Housing target number” shall mean a number equal to five percent (5%) of the total number of year-round housing units enumerated for the municipality in the latest available United States census as of the date on which the plan was submitted to the regional planning agency. "

I get the 1% figure from the restrictions that Section II 7 (b) place on certified plan communities:

• (b) Following the municipality’s effective date, a zoning ordinance or by-law that limits the number of new housing units within residential development districts for which building permits may be issued in any twelve month period to an amount equal to or greater than one-fifth of the housing target number (but in no event less than ten new housing units) shall not be declared exclusionary or otherwise against public policy.

If you look at II 7 (b), it requires that a growth limitation by-law be consistent with public policy. That public policy calls for 1/5th of the housing target number (5%) be accomplished in any 12 month time period. So, 1/5th of 5% is 1%, this means that to adopt a growth limitation by-law you must allow for a 1% annual growth. To me it is inconceivable that the housing to be built in a non-growth cap community would be set to a number that is lower than the "public policy" figure in II 7 (b).

Taking the sender's comments to represent what was intended by the drafters of the legislation, a position I personally believe is hard to support based upon the supporting documents on the state site and the recent MHP housing study that the Globe published and I reported on here, The following changes would make Section II far more pallatable. I would propose adding the wording in bold and deleting the wording that appears in red.

“Housing target number” shall mean a number equal to five percent (5%) of the total number of year-round housing units enumerated for the municipality in the latest available United States census as of the date on which the plan was submitted to the regional planning agency to be achieved over the ten year life of the certified plan.

This clearly establishes the target as being an annual average of 0.5% housing permit issuance, achievable in many more communities than my current interpretation.

(b) Following the municipality’s effective date, a zoning ordinance or by-law that limits the number of new housing units within residential development districts for which building permits may be issued in any twelve month period to an amount equal to or greater than one-fifth of the pro-rata annual housing target number (but in no event less than ten new housing units) shall not be declared exclusionary or otherwise against public policy.

This may, again benefit far more communities than the current proposal. It essentially establishes that a housing cap community would need to provide for an annual building permit issuance of 0.1%. Previously I picked on Worcester and Alford as housing examples, so I will do that again. The 0.1% housing growth would require a minimum of 70 housing permits to be issued in Worcester under a growth cap, as opposed to the 350 permits under the 0.5% interpretation, or 704 permits under the 1% interpretation. In Alford, the numbers would be a bit different. Alford has 173 year round housing units. The 1% interpretation per year would require essentially ten housing units per year. While 1% per year is 2 housing units the minimum number under II 7 (b) is set at 10 housing units, over the life of a certified plan Alford would have to issue building permits for 100 new housing units - 57.8% growth. Under the 0.5% interpretation, there is still that II 7 (b) limit of a minimum of 10 housing units, so while the 0.5% interpretation would require just 1 housing unit, there is still the issue that "public policy" is established at a minimum of 10 housing building permits annually. My proposal would eliminate the 10 building permit minimum, it would result in a community such as Alford to have to provide, perhaps as little as 2 housing units over a ten year time period, but given the focus on concentrated development, protecting open areas, etc., this may actually be supportive of public policy. Even with this, we would need to figure out how a building moratoria - currently a very legal option for a short term "catch your breath" time period - fits into this equation.

(d) If at any time more than two years after the municipality’s effective date the total number of housing units for which building permits have been applied for within the residential development districts since the municipality’s effective date is greater than the housing target number (adjusted pro rata for the number of years since the municipality’s effective date), but the total number of housing units for which building permits have been issued within the residential development districts is less than the pro rata housing target number, then the provisions of this subsection shall be in effect. During such time period, any applications for building permits or other local land use permits for residential development within such residential development districts shall deemed constructively approved if not acted upon within 180 days after receipt of permit applications. In addition, an application received under this section shall be subject only to those conditions that are necessary to ensure substantial compliance of the proposed development project with applicable laws and regulations; and it may be denied only on the grounds that: (i) the proposed development project does not substantially comply with applicable laws and regulations, or (ii) the applicant failed to submit information and fees required by applicable laws and regulations and necessary for an adequate and timely review of the development project. The foregoing provisions shall no longer be in effect once the total number of housing units for which building permits have been issued within such residential development districts equals or exceed the pro rata housing target number.

Finally, I would suggest deleting Section II 7 (d) altogether. It essentially penalizes communities for circumstances that are completely out of a community's control. Whether a community issues 0.5% or 1% of its year round housing units in new building permits is really irrelevant to the discussion at this point. IF a community is meeting the housing target number requirements for building permit issuance, WHY should it be penalized? In my own opinion, if a community does not have any permit limitation device in place, there should be rewards for that community. On the flip side, if a community needs to limit growth due to the need to provide water or sewer or school improvements, public policy should be to direct public spending to address those needs, not to make them less eligible for the discretionary spending, THAT would allow them to remove the limitation.