The Power of a Positive Public Image: Or What Not to Blog

In the competitive world of attracting new and growing businesses to a community a positive public image is quite important.  Here on Cape Cod there are those who get it, and those who don't.  The advent of so many ways of communicating to the world creates many challenges.  Before blogging, Facebook, Twitter and all the others we all had to rely upon our local print and broadcast media to determine whether a message was important, and from what angle they were going to cover the story.  Now we all have the tools at our disposal to communicate directly with our audience, and, communicate the message we desire.

From an economic development point of view communicating the good things about your community is essential.  On the Cape, it might be the great natural resources we have, our beaches, or the welcoming atmosphere a town may bring to attracting new jobs to the community.

Of course this gift at our disposal also becomes a double edged sword.  All these tools also allow for anonymity, and therefor, the ability to get negative without normal societal mores coming into play.  These situations make our jobs as planners all the more challenging as comments get posted about a community that paint an image of that community that will make potential investors shy away.  After all, who wants to go to a community where key citizens, whether in elected positions or simply a part of the town, are being anonymously criticized.

The simple probability that anonymous naysayers exist out there, makes it even more important for local planners and economic development specialists to put forward the good things about there community.  A relatively high unemployment rate, becomes a readily available labor force.  School spending issues bring out improvements in SAT scores and other recognition the schools have received.  General government spending issues perhaps reflect high quality beaches, recreation facilities and other infrastructure investments.  However, it is not engaging the anonymous bloggers head on.  Its all about identifying your message and sticking to it.

At work I have been blogging for nearly four years now.  Discussing town issues such as standardized test scores, changes in housing values, and unemployment of course.  But, we are also talking about what we are doing zoning changes, land acquisitions and public improvements that enhance the town image.  The response has been overwhelmingly positive. Both from within the town, and from outside the town.

Yes, we have had our interesting debates, but by staying on message we have managed to promote the positive image everyone ultimately desires.

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.

Carless on Cape Cod The 20 Minute Walk

If you are carless, you need to fill your basic needs within walking distance.  A good walk from where we live, in our 70's style subdivision, is about 20 minutes.  Within this walking distance we find:

• A convenience store which advertises they have groceries;
• A farm stand, which, at least during harvest season can meet some needs;
• The town transfer station: and
• A pizza place.

Not too shabby at first glance.  What is a within a twenty minute walk of your home?

Carless on Cape Cod

Okay, here is the challenge.  Think about what is available to you within a 20 minute walk. Can you meet your most baxic needs?  Most will immediately realize they could not get to work.  But, what else would you be deprived of?

Traditionally villages grew around their church, market and common services. So, until you stop and think about where you live, or find yourself temporarily carless, do the problems of modern day (Euclidean) separation of land uses become so apparent.

So, I challenge you park your car for a few days, put your T pass away, and see if you can find your basec needs within walking distance.

I will share our experiences.  Give it a try.

Chapter 40B and the Ballot Box

Affordable Housing, obviously it is needed. How we get there has become a hot topic. Chapter 40B, the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Law is being brought to the ballot box. This will have significant ramifications.

If it loses, many people in need of affordable housing will be disadvantaged.

If it survives, the environmental controls needed to ensure orderly development patterns will be destroyed.

If it loses, some form of substitute is almost guaranteed. That substitute could be a new, more community friendly statute which has been called for for years. Or, it could be a more onerous replacement imposed through judicial mandate.

If it survives, backers will be strengthened in their resolve, as Chapter 40B will now have the backing of a popular mandate. A mandate that could based upon low mid-term voter turn-out.

If it loses, obviously, the same low mid-term voter turn-out could be used to support the creation of replacement legislation not much different than what is present today.

If it survives, there will be less of a push to fix all that is wrong with the present Chapter 40B.

It is going to be a tough decision. When I walk in to that voting booth in November I am not clear which way I will vote. I believe in affordable housing. I do not believe it needs to be balanced such that every tiny out of the way community needs a project under the statute.

Chapter 40B needs to be fixed, more control given back to cities and towns. The Ballot Box cannot fix bad legislation. However, a vote to keep Chapter 40B almost ensures it will not be fixed. We are at the midnight hour, one way or the other. A vote one way does not support my head or my heart, but a vote the other way is similarly disruptive.

Affordable housing at the cost of environmental protection. Or environmental protection at the expense of affordable housing.

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" An Argument Against Zoning?

It is always interesting how the Constitution, Federalist Papers, and now even the Declaration of Independence get drawn into the land use regulatory sphere. In the linked opinion letter, the writer uses the basic principles of the Declaration of Independence to support an anti-zoning position.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

The letter writer opines that their "pursuit of happiness" extends until it infringes upon the rights of others. It is the writers belief that it is their right to develop property free of any restrictions until it is proven that they are harming others.

They seem to lose the point that the pursuit of happiness by one individual may, necessarily, conflict with the pursuit of happiness by another. My "happy" asphalt plant might conflict with his "happy" housing development. From these inate conflicts, whether in land use or just about any other endeavor, made us into a land of laws.

Zoning provides a framework within which people can pursue a level of happiness, with an understanding that their neighbor's pursuit will be in a similar vein. As I noted in a previous post, there is no conflict between land use regulations and the goals of our founding fathers. These conflicts are generally only found when the desires of a special segment attempt to ignore society in general to tie into the exemplary writing of our founders.

Planning Funnies? Maybe Not....

Citing the Constitution and the Federalist Papers planning and zoning has come under fire. Maybe my Political Science background will really come in handy after all.

It is not a new thing to see the Constitution cited when fighting land use regulations. However Penn Central and several other major cases have clearly illustrated that some level of regulation is necessary and allowable. Obviously we will always be dealing with those who feel that any regulation that limits what can happen on a property results in taking of their property. In the Winona example, the Constitution is used to fend off new flood zone restrictions as well as protections for the tops of bluffs. As we have all seen in the course of the first several months of 2010, whether in Massachusetts or Tennessee not protecting against inappropriate construction in at-risk area creates hazards to personal property and safety. Risks not just borne by the individual property owner, but all of society under some conditions.

Bringing into play the Federalist Papers is something new that I have not encountered before. The citation in the Hutchinson, Kansas situation:

"Federalist Papers" (No. 12, Nov. 27, 1787), "The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged, by all enlightened statesmen, to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth; and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares."

The concept argued in this passage is being used to argue that the pursuit of wealth outweighs everything. It is being used in Kansas to argue against home occupation restrictions which would otherwise prohibit manufacturing type uses within residential settings. Essentially the pursuit of individual wealth, at the expense of ones neighbors is being argued to be more important than the protection of ones neighbors individual property rights.

These two cases provide an interesting juxtaposition. I could take the argument being made in the Hutchinson, Kansas situation to argue that by allowing a home occupation that includes a machine shop or other noisy use, the City of Hutchinson is taking my property value as it relates to how I enjoy my own property. I know some will argue that this is a stretch of the takings clause in the Constitution, but it is not an unusual one - look at most challenges to permits allowing development and the appellants are arguing exactly that, diminished property values.

Looking back at the Federalist Papers, James Madison noted (Number 10, November 22, 1787)

"But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government."

So, Madison noted that property is not equally distributed, such unequal distribution was a cause for problems between people, and that resolving these conflicting interests was a necessary part of governmental regulation. One could say that Madison anticipated and addressed Hamilton's commerce issues.

Further on, in Federalist Paper Number 54, the issue was addressed again:

"Government is instituted no less for protection of the property, than of the persons, of individuals."

This document, which is credited to both Hamilton and Madison, also notes the role of government in the broadly stated protection of people and property.

The conclusion, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison seem to have anticipated the inevitable conflicts involving property and protecting both people and property. In crafting the Federalist Papers, which helped to form the Constitution and is used to interpret the Constitution, they anticipated the need for legislation to protect property and people. Whether it be the flood zone and bluff area protections under discussion in Winona or the home occupation discussion in Hutchinson, when taken as a whole, neither the Constitution or the Federalist Papers really provide much basis to support those opposed to these proposed zoning controls.

Oil? Wind?

Last week Cape Wind passed a major hurdle. No sooner had it cleared that hurdle than a number of opposing voices came forward pushing for legal challenges.

We are all also reading about this massive oil spill in the Gulf. Most recent analysis suggests that this spill now exceeds the Exxon Valdez spill. All the while the spill continues to flow.

The opposition to Cape Wind comes from many angles. One is the potential impact of these platforms on sea life.

Dead turtles and other sea life have started to wash up along the Gulf Coast from the current oil spill. Reports are that if the slick is caught up into the Gulf Stream Current the spill will move out of the Gulf and into the Atlantic.

Cape Wind is reported to "occupy" 25 square miles. Of this, about 54 acres will be truly physically occupied.

The 1975 "Florida" oil spill in Buzzards Bay impacted 5,000 acres of ocean bottom and 500 acres of marsh. These areas illustrated "95% of the animals collected were dead." The more recent "Bouchard 120" spill impacted 90 miles of shore line.

So, why are these planning issues? The reasons are clearly many. First, economically, as many have stated, we need economic independence. Yes, more oil development can provide that, but at what cost? Is it appropriate for other entire industries to be injured when a large or small spill occurs? How will the fishing industry cope in the Gulf? How about the vacation industry when pristine white beaches are spoiled by oil?

Wind may not be as economical (in direct costs) as oil. But environmentally, it appears more sound. When oil starts to pay for society's costs (air pollution, water pollution, health issues due to smog) the two energy sources start to balance out.

Cape Wind, on-shore wind farms, solar farms, geo-thermal all need to be part of our future.

Of course, to ensure clean energy meets "clean" standards, we also need to ensure that these facilities are manufactured within the US as our environmental control standards for manufacturing exceeds those found anywhere else.

Now This is Different

Read this from CBS News

"Straw Man" Battles Zoning Law With Wall of Hay

Would our enforcement laws provide us similar considerations?

Economic Stimulus Bill

The Massachusetts State Senate yesterday passed SB 2345, a bill aimed at streamlining state permitting, getting rid of duplication of permit requirements across state agencies, and to make it easier to move through the state permitting process. The goals are clearly laudible.

Having not read the entire bill as of yet, I will withhold passing judgement. However, the bill is not without its issues. One of which I will discuss below.

Section 122 of the bill as posted on the Senate's website (SB 2345) includes provisions extending the life of numerous local permits, licenses, variances, etc. These permits are extended for a period of three years beyond the "normal" life of the permit. Thus a permit for one year, becomes one for four years, a two year approval becomes 5, and so on.

A few highlights of what permits are extended:

• Chapter 21 extends, among other things, wastewater permits;
• Chapter 40 governs all municipal regulations and by-laws other than those specifically identified in other chapters;
• Chapter 40A extends all special permits, variances and other project approvals regardless of the fact that certain provisions in chapter 40A specifically limit the maximum period a permit is valid for and identifies certain actions that could lead to the rights granted in a permit to no longer be valid;
• Chapter 40B extends all Comprehensive Permits for an additional three years;
• Chapter 91 governs all waterways licenses; and
• Chapter 143 governs all building permits.

Finally, Section 122 includes the catch-all phrase, "and any local by-law or ordinance" which will extend its reach to any local permit or license a community may have adopted under its home rule powers that could be considered to impact "development." "Development" being very broadly defined to include the division, excavation, and filling of land, construction or change of use of structures.

Process already exist for addressing delays in the construction process. These processes involve returning to the permitting agency and having a proper determination made as to whether the provisions and findings surrounding the original approval are still valid. This proposal by-passes that process and for the next few years, overrides other local actions such as zoning changes which may have modified the final plan approval or outright prohibited the proposed use.

In my opinion, Section 122 should be removed. In its place, the state might want to urge communities when considering extending a lapsing permit, weigh the current economic situation. Section 122 does not do anything to immediately stimulate the economy. In fact, it supports actions that might delay new construction projects by extending a time-frame for construction which may encourage developers to wait for a better economic climate.

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".

Housing Recovery - A Plan

Maybe I am becoming more bleeding heart as I get older, or maybe it is just my sense of moral outrage is growing. Today's Cape Cod Times included a story, Foreclosures rising on Cape, that illustrates the problem with the current bank bailout plan.

GMAC Financial Services has received $16.3 billion in banking bailout financing. Essentially you and I paying them for their losses on loans. That funding has not trickled down in any fashion to the homeowners who have really suffered the losses. Losses in jobs and home value due to bank and speculator fraud. Bank fraud due to deceptive lending practices and predatory lending. Speculators, as they artificially drove up home values.

I cannot find any specific values related to GMAC's bad loans. One discussion suggests it is about 10% of its $189 billion in assets. If we took this $19 billion in bad assets and considered most of these, while losing value, still held some value (the foreclosure sale price), the government bailout money would seem capable of opening the door to mortgage re-writes and principal reductions. The end result is a program that supports the banks and the property owners. With the $16.3 billion government gift to GMAC being used to support the real estate market and not to reward business executives who managed to dump their bad business decisions onto all of our banks.

National Housing Policy - Redux

In my post below, I had stated that the bank bail-out would have provided a better service to the country if the funds had actually gone towards paying off a portion of the balance of mortgages that were in default. Such a program would have allowed people to stay in their homes, rather than being forced out - and either leaving empty bank-owned properties everywhere or dumping homes on the market at deep discounts. Today I saw the following New York Times Editorial (from January 4th) This Year’s Housing Crisis. Quite clearly the commentators I was responding to - those supporting booting people out of their homes - are not gaining mainstream support. Unfortunately, neither is a housing program based upon saving people and their homes.

Green Spaces

Saw this article, Parks, Green Spaces Protect Your Health, it provides a rather interesting perspective. We have been working for some time on promoting new village style developments (we meaning much of the planning community) as "Smart Growth." The article clearly points out the need to maintain a balance as we plan these areas. We cannot forget the need for parks in this planning. The analysis cited suggests a rather wide area, one-half mile, can serve this green space need. Other studies have supported the benefit of seeing trees from a persons window (thus the Million Tree effort in NYC). I think these green areas should be much closer to where we live and work. Such close proximity can provide significant calming benefits.

Basically, the article reminds us all of the importance of green areas and that we should not only be thinking of density as we think of smart growth. Those open areas are so important.

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."