Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

BALANCED COMMUNITY NOTES

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

In his 9 July post “Downtown Plans and Balanced Communities,” Jim Bacon mentioned that we are working on a book (TRILO-G) to be published “in the near future.” That is “near future” in book writing time, not in blog time. Do not expect to see a copy of this three Volume set in your in box soon.

We will soon, however, be putting on line a revised “Brief Summary of TRILO-G” as well as two items on the Vocabulary used in the three Volumes of the book.

In the meantime Jim’s post and comments on this and other settlement pattern related posts prompt a note of clarification and update on Balanced Community.

Larry:

In the string “New Urbanism Comes to an Old Downtown” you raised a question about the Bureau of Census’ “Metropolitan Division” and its relationship to New Urban Regions.

Long ago we gave up looking for guidance on human settlement pattern issues from mid-20th century authority figures like the Bureau of Census (BS) and Brookings. One can learn much more about human settlement pattern by examining how those who have a choice choose to spend their time and money.

Since it had not yet come to my attention, I was happy to see your mention of “Metropolitan Division.” (BS also added “Micropolitan Area” about the same time which we have noted on this blog and in columns.)

In general, BS is far too beholden to the political pressures of Business-As-Usual and Government-As-Usual. In general for the big picture they look through the wrong end of the telescope (seeking smaller agglomerations) and for data agglomeration they rely far too much on municipal borders – especially counties that vary in function from state to state.

BS is also institutionally blind to the organic components of human settlement patterns.

All this suits their political employers very well. They think in terms of wards, precincts, and gerrymandered election districts that have little or nothing to do with the organic components of settlement be they council, magisterial, delegate, senate, representative and senate districts.

There are others who have tried to draw a bigger picture of urban structure:

Jean Gottmann with Megalopolis (aka, “BoWash” that now stretches into North Carolina with the inclusion of the Richmond and Hampton Roads NURs). Lewis Mumford by the way, points out that to suggest that Megalopolis is a single urban agglomeration is pure fantasy.

C. A. Doxiadis with his Small megalopolis, Megalopolis, Small eperopolis and Eperopolis did not attract many supporters.

Joel Garreau with Nine Nations of America pointed out a number of important multi NUR and USR patterns.

Most recently, Robert Lang suggested the emergence of Megapolitian Areas. (That is so much better than “regional cities.”) Megapolitian Area by in large follow NURs but over-aggregate based on tenuous Interstate highway corridors. (I-35 links Dallas-Fort Worth with Oklahoma City and Kansas City as a single component of human settlement?) Lang also seems to play down important differences between coterminous NURs.

The New Urban Region Conceptual Framework is anchored by the New Urban Region (NUR), the smallest organic component of human settlement that is “sustainable” based on 1990 to 2000 data. It turns out that NURs are larger than BS’s MSA or CMSA but smaller than Megalopolis (or Megapolitian Areas in some cases).

Now back to your question:

We spent the whole day on the 4th of July refining the definitions of “region,” “Region,” “subregion” and “Subregion.” BS’s “Metropolitan Division” is a Subregion made up of all or part of several Beta Communities. As you know from our past posts, Beta Communities are places that have the potential to become Alpha / Balanced Communities. Metropolitan Division is far smaller than a New Urban Region (NUR).

The NUR in which we both live in is called the Washington-Baltimore New Urban Region. You live in it because, as you noted recently, the vast majority of the commuters from Greater Fredericksburg go north, not south. The boundary between Wash-Balto NUR and Richmond NUR is closer to the North Anna River than the Rappahannock River. That is logical if you consider the NUR economic pull to be similar to gravitational pull in celestial mechanics.

Now back to the Jim’s “Downtown Plans and Balanced Communities.” The “Downtown” of a Richmond-scale NUR is not a Beta (potential Balanced) Community. We call this place a “Zentrum” and it is most likely of Beta Village-scale.

In the post, Jim’s description of a Balanced Community is solid except that our Aloha / Balanced Community has a relative Balance J / H / Services / Recreation / A. The elements are not J / H / retail (or as suggested in a previous note by Jim “shopping”) / A. There is a big difference.

“Services” includes both public and private services – everything from water and sewer and communications to retail, repair, health … it includes all the services that urban individuals and households need and want to be happy and safe. There are about 40 of these Services for which the cost varies with location and thus the importance of fair allocation of location variable costs.

“Well!” you say there are a lot of ways to divide up human settlement patterns to establish Balance.
For example, “I am in the textile business and I see the world through the eyes of industrial processes: Mining / Growing Fiber / Pumping Oil / Refining / Manufacturing / Milling / Fabrication / Assembly / Distribution / Warehousing / Wholesale / Retail and my friend is in pharmaceuticals and she ….”

All true, but… Human settlement patterns are driven by residential activity (80 percent of the urban land area) and it is what individuals and households need, want and use that makes up the third of the Big Five determinants of settlement patterns.

All those categories of Jobs noted above are important in establishing Balance at the NUR scale to achieve sustainability but are not critical in establishing relative Balance and the Community scale.

With the exception of shorting the five basic elements of Balance, Jim’s description and discussion of Balanced Community is on target.

Larry:

Later on in the comments you discuss the need for “Regional Comp Plans.”

You are right but municipal planners have so tainted the use of “Comprehensive Plan” that we avoid those words and refer to Regional strategies to create Balanced Communities. In a number of places you rely on “Comp Plan” to solve problems. It is now a weak reed. The 1926 ideal of the Comp Plan (especially as embellished by Jack Kent) is far better than the 2007 practice. (See “The Role of Municipal Planning in the Creation of Dysfunctional Human Settlement Patterns” a Backgrounder at https://www.baconsrebellion.com/)

We agree with you that whatever it is called, without a Regional framework there is no validity of “plans” of any scale.

As Roger points out, places such as Arlington County and others have done a much better job of “planning” than most but all are hampered by a fixation on municipal borders.

Portland, a favorite of Roger’s, is indeed a leader. But by refusing to cross the river (to embrace Vancouver, Washington) Portland Metro demonstrates a failure to recognize that their policies and programs have scattered Portland NUR urban land uses beyond their territory.

Also the Portland approach to regionalism fails to recognize the importance of subregional organic components and thus the need to evolve
Balanced Communities and other Balanced components. This is a critical problem inside the Clear Edge (the Urban Growth Boundary in Oregon terminology).

By the way in the “Downtown Plans and Balanced Communities” string there was a comment by Glenn Weiss about New Urbanism. His comments, and Jim’s response contain a lot of truth. I hope to get to a post on New Urbanism called “Shooting Themselves in the Foot” soon. The long and short of it is that having never grasped the importance of a Comprehensive Conceptual Framework and a robust Vocabulary, they are plagued by Geographical Illiteracy and as a result often shoot themselves in the foot.

Jim put his finger on the biggest problem: Jack Legs who try to steal a few good ideas from the New Urbanism pattern book and then call the project “New Urbanist” when it is not. That is especially true with respect to locational dysfunction and scale blindness.

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

26 responses to “BALANCED COMMUNITY NOTES”

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Boy, does my brain hurt.

    Now I remember back when I figured out that I was not cut out to be an academician.

    … I’ll re-read a few more times before I comment…

  2. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Sorry Larry, but you asked…

    Recall human settlement pattern issues are not rocket science, they are far more complex.

    As we tell students and staff the most difficult issue to address on any complex topic is Vocabulary.

    Niccolo Machiavelli said the most difficult thing to accomplish was to institute a new order of things.

    We propose a new order (Fundamental Change) in governace structure and a new order (Fundamental Change) in settlement patterns PLUS new Vocabulary.

    There is good reason why your head hurts.

    What worrys me are those who do not use their head.

    EMR

  3. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    EMR, Larry –

    I am not going to try to labor over
    the complexity of EMR’s posting, but I would suggest:

    -Arlington’s planning has been good
    and the failure of those concepts
    to be used elsewhere in Northern
    Virginia is a problem with the lack
    of a good planning function in our
    state government.

    -Portland’s planning has also been
    good and the failure of those concepts to be used in Vancouver,
    Washington is problem with one state not willing to adopt another
    state’s approach to planning, thus
    that criticism is a non issue.

    Thanks for your comments EMR and
    Larry’s interest.

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    some comments now:

    I’m afraid that I don’t ascribe evil motives to the Census Folks but probably would agree that their idea of what reality is – is purvasive in their own world just as with other organizations like VDOT – their “world” is their institutional view that may or may not deal with inconsistencies between their views and the real world.

    But the Census folks appear to me to collect data – and then attempt to use that data to describe what they think constituents an MSA or MD per criteria.

    What they don’t attempt to do is to pass judgement on what the boundaries should be base on what should or should not be contained within those boundaries.

    The Census Department deals with demographic data.. but they do not decide anything with respect to implemented governance …i.e. one man – one vote.. etc, et al.

    So I see the Census folks as gathering data and then attempting to aggregate that data into something that is a reasonable proxy for the “connectiveness” of a region or sub-region especially with regard to jobs and commuting.

    The problem that I have with “Fundamental Change” is that it appears to me to go further than the Census folks and attempt to define boundaries and to dictate one should or should not be contained within those boundaries and I end up with “what if” scenarios…

    .. like.. where would you put a major Regional Hospital?

    .. Would you let the private sector to their due diligence to decide where to put it.. or would you require them to conform to what some government of some kind would say with respect to “acceptable” sites or not?

    Ditto .. with things like transit, new highways, UPS/Fed Ex depots, Food Lion … distribution warehouses, water supply reservoirs, etc.

    Fundamentally, I am very, very skeptical that any government of any scope/scale no matter how well intentioned should have the power to actually dictate to people or businesses or service providers or institutions where they can or cannot locate.

    We have folks who want to put a Slavery Museum in Fredericksburg. There are lots and lots of questions with regard to whether or not this is the “right” place for it – but I would never, ever want to see a Governance framework that essentially would tell them that “it has been decided” that you are in the wrong place and if you build here – you could screw up our plans for a “balanced community”.

    This is but one reason why I need to know much, much more about how Fundamental Change would be implemented… more specific – how would change be set into motion and then evolve?

    It could be that we have on one hand – an academic exercise of how we would do things “in a perfect world” and that there never was an intent to actually try to change the world.

    Which I can accept quite readily.

    But.. if those who favor a change – only say how it should be – and not how to get there.. then.. I wonder how to take it seriously as something worth working to achieve.

    And I am just one person… with questions… there are many, many more folks out there who are much more harsh in their attitudes and criticisms that would have to be won over… if progress is to be made.

    Rodger keeps talking about State Level and Regional Level planning and I clearly see the Regional perspective but I’m still trying to get my hands around what a State Level Agency would do (or not).

    Right now – we have Home Rule states and Dillon Rule states and none of them are “pure”.. but rather hybrid mixtures …. i.e. “blends” of what a locality can do and what a State retains authority for.

    Somwhere in the middle.. I suspect is a configuration … that we could call Fundamental Change – but I’ll be honest – at this point – I have absolutely no clue as to what the major components of it would be or not be – so I’ll keep asking questions.

  5. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    Thank you for the feedback.

    Every one of your paragraphs deserves a long answer.

    I will spare you that for now but most of your questions are addressed in Shape of the Future and/or will be in TRILO-G.

    I will add a few notes below, but first:

    Roger:

    You completely miss our point.

    Municipal borders and state borders have almost nothing to do with developing strategies for a sustainable future.

    The Vancouver, Washington problem is Portland Metro’s problem, not the State of Washington’s.

    As we have pointed out over and over Arlington County is most, but not all of two Beta Communites. While other municipalities could do better, none will do well until the focus is shifted to Regions and the organic components of Regions (both NURs and USRs).

    More on state strategies below.

    Please reread our post.

    Larry:

    I ascribe no evil motive to the staff at the Bureau of Census (BS). BS staff are doing what gets them appointed and promoted within the current governmental context which needs fixing (aka, Fundamental Change in governance structure).

    This is a democracy and the blame rests with citizens who allow this dysfuction to continue to evolve.

    BS does gather data. For some time I served on a committee of the Transportation Research Board (National Acadamy of Science) to help BS gather more relevant data. There is much more that they could do.

    They aleady do a lot and it is the aggregation that is the biggest problem.

    For a good view of the very important information that can come from BS data see Wm Luch and D Phillips latest book.

    It has a title so bad that my wordprocessor refuses to recored it but look it up on Amazon under William A. Lucy. (Initials of the title are TCTS.)

    Bill and Dave did a splendid job with BS data and their book would be a best seller if marketed on its worth.

    (TCTS is in a tie for the worst book title in the past 200 years with CitW by Bruce Babbitt.)

    I think you will find some help on the Slavery Mus issue in our section on CostCo in “The Problem with Cars” a new Backgrounder that will be posted soon. It is nearing completion as part of Chapter 2 of BRIDGES.

    Your fear of Fundamental Change would be alevieated by reading “The Shape of Richmonds Future.” I think that is the fourth time I have mentioned it.

    (As I have said before, I have so much new stuff to do that I cannot go back and rehash material I have already put down.)

    As to what could a “state plan” or a real “state planning agency” do? The best answer is to consider the 1926 New York State “Wright Plan” by Henry Wright and the 1964 follow-up Change / Challenge / Response along with the work we did for the Rockefeller Administration on intelligent responses to “areas in transition.”

    Since the majority of the NURs in the US of A fall in more than one state (and four are shared with Canada and Mexico) and two of the three NURs in the Commonwealth are shared with four states and the Federal District)just doing “state planning” would not help much.

    But it would be a start.

    For more on the complexity issue see todays WaPo story by Joel A. in Style and the quote by Rbt Clark. And if you think the food supply system is complex, how about human settlement patterns?

    EMR

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I like the idea of picking an existing location… and laying out it’s current planning world/environment…

    then laying out how it would need function in a NUR planning world.

    I think in that fashion – others, like myself can see better what is being advocated.

    And there is a precedence for this because the Census Bureau, MPOs – and even private sector marketing companies DO look a demographically-bound areas that even cross jurisdictional boundaries and state lines.

    I specifically asked my own local MPO if MPO boundaries had to include the entire jurisdiction and the answer was that they did not (though normally did) – so .. for instance.. in theory – the Washington Area MPO .. _could_ include part of North Stafford and the Fredericksburg MPO could stop it’s boundaries at the North Anna River.

    I’m not sure how Virginia Planning district boundaries are done.

    But my point is that – jurisdictional boundaries are not the only acceptable way to aggregate planning data.

    I’d also make the point that different planning disciplines use different boundaries and that would seem to me to be a problem – for integrated planning.

    For instance, it’s generally agreed that it would be a “good” thing for VDOT boundaries to match up with MPO and MSA boundaries rather than look a lot like the gerrymandered artifacts they, in fact, are.

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Here’s another difference that I think worth considering.

    Census Bureau MSAs are in large part DEFINED by commuting or “connectivity”.

    It not that they define it this way – it’s that they are simply acknowledge obvious realities – that a given area consists of people and activities linked together by a daily mobility… or perhaps… proximity also…

    for instance, in the Midwest, a farmer might only go to town once a week (as opposed to a daily commuter) but his connection is to a specific town… (often) closest to him.

    So the Census folks are not dictating this connectivity – instead – they are merely documenting the fact that it exists and the secondary and cumulative impacts of it.

    If EMR and folks in their realm think that this connectivity superset is “wrong” and they show the how and why behind it – fine.

    But most MSAs – worldwide pretty much “work” the same way… ???

    or .. if they don’t .. I’ve never heard the ones that “work” different and supposedly “better” promoted as a better approach.

    So – to a certain extent – it appears that we are saying that humans, if left to their own devices, worldwide – will form.. fundamentally flawed governance institutions that, in turn, as a direct consequence, lead to dysfunctional settlement patterns.

    It’s almost if our country’s Forefathers .. screwed up.. in their quest to build a well functioning Democratic form of governance… did so.. totally ignorant of the adverse consequences of that form of governance on settlement patterns.

    But then I come to a contradiction and that if that some of our current concepts on Balanced Communities and NUR harken back to earlier times when villiages with grid streets set the standard.

    And as far as I know.. the evolution from those kinds of settlment patterns to the kind we have today -which are said to be dysfunctional… was not caused by major changes in governance structures.

    The governance structures we have today .. unless folks feel I am badly mistaken, seem to me to be very similiar to what they have been from decades/centuries ago.

    No?

    So.. I’m having some skepticism that governance … is at the core of Fundamental Change…

    I’m actually at the point of view that if gasoline cost $5 a gallon and congestion pricing was set at say a dollar a mile…that we’d see such major fundamental changes that the Census would have to go back and re-define the criteria for mobility and commuting… and the impact on MSA boundaries.

    so .. I think it more likely that the marketplace produced changes in settlement patterns .. much more so than governance…

  8. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    Three quick notes:

    1. How do PDCs work?

    They do not.

    Recognizing the growth of “Northern Virgina” years ago, Fauquier County tried to move into that PDC from one in which they have less “connections.”

    Prince William vetoed the move because PW did not want anyone being in a position to comment on their land use decisions that had extrateritorial impact. See Backgrounder “Anatomy of a Bottleneck.”

    2. Connectivity is important. Based on the BS 2000 commuting numbers there is no way to justify the changes in MSA or CMSA much less the Micropolitian designations.

    I am not sure re the Metro Division because I have not looked at those numbers.

    Can you say politics?

    3. I am not sure what your source is for what those outside the US of A are doing but it does not match our experience in Cananda (Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Winnepeg, Ottawa, etc.) or in the EU.

    Many of our concepts for Functamental Change in governace and the organic components of human settlement pattern are based on the nature of Fundamental Change in governance structure in the EU.

    Italy, of all places, is light years ahead of anything Portland or Minn-St. Paul NURs or the states of Oregon or Minn have done.

    Much of the settlement pattern strategy in EU is based on Urban Agglomeration configurations without regard to national borders.

    EMR

  9. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    EMR-

    I think you are missing my point –
    state boundaries, county and city
    boundaries are what they are and
    they create certain limits to what
    one community can achive.

  10. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Roger:

    You are missing the point of this post.

    This is a post about Balanced Communities with a capital “B” and a capital “C.”

    Balanced Communities have little to do with municipal or state borders for many reasons. Those we have noted and others.

    As Larry noted, the primary forces shaping human settlement patterns are economic, social and physical, not political.

    The existing governace structures can and do curtail the evolution of functional and sustainable settlement patterns and Balanced Communities.

    If you would like to discuss communites, existing governance structue and borders that is fine but doing it here is counterproductive for you and those who may be interested in Balanced Communities.

    EMR

  11. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    EMR_

    Municipal or state borders place
    constraints on what communities
    can become – given the body of local and state laws that govern
    those issues.

    My simple comments earlier on this posting about Arlington County and Portland, Oregon has led you to take me to task for being disconnected from your somewhat complex and impractical views of certain matters relative to community growth and evolution – for example your thoughts about Arlington and Portland efforts not producing better communties elsewhere in Northern Virginia and Vancouver, Washington.

  12. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    How can you NOT have fair allocation of costs for services that are privately operated? Why is it the governments business to even attempt planning to level out such costs? Why do we think that fair allocation of costs will necessearily result in lower costs overall?

  13. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    If Arlington’s planning has been so good, then why do they have the highest tax rates and highest average cost of living in the area, even considering that they lack the truly expensive homes located eleswhere which might raise the average?

  14. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “I am very, very skeptical that any government of any scope/scale no matter how well intentioned should have the power to actually dictate to people or businesses or service providers or institutions where they can or cannot locate.”

    🙂

    So, lets get rid oz zoning laws that prevet just that.

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “So, lets get rid oz zoning laws that prevet just that.”

    yeah.. I knew that was coming…

    🙂

    How about – we get rid of emminent domain for roads and water/sewer and other infrastructure also?

    so … there will be no public infrastructure – all private and all – negotiated access between private owners.

    That way no one has to provide you with roads, water/sewer or even electricity unless you’re willing to pay what they are asking to provide it to you.

    Try building say .. a sewer line that crosses dozens of properties without emminent domain…

    now ask yourself why exactly we have ED. It’s not to make it easier for you to develop your property… and it’s not paid for by taxes so that such taxes can be transferred to you to help you develop your property.

    Property Rights folks want the government to have the power of ED – so that they can develop their properties.

    If they had to do this themselves, the value of their properties would be very different…

    .. and the further away you were from infrastructure.. the more your costs would be to develop your property.

    This is why developers want property to “front” on a major road and to have guaranteed access to water/sewer.

    what if your property did not “front” on a public road and you had to pay for access and what if you could not get water/sewer unless you paid whatever asking price the guy who owned the lines was asking?

    is this what we mean by getting the government out of zoning?

  16. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “I am very, very skeptical that any government of any scope/scale no matter how well intentioned should have the power to actually dictate to people or businesses or service providers or institutions where they can or cannot locate.”

    this is actually a very interesting concept.

    For instance, in Virginia, a locality cannot outlaw a legal business category. For instance, they cannot say “no tatoo parlors”.

    They can set conditions and they can designate WHERE they are allowed geographically in a jurisdiction.

    Now if you think about this in the context of multiple jurisdictions – adjacent to each other – making rules about where such businesses can locate and under what kind of rules – without cross-jurisdictional coordination – and, in fact, even contradictory outcomes…

    and this expands out to a wider condundrum with respect to what local adjacent jurisdictions to with respect to land-use and comp planning… specially whether they coordinate as a region or not.

    I see Fundamental Change and Regional Coordination at not unrelated although I’m sure EMR probably has a different view.

    I’m not sure at what level some decisions should be made – but I see quite a bit of merit in the Dillon Rule in terms of maintaining some level of uniformity. I would draw a comparison to our Interstate Highways.

    Imagine there NOT being standards with regard to simple things like sineage, lane width, interchange designs, surface road connections, etc, etc.

    Without some strong uniformity rules – we’d have no interstate system – we’d have instead what we had before the interstates – a series of connecting roads that all called themselves “Route 1” but beyond that.. every locality have their own idea of how to do that road and the result was something that without uniformity – lacked important functionality and usefulness.

    No we have similar challenges with regard to Regions – in effect – linked together by uniform interstates but with wildly varying rules and visions with regard to land-use.

    Does it matter to Fairfax what Loudoun does or vice versa?

    Does it matter when Fairfax allows a business to locate – knowing full well that many of the employees will not live in Fairfax?

    Does it matter that Loudoun County will approve thousands of new residential homes – knowing full well that the roads that lead from those homes to Fairfax cannot handle the new volumes?

    So my comment was not with respect to zoning – and the right – and to be honest, the responsibility of government to say WHERE business can locate or not …

    .. but not to say that they cannot locate in their locality – period.

    But here’s the dialogue that took place with Fort Belvoir that does NOT take place with other businesses – a double standard.

    Fairfax to the US GOV – ” you want to move how many jobs to Belvoir”?

    “What will that do to the transportation network”

    Feds: “well, let us do a study based on how many people, where they live right now, how much they make and how much housing will cost in the immediate environs around Ft. Belvoir.

    Fairfax County: “GREAT” – “and, while you’re at it – tell us how much the new roads will cost to handle all those new commuters – and also how much of that cost you’re willing to foot”.

    Note – that Fairfax is NOT sayin – “No -you cannot come here”

    this is what I am saying.

    I’m skeptical that any locality can/should tell any business that they cannot locate in that jursidiction – but that does not preclude a necessary discussion about impacts and who bears responsibilities for those impacts – as a condition of approval.

    THAT is what Zoning Laws .. ARE about.

  17. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I am very, very skeptical that any government of any scope/scale no matter how well intentioned should have the power to actually dictate to people or businesses or service providers or institutions where they can or cannot locate.

    Great words.

    Until I build a drive thru adult bookstore and beer emporium on the vacant lot next to your house.

    When that happens – the property owners run like scalded dogs to the politicians looking for new zoning laws.

    And … zoning laws always look dumb in retrospect.

    How should eastern Loudoun County have been zoned in 1980?

    All high density, mixed use?

    No zoning at all?

    How should Spotsylvania County be zoned today?

    All high density, mixed use?

    No zoning at all?

    And with all due respect to EMR, the political divisions of the United States are not drawn by New Urban Area or any other advanced human settlement concept. They are drawn by state, county, city, etc.

    So, even though I have much, much more in common with the people who live in Montgomery County, MD I am subject to political decisions by people from Lee County, VA.

    I believe that the US Constitution says something about all powers not specifically confered to the federal governemnt are assumed the province of ths states. No mention of counties, cities or New Urban Regions. And state boundaries are pretty welll established – no?

    Does the United States need a new constitution to make this all work?

  18. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Groveton:

    States do need new constitutions AND new borders (aka, Fundamental Change in governace structue).

    We make the point in “The Shape of the Future” that the failure of states to evolve new governace sturctures has led to:

    1) Bucking problem after problem up to the federal level where is violates the principle of level of decision at the level of impact.

    2) Thwarting the evolutiong of sub-state entities that match economic, social and phyciscal reality.

    (It is not all the state legislature, administration and judicial fault. Municipalism thrives on hiding behind the Dillon Rule.)

    Roger:

    You may want to start your own Blog that focuses on good ideas to which few paid attention in the last centruy and which would do no good, and some harm, in this centruy.

    (They would do harm because they would give the false impression that something was being done to move society into a more sustainable tracetory. See for instance the discussion of what is politically acceptable re energy consumption in yesterday’s WaPo.)

    EMR

  19. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    EMR-

    What a silly response to my comments about the reality of
    our laws governing land use and
    planning.

    By the way – I spell Rodger with
    a “d.” Century I think is spelled
    this way not “centruy” as you wrote.

    Cheers!

  20. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    How did you make the jump from eliminating dictatorial zoning laws (not the same, necessarily, as all zoning laws) to eliminating infrastructure?

    I think the property rights advocates are not so much against eminent domain as they are against unfair payments under eminent domain.

    And, they probably hate to see their property or development rights denied over and over, under the ruse that “development doesn’t pay” only to have the property taken away under eminent domain, and turned over to developers to increase tax payments, or provide services to others at low cost.

    I don’t have a problem with eminent domain. I have a real problem with the process by which the compensation is determined. So did a virginia commission with the job of studying this issue.

    Let’s face it. There is a big difference between getting a sewer easement and burying pipe under someone’s yard, then putting things back as you found them from taking someone’s waterfront dream home outright and not paying them enough to replace it elsewhere.

  21. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Until I build a drive thru adult bookstore and beer emporium on the vacant lot next to your house.

    When that happens – the property owners run like scalded dogs to the politicians looking for new zoning laws.

    And … zoning laws always look dumb in retrospect.”

    As usual, groveton hit it on the head. Zoning laws always look dumb in retrospect becasue they do not adequateley change with the times. Indeed, as his example shows, they are designed to prevent change.

    Specifically they are designed to prevent change which is truly damaging, as in his example. We could handle that better with case by case nuisance law. Instead, we are approaching a situation where the color of the shutters on your house, or even the material they are made of, (even if they are otherwise visually OK) has become a zoning issue. Zoning has become THE social engineering medium, instead of a means to protect ourselves from our own worst excesses.

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I don’t disagree with some of the criticisms of zoning – especially since we seem to look back at previous zoning ideas as wrong-headed especially the idea that commercial should be separate from residential, etc.

    But zoning is not a concept that was forced down citizens throats. In fact, the opposite. It was/is demanded by most citizens – who .. ahem.. .ARE also landowners – right?

    or do we distinquish between folks who own land for a home or land to be developed.. because if we want to say that someone that lives in a SF home no longer “counts” as a property owner – I’d beg to differ for the guy who think he should be able to rent than house to 10 Latinos or 10 convicted sex offenders or 10 women who “entertain” extensively in the evenings.

    If you take away zoning – get ready for much, much more than just some landowners building a few homes on some farmland.

    And.. in fact.. a piece of land may be rendered to 1/2 or 1/10 it’s value if property around it is developed for uses not “compatible” with your intended development …

    So.. methinks this is really not about zoning laws because I bet if we really took a hard look at ALL the things that might evolve – even the most ardent property rights folks might take some pause.

    So a question for those who think zoning laws are artifacts that need to go away.

    What about Comp Plans? Ditch them also?

  23. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “It was/is demanded by most citizens – who .. ahem.. .ARE also landowners – right?”

    No, actually, I don’t think so.

    If you look back at the history, I suspect you will find that it was like a lot of laws, promoted by special interests. They saw it as a way to restrict the market and thsu raise prices. For the same reason, developers LOVE environmental regulations that restrict the market.

    I also beleive that was fortuitously combined with an increase in nuisance suits as the population and industrial growth developed. Governments saw it as a way to reduce the court load and get out of the business of presiding over scrappy neighbors. But the industrial growth is now mostly gone, so mixed use is far more practical today.

    Houston operates quite well without zoning, but it has numerous kinds of homeowners associations and community groups. The difference is that you get to choose to buy into one or another, depending on your preferences. It isn’t something that is imposed on you retroactively.

    Someone correct me if I’m wrong about the history.

  24. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: zoning

    you know most places with zoning are receptive to larger mixed-use proposals from developers that allow developers to configure denser development patterns – even build workforce housing and market-priced “affordable” housing but we do see many proposals like that.

    Why not?

    It’s not zoning rules and regs that keep such proposals from being made…. most localities would seriously consider a larger mixed-use development with such housing..

  25. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “most places with zoning are receptive to larger mixed-use proposals from developers “

    Right, but for a guy like me who wants to build one lousy house, the answer is no, not now, not ever, don’t even bother asking.

    Then we wonder why the big bad developers are putting up all the crap we see around us.

    Besides, willing to entertain and receptive are a lot different. I think those mixed use proposals require a lot more effort, meetings, and work, which is one reason we don;t see more of them.

    That, and the community activists who will pack every meeting.

    I think there should be safety and environmental and traffic criteria. You meet the criteria however you can, You got a P.E. to sign off, you post a bond, you get the go ahead.

    The process now is entirely too subjective.

  26. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    The larger projects allow developers to essentially do their own zoning and to use CDAs to allocate out the infrastructure costs.

    They are a lot easier for a locality to deal with in terms of development of a larger land area.

    The alternative is for 20,30,100 separate applications… each one requiring a curb cut, and a gazillion facets and details that require resources from the county.

    My point is that the idea that zoning laws and regs are unfair and do not allow developers to provide market solutions – is a bogus claim.

    A large scale developer can have quite a bit of freedom in what they do – as long as their use of externally-provided, publically-provisioned infrastructure is negotiated and mitigated.

    These larger scale multi-use projects are growing in number (despite the fact that they fail the “balanced community” test).

    Owners of smaller parcels – let’s be honest – they want different rules that the big developers go by.

    They want a “pass” on things the bigger developers will agree to do.

    Like putting the turn lanes in on the entrance roads.

    the smaller developers just want the curb cuts.. or additional traffic without having to put in the turn lanes – and if all the smaller developers did that – we get… what we currently have – arterials whose traffic-flow functionality have been seriously compromised by a gazillion curb cuts – which necessitates a new “bypass” road and/or many traffic signals instead of one major traffic signal that serves the entire development.

    I’m not convinced that this is about zoning… at all because if it was about that – then the big developers would be complaining also… and we really would have huge vacant parcels that could never be developed – and that is simply not the case.

    Land does get developed and as I stated earlier – nothing is preventing a developer from proposing a large development that contains amble affordable housing in that development.

    The reason this is not done is not because the zoning does not allow it but rather that the developer is not going to sell homes for less that what he/she can get for that housing – and that’s the market – not zoning.

Leave a Reply

Read More