Question Everything

EintsteinQuestionEverything1

Almost two decades ago I was introduced to government land use and zoning policies. As I began talking to elected officials and city planners I was astounded by the misinformation used to justify the land use policies.

Almost every city official and planner I spoke to was relying on false or misleading information. I began to question everything.

When people told me that high density mixed use developments reduce traffic I asked them to prove it. But they couldn’t. Because it wasn’t true. 

When proponents of urbanization told me high density transit oriented developments would pave the way for MARTA trains that would reduce congestion I asked them to prove it. But they couldn’t. Because it wasn’t true.

When supporters of transit oriented developments told me that heavy rail would bring more jobs to Alpharetta I asked them to prove it. But they couldn’t. Because it wasn’t true.

And as I questioned claim after claim about the benefits of urbanization a website called NewGeography.com became invaluable for research. The website currently features an article about the challenges city planners face today and how difficult it is for them to respond to a rapidly changing world that doesn’t conform to many previously held biases and preconceived notions.

Below are a couple of excerpts from the article De’ja’ Vu and the Dilemma for Planners which was written by Steven Poltzin:

Planner AngstPlanner's Aspirations

 

You should read the whole article here.

Unfortunately everything is more politicized today than ever before. That is especially true of zoning decisions worth hundreds of millions of dollars.  But facts are facts even when the “conventional wisdom” of developers, consultants and urban planners may not agree.

Question everything.

Smart Growth transfers quality of life to the rich at the expense of poor?

A recent article on newgeography.com caught my eye because it criticizes the current fad of “smart growth” policies from the perspective of an avowed leftist. The article is written by Richard Morrill, a professor Emeritus at the University of Washington and his analysis leads him to believe that the liberal land use policies currently embraced by urban planners end up hurting the poor and minorities in Washington state.

I suggest you read the whole thing for context but below are some of the money quotes from Professor Morrill:

Population change in the state of Washington has relevance to the nation and to other states because it tells us something about market preferences of households versus the orientation of planners (e.g., “smart growth”).

****************

To a leftist like me, the tragedy is how smart growth transfers wealth and the vaunted “quality of life” to the rich and the professionals, at the expense of the poor and of minorities. Sadly the Democratic party seems totally blind to the fact that the fixation on new urbanism contributes to the rightward backlash. Folks do not want to be told how to live, especially, dare I assert, when those hectoring them have already cornered the nicest parts of the region for themselves. Middle and working class families are not likely to embrace policies – beloved by affluent professionals – that would deny them a chance to own their preferred kind of residence at a reasonable price.

*****************

As the late great UW economist Charlie Tiebout told a seminar 50 years ago, “People vote with their feet”  This is certainly true about residential choices. While perhaps twenty percent at most of Americans may prefer higher density living, for reasons of age, family status or ideology, the large majority does not and likely will not.

*****************

Growth management and upzoning have been unable to stem this tide, for two main reasons rarely acknowledged by planners: the preference of families with children for single family houses and greater housing affordability, at least in some areas…

Most people don’t want to be crowded into densely populated concrete jungles. “Smart growth” reduces the acreage available for the single family homes that the vast majority of Americans want. By reducing the supply of single family homes “smart growth” inflates their price which makes the dream of home ownership unattainable for millions of people. It is basic Econ 101. So either urban planners don’t care what people want or their goal to force Americans into more efficient densities whether they like it or not.

Wealthy Americans will always be able to afford single family homes. Forcing land use policies that are abhorred by the majority of people in a city ensures that those areas will only appeal to a minority of the population and the people unable to afford anything else.

That may be efficient but it sure as heck isn’t smart.