Transcript The New Snob Zoning

The New Snob Zoning
Urban Sprawl, Social Cohesion and Zoning
Exclusion in the United States
“I had never belonged to a group of agitators and activists, but then again, never
before had I found one whose members shared my fervor for fine cheeses.”*
Edward H. Ziegler
Professor of Law
University of Denver College of Law
*Alan Deutschman (2003) (his novel on fighting development in Sonoma Valley)
1
THE TWO URBAN GROWTH OPTIONS
A Comparative Perspective
Barcelona, Spain
UP
DENSITY
OUT
Density
Out
SPRAWL
SPRAWL
City of Denver, USA
*Barcelona has 11x Denver’s Residential Density
2
SPRAWL IN THE REAL WEST
Teton Sioux Village, 1880
3
SPRAWL IN THE OLD WEST
City, Nevada 1888
Virginia
4
SPRAWL IN THE NEW WEST
Denver, Colorado
5
Typical Suburban Sprawl – All Land Uses Are Isolated
Pods of Automobile-Dependent Development.
6
GROWTH IN THE UNITED STATES
+3 Million people annual
population growth.
1.9 Million new housing units
built in 2003.
1.5 Million of the new housing units
built in 2003 were detached singlefamily homes.
7
The Dynamic of Urban Sprawl
United States
Population Growth / Land Development
1970-1980
Cleveland
Chicago
Los Angeles
New York City
Seattle
-100%
0%
100%
Population
200%
300%
400%
Land Area
Expansion in Population and Land Development
Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1970 to 1980.
Source: Planning and Zoning News, January 1993.
8
Most cities and downtowns grew in the 1990s
9
But, decentralization still dominates
10
Despite city growth, suburbs grew faster
20%
Percent population
growth,
1990-2000
17.0%
15%
10%
8.8%
5%
0%
Cities
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; cities and suburbs in the 100 largest metro areas
Suburbs
11
United States 1990-2000
Slow growing areas in the Northeast and Midwest consumed
enormous amounts of land relative to population growth
7.1%
Midwest
32.2%
5.0%
Detroit
29.0%
6.9%
Northeast
39.1%
6.7%
Boston
46.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Change in Urbanized Land
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Change in Population
Source: Fulton et al., “Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S.”; Brookings Institution, July 2001
12
As a result, densities are declining
13
Density has dropped across all regions in the U.S.
between 1982 and 1997
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
United States
1982
5.87
3.68
4.19
5.46
4.46
Density
1997
Percent Change
4.51
-23.1%
2.82
-23.4%
3.39
-19.0%
4.85
-11.2%
3.55
-20.5%
14
Source: Fulton and others, “Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S.”
COSTS OF SPRAWL
• INFRASTRUCTURE AND FISCAL COSTS.
• ECONOMIC COSTS TO HOUSEHOLDS.
• AUTOMOBILE USE AND CONGESTION.
• IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
• URBAN BLIGHT AND POVERTY IN
CITY CORE AREAS.
• SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EXCLUSION OF LESS
AFFLUENT.
• AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LESS AFFLUENT.
15
CAUSES OF SPRAWL
•
PRIVATE MARKET DEMAND
•
PUBLIC POLICIES AND SUBSIDIES
•
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
•
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL
CONCERNS
(Tax Revenue And Expenditures)
•
LOW DENSITY ZONING AND
EXCLUSIONARY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
(Built Environment NIMBYISM)
16
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL CONCERNS
(TAX REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES)
AS A SIGNIFICANT CAUSE OF SPRAWL

Local Government Taxes Come Largely from
Commercial and Office Development.

Taxes from Residential Development Do Not Pay
for Public Infrastructure and Services.

Local Governments Utilize “Fiscal” Zoning to
Exclude Residential Development (Especially
Higher Density and More Affordable Housing).
17
BUILT ENVIRONMENT NIMBYISM
(NOT IN MY BACKYARD)
A SIGNIFICANT CAUSE OF LOW DENSITY ZONING,
URBAN SPRAWL, AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Causes of Exclusionary Zoning

Maintaining Low Taxes.

Protection of Low Density Character and
Market Value of Existing Neighborhoods.

Class and Income Discrimination.

Racial and Ethnic Discrimination.
18
Built Environment NIMBYISM
Protecting Existing Neighborhoods and Already
Developed Recreation Areas from New Development
• “The wolf of exclusionary
zoning hides under the
environmental sheepskin
worn by the stop-growth
movement.”
Fred Bosselman (1973)
Old West NIMBY
New West NIMBY
19
THE LEXICON OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT
NIMBYISM
NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard
 NIMFYE: Not In My Front Yard Either
 PITBY:
Put It In Their Back Yard
 LULU:
Locally Unwanted Land Use
 BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near
Anybody
 NOPE:
Not On Planet Earth
 NIMTOO: Not In My Term Of Office
 NIMEY: Not In My Election Year

20
Studies of Regulatory Barriers to
Affordable Housing






1991 Advisory Commission on
Regulatory Barriers to
Affordable Housing
1988, U.S. General Accounting
Office Conference on Housing
1987, National Housing Task
Force
1981, President’s Commission
on Housing
1980, Council of Development
Choices for the 80s
1978, U.S. General Accounting
Office Report to Congress





1979, Report of the Task
Force on Housing Costs
1977, Task Force on Housing
Costs
1973, National Housing
Policy Review
1967, President’s
Committee on Urban
Housing
1967, National Commission
on Urban Problems
21
HOUSING POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES
• Federal law and policy artificially stimulates
demand and subsidizes homeownership for
the affluent working class.
(but at the same time)
• Local zoning and growth management
programs restrict building permits reducing
the supply of housing and significantly
increasing housing prices.
22
HOMEOWNERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES
As a Result of Appreciating Housing Prices
• Homeownership is not perceived to be
just about finding a nice place to live.
• Homeownership is widely perceived to be
a major economic investment in a large
bulk commodity.
23
URBAN PLANNING IN THE UNITED STATES
Influence of Increasing Housing Prices
• Local zoning programs are not widely
utilized to create livable and sustainable
communities for all types of Households.
• Local zoning programs are largely directed
at protecting the property values of
existing neighborhoods.
24
SMART GROWTH
Smart growth means using comprehensive planning to guide,
design, develop, revitalize and build communities for all that
have a unique sense of community and place; preserve and
enhance valuable natural and cultural resources, equitably
distribute the costs and benefits of development, expand the
range of transportation, employment and housing choices
in a fiscally responsive manner; value long range, regional
considerations of sustainability over short term incremental
geographically isolated actions; and promotes public health
and healthy communities. Compact, transit accessible,
pedestrian-oriented, mixed used development patterns and
land reuse epitomize the applications of principles of smart
growth.
American Planning Association (2002)
25
SMART GROWTH
Planning Techniques
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Open Space Protection and Acquisition
Preservation of Agricultural Lands
Environmental Protection Restrictions
View Protection, Aesthetic, and Design Controls
Exactions and Impact Fees
Concurrency Development Controls
Annual Growth Caps
Contiguous Development Controls
High Density Requirements
New Urbanist Development
Regional Planning/ Growth Boundaries
26
Built Environment Nimbyism and The Political
Dynamic of Local Growth Management Programs
SMART GROWTH
REALITY
More Comprehensive
and Intensive
Development Controls
and Environmental
Restrictions
(Adopted)
MYTH
Fast Track Affordable
High Density
(New Urbanist)
Residential
Development Projects
(Rejected)
27
28
29
The Results of Smart Growth
Dominated By Built Environment
Nimbyism
1. May Protect the Quality of
Life and Increase the
Property Values of Existing
Homeowners.
30
The Results of Smart Growth
Dominated By Built Environment
Nimbyism
2. When Implemented Independently
by Local Communities, May
Promote Low Density Sprawl
Throughout a Metropolitan Region.
31
The Results of Smart Growth
Dominated By Built Environment
Nimbyism
3. May Increase the Costs of
New Housing and Reduce
the Supply of Affordable Housing.
32
The Results of Smart Growth
Dominated By Built Environment
Nimbyism
4. May Continue to Promote Social and
Economic Isolation and Exclusion.
33
More than 30% of jobs in the top 100 metros are now located
far from central downtowns.
3-mile share
Share of
metropolitan
employment, 100
largest
metropolitan areas,
1996
10-mile share
Outside 10-mile share
45%
22%
33%
34
Possible Remedies
Low Density Zoning and Exclusionary Growth
Management Programs
Problematic Technique for More Affordable Housing
1. Deregulation?
2. Incentive Zoning?
3. Inclusionary Zoning?
4. Impact Fees?
5. Judicial Review?
6. Required Minimum Densities!
7. Regional Planning (Fair Share)!
8. Direct Housing Subsidies!
35