From the
Editor...
At last another
edition of the Reporter, months behind schedule. I could make the
case that writing my new book, The Practice of Sustainable
Development, commissioned by the Urban Land Institute, has been
occupying too much of my time – far longer than planned and just now
getting close to printing. I could also cite several other writing
assignments and a ULI panel that got in the way. But these excuses
aside, I can only plead for your good will and understanding of a
schedule full to overflowing. With this edition and another within a
few weeks I hope to catch up. Subscribers will get their four
issues, although over a longer time frame than expected. And with
the next mailing I’ll be sending out renewal notices!
The news in this
newsletter focuses on the controversy over revisions to Florida’s
state growth management program. As one of the longest-running state
programs in one of the fastest-growing states, it ranks with Oregon
as a pacesetter for other states’ programs. Now it seems that the
new administration of Governor Jeb Bush is determined to make
substantial revisions, shifting much of the enforcement of planning
and regulatory requirements to local jurisdictions. If this occurs
it is bound to have a major influence on current and proposed
legislation in other states.
The other news
is really an essay on the irreconciliation between the principles of
compact development and environmental conservation. In conducting
research for the sustainable development book, I discovered that
“sustainable” development to many environmentally minded designers
means conserving natural elements –
farmlands,
woodlands, wetlands, hills, etc. -- by clustering development in
small parts of the site. This is a significant improvement over
standard suburban subdivisions that use the whole site for large
lots and eradicate the natural landscape and hydrology. But the
overall densities of such plans usually run to one unit per acre or
less – hardly sustainable as an urban setting. The question: how can
we develop compactly and still conserve vital natural qualities?
I pose the
question. Perhaps you have some thoughts leading to an answer.
For the next
edition, I plan to write about these topics (and perhaps more):
·
Neighborhood revitalization approaches in Fairfax County, VA.
·
The back-to-the-city movement: some examples of infill development.
·
“Green building” rating systems.
·
The HUD/NAHB/Conference of Mayors “Million Homes” campaign.
·
The Denver urban limit line: policies and practices.
·
The LA transit fiasco, and its lessons.
·
“Ad hoc” regionalism: a new trend?
Florida’s State
Growth Management System: An Endangered Species?
With the
election of Republican Governor Jeb Bush, and mounting legislative
clamor for respecting local powers and private property rights,
Florida's top-heavy form of state growth management may be headed
for a fall. Critics and advocates of the current system have
skirmished continually about the program since its inception. But
lately the debate has grown more rancorous and suggested reductions
in state powers more hard-hitting.
Julie Hauserman,
writing in the St. Petersburg Times, February 27, 2000, saw
the situation this way: "Many Florida conservatives have been
waiting for years to take a set of scissors to growth management.
Because of Florida's term-limits law, lots of state lawmakers will
be bounced out of office next year. They see this as their last
chance to revamp, or dismantle, development laws." At the end of the
legislative session, most of the proposals for limiting the state's
power in managing growth had failed to gain support, but the Bush
administration is certain to keep the pressure on for significant
changes.
Florida's first
growth management act came in 1972 when the legislature proclaimed a
state role in guiding development by authorizing designation of
"areas of critical state concern" for special treatment and by
establishing extraordinary state/regional/local approval processes
for developments of regional impact (DRI's). In 1975 the "Local
Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation
Act" required all local governments to plan and to incorporate
specific elements in comprehensive plans and in 1985 the "Omnibus
Growth Management Act" required local plans to be consistent with
the state comprehensive plan and regional policy plans. The state
plan encouraged compact development and mandated "concurrency" of
development with adequate public facilities in each locale. The law
required the state Department of Community Affairs to review and
certify the consistency of all local plans with state plan goals and
policies.
Thus was born
the complex and often bewildering apparatus of a state growth
management system that has generated lots of planning, plans, and
regulations but has been viewed by outsiders and insiders as
top-down management. For many Floridians, however, the state's role
appeared necessary to cope with development in one of the
fastest-growing states in the nation, where many residents has lost
faith in the ability of local governments to responsibly guide the
development process. A series of governors adhered to the notion
that in many ways the state knew best how development should
proceed.
Many components
of Florida's state growth management process came under fire from
the first. Initially, several local jurisdictions resisted any
effort to impose state standards on their comprehensive plans and
zoning regulations. The length and complexity of the DRI process
stirred the ire of many developers and local governments.
Designation of a few areas of critical state concern raised so many
intergovernmental hackles that the procedure was all but abandoned.
Administration of the concurrency provision appeared to cause more
problems than it solved; its provisions have been widely skirted by
local governments' innovative interpretations of standards and
criteria to avoid shutting down development due to unavailability of
services.
An emerging
greater concern, however, was the realization during the robust
building periods of the 1980s and 1990s that all the plans, all the
regulations, and all the checkpoints up and down the planning ladder
were largely failing to create the kinds of communities many people
wished to live in. Yes, perhaps the great blunders of past
development were being avoided. Yes, many jurisdictions had put in
place well-crafted plans and many public officials had been prodded
to think more carefully about the development process. And yes,
environmental sensitivities had been raised across the state.
But the form of
development "on the ground" still rankled: traffic congestion was
up, school overcrowding increased, open space was being eaten up by
far-flung developments, unsightly strip malls seemed to outnumber
consumers. Worse, it seemed that the spread of development was not
coalescing into satisfying communities. Local governments and
regional agencies appeared fixated on planning by the book but
loosening the reins on regulation, and on nitpicking individual
projects rather than building workable urban communities.
Recognizing
during the 1990s that the creaky structure of state growth
management was not fulfilling its promise, the state launched
programs to stimulate more creative thinking about community
development. The sustainable communities and sector planning
demonstration programs promised relaxation of state oversight in
return for tangible local efforts to shape livable communities. A
Governor's Commission launched the "Eastward Ho!" project to curb
sprawl that threatened restoration of the Everglades ecosystem.
These programs are just now beginning to influence the look and feel
of development in some communities.
Enter a new
administration in early 1999 proclaiming a mandate for reform and a
leaning toward local rather than state influence over development.
Steve Seibert, the new Secretary of the Department of Community
Affairs, began with an in-house staff study of potential revisions
to the state growth management system, a survey of citizen concerns
about the present program, and a series of 11 regional forums to
obtain input on current growth management issues. Although all these
actions seemed sensible enough, the staff report was widely
criticized for being conducted rather secretively and the responses
of the survey and forums didn't wholly comport with the new
administration's policy directions.
Recommended
Revisions.
The staff report
suggested a wide range of changes to the state growth management
system; among them:
• replacing the
state Comprehensive Plan with a State Priority Plan incorporating a
vision statement and authorizing designation of regional growth
areas and rural communities;
• regional
growth areas should focus growth within urban growth boundaries to
promote compact development, with reduced state oversight of plan
amendments and DRI's within those areas;
• designation of
existing rural communities to promote economic development and
reduce state oversight of plan amendments;
• streamlining
of growth management processes to focus on strictly defined
"essential state interests;"
• targeting
funding for growth-related and housing projects to regional growth
areas and rural communities;
• greater
emphasis on local visioning and community design within urban growth
areas;
• limiting the
DRI process by shifting review responsibility to the local level
within urban growth boundaries, narrowing the scope of review
outside boundaries, exempting certain types of development, and
increasing DRI thresholds;
• other
revisions affecting annexations, agriculture, and improved
coordination between land use, transportation, and sewer and water
serivces.;
Although many of
the proposals seem worthy of discussion, others such as the shifting
of oversight from the state to local jurisdictions are bound to be
controversial. Moreover, suspicions that the Bush administration
seemed poised to gut the growth management system were heightened by
Secretary Seibert's initial refusal to release the study for public
consumption. (It was finally posted on the website in December,
1999.)
Survey and Forum
Findings.
Secretary Seibert also initiated a survey and a series of 11
regional forums to solicit opinions from outside the administration
on the strengths and weaknesses of the system and specific issues.
From November 1 to December 15, 1999, 10,000 copies of the
38-question survey form were distributed across a wide spectrum of
interested groups and individuals; 3,671 responses were received, 70
percent through the Department's website. The Department's summary
of survey results notes that most respondants were white, highly
educated, with household incomes from $50,000 to $75,000, and not
native to Florida. The summary observes that there was no control
over who responded and how many times they responded.
The responses
indicated that 60 percent believed the quality of life in Florida
has worsened (including suburban environments) and over two-thirds
rated traffic congestion, urban sprawl, and loss of wildlife and
habitat as serious problems. The survey revealed broad support for
incentives to spur urban redevelopment, limits on urban sprawl,
community visioning and design, greater intergovernmental
coordination, and protection of agricultural land. Just over half
supported the DRI process.
Regarding the
roles of state, regional, and local governments in growth
management, only 8 percent believed the state was "very effective,"
4 percent rated regional agencies as very effective, and only 15
percent believed that local governments were very effective.
Foresight,
the Spring, 2000 newsletter of the 1000 Friends of Florida, comments
that "two messages are consistently being heard at these forums:
don't reduce state oversight in favor of more reliance on local
government enforcement, and make sure the public gets the help it
needs to see that the locally adopted plans are implemented." The
latter point seems to be uppermost in arguments for a continuing
state presence: local governments are adopting plans that meet state
requirements but too many times subsequent regulatory actions and
project approvals stray far from adopted planning policies.
Legislative
Skirmishes and the Governor's Commission.
Despite the administration's early signal that it would proceed
cautiously, legislators rattled sabers by introducing a number of
bills, at least one backed by the administration, proposing
immediate overhauling of growth management. A coalition of 28
organizations responded by calling for a more deliberate process of
debate and consideration, which after some anxious moments won
agreement from both the Governor and the Secretary. On July 3, 2000,
Governor Bush created a 23-member Growth Management Study Commission
with a mission to "find solutions that better meet the needs of
Florida's growing population, varied landscape and water resources."
In his press release, the Governor sounded the chief themes he
wanted addressed: "Floridians deserve to be part of a growth
management system that not only preserves their quality of life but
is less complex, less regulatory, and more community based." Made up
of a cross-section of elected and public officials and
representatives of interest groups and private business, the
Commission is to report its recommendations by February 15, 2001.
The Commission's
job is not without precedent. Florida has formed task forces every
few years to review and revise its growth management laws. Three
so-called ELMS (Environmental and Land Management Study) groups,
plus many issue-specific commissions, have recommended both major
and minor legislative changes -- including the trend-setting 1985
law. This latest Commission, however, will labor within a political
context that is likely to challenge the very survival of state-led
growth management in Florida.
(Reports and
news are available on these websites: www.1000friendsofflorida.org;
and www.dca.fl.us/)
* * *
Compact
Development versus Environmental Conservation?
In all the
discussions and debates about the concept of sustainable
development, a central issue is how to reconcile conservation with
development. How can development be designed to protect basic
environmental qualities and values? Many environmentally minded
designers are propounding "conservation development" approaches that
cluster development to preserve open space, sensitive lands,
farmlands, and natural features. They set aside hillsides,
woodlands, and other natural features that development might
damaged; plan swales, ponds, and wetlands to handle stormwater;
build wetlands that filter wastewater with the effluent spread on
conserved farmlands; minimize grading for building sites; and
otherwise carefully nest somewhat dense pods of development within
conserved landscape and hydrologic systems.
These design
approaches are being realized in dozens of innovative developments
in many states. What they represent, however, are reconfigurations
of "standard" subdivision design that accept, as a given, site-level
low-density development -- frequently one or fewer dwelling units
per acre. Most are located in rural areas on the edge of
metropolitan growth. Individually they promise conservation of
valued environmental qualities. Spread in quantity across a large
landscape, however, such plans generate polka-dot development
patterns that hardly resemble the compact forms of development
sought by proponents of "Smart Growth" and "New Urbanism." In fact,
promoting such nature-respecting developments would continue the
explosive expansion of suburban settlements into the countryside. In
addition, they establish a multitude of small open spaces that may
not link to larger natural systems and that pose questions about
long-term management and viability.
Development of
truly compact urban areas, by contrast, champions the built
environment in which conserved open spaces tend to be small and
intensely used (although greenway systems can offer corridors of
less-disrupted natural systems). To a large extent, pipes replace
land-consuming swales and wetlands; farms are downsized to gardens;
woodlands are confined within parks or along streets. All in the
name of producing neighborhoods and communities that foster human
interaction -- putting people close together. The great cities of
this world, while conserving patches and swaths of natural space for
human enjoyment (and some natural functions), build densely, streets
and structures covering much of the land, right up to the riverside
and often right over former wetlands and woodlands. In compensation,
compact development reduces the spread of cities into the natural
areas around them.
These two ideas
about "sustainable" development define a conundrum that has not been
fully explored nor reconciled among advocates of sustainability.
Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy discuss this conflict in their
1999 publication, Sustainability and Cities (published by
Island Press). The authors identify one view as a "rural commons"
concept that proclaims "cities are too big and need to be broken
down into little pieces that should be substantially
self-sufficient." In other words, the best way to improve the
environment and achieve livable cities is to create large lots that
allow for growing food and trees locally; most work, recreation, and
social interaction would occur locally as well. Cooperative ventures
would provide for sharing food production, water and solar power,
urban forest management, and the like. Advocates of this view abhor
density. Newman and Kenworthy point out that this form of
development would maintain dependence on automobiles.
The alternative,
say Newman and Kenworthy, is a focus on "urban commons," the city as
a system that should "become more urban, not less, and rebuilt from
within." Not only would such development reduce today's dependence
on automobiles, but it could include innovative approaches to
"greening the city" with greenways, urban forests and even some
agriculture, and linked water/habitat/recreation systems. Although
Newman and Kenworthy don't say it, this strategy assumes that
natural resource losses due to compact urban development can be
mitigated or offset by a combination of improved technologies and
resource conservation within the urban setting, and by greater
protection and restoration of resources outside urban areas. Instead
of attempting to balance all the needs of man and nature within
individual sites, this approach seeks to establish a sustainable
balance of compact urban development and resource conservation
within regions or watersheds.
It must be
observed that neither model takes adequate account of inevitable
successive changes in the form and density of development as urban
areas grow larger.
Newman and
Kenworthy observe that supporters of these opposing views are
continuing to debate about what should be done to make urban areas
more sustainable. In the meantime, in design circles and the media,
most attention to sustainable development is focused on conserving
natural systems within project sites and promoting "green" building,
both important aims but not directly responsive to the goal of
compact development. Highly touted projects such as DeWees Island in
South Carolina, for example, offer elegant applications of
environmental sustainability principles but don't provide much of a
model for higher-density urban development.
Some advances
are being made in thinking through the trade-offs between
conservation and compactness. Certainly the current interest in
promoting greenways as natural systems woven within the urban fabric
offer hope, and hydrologists are exploring ways to improve
permeability even by such means as runoff
storage and filtration under structures and design of tree wells to
collect and filter stormwater.
Still,
we need much more attention
to conservation of environmental qualities in urban areas while
maintaining meaningful densities of development and how we can
structure mechanisms to assure that environmental losses due to
development are indeed made up within the region or watershed.
Are we ready
for a regional transfer-of-environmental-alues program?
