Deep in the comments on the post “THOSE LIVING IN OLD GLASS HOUSES…, Jim Bacon makes an important point – as he frequently does.
“As I see it, localities (or Regions and the organic components of Regions , if we had governance reform) would not have any more power to create Balanced Communities than they do today. Indeed, they might well have less. But they would apply a different conceptual framework to their planning of where and how to invest public resources. And they would be more proactive in creating Communities that provided for a Balance of activities within close proximity rather than a landscape of residential and commercial monocultures.” [Capitalization and italics added for clarity.]
It is not the scope or array of governance powers that is lacking, the problem is the level at which they are exercised – or the level they are now allocated but not intelligently exercised.
The evolution of functional and sustainable settlement patterns does not require more “powers.” The U.S. and state constitutions grant plenty of powers to governments – and reserve appropriate rights to individuals.
The problem is establishing a Balance between community (public) responsibilities and private rights (privileges).
With respect to land use controls, the issue is the level of application: The Level of Control must be at the Level of Impact.
“Well.” you say, “most important actions have many levels of impact.” Very true, so citizens need a sophisticated system that shares key decisions with appropriate weight for each level of impact.
At this point there is no governance structure at most of the levels of impact. The organic structure of human settlement pattern, and thus of contemporary society, is not reflected by the governance structure.
“Oh!” you say, “that would be too cumbersome.”
Give me a break! If the existing system worked, then for starters, citizens would not face the:
Mobility and Access Crisis
Affordable and Accessible Housing Crisis
Helter Skelter Crisis
Wealth Gap Crisis
Energy Crisis
Balance of Payments Crisis
Retirement and Health Benefits Crisis
Food Security Crisis
Communicable Disease Crisis
Species Diversity Crisis
Personal and Community Security Crisis requiring a War on Terrorism
And the slide toward entropy.
Did we leave any out?
The three levels of governance was not enough for an agrarian society in 1789 and it is surely not enough now.
Existing land use controls are based on a 1926 conception of reality that included a cloudy understanding of the impact of the Industrial Revolution as well as a Roaring 20s conception of the evolution from an agrarian society and the emergence of the Autonomobile in a process overseen by Herbert Hoover.
The 1926 land use control concept is based on an ideal of separation, not Balance. The locus of overt land use controls is at the municipal level but many other laws, regulations, policies and programs are scattered at all three levels. (Four levels with counties, and five with scattered special district authorities that vary from state to state.)
In the 1960s when we drafted an alternative conception of the state enabling legislation [See 21 Syracuse Law Review 375 (1969)] we did not add new powers. We just reallocated them and established systems to share responsibility and move the level of decision to the level of impact.
The one tangible product that grew from this work was our Adirondack land use control system. This system is still working today. It is not perfect by a long shot, but the Adirondacks do not look like West Virginia or the Ozarks or even most of the Rockies. It was a step in the right direction but few further steps have been taken.
The simple guideline is: Level of Control at the Level of Impact
In his comment, Jim Bacon was responding to a comment by a regular commentor on Bacon’s Rebellion Blog. In a later comment on the post “GRAPHIC PROOF” this same individual demonstrates why it is so difficult to achieve fundamental change when there are so many smart folks that live in human settlement patterns and who believe themselves to be experts.
In framing a hypothetical, he states: “Now the land is sub-divided into 20 one acre lots. The reason that these lots are one acre is because THAT’S WHAT THE MARKET IS BUYING.” (Emphasis in the original post.)
The emphasis in the post is intended to dispute the view that, if given a choice, buyers (“the market”) favor by a wide margin Balanced, diverse dwelling options.
I am sure a lot of developers and builders got a chuckle from the “WHAT THE MARKET IS BUYING” declaration. Those who I heard from did.
Developers supply sites and builders build houses because of the outcome of running a complex (but often informal) calculation. The base equation balances of greatest return in the shortest time frame with lowest risk.
This calculation includes, sometimes fuzzy and sometimes incorrect understandings of:
Complex land use control environments noted above
Complex municipal governance and political dynamics
Land assembly and transfer practices skewed by amateur and professional speculators
Loan conditions established by badly informed capital markets
Complex labor, subcontractor, supplier and material availability relationships
Uninformed and misled buyers
Other factors too numerous to mention
To cover their mistakes and minimize their risk developers and builders spend billions on advertising to reinforce myths and misconceptions of buyers.
What is the reality of the market?
For 40 years Same Builder / Same House / Different Location (SB / SH / DL) studies have shown a strong market preference for dwellings in locations with balance, diversity and close proximity to jobs, services, recreation and amenity, as provided by the best of the Planned New Communities.
The failure of Planned New Community developers has had almost nothing to do with the market acceptance of the product except where the project location is very bad – in other words, locations where there was no near term prospect of achieving a J / H / S / R /A Balance.
The SB / SH / DL reality is why many builders are shifting to “New Urbanist” projects and to “Traditional Neighborhood Developments” or at least advertising them as such. The primary problems with these developments is not the ideals, it is the location, scale and mix of uses that preclude achieving Balance. (Reminder for Larry: “New Urbanist” has almost nothing to do with New Urban Region.)
For 25 year S/PI has been using SB / SH / DL studies in the context of Regional Metrics and radial analysis to show the market reality of location, scale and mix imperatives.
One last point:
The supposed “American Dream” of scattered monocultures of the single family detached dwellings on large lots makes up a small percentage of total dwellings but is a major contributor to settlement pattern dysfunction.
As we recall, a study in Maryland found that 12 percent of the new houses over a 20-year period caused 80 percent of “sprawl.” At S/PI, we do not use that word and thus developed the 87 ½ Percent Rule, the fifth of the Five Natural Laws of Human Settlement Patterns.
EMR
