Is Smart Growth Really 'Smart'?
Photos
Many towns are engaging in some type of redevelopment or another. And many are touting that it’s being based on Smart Growth Development. While this type of development is being implemented, no one is questioning its validity.
So, what is Smart Growth? And is it really all that smart?
Smart Growth development is a centralized land-use policy whose mission is to curb “suburban sprawl.” In order to do that, the Smart Growth model of development is multi-use properties. That is, retail on the bottom and apartments on top. Some refer to this type of development as “stack ‘em and pack ‘em” housing. These developments are built along transit lines, since that meets the other criteria of Smart Growth, to create pedestrian villages which extremely limit car use.
In the early days of our country, transportation was very limited. This is why cities were the place to be. It’s where commerce took place.
As our choices in transportation became better, people realized they would like to live outside the city limits and actually own a piece of property. In the suburbs, they could have a one family home with a private outdoor space and some distance between their neighbors.
Companies then began moving their locations to the suburbs where more people were living.
But to some, the idea of moving to the suburbs and having more than an acre of land is unconscionable and unnecessary. But according to whose value system? And the implication of calling it “smart” implies that government bureaucrats are the all-knowing experts about how the rest of us should live.
But are Americans really ready to embrace high-density living?
The goals of Smart Growth are to control urban boundaries, reduce pollution and promote mass transit - all of which go against our American values of the right to own property, to live in the house and location of our choice and the ability to move about freely – not according to a transit schedule.
National Geographic recently did a cover story on “The City’s Solutions to Earth’s Problems.” Do you really solve environmental issues by forcing millions of people to live in densely populated urban areas? Here’s their claim: “City dwellers tread lightly: their roads, sewers and power lines are shorter. Their apartments take less energy to heat and cool. Most important, they drive less.”
While Smart Growth advocates are completely concerned about congestion on the streets, they don’t seem to care about the people who are living in congested apartment buildings and all that brings with it. More people in a congested, dense area mean more noise, more garbage, more pollution and more crime. They have also left out the impact it places on local services –police, fire and the school system. How do you properly educate the increased amounts of students in the public school system?
Washington Township in Warren County had to address this exact problem. While town officials embraced the idea of Smart Growth, they never took into consideration the unintended consequences, which are overflowing schools, skyrocketing property taxes and main streets that are congested. They’ve had to turn trailers into school rooms, build a high school and expand two of its three other schools. Not only that, most of the town does not get the benefits of a pedestrian friendly concept since the majority of residents live outside the developed area. In 2007, they were looking at eminent domain to seize property to prevent developers from buying it and building more apartment buildings.
As this agenda has been forced upon us, none of their goals have been achieved. What they set out to solve has been made worse.
First, if you limit people’s choices of where they can live, Smart Growth will actually end up driving up the cost of housing. There will be less affordable one family homes. Less housing logically leads to expensive housing.
Secondly, this development has also failed to reduce pollution. As more people are living in densely populated cities, it only follows logic that pollution would be worse in these over-crowded urban areas. One needs only to think of Los Angeles and its major traffic and smog issue. The reality is, while some people may drive less, there’s plenty who are still driving. On top of that, add the increased amounts of garbage and noise pollution. Has anyone walked on a NYC street the night before a garbage pickup? Smells wonderful, looks wonderful and it brings out the best in urban wildlife.
We Americans are not giving up our cars. We like the freedom of car ownership and the ability to go where we want, when we want.
More importantly, we are not giving up our right to own property – the cornerstone of freedom – to live in an apartment building that houses hundreds of other people.
To all those Smart Growth advocates who think city living with no personal outdoor space, crowded subways, crowded streets, garbage, noise pollution and crime is the way to live, I challenge you to sell your home in the suburbs and join the masses in the city.
For those of you who enjoy home ownership, a backyard and a car - stand your ground!
Pete Mock
4:29 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
I had no idea that preventing sprawl, reducing pollution and promoting mass transit were such pernicious conspiracies. Forced upon us by the socialists no doubt.
Really now, these idiological rants would almost be humorous, if they weren't pure fear mongering.
These are the real gems...
"...control urban boundaries, reduce pollution and promote mass transit - all of which go against our American values of the right to own property, to live in the house and location of our choice and the ability to move about freely."
"We Americans are not giving up our cars."
No one is telling anyone they can't live where they want, no one is restricting anyone's rights to own property, no one is being forced to give up his car. But it sure sounds scary doesn't it! "The Smart Growthers are coming for your car, your house, your property!!!"
"to some, the idea of moving to the suburbs and having more than an acre of land is unconscionable..." - to some, using a straw man to make your point is ok.
"As more people are living in densely populated cities, it only follows logic that pollution would be worse in these over-crowded urban areas"
- If you follow that well honed logic a bit further you'll find that pollution would be less elsewhere. And, logically, if more folks are nearer to their jobs, to their home, their entertainment, their schools, then the total amount of polution would be less. But that bit of logic doesn't fit the idiological argument, so....shhhh...
George Hathaway
11:27 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
There is nothing wrong with controlling urban boundaries, reducing pollution, and promoting mass transit. If a community wants to do that (meaning all the citizens, not just the smart growth zealots) then it should be allowed to. However, there is a limit that the smart growth people have exceeded. For instance, some of the Sustainable Jersey standards include passing ordinances to turn off you car at stop lights, creating bike paths and sidewalks so people can walk to work (even though work might be 20 miles away), and dedicating money to building transit hubs in areas where the planners want people to live, in hopes that they will use mass transit to commute to their suburban jobs.
In fact Sustainable Jersey and smart growth are about social and environmental justice, not economic development.
The American Planning Associations publication, "Assessing Sustainability: A Guide for Local Governments" cites the UN as the source of its inspiration (page 3). If you read the UN document, and subsequent ICLEI documents, you will find that one of the basic tenats of sustainability is wealth redistribution... rich to poor countries on a global basis; rich to poor people on a local level. If you look deeply into Sustainable Jersey and earlier smart growth programs you will see this happening. You'll see it in the state strategic plan.
Thanks, Sue Ann, for exposing this important issue.
Pete Mock
1:31 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
George, I've looked at a few of the Sustainable Jersey documents on the subject of idling and I can find nothing about "passing ordinances to turn off you car at stop lights". In fact, everything I looked at specifically refers to a three minute threshold, and idling for any period shorter than that is not addressed by any ordinance, proposed ordinance or even a resolution. Further, among the many exceptions listed in the Sustainable Jersey documents are "vehicles stopped in traffic", and that would include traffic lights. The only thing even close to what you state is that drivers in stopped vehicles be ENCOURAGED to turn off their engine after 10 seconds, as that's the point where leaving it running uses more gas that restarting.
The NJ law regarding idling is already on the books and the ordinance specifically exempts "motor vehicles idling in traffic or in a queue of motor vehicles that are intermittently motionless due to traffic or other conditions over which the driver has no control". So unless State law is changed you’ll be allowed to keep your car running at that red light as long as your heart desires.
As far as sidewalks and bike paths and encouraging use of mass transit so people leave their car at home, those things sound like common sense to me. If you see those things as, god forbid, social and environmental justice, then I have no argument to fight that logic.
George Hathaway
2:29 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Peter,
I refer you to the following Sustainable Jersey link http://www.sustainablejersey.com/actiondesc.php?arr_num=49&id_num=7!2, which refers specfically to anti-idling. It links to a detailed explanation of the state law and how local officials can enforce it. I was wrong about the ordinances. However it appears that there is a genuine state anti-idling law and that the local governments can enforce it if they so choose.
Can you imagine dedicating law enforcement people in, say Newark, to ticketing people who are idling their cars longer than 3 minutes. It seems to me that is a gross misapplication of police resources. But it is sustainable.
A further response in another post.
George Hathaway
4:49 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Further,
I have no problem with public transportation. I commuted, by rail, from my home in Franklin Township to New York City for 20 years. However, since my home is 4 miles from the train station, it would be rather inconvenient to walk or ride a bike to the station. Yet, Sustainable Jersey would give us a lot of credit for creating sidewalks and bike paths to the station. Sorry, no room for these unless you want to condemn some property (which was suggested in a recent proposed county plan).
Public transportation is great as long as you are feeding a central location. But what about all those who travel from, say, Raritan to Morristown? Would you recommend they take the Raritan Valley line to Newark, tranfer to the Morristown line and then walk to work? Or are they better off driving?
Would you build a green energy industry cluster in say, Somerville, and then expect a migration of new workers who will live withing walking distance of the factories? This is what the proposed state strategic plan is proposing. It is very wasteful and very dangerous wishful thinking.
We should all be good stewards of the environment. However, centralized planning and control is not the way to do it. Sustainable (smart) growth is just that. Bringing everyone down to the lowest economic denominator is the way to create the kind of environmental standards as China and India have? Have you ever been to Mumbai...?
Adam Kraemer
7:13 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Off all the large metropolitian area in the United States: Houston, Texas consistantly has high job growth, and the lowest percentage of family income devoted to houseing costs. The fact that Houston Texas has no zoning has much to do with that.
I sugest reading Free Enterpize City by Joe Feagin (Rutgers Univ Press): Urban planing and zoning often back fires with unintened consiquences. The planing and zoning actualy increasing housing cost limits aforable housing and discourages building in urban areas near jobs. Thus harming the enviroment and making for suburan sprawl. In many ways the market does a better job than the urban planers do in protecting the enviroment.
Pete Mock
1:19 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Thank you Adam for the info. I appreciate an actual discussion of the facts and issues so I will check it out.
Politicalpony
9:09 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Good article thank you Sue Ann.
Last summer I began my own research on this subject. Once I had some understanding of Agenda 21 I began researching from my Township upward. I looked at ICLEI, The Mayors Conference and on and on. Much of it is nothing but written crap that tries to run circles around people as they read. So much so that it stops many from reading and finding out what is really going on. I must admit that reading all the non-sense that I had come upon and learned was very upsetting. It put me in a depressed mood but more so it put me in a bad mood. Conspiracy Theory? Conspiracy yes, Theory NO! All one needs to do is begin to read. Then as they read realize all that has been taking place in out country over the past few decades and it all comes to fit like a puzzle that they have tried to keep scrambled in a box. Once you know what your looking for, it's easy to unveil the deceit that is taking place. One of the is first and easiest things a person needs to recognize is that, with every rule or regulation that stops you from freely doing as you chose with your PRIVATE PROPERTY, makes it no longer solely your property. You pay the taxes on it but someone else is telling you what to do with it.
AgEnders NJ
9:47 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
If smart growth was really that great an idea, its proponents would not have to come up with new names to disguise it every so often, so as to keep people in the dark.
The UN 1987 Brundtland Report defined Sustainable Development as development that shaped the "international community's attitude toward economic, social and environmental development." (UNICEF Report, Par. 1, 7)
This same theme for Sustainable Development was carried forward to The UN Rio Earth Summit in 1992 as, Agenda 21. (UNICEF Report, Par. 4-6)
In the UN's 2002 Sustainable Development Report, "the three principal dimensions of economic growth, social equity and protection of the environment" were operationalized. (UN Sustainable Development Strategies, Par 2,3)
The UN's Sustainable Development program, or Agenda 21 was implemented in the US under the 1994 President's Council on Sustainable Development. (PCSD Vision for Sustainable Development, Par 2:#2)
The name Agenda 21 was tactically removed from public's view to avoid scrutiny on the recommendation of PCSD advisor, J. Gary Lawrence. (Millennium Papers, Page 5 - Top of page to end of par 2.) (see page 4, Par 1-2 for "equity, economy, environment")
You will find the identical mission, goals and terminology in Sustainable Development programs across the nation. (see: Sustainable NJ "About us" page, previously on home page)
(continued...)
AgEnders NJ
9:50 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
(continued....)
Identical or similar Sustainable Development or Smart Growth plans are being implemented across the nation. They call for "open spaces" (usually obtained through eminent domain, and/or administrative/regulatory takings), limited vehicular traffic, various rail systems and multi-story mixed-use compact dwellings. Conservation easements, eminent domain, TDR, (Trade of Development Rights,) wetlands and endangered species designations are all being used to confiscate citizens' property and tread over their inalienable rights. The overarching objective is to reduce individual property and nudge humans toward high-density urban dwellings.
The key to avoiding the loss of property rights is to avoid any government grants. They come with severe hidden strings that are later found to be unalterable except when to the superior party's advantage -- the grantee (land trust). Sustainable development and environmentalism were healthy and good ideas until, as in America, the terms were co-opted by a UN based political agenda. Communities leaders are becoming aware.
The programs look innocent and desirable, but this is one case where green is NOT good.
Pete Mock
1:51 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
I try hard to keep an open mind and view things from the perspective of those with which I disagree, and if you want to cite reasons why it is bad or why it won’t work I’m all ears. Really. If sustainable development plans are being implemented across the nation then surely there are some objective, measurable data out there to back up your claims. But citing UN reports chapter and verse, as if it made all these broad statements true, and claiming that "they" want to take away our individual rights, with all the dire predictions and requisite fear mongering, really doesn't make for a coherent argument.
AgEnders NJ
4:05 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-failures-smart-growth
"Government planners have coined the term "smart growth" to justify a litany of intrusions into the economic planning of our communities. Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent every year in various "smart growth" projects around the country.
The experiences of Portland, Oregon and San Francisco, California should serve as cautionary tales to municipalities considering the implementation of smart growth plans. In Portland, a $3 billion light rail system, designed and built in the early 1980s to ease congestion and encourage development, has had limited success in reducing auto traffic. The project ran 50 percent over budget during construction.
Since the 1970s, San Francisco has created artificial land shortages by erecting regulatory barriers to construction, including urban-growth boundaries, purchases of regional parks and open spaces, and various limits on building permits. Those land shortages increased the price of Bay Area homes dramatically. In an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle, economist Randal O'Toole contends planning-induced housing shortages added $30 billion to the cost of homes that Bay Area homebuyers purchased in 2005 alone......"
AgEnders NJ
4:09 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10963
Smart-Growth Plans Are a Failure in Portland
by Randal O'Toole
"...Smart-growth planning makes land-use debates even more contentious."...
..."Consider my former hometown of Portland, Ore., which many consider the nation's leader in smart-growth planning. To increase urban densities, planners are turning dozens of neighborhoods of single-family homes into apartments and condos. While past land-use rules set maximum densities, Portland's rules set minimum densities.
This means if your neighbors own a vacant lot, they cannot build a single-family house on it; they must build a rowhouse or apartment. In some cases, regulation is so strict that, if your house burns down, you cannot rebuild it; you must replace it with an apartment.
Portland planners soon decided that rowhouses and low-rise apartments were not dense enough, so they increased height limits to 50 feet or 60 feet to allow four- and five-story mid-rise apartments. Even that isn't dense enough, so now they are beginning to encourage high-rises.
... planners supplemented land-use mandates with tax breaks, below-market land sales and other subsidies to developers who built high-density housing... Portland neighborhoods continue to be invaded by mid-rise and high-rise developments, even though there is no more demand for dense housing."
AgEnders NJ
4:25 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The problem in Portland is exactly what the State Office of Planning Advocacy and Gov. Christie want to bring here: "incentivizing" more development in "priority 'investment' areas" by offering economic incentives (tax breaks, streamlined permitting, lower fees, bonding/rebonding) all at taxpayer expense (taxpayers that live all over the state not just in "priority 'investment' areas".) When a planner says "investment" they mean "taxpayer money" -- specifically land owner property taxes -- land owners who live elsewhere in the state and will not benefit from the mid- to high-rise development/redevelopment. A "priority 'investment' area" is an urban area where a private redevelopment company will benefit from subsidies and taxpayer-funded offsets to gain fabulous profits from "smart growth" projects. We don't need more development; we have buildings standing empty.
This state in the last 10 years lost $14Bn in wealth and 331,000 people. Businesses and jobs have fled. Rising taxes, property and energy costs have discouraged all except those who get special incentives (subsidized by you and me) or those who can not relocate for one reason or another. Small business is dying in New Jersey, So-called "smart growth," and the related layers upon layers of planning and restriction, inflate government and increase regulation and land prices. They kill business. Those residents who don't mind paying the 3+% state exit tax sell their homes and leave for less suffocating states.