This Week’s Smart Growth Debates
If Washington-area Smart Growth advocates were serious, they’d want to fix this first
C.P. Zilliacus, American Dream Coalition
Not surprisingly, the American Dream Coalition promotes the idea that those who want to live in the suburbs should be able to. The suburbs of Washington D.C. house no small number of smart growth supporters—but clearly they support high-density neighborhoods for other people, and not for themselves. There is an inherent hypocrisy, the article suggests, in proponents of smart growth who live in the suburbs. C.P. Zilliacus argues this week that it is unfair to expect people to live in urban rather than suburban areas if they have children attending the local public schools. Smart growth, of course, advocates mixed neighborhoods precisely so that a more equitable division of resources will go to area schools, but the argument that the schools need to be improved first in order to make the urban environment an appealing one is fair.
Act Locally: Ten Steps Toward Sustainability — Step 5: Enact Environmentally-Friendly Land Use Laws
Steven Filler, GreenCounsel, New York
GreenCounsel’s list of ten ways in which communities can approach a greater sustainability most recently listed smart growth and related land-use laws as the fifth on its list. The article advocates the use of zoning laws to preserve environmentally sensitive areas, limit the footprint of development, and to provide incentives for developers who build with environmentally-friendly energy and substances.
“Smart Growth?”
Around Natick, Natick, MA
This blog has an ongoing discussion of a proposed smart growth development in Natick; many of the features of smart growth are perceptively analyzed through the lens of of these specific plans. The author of the blog proposes on a number of occasions that the new development may have more to do with tax revenue than community consciousness. In this particular post, the situation in Natick is contrasted with that of the nearby town Weston. Also take a look at the post Smartgrowth from Pulte.
Sprawl–what is it good for?
My Left Nutmeg, Connecticut
Conversely, author ‘commonweal’ suggests that the tax structure in Connecticut is what is responsible for suburban sprawl. Reliance on property tax for municipal expenditures, such as the public education system, creates a pressure to develop all available land for funding. Consequently, land is purposely developed inefficiently so that it will yeild a larger tax revenue. The author puts forth a sharp, suprising analysis of Connecticut’s suburban sprawl, asserting that “far from being the result of a free market system, urban sprawl is the direct consequence of government subsidies, intense corporate lobbying and manipulation through the legalized bribery we call campaign contributions, and stifling zoning regulations that have limited the choices Americans have when it comes to where we live and how we get from place to place.”
Smart Growth is Still Vital
RiteOn.org, St. Charles County, Missouri
RiteOn.org’s “Independent Conservative Voice” assesses the importance of smart growth to constituents and politicians of its local Missourian community. Recent electoral results might suggest that smart growth was of no concern, but a meeting of the County Council proved otherwise. The author notes that politicians have the choice to serve self interests, in which case they will pander to developers and their possible monetary support, or community interests, in which case they will support smart growth, which has a high showing amongst voter concerns. “Self interest on the part of politicians is common and we might even say legitimate in many instances, no question,” the article asserts, “but in this case, in a county where traffic congestion, water pollution problems and inadequate roads are noticeably impacting the quality of life, it makes more sense to set self interest aside and, among other things, take precautions to protect water quality.”
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:11 pm
I think you should reconsider recommending the blog “Around Natick.” The author intentionally posts distortions, half-truths and unsupported allegations of malfeasance on the part of public officials. When others post replies to his blog, he edits or deletes those he disagrees with. To call this blog a discussion, as you do, is inaccurate.
To address one substantive point, it is nonsensical of the author to compare open space in Weston with an abandoned factory in Natick. Weston is one of the wealthiest communities in Massachusetts, if not the country. The per capita income is more than double that of Natick, and the average single family house in Weston has an assessed value of $1.3 million compared to Natick’s $455,000. Weston residents can easily afford the tax increase necessary to purchase and preserve open space, while Natick voters this year defeated a local initiative to adopt the Community Preservation Act, which would have raised the average tax bill by $30 annually for the creation of a state-subsidized open-space fund. Natick is at the mercy of chapter 40B of the state law which allows developers to exceed allowable zoning density limits because the town does not have at least 10% affordable housing. The factory site under discussion is in close proximity to the downtown business district and mass transit. Simply put, it would be ridiculous for the town to purchase an abandoned factory and restore it to open space when there is a developer ready to build medium-density, transit-oriented housing.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Thank you very much for making this, I hope, a real discussion! However, when we compile lists of different people blogging about SmartGrowth, we try to present varying opinions, not merely those that we condone. And along the same lines, when explaining the opinions of the parent site, we also try to summarize, and not analyze, the contents, to leave judgment up to our readers.
However, that being said, your further insights into the situation, not to mention your knowledge of the actual ‘discussion’ habits of the site are most appreciated. Your judgment of the ‘Smart Growth Debates’ is what makes things interesting!
November 28th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Thanks for the reply, Isabel. And I do have to thank the blogger of “Around Natick” for leading me to your site. I respect your desire to provide links to as many smart growth discussions as possible. I would only offer this: Not everyone who knows how to type the words “smart growth” has an understanding of what the term means. And you are under no obligation to give every blogger a piece of your soapbox, especially when he is clearly and intentionally uninformed, malicious and anti-[smart] growth. I read Around Natick out of morbid curiosity, and because I live in Natick. That blog serves to remind me just how stubbornly obtuse some individuals can be.
Notwithstanding the Around Natick blog’s assertions, the Natick Paperboard project is an excellent example of smart growth. It is an abandoned factory one-half mile from downtown Natick, a town of 31,000 people that is 15 miles from Boston. The site is also a half-mile from a commuter-rail station, and is on a state-numbered arterial road. It abuts a small light-industrial district as well as the Natick Army Labs, two areas of potential local employment, in addition to opportunities in downtown Natick. Because less than 10% of Natick’s housing is affordable by state standards, developers are free to ignore local zoning limitations on density, setbacks and height if they propose a development with at least 25% affordable units. Therefore, any developer can build a housing project of any size anywhere in Natick despite the disapproval by the town. That is, the town’s ability to prevent dense housing at the Paperboard site is illusory (in contrast to Around Natick’s position that local officials rolled over for the developer). Rather, local officials have worked with the developer to take advantage of a new state law that encourages dense, transit-oriented smart growth projects through additional tax incentives. The result will be an increase in housing, and particularly affordable housing stock, in a region where supply shortages have pushed prices to extreme levels. And this will be accomplished with a minimal negative impact to the town budget thanks to the tax incentives of the state law.
December 28th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Just as a follow up, the Natick blog that you recommended typically has comments turned off, so it is not possible to correct misinformation or even have a discussion. The errors of fact in the Around Natick blog are almost too numerous to mention, and there’s just not enough time to refute them all. But that is moot, since his site is not for an exchange of ideas.
December 28th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Thank you for the update, Joshua. We’ll keep your comments in mind as we move forward. We’ll also discuss whether to edit the body of this post to reflect the points that have been made here.
December 29th, 2006 at 10:40 am
The Paperboard site was not “abandoned” but put up for sale out of desperation. They had requested similar status given Mathworks only about 2 miles north, a tax gimmick called a TIF. Paperboard was denied, thus forced to move out. I guess as long as people don’t mind the traffic increases, and expect no increased need for public services, it’s OK. However, putting hundreds of condos in a small old fashioned neighborhood will only serve to cost the town more in the long run.
My blog is primarily historical in nature, but whenever I post an opinion about current events, two town officials make desperate efforts to spoil it. Thus, the two come here. I think the neighborhood concerns speak to the issue, and readers can decide for themselves.
December 29th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Thanks for your comment, dave. Is it your opinion that the new development will cost the town more than it adds to its tax base?
December 29th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Depends on the family makeup of the condo buyers. Impacts on school, and public safety haven’t been studied. There’s nothing controversial about the project, as the old factory is pretty ugly, but looking at the area, and the traffic concerns, make this just one more reason the commute situation for residents will get worse. It’s not an urban area where people walk to a bus to go to work, nor within walking distance of a variety of shopping. In other words, Natick isn’t as urban as Medford, Alston, Brighton, or any number of cities ringing Boston. We’re a suburb with the major shopping being in a mall about 4 miles away from the downtown Main St. where this project will be built. And the closest supermarket is about 2-3 miles up the road.
There’s another proposal for the other end of Main St, nearly the same distance to downtown, yet everyone who favors this project has already taken a stance against that one. What’s good for some, isn’t good for others. I think it’s political.
December 30th, 2006 at 9:46 am
I don’t understand the claim that the owner of the Paperboard industrial site ever requested a TIF (Tax Increment Financing), which may have made them more competitive by significantly reducing their state taxes. What is not requested can not be “denied.” A TIF would have committed them to expanding and investing in Natick; instead they closed the plant and saved themselves $3 million per year (from the Newark Group’s Annual Report).
The owners sold the property at auction and a local developer was selected, has worked with the Town, has produced a project that may not be perfect but is far preferable alternative to other intensive residential development (i.e. 40B). Next comes a site review process into which there will be extensive public input and town oversite.
Unfortunately, the Town does not currently have the resources to buy the site and use it for open space or other purposes. Nearby Weston can spend #22 million on open space, and that’s great for Weston. We don’t have that luxury.
In the long term, Natick Center will be able to support the types of retail and services that are necessary to a cohesive neighborhood. Residential redevelopment is not everything, of course.
Another point… the State has another law that will allow for reimbursement for additional school costs for development under the Smart Growth program. It’s fair to ask if the costs of services outweigh additional tax revenue. We have to strike a balance knowing that we don’t have a blank piece of paper, but difficult choices.
Anyway… these are some of the facts that don’t see the light of day when a blog disables comments. Thanks for providing this forum.
December 30th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
“the State has another law that will allow for reimbursement for additional school costs for development under the Smart Growth program. ”
I wonder what the state will decide when they discover that the schools are all a bus trip away. (not within current town guidelines for walking) In other words, more than 2 1/4 miles. Not smart when it comes to getting kids to school.
Smart Growth has it’s niche, but not in this case. It’s just another big housing project that the town needs for it’s tax base. I wish they had thought about lack of classroom space, and the additional needs for school transportation.
December 31st, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Nothing under Chapter 40S cites the requirement that the residential development be within walking distance to a school. See http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw05/sl050141.htm
Mr. Wodeyla also has cited a concern about environmental hazards at the site, and suggested that someone should blow the whistle. That’s a real concern, but one that the developer is fully on the hook to resolve.
As I said, the issue we face is what to do with this particular parcel. We really have two choices: 40R development that we can influence, or 40B development that we can not influence. It’s fine to throw up a smokescreen but it doesn’t do much to influence the process.
By the way, the Town Meeting vote to establish the 40R district was 108-2.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:47 am
Obviously, Mr Ostroff, Natick Selectman, and the member of the Conservation Commission who wanted to remove the link to my site, have an interest in this project. It’s not a major issue in town, so it should be interesting in how it plays out. I’m simply amazed at the over-the-top interest.
The bigger issue in town, is a similar project only larger, which is 2 miles away, on the same street. Both of these town officials are dead-set against it. Could it be just one more case of Natick politics? Why would one situation be “smart” while the other “sprawl”?
January 1st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Dave, I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but you should re-check your sources. I am not dead-set against the South Natick Hills project. I am disappointed that the 50-acre parcel of open space and wetlands is going to be developed, and I don’t think it is the best location for 270 new housing units. But I realize that a majority of Natick voters aren’t interested in paying to preserve it, as evidenced by the defeat of the Community Preservation Act last spring, and that development pressures in the region are very high.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
(continued…)
A few of the reasons why the project at Natick Paperboard is preferable to the South Natick Hills project are:
1. Natick Paperboard is only 0.3 miles from the commuter rail station and 0.4 miles from Natick center, with continuous sidewalks along the route. Residents have the option of walking to jobs and retail downtown, or to the train to Boston. South Natick Hills is 1.4 miles from the train station and lacks sidewalks along a portion. Residents will likely drive everywhere, increasing traffic congestion and pollution.
2. Natick Paperboard is a previously disturbed, abandoned industrial site with possible environmental contamination. Redeveloping that site into housing would be an improvement to the environment. Destroying the undeveloped woods and wetlands at South Natick Hills will eliminate wildlife habitat and open space.
3. The Paperboard site qualifies as a smart growth location, eligible for hundreds of thousands of dollars of state grants to offset the burden of educating the children who live there. South Natick Hills will not garner any state money.
4. South Natick Hills will be a complex of 4-story apartment buildings, completely out of scale with the surrounding single-family houses on half-plus acre lots each. Natick Paperboard abuts other light industrial buildings and multi-family houses.
5. South Natick Hills will disturb protected wetland resources including streams, vernal pools and the habitat of state-protected species. Natick Paperboard, to my knowledge, has no wetlands on the site.
January 6th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Reads like this project needs a yardstick to prove it’s point. It’s not a controversial issue in Natick, so why the over-the-top barrage of messages?
We’re a suburb of Boston, and this project has no grocery within walking distance, no bus route to the Natick Mall, no schools to walk to, no shopping nearby. I think the problem is the white collar vs blue collar dynamic on why the Paperboard was forced to give up their business here. Read http://natick.wordpress.com for future updates. Right now, the only controversy in town is why the Town Administrator is leaving and why a Selectman has decided not to run. Sounds a little like Mayberry USA.