What it is not !

With our wonderful weather and envirornment wouldn't it be nice if builders actually created great outdoor spaces for the residents? (The 1923 Alice Millard House in Pasadena, CA designed by Frank Lloyd Wright)

Happy New Year !

May we all have a safe, prosperous and successful New Year ! Hopefully our local leaders will start to think creativily and start thinking outside the box.

Ten Principles for Developing Affordable Housing

Ten Principles for Developing Affordable Housing from a ULI Report.

1. Inspire Leadership
2. Build Community Support and Trust
3. Learn the Alphabet . . . and Do the Math
4. Know Your Market and Your Customers
5. Nurture Partnership
6. Select Sites for Opportunity and Choice
7. Strive for Healthy, Balanced Communities
8. Use Design to Foster Community, Safety, and Pride
9. Empower the Residents
10. Orchestrate Sustainability

The question becomes, do you see these principles shining from our elected officials or the staffs that support them? If you have to answer no, than you understand why we are in the cycle of bad choices we continually find ourselves. Leadership and Vision are not our strong suit. I believe that to often, the staffs, are more concerned with politics and making sure that they are seen in what they believe is the best light and the community goes out the window.

Zoning Road Blocks

Have you ever rely thought about how we got into the zoning mess we are in because of zoning laws. First let's check Wikipedia about Zoning. The planning sketch above illustrates why we have the traffic problems that plague our communities. If you look at the upper half of the drawing (sprawl), you will see that each development project must separately connect to the road. This means that for each trip to a different project, each car must go out onto that same road. It creates a system of non connectivity, which leads to total GRIDLOCK and CONGESTION. If you look at the bottom development (traditional town), your eye can see multiple ways to travel to you destination without every going on that one main road. And yet our planners who wrote these codes, seem unable to understand this simple concept, or do not have the political courage to find the vehicle to address this issue with the BOCC. And members of the BOCC complain about the traffic problems and the costs associated with the traffic. Then again, the BOCC seems able to think that the way to solve the problem is through moratoriums, zoning denials and the wonderful community groups that are having great input into a broken system.

There is truly, a lack of real VISION on the part of the BOCC. The real question becomes, "Are we happy with the status quo that so effects our daily life's?"

Why not put together a community road show in the form of a charrette to give the residences of the county options. Such as our current system (Euclidean), Performance, Incentive or Form Based zoning. This does not mean, creating more community groups under the cover of their having more input into their local community area. How does that work if the model that they are using is broken? Let us give the citizens of Lee County a chance to give input into a real VISION of what the county should become and not use the eighty (80) year old template! I believe as a society we have learned a lot in that time period. Just think, we have gone to the moon, and yet we are using zoning codes modeled from 1926. To give an example, look at a car from 1926 and than a new 2007 automobile. They look different. What about our zoning laws. The only thing that has changed, is that the staffs have learned how to make them more one sided (to create an advantage for the staff in reviewing projects and costly to the citizens, " The fox watching the chicken coop!"), restrictive (and not always for the communities best interest) and inflexible and slow to societies changes and requirements.

It is time for the BOCC to create a BOLD VISION and break with the past! The system is broken, let's fix it.

A One Page Vision for our County's Planning & Zoning

Let's try to create a one page Vision statement for our Counties Planning and Zoning.

1. Create a Shared Vision for the Future . . . and Stick to It

2. Provide Diverse Housing Types and Opportunities

3. Encourage mixed-use development: Integrating different land uses and varied building types allows people to work and play near where they live.

4. Use Multiple Connections to Enhance Mobility and Circulation

5. Build vibrant public spaces: Public places should be welcoming and well-defined linked green ways (pedestrian/bike)

6. Conserve landscapes: Open space and wildlife habitat should be accommodated and preserved.

7. Design on a human scale: Compact, pedestrian-friendly communities should be promoted.

8. Design Matters

9. Protect environmental resources

10. Staff accountability matters.

11. Make It Easy to Do the Right Thing

We will in the next week define each area of this Vision Statement. Even without the definitions, I can guarantee you that the results will be better than the existing 4" thick, three ring binder, open to any interpretation zoning code. It is a document of negative actions by defining what you are not allowed to do. Are any of us happy with the results of the current code?

An Example of the Vision our County Needs.

I found this article, and it struck me that the actions of the late mayor of Pittsburgh, Pa are something that would greatly help the wobbling BOCC. Not is not about volumes of words, paper and political games, but a simple well throughout, concise vision, and actions on one page and in plain English. What follows are some excerpts from the article.

From the Post-Gazette Now News- (excerpts)
O'Connor left behind one-page 'vision' for city through 2010

Eleven weeks after his inauguration, Bob O'Connor and key staff met with a consultant and began summarizing the vision critics had said he lacked and setting a course for the city during what they hoped would be just his first term as mayor.

That meeting started a behind-closed-doors process that resulted in a one-legal-size-page statement of 45 goals and strategies for the new administration. It was to be made available to all Pittsburgher's in an effort to quiet the critics and give voters the means to decide if he was fulfilling his promises.

...The vision was summarized in 33 words. "By 2010, Pittsburgh is one of the safest, cleanest cities in the country. It is a vibrant, developing city that is financially sound. All of us as Pittsburgher's are proud of our city."

Mr. O'Connor made sure that the vision and the strategies with which he would achieve it were concise. His years in the restaurant business taught him "that you had to have a clear sense of where you were trying to get to, and make it understandable so people can get behind it," said Kate Dewey, a consultant paid by a foundation to facilitate the effort.

The effort went on to involve heads of all departments, who met during the week and on Saturdays, at the Downtown office of McCrory & McDowell, where Ms. Dewey was a principal.

A set of goals emerged that were constrained by the city's iffy finances, but were all to be reached by 2010.

By early August, the plan "was wrapped up," said Ms. Dewey. "It was given back to the administration, and then so many things happened."

Under safety, Mr. O'Connor wanted to increase the visibility of the police force, the perception of safety, and the raw number of arrests. He was planning to launch a "youth-directed gun hot line," use data to target crime "hot spots" and upgrade equipment in all public safety bureaus.

He also wanted to get police out of their cars and walking streets -- a goal Mr. Ravenstahl has embraced -- improve paramedic response times and reduce fire fatalities. Potholes would be filled within 48 hours of a complaint.

He viewed cleanliness as part perception, part hard fact. He intended to track the number of clean-ups, number of residents involved in them, and how many tons of illegally dumped trash removed.

He intended to boost street resurfacing efforts and eliminate the backlog of 1,200 structures that the city condemned, but could not afford to demolish.

...A "vibrant, developing city," according to Mr. O'Connor's plan, was one with more building permits, more jobs, rising wages, affordable housing and growing population. Getting there would require a streamlined permit process and zoning, improvement of Downtown's retail core, wireless Internet access for the entire city and more public art.

...Finally, Mr. O'Connor sought "customer satisfaction." That included concrete changes like the institution of a 311 help line and better city Web site, and intangibles like "a can-do attitude." It included returning Pittsburgh "to its status as the most livable city in America."

Here are some of his "Strategies" in the one page plan:

"By 2010, Pittsburgh is one of the safest, cleanest cities in the country. It is a vibrant, developing city that is financially sound. All of us as Pittsburghers are proud of our city."

* Increase police positive interaction with residents by increasing the number of "park and walks."

* Repair potholes on average within 48 hours from identification.

* Raze/demolish more structures annually than condemn to reduce the spread of blight throughout the neighborhoods and Downtown.

* Create opportunities and a sense of pride in the city that gets Pittsburghers actively in keeping our streets, parks and public spaces clean.

* Streamline city functions and services in ways that increase productivity through better use of technology, staff and data.

* Create the systems that enable the City to be held accountable by its residents.

* Reduce zoning hurdles to stimulate more investment and development activity.

* Implement the plan for the Fifth and Market district.

* Create Internet access to city services.

* Have a "can-do" attitude and focusing on "the basics" to ensure Pittsburgh returns to its status as the most livable city in America.

Can you imagine if our BOCC had such a simple clear and concise vision/action plan, instead of volumes of paper that the staffs use to gum up the works. (See our post of September 4, 2007 Enemies of Innovation.) I believe it is called courge and leadership!

Reexamining Our Zoning Direction

If you watch Lee TV and view the Zoning hearings you will start to notice that there is a consistent pattern of non consistence from staff's findings and recommendations to the BOCC. I believe it is called "political pandering". Staff should only be reviewing projects to make sure a project fits into one of the zoning cubbie holes that have been created in the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Maps by staff. Instead their findings tend to reflect what the higher ups in Community Development believe the BOCC growth leanings are at the moment. As I have stated in the past and have been told by staff, "...they are just reading the Tea Leaves" or maybe putting their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. THIS IS NOT THE WAY WE SHOULD BE ZONING OUR PROPERTY. It is another form of TAXING the residents of the county. Remember who pays the bills for all the wasted time, energy and consultant fees...the rsidents each time the use, rent or purchase anything that has gone through the zoning process. In the end, you must ask, "Are you happy with the results from these zoning shenanigans??? If the answer is no, maybe the BOCC should sunset the process and a new form of zoning approved. I believe FORM BASED ZONING may be a better direction for the county.

If you go the the Form Based Codes Institute you will find a wealth of information and links to give you a through understanding of the process and why it is better than the arbitrary and arcane system we now have in place.

Definition of a Form-Based Code
Draft Date: June 27, 2006

A method of regulating development to achieve a specific urban form. Form-based codes create a predictable public realm by controlling physical form primarily, with a lesser focus on land use, through city or county regulations.

Form-based codes address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. The regulations and standards in form-based codes, presented in both diagrams and words, are keyed to a regulating plan that designates the appropriate form and scale (and therefore, character) of development rather than only distinctions in land-use types. This is in contrast to conventional zoning's focus on the segregation of land-use types, permissible property uses, and the control of development intensity through simple numerical parameters (e.g., FAR, dwellings per acre, height limits, setbacks, parking ratios). Not to be confused with design guidelines or general statements of policy, form-based codes are regulatory, not advisory.

Form-based codes are drafted to achieve a community vision based on time-tested forms of urbanism. Ultimately, a form-based code is a tool; the quality of development outcomes is dependent on the quality and objectives of the community plan that a code implements.

Form-based codes commonly include the following elements:

•	Regulating Plan. A plan or map of the regulated area designating the locations where different building form standards apply, based on clear community intentions regarding the physical character of the area being coded.
•	Building Form Standards. Regulations controlling the configuration, features, and functions of buildings that define and shape the public realm.
•	Public Space/Street Standards. Specifications for the elements within the public realm (e.g., sidewalks, travel lanes, street trees, street furniture, etc.).
•	Administration. A clearly defined application and project review process.
•	Definitions. A glossary to ensure the precise use of technical terms.

Form-based codes also sometimes include:

•	Architectural Standards. Regulations controlling external architectural materials and quality.
•	Annotation. Text and illustrations explaining the intentions of specific code provisions.

BOCC and Vision

I saw this transcript of Wendell Cox Testimony on Smart Growth and Public Transit, Before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and thought it should be looked at by the BOCC in terms of the Lee County vision they seem to be searching for in balancing our growth with the NIMBY urge to try..." to close the gate after I am in." You can find out more about Wendell Cox views at Demographia and The Public Purpose.

15 May 2002

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for inviting me to testify today.

My name is Wendell Cox. I am an independent consultant headquartered to Belleville, Illinois, in the St. Louis area. I was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles Country Transportation Commission by Mayor Tom Bradley and was appointed to the Amtrak Reform Council by Speaker Gingrich. I have just returned from an assignment as a visiting professor at CNAM, a French national university in Paris and am a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. The views expressed today are my own and not that of any organization.

I will share with you perspectives you may not have heard before --- about the problems with smart growth. Analysis of the data has induced other professionals and academics to reach similar judgements as well, judgements that challenge what is considered to be the conventional wisdom in urban planning. Let us recall, however, that urban renewal, which was so destructive and is so reviled today was strongly supported by the planning community just a few decades ago.

First of all, it is important to understand that sprawl is not an American phenomenon. It occurs wherever there is population growth and rising affluence. So, for example, the growing Paris area has sprawled significantly. Even European urban areas that have not grown have sprawled.

I do not favor sprawl. I favor allowing people to live and work where and how they like. And, there is no reason not to allow it. Even today, urbanization accounts for less than three percent of the nation's land area.

The "Smart Growth" movement seeks to stop or control urban sprawl. Proponents claim that it will reduce traffic congestion, reduce air pollution and reduce costs. It is important to understand that smart growth and containing sprawl require higher densities. Smart growth's goals simply are unattainable without much higher densities.

The claims of the smart growth movement simply do not hold up.

National and international data clearly indicates that traffic congestion rises with population density. Research commissioned by the United States Department of Transportation indicates that at current US urban densities, vehicle miles rise more than 80 percent when population density is doubled. Now, admittedly, that means that per capita driving declines marginally, but it means that there are more miles of driving per square mile.

More driving per square mile means that traffic slows down and that people must spend more time in their cars. Not surprisingly, journey to work travel times tend to be longer where population densities are higher --- whether in the United States or internationally.

And, as traffic volumes in a particular area increase, there is also an increase in stop and go driving. Slower speeds and stop and go driving mean greater production of air pollution. So, not surprisingly, air pollution production tends to be higher where densities are higher. And, it is well to consider the great progress that has been made in air pollution abatement in the United States. In the last 30 years, driving has increased substantially, while criteria air pollution production has decreased --- not just per capita --- but overall.

So, smart growth increases traffic congestion, travel times and air pollution.

Some months ago research was published showing that transportation costs are higher in more sprawling areas. This is to be expected. But what may be surprising is that overall household expenditures tend to be lower where densities are lower. The big factor in this equation is housing costs. Housing costs are less where densities are less, and they tend to be less to such a great degree that the transportation cost disadvantage is more than canceled.

But, the worst impact of all is social. Home ownership is lower where densities are higher. Thus, smart growth works to make home ownership more difficult for lower income households. Recent decades shows than minority home ownership, such as African-American and Hispanic, is rising faster than that of non-Hispanic whites. At the same time, minority home ownership levels still remain well below that of non-Hispanic whites.

By raising the price of housing, smart growth promotes social inequity. Smart growth rations land and development. It is a fundamental principle of economics that when valuable goods are rationed, their prices rise. When prices rise, it is the lower end of the income spectrum that is driven away from the market. The lower income spectrum has a disproportionate representation of minorities. As a result, smart growth reduces home ownership opportunities for lower income households, especially African-Americans and Hispanics. There is a raging debate between supporters and opponents of smart growth about the extent to which home ownership is reduced by smart growth. We often hear from smart growth supporters that the way to compensate for smart growths reduction of home ownership is to provide greater amounts of affordable housing. Such proposals are no more than empty platitudes in view of the fact that, by some reports, current public resources are sufficient to provide housing assistance to barely one third of eligible recipients.

Finally, there is the overall issue of wealth creation. Land is crucial in the creation of wealth. Where there are fewer restrictions, there is likely to be greater wealth creation. The relatively free market that has existed in land development is at least part of the reason that the United States remains by far the most affluent nation in the world larger than Fresno. And this is in per capita terms. We need to be very careful about placing unnecessarily restrictions on land because it is likely to mean less wealth creation in the future.

And now to transit. This is not about being pro-transit or anti-transit or pro-highway or anti-highway. But the expectations of what can be accomplished with transit are simply unrealistic. First of all, it is important to recognize that transit demand is very concentrated. One-half of the national ridership is in New York and Chicago and 76 percent is in seven metropolitan areas.

Make no mistake about it. Transit works where the circumstances are favorable. And so, 75 percent of commuters to Manhattan ride transit. Those who don't might be considered crazy. More than 60 percent of commuters use transit to work in the Chicago Loop. Among people who have a choice --- people who have automobiles --- transit commuting is largely limited to downtown. And, downtown areas are a small and declining portion of metropolitan employment, averaging only 10 percent of the market. Outside downtown corridors, there is little that transit can do to reduce traffic congestion. This, by the way is also true to some extent in European urban areas.

The key to getting people out of their cars is to provide automobile competitive service --- service that is competitive in travel time. But there is little auto-competitive service in the United States and little more planned to areas other than downtowns.

The Union of International Public Transport is hardly the type of organization that would be expected to make critical comments about public transit. But this organization, the international equivalent of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) put it this way:

In the United States, with the exception of New York, public transport is unable to compete with the automobile: its speed is half as fast, which means that door-to-door travel times, incorporating terminal distance times, waiting and transfer times, are 3 to 4 times longer on public transport.

Actually, this is something of an overstatement. Transit plays an important role in providing auto-competitive service to a number of the nation's downtowns, not just Manhattan.

This brings me to three conclusions:

• No problem has been identified of sufficient magnitude to justify coercive smart growth strategies

• There is little potential for reducing traffic congestion or increasing transportation choice for all but a few through transit. There are no material successes, US or international.

• Smart growth strategies tend to intensify the very problems they are purported to solve. New federal mandates are inadvisable.

A year ago, a number of us gathered in the mountains of Montana and issued a statement of market principles of development --- the Lone Mountain Compact. It stated, among other things:

… absent a material threat to other individuals or the community, people should be allowed to live and work where and how they like.

Forty years ago, Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson expressed similar sentiments:

Our people have had more happiness and prosperity, over a wider area, for a longer time than men have ever had since they began to live in ordered societies 4,000 years ago. Since we have come so far, who shall be rash enough to set limits on our future progress? Who shall say that since we have gone so far, we can go no farther? Who shall say that the American Dream is ended?

We are a great nation. We have accomplished much. We should face the future in confidence, not fear.

Lee County Growth

In an earlier post, I mentioned the "Mann Manifesto" and the BOCC's reexamination of the county and growth. Back in April, the Creative Class Group with Richard Florida published this post about a new study of "urban scaling" by researchers affiliated with the Santa Fe Institute it promises to change the way we think about cities. The study is here. It seems to me, that what really need to happen is the BOCC needs to have a a well thoughtout clear vision of our area and a positive view of growth. If you look at the River District plan that DPZ created through charrettes with all interested parties, it is really a good matrix and roadmap of how the district should develop. It is not a plan that is rigid and stagnate, adopted and left to be administered and manipulated by the staff to fit the prevailing political winds.