On Wednesday I went to the public meeting re: the County's proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan that would institute new language and polices regarding sustainability. Previously I had characterized this as a swipe at property rights and I've been challenged to provide details to this nefarious plan.
Back in 2005 the County made a resolution based on a series of concepts (support of Kyoto, vehicular pollution, support of Amendment 37, etc.) to address sustainability within the land use code. This has led to the details of the current proposals which have three main tenets (by my description): increase the use of green building materials, offer transferable development rights and protect the neighborhood character of given areas from inappropriate development. (The County refers to this as Structure Size.)
What I heard at the meeting was a rationale and acceptable concern for the impact of pollution-caused climate change. I agree with the premise and the building materials requirements are not necessarily onerous; that's worth debate though. The TDR concept has skeptics based on how the County's ownership of much of the potential land used in such a system skews the reality of market-based decisions. Yet another long conversation can be had there. But the concept is valid.
It's the third area that moves into the more subjective realm and I felt came across as flat out anti-growth. Not balanced, slow, responsible, green, or any other such growth sentiment. Just plain "no more period." People who already live in unincorporated Boulder County will love the philosophy implied in the new rules of searching for the appropriate kind of development that in actuality I believe will never be found. With this foundation setting the tone for the County's approval processes, I believe it will be increasingly more convoluted and expensive to meet the standards of "neighborhood character". Under the guise of this type of potential appropriateness being attainable, the sentiment of absolutely no more growth will stifle the reasonable development rights of property owners.
This is a gut feeling opinion, I was shown how this is not the case by County planners. Still, the gist of what I read at the meeting makes me feel like an absolute anti-growth sentiment is at the root of the new rules. Hence my attack on property rights assertion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Some details make a huge difference. I'm glad you acknowledge that there are justifications for land use controls that address the environmental externalities of land development. This is consistent with what you said when the WASH program came up. General controls make sense, even though pollution is a dilute effect. The same justifications apply to regulations that mitigate the economic impacts of resource depletion...
I understand these regulations to be based on legitimate goals. But, as I explain below, I agree that debate is necessary when property rights are impacted and costs are significant. We just haven't had that debate yet, we've been waiting to see what the County is going to put on the table.
Based on your post, maybe we can put all the environmental justifications aside for now, and just deal with the least-justified of the potential regulations, as you describe it. Does even the concept of neighborhood character regulation make sense?
The intent of a neighborhood character ordinance is usually to capture an economically valuable aesthetic. Neighborhood character ordinances are restrictive, but to a lesser degree than something like historic preservation. Neighborhood character does impact property rights, but not necessarily in a way that devalues land. They are not necessarily "anti-growth." I also know that studies have been produced to show that such ordinances enhance property values, though it is quite possible that there are contrary results in contrary studies.
Regardless of our interpretations of motives, benevolent or nefarious, might neighborhood character have some value as public policy?
All I've been saying, when nefarious intent is assigned to every move the County makes, is that both good things and bad things are possible. Whether or not we like them, as Chris has noted, sometimes your elected leaders are not going to rule by much more than accident. In the extreme case, I'd even go so far as to concede that there is a very vocal constituency in Boulder County that believes there should be a growth cap. Sort of a bioregionalist idea that we should designate a carrying capacity, grow most of our food off the conserved land, and lead the world in progressive thinking. Yes, we are in Boulder County...
You can call this nefarious, or you can call it democracy in action. This is a debate on fundamentals. It's possible to take the view that state control is always the least preferable option, and I think your angle is legitimate, Dan. Property rights and markets have been critical tools to build a tremendously successful economy that values individual liberty. I'll grant you that and everything I can understand of the Chicago School of economics, if you'd like.
But I'm still interested to see where the County is going with this, just in case there is something that would work. With appropriate hardship provisions and a focus on incentivizing building, not restricting it, I'm not convinced that even the worst possible intentions of the Commissioners might not just end up getting honed into the type of development code every place will be using in 100 years.
I'm watching this sustainability initiative with interest, because I don't have any particular opinion of the Boulder County Commission. They're not heroes to me, but I don't have any particular problem with them either. With some feeling that I'm looking at the potential regulations objectively, it seems to me that the Commissioners might not be totally out of line...
By the way, if you think the environmental side of this is radical, just last week one of the speakers at the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute noted that all new construction in (from memory) Germany will be required to have a green roof. There was also a news item recently about a town in British Columbia that is requiring green roofs on all buildings larger than 5,000 sq. meters. It may be radical, but it is headed our way. The question is whether this type of regulation will be commonplace in 100 years, outmoded, or just a forgotten fad.
Well Alex, this will become more than academic for you since the council agreed at our goal setting meeting last Saturday to move forward on more energy conservation issues including building codes....
Thanks for the news, Frank.
It sounds to me like the County's initiative and the City of Lafayette's are evolving concurrently, but maybe from two completely different sets of assumptions and objectives. I have not heard anything about limiting house size in Lafayette, for example, but I know there were recent changes to the City's Planned Unit Development standards relating to building materials.
On the County front, Randy Luallin just posted a letter to the Daily Camera, basically opposing the County's initiative, saying that, "essentially you would be requiring sustainability but denying the ability to achieve it... It is questionable for the County to mandate [sustainability] requirements then unless it is to prevent building altogether."
Luallin uses the example of graywater systems and rainwater catchment, both of which may run afoul of state and local regulations pertaining to sanitary water and water rights.
This is the type of technical analysis that is helpful to policymakers. Do I think that the specific "sustainability" regulations have been developed to the point where they can be categorically condemned as impractical? No. But I am interested if this type of criticism (e.g., that identified technologies and best practices conflict with other regulation) could be applied to the type of regulations suggested by the County. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the meetings, nor did they garner much (any?) press...
I like what I'm reading here. All of the ideas are worth at least discussing. I don't see anything radical or beyond the bounds of what a progressive county government should be doing.
Post a Comment