In general,
it’s a reasonable rule. It provides
helpful guidance in many cases. But it’s
not always true.
There are
times when the middle-ground of a compromise is untenable. My favorite counter-example is the Spanish
Inquisition. At the height of the
Inquisition, there was a faction of Spaniards who believed that many people
deserved to die for their religious thinking.
And there was another faction who believed that only a few people
deserved to die for their thoughts. A
compromise would have been that a moderate number of people deserved to die for
their supposed heresies.
From the
perspective of five centuries, we agree that no one deserves to die for their
religious thinking, no matter how heretical or contrary to popular opinion. A compromise on executions during the Spanish
Inquisition might have met the standard of equally displeasing both extremes,
but wouldn’t have been viewed with approval by posterity.
I mention
this because there is a Petaluma land-use action underway for which the
compromises under consideration are as flawed as any Spanish Inquisition
compromises might have been.
The Red Barn
site, sometimes called Scotts Ranch, lays on both sides of Windsor Street,
immediately west of D Street, near the urban/rural boundary. It’s a bucolic site, with rolling hillsides,
a small stream, and a historical barn and farmhouse. It would seem an unlikely site for
residential development, except for one fact.
It’s surrounded on three sides by residential development, making it the
next logical step as Petaluma expands.
Davidon
Homes acquired development rights
several years ago and is now pursuing entitlements. (Disclaimer: As a consulting engineer, I
provided site design services on a Davidon project in another community. The project ended well for both parties. And I enjoyed many of the Davidon folks with
whom I worked.)
Recognizing
the topographic, geologic, and biological challenges of the site, Davidon
proposed 93 homes, which results in a lower density that the Windsor
subdivision immediately adjoining the site to the west. Through the environment impact study (EIS),
as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), several less
intense projects were also identified, including 66, 43, and 28 home
alternatives. As required under CEQA, a
no-development alternative was also to be studied.
Davidon has
seemingly indicated a willingness to settle on the 66-home alternative. Some community members are willing to accept
that compromise. Others would prefer the
43-home plan or even less.
All of which
misses the point. StrongTowns
tells us that we have a problem providing funding for infrastructure
maintenance, a problem that will only worsen with time. (I’ve written about StrongTowns several times
in recent months. But rather than
searching my archive, I suggest reading their Curbside
Chat booklet if you need a
refresher.)
StrongTowns
argues that our cities and counties can’t collect enough property tax revenue
to fund the necessary infrastructure maintenance. And that much of the problem results from
sprawl by which the property tax base is spread over too much land and too much
infrastructure.
The exact
calculations that would prove the StrongTowns theory are complex and
elusive. Much relies on assumptions
about the future.
- How willing will a future electorate be to pay for municipal services?
- Will Proposition 13 be revised?
- Will the allocation of property tax revenues between cities and counties be modified?
- Will the state play a role if infrastructure maintenance becomes critical?
- What are the costs of other services, such as police, that must be funded from property taxes?
- Will engineers find more efficient ways to maintain infrastructure?
- Or are our infrastructure maintenance assumptions already too optimistic?
Two, the
increasing inability to maintain our stuff came during an era when we allowed
our cities to spread horizontally, with infrastructure increasing more rapidly
than population.
Those two
facts alone are enough to establish the credibility of StrongTowns.
And how do the Red Barn proposals measure against what StrongTowns tells us about the financial and economic sustainability of infrastructure? Not well. With 93 homes spread over the site, the density is already below most other Petaluma subdivisions. It is an example of the types of development which StrongTowns tells us can’t be financially sustained. And the proposed compromises to 66 homes or fewer would make the density even less.
This isn’t a
criticism of the CEQA process. I think
improvements can and should be made to CEQA.
But in this case, the problem isn’t the answer that CEQA might spit out,
it’s the question that CEQA was asked.
It’s likely that none of the alternatives offered for CEQA analysis were
good solutions for the next generation of Petalumans.
So, what
alternatives should have been offered? Not
surprisingly, I have thoughts on that point.
But I’m hesitant to demand too much of your attention today. So, I’ll answer the question in my next blog
post. But as you can likely guess, it’ll
be an answer that falls outside of the current possible compromises. I’ve learned lessons from StrongTowns and from
the Spanish Inquisition.
Scheduling Notes and Follow-Ups
The next
Petaluma Urban Chat meeting will be Tuesday, April 9. We’ll convene at 5:30pm at the Aqus
Café. The topic will be “Walkable City”
by Jeff Speck. But all are welcome
whether or not they’ve read the book.
Those who
attended the February Urban Chat, which was the video chat with Charles Marohn
of StrongTowns, may remember that Marohn mentioned the possibility of a 2013
StrongTowns tour of California. Marohn
has now announced that the plans are taking shape. Fundraising and final scheduling remain to be
completed, but Marohn is thinking of a trip in September or October. I’ve communicated with him regarding an
interest in having North Bay in his plans.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment