This is post
number four in my New Year’s “Intro to Urbanism”. It’s my attempt to increase the knowledge of readers
who have an interest in urbanism, but may be insecure in their current familiarity
with the subject.
In the first post, I described my reasons for writing this
series of posts and acknowledged my modest qualifications for the assignment.
In the second post, I wrestled with a definition and
synonyms for urbanism.
In the third and most recent post, I noted the number of
contemporary land-use challenges, from greenfield preservation to climate
change to municipal finances, that can be addressed, at least partially, by
urbanism. And from the answers to those
challenges, I noted that urbanism is generally comprised of two elements,
sufficient density to meet community goals and strong non-automotive transportation
options.
Today, I’ll begin
exploring the concept that I called “fiscal urbanism” in the last post, the
possibility that urbanism can help alleviate the financial distress being felt
in many city halls in the 21st century. Admittedly,
“fiscal urbanism” is a term I coined for the last post, but it’s shorthand that
the proponents of the concept would likely accept without hesitation.
However, I
must admit some trepidation about wading into this subject. StrongTowns has been a leader in highlighting
the financial flaws in the suburban land-use paradigm and the opportunities of
urbanism to address the problem. I belong
to StrongTowns and follow their work regularly.
If I were to give a complete review of the justifications for fiscal urbanism,
I’d be largely repeating, probably ineptly, the positions laid out by them.
Instead, I’ll
give an overview of the topic, note a few of my own thoughts, and then
highlight StrongTowns in the post-Intro syllabus that I’ll offer a few posts
hence.
Also, I find
that even an overview requires more words than I had anticipated, so the last
part of the fiscal urbanism discussion will be deferred to the next post in
this Intro.
Fiscal
Urbanism: Reduced to its essence, suburbia is expensive. Between construction of the additional infrastructure
required to serve an increasing far-flung world, the long-term maintenance of
that infrastructure, the cars and gasoline needed to navigate the suburban
world, the home and yard maintenance implicit in moving from an urban apartment
to a suburban home, and many other factors, our pocketbooks have been squeezed
by the rise of suburbia.
That is not
to say that suburbia is the only element of life that is more expensive now
than it was 70 years ago. As one example,
we now demand greater environmental safeguards, a demand that has costs. (That isn’t to say that we shouldn’t have
upgraded our environmental protection, only to note that the change didn’t come
free.)
As another
example, technology consumes a portion of our paychecks that no one expected 70
years ago. High-definition televisions
and frequent smart phone replacements cost far more than occasional wireless
purchases.
Faced by
increasing financial pressures, perhaps including growing income inequality,
although that topic lays outside the scope of this blog, people looked for
relief. Not paying for the costs of
suburbia was an easy solution. Among the
strategies available were rejections of tax hikes, ballot initiatives to cap property
taxes, and fees imposed on new construction that are nominally for new
infrastructure, but often get spent to fix existing problems.
A more honest
intellectual response would have been to acknowledge that, among the other
options on which we could spend our paychecks, we’d prefer not to spend money
on sprawl. But instead we choose to
continue to building suburbia, while looking for justifications and stratagems
not to pay for it.
Proof of the
inefficiency of sprawl can be tricky. It’s
well hidden within a multitude of funding programs, such as intergovernmental
payments, and deferred costs, such as underfunded public sector pensions. But StrongTowns has done well at identifying indications
of the problem.
First, StrongTowns
notes that the per acre tax roll assessments are far greater in every downtown
studied than in the urban fringes. So
downtowns are effectively forced to subsidize sprawl.
Also, as of
a couple of years ago, Chuck Marohn, the StrongTowns founder, noted that the
accumulated highway maintenance reserves for the entire U.S. were roughly equal
to the accumulated maintenance needs for California highways only. So we’ve been building a transportation
system without a plan to maintain it.
(Given the concerns over the gas tax funds, I imagine this situation has
worsened recently.)
Third, StrongTowns
notes that the amount of public and private debt has soared since World War II,
indicating a problem of keeping up with the costs of modern life.
I have several
more key points to make on fiscal urbanism, but I’ve claimed enough of your attention
for today. I’ll conclude the discussion
when I next return to the Intro.
Next up, I’ll
give myself a little breather from the task of writing the Intro. Instead, I’ll offer thoughts on the next
episode of “The Planners”, a BBC show on land-use planning.
(Note on the
photo: The building is 555 Hudson Street in Greenwich Village. It was from a window on the second story that
Jane Jacobs watched streetlife and reached the urbanist conclusions that became
“The Death and Life of Great American Cities”)
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