Until the
final battle was lost in the last few months, the City of Petaluma had engaged
in a long war against asphalt, or at least the production of asphalt.
At issue was
a proposed asphalt plant near the south edge of town, along Petaluma Boulevard
South near the first freeway exit into Petaluma. With ready access to the freeway, the
Petaluma River, and the nearby rail tracks, the site offered a great range of transportation
options, included the possible use of barges and trains for lower energy use delivery
of raw materials. It was obvious why the
applicant wished to locate an asphalt plant at the site.
But the City
was concerned about the vista for travelers arriving in Petaluma, about the
potential for damage to river, and about fumes drifting toward a wildlife area and
favorite walking paths on the opposing riverbank. So, they fought the application through the
County entitlement process and then joined other litigants in appealing the
approval in the court system.
Despite the vigor
and resources which the City brought to the fight, the war was eventually lost. There are rumors that the plant will be
constructed this coming summer.
As the
battle was first getting underway back in 2009, I wrote an opinion piece for
the local newspaper. Using a tale from
my engineering past, I suggested that the battle was likely overblown. I recounted the story of a neighbor who
vehemently opposed an Oregon hydroelectric project back in the 1980s. He was so convinced that the project would
destroy the river that when he lost the fight, the power plant was built, and the
river did just fine, he was sure that the plant hadn’t been built, even though
his office window overlooked the roof of the powerhouse.
The piece is
still on-line. However, the first few
paragraphs were inexplicably omitted, robbing the story of its coherence, so I
won’t provide a link.
I suggested
that the asphalt plant could follow a similar path. If built, it might quickly recede into the visual
background with the environmental controls working well enough that future
generations would wonder what the furor had been about.
I still
stand by my comments. But I also stand
by another opinion that I expressed back in 2009. Then and now, I argue that Petaluma could and
should reduce its use of asphalt to the extent that the applicant would choose
to drop the project. Like many of my
fellow townspeople, I also didn’t want the asphalt plant, but I wanted the
reason to be good business sense, not cherry-picked anti-entitlement arguments
of uncertain veracity.
It was an
argument that fell on deaf ears. I still
find it ironic that, at the same time the City Council was voting unanimously
to appeal the asphalt plant approval, they were also putting a strong majority
behind two shopping centers with expansive parking lots.
Nor did the
inconsistency ever become evident to most.
Subsequent elections have been fought over which candidate was more
steadfast in their opposition to the asphalt plant and in their support of the
new shopping centers. It’s too bad that
we don’t instead elect public officials based on their ability to spot logical
contradictions.
The call for
less asphalt is common within the urbanist community. A recent article in Better Cities and Towns lays out the arguments in favor of and the strategies
to implement what the author calls “Little Asphalt” in contrast to the term Big
Asphalt often applied to the consortium of general contractors, material
suppliers, engineers, and lenders who have paved the way (pun intended) to a
world of wide streets and enormous parking lots.
The article
is worth a read, but the strategies for Little Asphalt will likely seem
familiar. That’s because they’re mostly the
same strategies as for urbanism. Whether
one’s concern is climate change, water usage, municipal finance, or Big
Asphalt, the toolkits are nearly identical, which I consider a strong indicator
of a global truth.
Not
surprisingly, the folks at StrongTowns are on the same side of the asphalt argument. They point to one particular element of the
battle, the zoning code specifications for minimum parking lot sizes, the rules
that require parking lots be sized to accommodate the theoretical busiest days
of the year, thereby undermining walkability, bicycle access, and transit
use.
Furthermore,
StrongTowns finds that, even for the busiest day, the codes are
conservative. StrongTown volunteers
spread out on the Friday after Thanksgiving to check on parking availability and
have little difficulty in finding underfilled lots.
Personally,
I didn’t do any shopping on the day after Thanksgiving, but found a half-empty
lot when I did some Saturday shopping, which supports the StrongTowns argument.
Many years
ago, I worked with a contractor who, upon confirmation that all of the
underground utilities had been installed and tested, would describe his next
task as “making it black”. And “making
it black” is essential. No one wants to
return to gravel and dirt streets. But
we can be more circumspect in our use of black. And perhaps induce a few asphalt producers
to drop plans for new plants.
Next time, I’ll
write about a marvelous little private gate I recently came across.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete