When the
possibility of a drought-driven Petaluma construction moratorium was first
broached, I responded strongly, supporting more stringent
water conservation standards, but opposing the concept of an extended
moratorium.
Listening to
and participating in subsequent discussions has led me to believe that the
moratorium aspect of the issue has been misunderstood by many. With the City Council hearing on a possible
moratorium now approaching, I want to share a clarification of my thinking.
But first, I
want to explain why this subject matters to me as an urbanist. Well-configured urbanism requires less water
than drivable suburbia. Much of the savings
comes from the reduced irrigation of a rowhouse or an apartment compared to a
single-family home. But other factors
also come into play. To offer just one,
most forms of energy production require water and drivable suburban uses more
energy than walkable urban. At the
bottom line, urbanism is a good water conservation strategy.
But urbanist
projects are hard to bring to the finish line.
Market and regulatory forces are often contrived against urbanism. Despite the most diligent efforts of
committed developers and consultants, urbanist projects are often fragile and prone
to succumbing to hazards such as delayed adoption of a general plan or an
extended economic malaise, obstacles that drivable suburban projects can more
often survive.
Too many
times over the past fifteen years, I’ve watched as well-conceived urbanist
projects, projects that among other benefits would have reduced per capita
water use, have stumbled and fallen when another hurdle was inserted between
them and the finish line.
The spectre
of a water conservation moratorium becoming the latest tripwire for
water-conserving urbanism is too painful and too perverse to tolerate. So I firmly oppose an extended water
moratorium.
With the
background, let me clarify my three key point positions regarding new water
conservation standards.
Stronger
water conservation standards: Strongly in favor. The drought, which many predicted with
uncomfortable accuracy, is edging into historical territory. To not respond would be a benighted public
policy.
Even those
who continue as climate change skeptics should now see the logic of more
stringent water conservation standards.
Even if someone argues that the drought is 95 percent certain to be
nothing more than a normal climate cycle, would the person get behind the wheel
of a car with a 5 percent chance of brake failure? Common sense requires being proactively
responsive to even low probability events if the implications would be
dire. And personally I put the odds of
the drought being the result of anthropogenic climate change at well above 5
percent.
Long-term
moratorium: Absolutely not. We
can’t risk the absurdity of losing another generation of water-conserving
urbanism to the hardship of a long moratorium.
Short-term
moratorium: This is the point where I think the conversation has gotten
off-track. A two-year moratorium and a
45-day moratorium serve very different purposes, to the point where it’s shame
that the word moratorium is applied to both.
A two-year
moratorium is a “let’s wait until things to get better” moratorium. (A strategy that I don’t think would serve
any purpose for the ongoing drought.)
But a 45-day moratorium is usually a “fresh start” moratorium.
It’s well
established that the adoption of new rules setting higher development standards
often result in a flood of new applications in the days before the new rules go
into effect.
This isn’t
unethical behavior by developers, any more than it’s unethical for consumers to
stock up on stuff in the days before a price increase. Both are simply examples of rational financial
decisions.
But that
doesn’t mean that the public good is served by having a flood of applications
under rules that are about to be supplanted for good reason.
A short moratorium
is a way of ensuring that all new applications are made under new
standards. It puts a hold on all
applications until the new rules are officially adopted and effective.
I don’t have
an opinion about whether a 45-day moratorium would be appropriate in the
current Petaluma circumstances. Without
knowing the extent of the new water conservation policies that may be adopted
by the Council, I can’t judge the need for a short “fresh start” moratorium.
But I do
fear that an apparent conflation of the two moratorium concepts may result in
pressure against a reasonable and justified short-term moratorium, which would in
turn allow too many projects to proceed under soon-to-be superseded water
conservation rules.
I’m fine
with the City Council making a rational decision about the need for a 45-day
moratorium as long as a more extended moratorium stays far off the table.
I’m
disappointed that I won’t be able to attend the April 27 meeting. But I’ll be following the results eagerly,
hoping for good things for both water conservation and urbanism.
In my next
post, I’ll touch upon springtime, revisiting some venues and ideas that become
more relevant as spring blossoms.
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