I recently
had a week that highlighted a paradox I’ve created for myself. My conundrum sheds light on an issue that
affects urbanism, so I think it’s worthy of discussion.
First, I met
with a developer who had a potential interest in folding me into his project
team. I knew something about his site
and believed in the potential of the district, so was interested in the possibility,
even though I hadn’t yet seen his particular plan.
But the developer
was aware of my urbanist leanings and my community involvement. Those activities made him uncomfortable.
Much of our
conversation bounced between his expectation that I would unequivocally support
his project and my rejoinder that I would unequivocally support any project that
made Petaluma a better place. We
concluded our discussion somewhere short of a meeting of the minds. He and I continue to chat. He may yet decide to include me. I hope he does because I think I can help him
and the community, but I’m not losing any sleep over the outcome.
About the
same time, I was chatting with a local citizens’ advocacy group. They had their teeth into an issue that was of
interest to me. I didn’t expect that the
group and I would have the same congruency of interests on every subject, but our
overall goals were largely aligned and making common cause on this particular
issue seemed reasonable.
But then I
got wind that some in the group were hesitant to work with me because I was
known to consort with developers.
So, within
just a few days, I had a developer cast a dubious eye at me because I was too
community-centric and a community group cast a similarly dubious eye at me
because I was too developer-centric.
In a world
that many believe is already too polarized, we seem to be adding new types of
polarity.
Which is a
shame because it doesn’t help us make the North Bay a better place. I firmly believe that we need to be talking
more, not less.
Those of you
who have been reading here for awhile know the points that I might now make to elaborate
my point. The need to understand the real
world constraints on developers. The fact
that zoning codes often don’t present the true desires of the community. The need to incorporate concerns about
climate change and municipal finances into our land use patterns. The desires of the market place.
But those of
you who have been reading here for awhile already know the litany. And those of you haven’t can hang out for
awhile and wait for the issues to come past again. So I’ll adjourn at this point and encourage
you to proceed with your day.
To be clear,
I’m not complaining about being potentially ostracized by both ends of the land-use
spectrum. To use an inside joke from the
world of land use, I know I’m in the midst of a self-created difficulty. Yes, I’d like developers to believe that I
can bring value to their projects. And
yes, I’d like community groups to believe that I have the best interests of the
community at heart.
But what I
really want is to awake in the morning with the belief that I’m doing the best
I can for current and future residents of the North Bay. And as long as I pass that test, which I do,
I can’t be too concerned about the other stuff.
Instead, all
I can do is to keep humming to myself.
Well
I don't know why I came here tonight,
I
got the feeling that something ain't right.
---
While recently
philosophizing on the issues raised by the alternative Petaluma SMART station,
I suggested that the creation of new, separated communities would be a logical
result of an urbanist world.
Effectively, I was proposing islands of urbanism surrounded by natural
environment.
To my
surprise, I learned that Amsterdam had already embarked on a literal
interpretation of the concept that I was proposing. I’ll explain in my next post.
As always, your
questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
Dave, I have certainly indicated this to others if not directly to you: If I want the best possible thinking about when to constrain my dreams for a livable, walkable, people-oriented, aesthetic, nourishing community to meet the reality test of "real world constraints on developers," I am going straight to Dave Alden to provide the thinking and the communication thereof!
ReplyDeleteBarry, I appreciate the vote of confidence, but you give me too much credit. There are many folks who are better qualified and more knowledgeable about the appropriate trade-offs. I just try to provide the fodder to keep the necessary conversations underway.
DeleteMy point in the post above, which I probably didn't make well enough, isn't that I'm particularly skilled at finding good solutions, but that if we exclude people who can see both sides of the argument, we end up with compromises struck between those who believe that all development is good because we need the economic activity and those who believe that all developers are evil. And those compromises are never as well crafted for the benefit of the community.