 |
| A bike share station in Detroit |
I have a
short tale today, to be followed by administrative notes.
This story
has been rattling around inside my head since before my long break from this
space. I hope putting it into words
will set it free.
More than a
year ago, a proposed apartment project came before the city council of a North
Bay community. It was a tolerably acceptable
project. Slightly fewer than a hundred
new apartments in a market that needed new housing even before the wildfires. A site that, although beyond walkable range
for most daily needs, was surrounded by developed parcels.
It didn’t check
off many of the walkable urbanism boxes, but it was perhaps best that could be
done with a non-urban site.
But there
was still controversy, a dispute over a proposed condition of approval. The site adjoined a major route of the city’s bicycle
master plan. City staff and several city
committees had proposed that the applicant construct a 2,000-foot segment of bicycle
path near the project. Although of
limited usefulness immediately, the segment would eventually connect residential,
recreational, shopping, and transit opportunities, including a since-opened
downtown train station
The applicant
was asking for the condition to be removed, arguing that the cost of the path
segment would undermine project finances, perhaps enough that the project couldn’t
be built. As the land had been vacant
for fifteen years, possibly demonstrating the tenuous finances of the site, the
argument might have been valid. Nonetheless,
I sided with those who argued that the bicycle path segment was a reasonable
and appropriate condition.
(I’ve written
before that land-use entitlement can be akin to a poker game. Cities and the public can't know if a
developer is serious about the potential of a project finances falling apart or
if he’s bluffing. Similarly, a developer
is looking for tells in a city’s approach to conditions of approval.)
On the night
of the council meeting, after a number of folks had spoken in favor of the bicycle
path, a prominent member of the community took her place at the podium.
I hadn't
heard her speak previously to the Council on any land-use issue, so was unaware
what to expect. I was immediately
impressed. She talked about how cities of the future must thrive by providing settings
in which millennials can live physically active lifestyles, with easy access to
work and to gathering places without a need for cars. As she described it, if young talented people
are attracted to the lifestyle of a community, businesses will follow with the
hope of hiring them.
It was an
argument directly out of the creative class theories of Richard Florida. I was pleased that the ideas were being put
forth in a public setting.
And then the
speaker got to her conclusion. As the goal of the city was to attract these
vibrant people by providing places for active living, it was unreasonable to
ask a developer to put in a bike path for fear that the project funding would
collapse and the city wouldn't have housing for the new arrivals.
Huh?
The conclusion
was fully inconsistent with her earlier arguments. The city must provide a setting for
physically active lives therefore it should approve housing without bicycle
paths?
Today, more
than a year later, I remain flummoxed by how a successful individual can provide
public testimony with such complete illogic.
It grieves me to think that logical thinking is no longer a condition of
public debate.
The council
had no such qualms, voting 4-3 to remove the condition. Oh well.
Onto
administrative details:
When I
rebooted this blog, I didn't have a particular publication schedule in mind. I decided not to tie myself to the Monday-Wednesday-Friday
routine of my earlier efforts, but instead to write when the spirit moved me. However, I now find that I’ve gone two weeks
since my last post. That’s not acceptable. I’ll work to be more frequent than I've begun.
As I’ll be aperiodic
in my publication schedule, I remain willing to send emails to anyone who would
like to know when I post something new.
If you want to be added to my list, email me at the address below.
Talking of email
lists, there are two other lists that may be of interest to those in or near my
town of Petaluma. First, I write weekly emails
on the day-to-day activities of Petaluma Urban Chat, such as upcoming Council
meetings of interest, Urban Chat gatherings, and other community events. Also, Know Before You Grow has an email list
to be kept abreast of their forums on local land-use planning. To be
added to either or both lists, you can again email me at the address below.
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 Alden is a Registered Civil Engineer. A
University of California graduate, he has worked on energy and land-use
projects in California, Oregon, and Washington. He was also the president of a
minor league baseball team for two seasons. He lives on the west side of
Petaluma with his wife and two dogs. He can also be followed on Facebook, LinkedIn,
and Twitter.
