American Dream News

… as in holding on to Number One rankings.  Yet another study - A View from Corporate America - is a survey of state business climates, conducted by Development Counsellors International.

Texas comes in first place, North Carolina is second, and Georgia is third.  (The top ten list can be found on page 26 with internals on subsequent pages.)

Interestingly, the only Smart Growth state that makes the top ten is Florida.  Under state mandate, all Florida counties and cities must adopt 10-year Comprehensive Plans.  Fortunately, not all county and city leaders have drunk the Smart Growth kool-aid, so even though growth management is the law of the Sunshine State many communities have avoided the harmful impacts of Smart Growth.

Other states that are more fully Smart Growth oriented are nowhere to be found in the report.  California, Oregon, Washington, Maryland …

Of course, the report doesn’t talk specifically about Smart Growth, and why should it?  It identifies the states with the most favorable business climates and doesn’t drill down to the causes.  And most people are not well versed in the language of urban public policy.  For most people, terms like Smart Growth and New Urbanism have as much meaning as roadway terms like arterials and collectors.

For everyday Americans, growth management schemes simply translate into business UN-friendly environments, and this report does a good job of showing that. 

“State and local government spending has been rising three times as fast as revenue amid warnings from governors that their finances are nearing crisis stage.”

More here.

In these times of $4/gallon gas, pro-transit folks are trumpeting light rail as the solution. In blogs from all over the country, the debate is hot about whether or not to accept the outrageously expensive light rail projects on the local ballot. That is why it is somewhat refreshing to read two recent articles about local areas that are instead focusing first on increasing their bus rider ship.
The first article is about South Florida where the sprawling infrastructure does not lead itself easily to implementing light rail. However, they would benefit from more frequent buses and additional stops as well as an express bus route. All of these things are in the works for the next year or two. Not bad.
The second article describes the new Illinois 13 bus route that links rural communities to several important locations, including major hospitals, colleges, the airport and the mall. It was a joint effort between the Rides Mass Transit District, the Illinois DOT and three colleges. I say, good job folks, in accessing the needs of your people and responding in a fiscally responsible and practical manner.
In general, increased bus activity is preferable to a monster light rail project. The question is, how do you get people to park and use the buses? In the Illinois example, we see the route catering specifically to students who need that connection between campuses and seniors who need access to hospitals and shopping. So, how will South Florida tailor their new bus services to accommodate the riders they want?

Responding to yesterday’s post Unintended Consequences and Smart Growth, Howard Kelly said, “The type of ‘urban redevelopment’ and ’slum clearing’ and ‘blight removal’ tactics from the 1950s and 1960s era that the Antiplanner was citing has absolutely nothing to do with ‘Smart Growth’ ideas today.”  Really?

From the Philidelphia Inquirer just four days ago: “1,300 property owners in Camden, PA whose homes are in a new redevelopment zone were sent letters explaining eminent domain.”  Thirteen hundred, Howard!

Now, I doubt the city will take all 1,300 homes, but can anyone deny that this is not political bullying by Smart Growthers done in the name of New Urbanism?!  Redevelopment designated areas uniformly (read: one-size-fits-all) aim ”to change zoning and density rules in existing fabrics to allow them to move in a different direction than they would have” - borrowing language from our friend Howard again.

On Tuesday, City Council unanimously approved the redevelopment plan, which would bring 480 new and rehabilitated homes to the neighborhood next to Cooper University Hospital and a new health campus and retail strip to Broadway.

Yippee!  It’s that vaunted mixed-use development that Smart Growthers assure us are desired by people, instead of single-use zoning that has been foisted upon us unwelcomed and unsuspectingly.

But if mixed-use development is so desirable, then why must government use the threat of force (i.e., eminent domain) to get what it wants?  Conversely, why are citizens so stubbornly clinging to single-use zoning if that’s not what they truly want?

I wish I could tell you it took me weeks of infruriating research to uncover such a rare example of Smart Growth bullying.  Sadly, it took me a grand total of 15 minutes.  Eminent domain abuse is widespread, and if you go to conferences of the American Planning Association, League of Cities, Congress of New Urbanism, etc., you can hear for yourself that eminent domain is referenced in the same breath as conventional economic development tools like fee waivers, tax incentives, and permit fast-tracking.  It’s “just another tool” in the redevelopment toolbox for Smart Growth cities.  That’s pathetic.

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Todd Zywicki writes, “In thinking about the empirical analysis of social policies, I’ve thought it sometimes useful to take the actual results of the policies and then look back and think whether the policy still would have been adopted had the architects of the policy known what the results would be.”

Zywicki cites Prohibition, the Bill of Rights debate, and the sexual revolution as events/movements where consequences were strikingly different than intentions.  It made me think of Smart Growth and its various elements.

The Antiplanner today comments on San Francisco’s efforts to redevelop the Fillmore District, with the city’s own Redevelopment Agency director saying, “The agency’s time there has not been a happy story” and ‘The little good that has happened in recent years is not “making up for the damage that was done in the early days.”’

On his blog, USC’s Peter Gordon looks at L.A.’s transit system and notes:

Transit in LA hit a high-water mark in 1985 because the 1980 half-penny sales tax hike was used to drop bus fares and transit ridership in the county shot up, to 497-million annual boardings, from a low of 354-million in 1982. But bus fares were raised in 1985 to bank money for rail. Since then, we have kicked more people off the buses than new rail has served. In fact, transit use declined steadily, to 364-million annual boardings in 1996, climbing back since then to reach near-1985 levels (496-million boardings) in2007. When 2008 is over, we will have surpassed 1985.

Many commentators have discussed the dramatic price spike associated with housing in Smart Growth communities.  So here’s a thought experiment: Knowing what we know now about the negative impacts of Smart Growth - eminent domain abuse, stifling congestion, dramatic housing cost increases, gentrification, etc. - if we could go back a generation would planners and politicians still try to impose it?

I’d say yes, for those who advocate Smart Growth are really not interested in the consequences.  They are interested in control.  And Smart Growth allows for the control of society through intense regulatory planning in ways the New Deal could only dream of.

We all love those paradoxical Yogi Berra quotations!  Interestingly, recent research suggests that one of his one-liners may have an element of truth to it.

New Urbanists and Smart Growthers have long argued that suburbanization creates social isolation and that increasing urban densities will lead to vibrant urbanism.  Reality - that inconvenient spoiler of Smart Growth theory - shows that increasing urban densities actually increases social alienation.

Gee, another Smart Growth theory contradicted by the … hmm, what’s the word … oh yeah, the facts.  No matter.  The ideas of elitists and the visions of planners (i.e., Smart Growth) will not be deterred by such a trifling thing as … er, evidence!  Wishful thinking will sally forth!  Correction: Extremely expensive wishful thinking will sally forth!

Richard Carson, a practicing planner and doctorate student at Washington State University, writes:

The statistical revelation behind all of these findings is that for every 10% increase in density, there is a 10% decrease in socialization. That’s a simple, one-to-one inverse relationship that everyone can understand.

Carson is citing a 2006 study (Social Interaction and Urban Sprawl) by Jan Brueckner and Ann Largey of Dublin City University and the University of California, respectively, who looked at 15,000 individuals in average, urbanized areas.  The Smart Growth myth was buttressed in 2000 by Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community) who blamed the suburbs for social decline.

As with most of Smart Growth, such an idea fits nicely into its rhetorical narrative - it just feels right!  Now we know that it was wrong.  Hopefully, planners and policymakers who are not wedded to Smart Growth will absorb this information to craft better policies.  But I probably have a better chance of bowling 300 than that happening.

(Hat tip: Houston Strategies)

The New York Times writes, “The House approved far-reaching government assistance on Wednesday for the nation’s housing market.”

Yea!  Big government is here to save us from ourselves…again!  There’s no question that the weakened housing market has triggered economic hardship for many people, and we are sympathetic to their plight.  Who would wish ill fortune on anyone?  My problem is that we’re looking for a political solution to a problem caused by poor public policy.  (How’s that for alliteration!)

Yet we also want to know what was behind the burst in the bubble, and it’s becoming increasingly evident that our housing crisis has the distinctive stamp of Smart Growth on it.  Thomas Sowell comes close when he says:

In addition to federal laws that pressure lenders to lend to people they would not otherwise lend to, and in places where they would otherwise not invest, state and local governments have in various parts of the country so severely restricted building as to lead to skyrocketing housing prices, which in turn have led many people to resort to “creative financing” in order to buy these artificially more expensive homes.

The links are there, but it’ll take a little more due diligence to validate the argument that Smart Growth policies created housing un-affordability, leading to risky mortagage practices that triggered the housing crisis.  In time, this will be shown to be true.

The more I read about smart growth, the more I find that its supporters appear elitist in their descriptions of their ideas and also in their criticisms of sprawl. A lot of this attitude must stem from the terms they use: “smart growth,” “new urbanism,” etc. As Randall O’Toole has mentioned several times, who wants to be opposed to something called smart? Terms describing the other side also work in favor of the smart growth supporters. “Sprawl” sounds invasive, and “suburban” appears inferior to “urban.”

So here is the challenge: We need a new, catchy term (or two or three) that sum up the anti-smart growth movement. Some hip term having to do with personal freedom and the marketplace, maybe? How about the “Your Choice” movement? Or “Distinctive Interest”? Or “Modern Independence”?

How about we rename smart growth to make it more honest? We could call it “Pack ‘Em In”, or “Field of Urban Dreams.” If they plan it and build it, we are supposed to move in, right?

Please consider this and post your suggestions. Invite everyone you know to participate. Then we can vote on our best choices and get our word out. If we can counter smart growth advocates with some popular and accurate terms of our own, we can begin to reclaim the attention of the American people. Let’s get our definitions in Wikipedia for people across the world to reference.

“Meantime, in San Francisco, African-American deaths now outnumber births.”

Okay, maybe the teaser is a little over the top.  Yet in today’s political culture, angry pundits who see disproportionate outcomes love to scream racism at the top of their lungs.  So what do we make of the fact that minorities in Smart Growth cities are experiencing disproportionate outcomes and, consequently, out-migration is up and in-migration is down for these groups?

In The End of White Flight, the Wall Street Journal digs at this and other related questions.  The planning and urban renewal efforts of Smart Growth cities may have a benign intent, but their effects are hostile to low and middle income people and disproportionately so to minorities.

Planners hate Houston.  Planner love New York, especially its metro system.  (Okay, I’m understating!)  Interestingly, Harvard University Professor Edward Glaeser - one of the nation’s leading academics on land-use planning - looks at the two cities and concludes, “The Southern city welcomes the middle class; heavily regulated and expensive Gotham drives it away.”

Glaeser looks at many variables keys on the main one: housing costs.  “Houston’s great advantage, it turns out, is its ability to provide affordable living for middle-income Americans, something that is increasingly hard to achieve in the Big Apple.”

The permitting process in Manhattan is an arduous, unpredictable, multiyear odyssey involving a dizzying array of regulations, environmental, and other hosts of agencies. A further obstacle: rent control.

It’s a good article, and we’re glad the New York Sun ran it.  Read the whole thing: Houston, New York Has a Problem