The Smart Growth Conspiracy!

"Speakers criticized the plan for forcing residents into dense housing and impinging on suburban lifestyles. Speakers questioned the notion of regional planning, claiming that top-down planning would usurp local control. These and other objections at one meeting were captured on a two-hour video shot by a Tea Party supporter and posted on the Internet."

Saw this in a story in the California Planning & Development Report titled "SB 375 Draws Ire of Tea Party," which reminded me of the presentation I attended at the APA National Conference in Boston in April by Robin Rather, talking about the economic downturn and how it seems to have brought back out the naysayers to Smart Growth.

Robin will be here in Utah on September 15 to talk to planners and local elected officials about "Planners and the New Political Reality."  Jump over to the APA Utah website for details.

We've been fortunate in Utah, interestingly enough, given the strength of the Tea Party here, in not having the degree of rhetoric leveled against planning initiatives as has been happening in some other states.  Much of the "accusing" has been about Agenda 21 - ever heard of it?  According to some, it's a United Nations conspiracy that puts at risk

• Private Property ownership
• Single-Family homes
• Private car ownership and individual travel choices
• Privately owned farms

Take a look at some of the stuff on the internet here and here!

So join us on September 15, either at the APA Utah luncheon or at the Utah League of Cities and Towns conference, where Robin will also be speaking on Thursday morning, to get caught up on what's happening politically with planning in these economic tough times!

To Overpark, or to Underpark, Aye, That is the Question!

Over the past couple of weeks, the SLC Planning Commission has been talking about parking standards in areas where business or high-density residential abuts single-family neighborhoods.  As parking spills over from small neighborhood businesses or from apartment complexes into nearby residential streets, the reaction from the neighbors can get rather sharp (see video of the SLC Planning Commission on July 13).

SLC, like a number of others around the country, has made a conscious policy decision to de-emphasize the car and make the city more pedestrian- and bike-friendly.  One sure-fire way to do that is to not provide so much parking, so that people have to find other ways to get around conveniently.  In 2008, the city changed its parking standards from 3 per 1,000 square feet for retail businesses to 2, and for restaurants from 6 to 2.

That seems to work OK in the downtown and large commercial areas, where there are numerous businesses, parking lots, and few residents to worry about the parking in front of their house.  But it does lead to friction in those single-family areas adjacent to small businesses, like 9th & 9th and 15th & 15th.

There seems to be pretty good agreement that residents like to have the amenities that having small neighborhood-scale businesses provides to their areas - local services, coffee houses and small restaurants.  But it is unlikely that those businesses can survive purely on the market area of those who can walk to the business.  They need to draw from a larger area, and those people seem to get there primarily by car.  And should a business get really successful (The Dodo, Eggs in the City, etc), there can be a substantial number of cars parked on nearby residential streets.

While the downtown and large commercial areas usually have transit to assist in getting people there, those options are much more limited in residential neighborhoods.

We've found, as we've done some research on this topic, that cities all over are generally reducing their parking requirements.  Perhaps the conflicts that come with it are just part of the transition that's taking place from auto-centered to people-centered.

My desire to blog about this was prompted by a story I saw in yesterday's New York Times, called "Should a 'Walking Paradise' Save Plenty of Room for Parking?", using Denver's experience as the primary example.  No quick or easy answers to this one...

Who All Out There Thinks NIMBYs are Good?

Earlier this year, when I was teaching the Planning and Politics class at CA+P at the U., we discussed NIMBYs, why planners seem generally to hate them and what their role is.

It was interesting to hear the students in the class (many of them, at least) say they thought NIMBYs were actually a positive thing (my first reaction - you haven't been out on the front lines in a planning job yet, have you?)

But, there is some truth to that viewpoint, as NIMBYs can hold government's feet to the fire and make sure they follow their own rules, and protest things that really are negatives for a community.

But there is that flip side that most every planner (and developer) has experienced, which is that irrational opposition to ANY change at all, regardless.

That's why I thought a recent post by Scott Doyon on the Placeshakers website was pretty good on this topic.  Read his post here.

Some quotes from Scott, to get you warmed up to the topic:

"Early on, NIMBY action centered around large, substantive initiatives with no shortage of arguable downsides. Nuclear plants. Landfills. Toxic industry. Projects universally loathed no matter where you went."

"But then a funny thing happened.
Somewhere along the way, NIMBYs began applying these new organizational tools and techniques not just to projects presenting some level of threat but to any project offering the prospect of change. Which is to say, any project at all."

"If you’re really about community improvement and not just about snark (and I admittedly teeter between the two), you have to examine not just the what but the why. Why have NIMBYs increasingly developed an opposition to everything?
The answer has little to do with development. It has to do with trust."

OK, go read it and let's get some discussion going.