Home Sustainable Land Development Today March 2005

Get Smart…About Smart Growth

Written by Leo Roy

Thursday, 31 March 2005

Learning about, and adapting to, new principles is best option. In the opening sequence of the 1960s television show “Get Smart,” Maxwell Smart, Agent 86, must navigate an elaborately booby-trapped hallway of steel bars and glass walls to finally reach agency headquarters. It’s understandable that many land developers today may feel like Agent 86, with Smart Growth policies appearing as obstacles to be negotiated before they can reach their development goals. But it doesn’t have to be that way. A little knowledge of the underlying principles can make all the difference between smooth and difficult developmental processes. An increasing number of state and federal agencies are promoting Smart Growth principles and using these principles as a “litmus test” either in permitting decisions or in determining where public funding will be used for infrastructure improvements, which can be a critical component in successful private development. Understanding what constitutes Smart Growth, and how the application of these principles can affect development, has become a necessary part of project planning and implementation. A Little History The terms “Smart Growth” and “Sustainable Development” are often used interchangeably. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines Smart Growth as “development that serves the economy, the community, and the environment,” and former EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt has said that “Smart Growth is about being good stewards of our communities and of our rural lands, parks, and forests.” EPA describes the goals of Smart Growth as being healthy communities, economic development and jobs, strong neighborhoods, and transportation choices. What’s not to like? By these definitions, every developer should want his or her project to be considered Smart Growth, because the alternative can’t be good. Stupid Growth must undoubtedly consist of traffic congestion, transformation of open space into parking lots, environmental degradation, and the general reduction in quality of life. The Smart Growth Network has developed and is promoting a list of 10 principles for Smart Growth. They suggest using these principles to form policy direction at local levels to implement Smart Growth.     1. Mix land uses.     2. Take advantage of compact building design.     3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices.     4. Create walkable neighborhoods.     5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place.     6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas.     7. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities.     8. Provide a variety of transportation choices.     9. Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost-effective.     10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions. Where did this concept of Smart Growth come from? Sustainability was defined by the United Nations Brundtland Commission in 1987 as “an economic state where the demands placed upon the environment by people and commerce can be met without reducing the capacity of the environment to provide for future generations.” This concept was ratified by world leaders, including the United States, at the Rio Summit in 1992. Soon after, President Clinton created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, and at about the same time, the Smart Growth Network was formed, which has grown into a coalition of 32 organizations which support Smart Growth, including the EPA, the American Planning Association, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Fund, and the Urban Land Institute. The Network developed ten principles for Smart Growth which have been widely promoted. State governments have either used these principles, or developed their own, such as the Sustainable Development principles being promoted by the Massachusetts Office for Commonwealth Development (OCD). So far, so good. Whether Smart Growth or Sustainable Development, these principles, designed to encourage development without detriment, are laudable, and their application promises to increase desirable development, supporting public goals for improved transportation options, creation of new housing, economic development, and environmental protection. But some states, like Massachusetts, have begun to use their Sustainable Development principles as a way to screen projects. The Massachusetts Office for Commonwealth Development (OCD) has developed and is promoting a list of Sustainable Development Principles. OCD goes beyond the goal of the Smart Growth Network, intending for these principles to guide state agency decision-making, particularly in the allocation of public funds. intending for these principles to guide state agency decision-making, particularly in the allocation of public funds.     1. Redevelop first.     2. Concentrate development.     3. Be fair.     4. Restore and enhance the environment.     5. Conserve natural resources.     6. Expand housing opportunities.     7. Provide transportation choices.     8. Increase job opportunities.     9. Foster sustainable businesses.     10. Plan regionally. This raises the question as to whether states (or any other governmental body for that matter) should be picking winners and losers. Massachusetts has created a new entity, the Commonwealth Development Fund, to coordinate all state grant-making and infrastructure investment. This includes grants to cities and towns, the State Revolving Fund (SRF) for water supply projects, and funds for roadway, bridge, and transit projects. Money to support the state’s new transit-oriented development (TOD) initiative, transferable development rights (TDR), support for affordable housing projects, and other state investments, must all pass through a Sustainable Development screen to qualify for funding. (For more information, see the Office of Commonwealth Development Web site (http://www.mass.gov/ocd/)). Yet very few projects, if any, will meet all ten Smart Growth principles, and it would be difficult and questionable for OCD to use the principles as a litmus test for project approval. In practice, it is likely that OCD will find that comparing and contrasting projects that achieve different Sustainable Development principles may be challenging and often contradictory, such as choosing between “expand housing opportunities” and “increase job opportunities” if there are competing (and real economic market) uses for the same site. The Players Massachusetts Office of Commonwealth Development Chief Doug Foy (former head of New England’s leading environmental advocacy group, the Conservation Law Foundation) paints a rosy picture of idealized Smart Growth—a picture of communities of mixed-use residential, office, and retail built around transit stations, where children walk safely to school, parks, and to their local public library. Foy often refers to the study which showed that city dwellers have healthier lifestyles and are less obese than their suburban counterparts because they walk more and drive less. He has gone so far as to describe one Boston neighborhood as a long-term health care facility because he believes its mixed-use density and adherence to Smart Growth principles will lower health care costs for its residents. David Begelfer, head of the local chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP), is more skeptical of the widely touted benefits of Smart Growth. “What next… are we going to learn that Smart Growth cures your lumbago?” he quips. Begelfer and others point out that Massachusetts’ greater problem is the loss of population due to high housing costs, and that the emphasis on Smart Growth only in downtowns discourages welldesigned, market-driven projects in other settings. Some critics go even further. Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center, describes Sustainable Development as “the evil facing America.” He sees it as a regulatory agenda to ultimately control every aspect of our lives, and recognizes that it requires complicity on our part, because by taking those state or federal grants, we agree to comply with the agenda. “To save liberty, Sustainable Development must be stopped,” DeWeese writes. While holding an extreme view, DeWeese is not wrong in this case. The Sustainable Development/Smart Growth movement does seek to force a particular outcome. One’s perspective depends on whether you believe that the outcome is desirable or not. Arguably, the greatest regional impacts, positive or negative, typically come from government-funded projects, such as roads, highways, transit, water and sewer systems, and other major infrastructure “improvements.” This is where states can achieve Smart Growth objectives on a more practical and efficient scale. Properly planned expansion of infrastructure services or transportation corridors promotes sound economic growth that meets both state and community objectives. History shows that private sector development follows infrastructure investments, so the greatest long-term, large-scale impact on development patterns comes from appropriate state actions. The Massachusetts OCD can promote Sustainable Development principles through state agency decisions to finance and promote projects that embody those principles. Compliance with all ten principles on every project should not be a requirement, as this would likely serve to discourage economic development as a whole, particularly when local communities and their residents may want something which doesn’t neatly fit the criteria. Moreover, it is local zoning laws and not state environmental regulations that serve as the chief legal constraint on the type and intensity of land uses in Massachusetts. Many communities have effectively “zoned out” certain types of projects, such as affordable housing or mixed-used transitoriented developments that may make the most sense from a regional or statewide perspective and that would satisfy the goals of the Sustainable Development principles. The Reality The federal government is also on the Smart Growth bandwagon. EPA’s Smart Growth Strategy complements that of the states and includes the following target issues:     1. Promote Infill and Redevelopment     2. Catalyze Smart Growth Transportation Solutions     3. Partner for Innovative Development and Building Regulations     4. Support State Smart Growth Initiative     5. Ensure EPA Policies Recognize the Environmental Benefits of Smart Growth Like the states, EPA has also recognized that its policies, regulations, and funding decisions impact investments in infrastructure, including the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) and 319 grants for water projects, State Implementation Plans for air quality, brownfields grants, NPDES stormwater general permitting rules, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). EPA even plans to make Smart Growth projects an option under the Agency’s Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEP) policy, which reallocates dollars that would otherwise be collected as fines or penalties. These federal decisions could impact many state and regional actions concerning development patterns, such as where to expand new regional development, how to reinvest in existing communities, and the direction of transportation planning. EPA has stated that it seeks to ensure that the Agency’s actions do not inadvertently obstruct environmentally-friendly development options, and to ensure that their programs, policies, and regulations properly recognize localities and states for choosing development options which improve environmental performance. In short, EPA plans to use its financial muscle to “encourage” compliance with Smart Growth principles. In the long run, Smart Growth policies can only work if they align with good planning by all parties and acknowledge the current market realities. Unlike the old days, though, in which governmental agencies led developers down a boobytrapped hallway, today’s federal and state agencies are using a softer approach to advance their agenda: the financial levers at their disposal. While the end result of adopting and promoting Smart Growth on a consistent basis is intended to be the same, recognizing this difference gives developers two starkly different options: buck the trend and do what’s always been done, or go with the flow, grow, and adapt to the new reality. Getting smart about Smart Growth as a starting point and ultimately embracing Sustainable Design principles can help land developers overcome or dismantle many of the obstacles to a successful development project now and in the future. SLDT