Behind Enemy Lines at the Anti-Smart Growth Conference

San Jose, is number two city following Portland with Smart Growth. We are building an unlivable city. Housing prices going out of site as builders are paying a million an acre for land that is 50,000 across the street which can not be developed. 80% of transit funds go to light rail which 1/5 of one percent of passengers use. Roads are planned to come to a stop by congestion. Transit district is going broke and wants more taxes. Fair box provides 12% of cost. San Jose is a case study. It was great city until the Samrt Growth promoters took over.

What a sad commentary on who we are. We don't spy on each other in America. We are not enemies. We are people who debate issues and go home and have dinner with our families. Or we bowl alone.

It is unfortunate that debates over growth and land use patterns have now degenerated into name calling and us against them rhetoric. Yes, hirschhorn is bias which is no secret. But, the solutions for any side of the debate do not lie in pointing out how stupid or socially inept your "competition" is.

One of the problems the smart growth advocates have is the dilution of their movement. Smart growth advocates include no growthers, environmentalists, central city politicians looking for subsidies, architects/new urbanists touting their work, transit special interests, citizens who want no more development near them. The list goes on. The problem here is that not all of these groups' interests align. In fact, some actually contradict each other. This situation makes it quite easy to be critical of smart growth since there is so many disparte ideas with which to disagree. The other side or "conservatives" as they are labeled have their own dilution as well.

Smart growth opponents are not government haters any more than smart growth advocates are socialists. The oposing sides could easily find common ground where there appears to be only conflict. For example, both sides believe most modern day zoning ordinances are outdated and encourage boring and restrictive development. Both sides also believe that development should "pay it's way" for infrastructure that it generates. Both sides also basically agree that environmentally-sensitive lands could be protected through conservation easements. Lastly, both sides agree that we should stop subsidizing new development.

I doubt much will change because of this, but I guess it is easier for Americans today to identify only two sides to any issue, pigeonhole the other group, and then bastardize the issues. If we are to better accomodate new growth, these groups will have to start finding some common ground.

Are off-base if he tries to paint "smart growth" an anti-people of color movement. Frankly, dispersal of job opportunties and housing and retail options in a low dense fashion throughout a metropolitan area (no matter what you call it sprawl or the "American Dream") requires automobile use and is generally anti-transit. Neither is a benefit to people, often people of color, who live in the center city. If anything, smart growth is an environmental justice issue.

Richard Layman

Washington, DC

First, I'd like to thank Mr. Hirschhorn for his past work presenting the complexities of smart growth planning. From Hirschhorn, I’ve learned that both Republicans (i.e. Envision Utah) and Democrats are pursuing solutions to problems associated with sprawl development. Hirschhorn's use of the word "conservative" in his op-ed is used in a narrow sense, as his title "conservative libertarians" makes clear.

The tone of many respondents to this op-ed (i.e. of those ideologically aligned with Mr. Wendell Cox) suggests that charrette-based approaches to planning are essential if many planning activities are to be more than posturing and chest thumping. As a planner, I cannot rest blame on private-property rights enthusiasts for undermining smart growth planning.

Too many planning activities are simplistic and make little or no attempt to bring people together to see things in a rigorous manner. Perhaps someday soon the APA will require professional planning programs to base much of their professional program around the charrette process as understood by the National Charrette Institute (http://www.charretteinstitute.org/).

This charrette process is based upon nearly 200 charrettes aimed at creating walkable communities (most without transit). This process is time consuming and a lot of work. It demands a multi-disciplinary approach (economics, public safety, affordable housing etc). The NCI-charrette process seeks to identify and included the kinds of libertarians who have responded to Mr. Hirschhorn’s op-ed. They must be there from the beginning, so that they are both heard, and listen a myriad of other concerns.

Planning can be extremely complex and difficult when done right. I fear that too often, the planning process is a mediocre exercise at best that never involves decision makers (or opponents) and commits to fuzzy goals. The NCI-charrette process holds out a promise for the planning profession. If NCI-charrette-base planning does not become the norm, the profession will continue to suffer through variations of what we read below.

The future of smart growth (i.e. creating communities designed around pedestrian activity), largely depends on how well planning agencies and graduate planning programs adopt an NCI-like charrette process as core professional training/activity.

Regardless of Mr. Hirschhorn intent or position regarding growth, his actions and ability to look and listen to the opposite side of an issue stand out since such a practice is generally an excpetion, rather than a norm.

Clearly, the libertarion and smart growth positions create a line of contention that splits according to proper degrees of grovernment intervention in land use issues. It is also clear that Mr. Hirschhorn stands firmly in the smart-growth camp.

This article is unique because it actually discusses the nature and the form of the dialogue(or lack there of) between these groups. It begins to reveal that, eventhough each group concentrates on building its argument against the other, there is actually some shared ground for the two movements. For example, both groups promote economically viable growth, with the luxuries of home ownership, etc. Neither group supports limits of personal property rights. There are shared interests here.

I do not mean for this message to suggest that "we all can just get along". Nor, do I neccesarily intend to promote one side of the issue. Rather, I suggest that a successful approach to any growth policy entails a braod understanding, if not acceptance, of the interests represented by both sides of the dialogue. If you wish to convince someone of your position, then you must speak their language.

Mr Hirschhorn article illustrates an attempt, although a biased one, to extend the language of Smart Growth and Libertarianism to the other. This is a neccesary step to any eventual, and sustainable, growth policy.

A sound and fury signifying .....the need to consult a dictionary. What seems under discussion here must be, by definition, development. Not growth. Growth within a fixed system - whther earth or ecosystem, is self-limiting. It cannot be inherently good by the very fact that it is self-limiting. Cancer kills.

So we are talking about is improvement within boundaries. Smart growth advocates who seek political support by advocating unlimited growth belong to today's flat earth society.

Jerry

So this time we planners have it right? Yes, "Smart Growth" is it, the answer to all our planning problems. Those stale old plans- forget about it! "Smart Growh" is the elixer to all that troubles urbania. Yes ma'am, were sure about it. I mean it this time. Really, I do.

(Er, sorry about that Cabrini Green thing, won't happen again, I promise.)

I am glad that all participants gave their two-cents worth at this time. Glad. More elegant minds were off restoring wetlands watersheds; several this year. Some used re-engineered low-impact new contruction/repair.. This was my ideal Smartgrowth, vision, Better. Succeeded. Why complain? New sewers, cleaner river by 40% last 10 years. More talk of river storation elsewhere from my quarter. Smartgrowth more success. Likem. Dondobadem.

Those committed to preserving the status quo have a challenge ahead of them. Growth is here; population is increasing. Planners, along with the community, must plan for this growth. This growth is dramatic, thus, requiring dramatic measures. We cannot afford to deal with growth in an incremental basis (especially in California) because the rate of growth far exceeds the rate of good planning. So, what am I saying here? The public needs a concensus on this matter - and quick! There needs to be more dialogue between individuals of all ideologies, all perspectives. One thing we can all agree on is that we want to "live well" and be "free." If we consider all populations in our planning, we can reach a concensus. And having a consensus will help the planning process. Head-butting only hinders planning. Let's cooperate in preserving the "American Dream."

Chuen Ng

from San Luis Obispo

When ideologues Wendell Cox and Randall O'Toole headline a conference, you can expect more heat than light, as the quotes from Mr. Cooper demonstrate. But what does this mean for planners?

If you doubt their organizing ability, observe how many American Dream conference defenders have emerged on this thread. Do you think all of them knew about this website a week ago?

That said, as long as planners keep meeting with the public and local officials, and sharing the benefits of Smart Growth strategies and perhaps more importantly, the concept of sustainability, this countermovement will fail. Why? At it's core, it is based on fear of change from the status quo, but the people can see that the status quo isn't working- it's breaking down. When things aren't working, Cox and O'Toole offer fear, and when presented properly, Smart Growth offers a vision of the future.

Finally, I cannot help but note the irony of where they held this conference- Washington, D.C., perhaps the most "planned" city in the U.S., with one of the largest sets of transportation choices in the U.S., all duly noted on the conference website! At the CENTER CITY hotel, no less!

"The conference will be held at the Wyndham City Center Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037. This is an excellent facility located within walking distance of the Farragut North and Dupont Circle Metro stations. "

source: http://www.ti.org/amdream.html

The fact is that if this conference were held at a Holiday Inn in Naperville, Ill., Cary, NC, Herndon, VA, or some other faceless "American Dream" everyburb, fewer people would have attended, because these places don't resonate with people. Even when convening to launch a national conference against density, walkability, and transportation alternatives, the sprawl lobby sells the benefits of the above to entice participants to come! This is perhaps the most telling fact of all.

This article has started an interesting conversation chain. As a group, people can do wonderful things, design beautiful places to live, invent electricity, build roads, bring water right to your door,take away the refuse, promote cleaner living. These things come from the minds of humans when they are free to be creative. Too much government interference is stifling to the creative process. We can become spoiled though. We think there are guaranties that we will be supplied with convenience and protected from change. New Urbanist design should be allowed to test it's appeal in the MARKETPLACE. Along with any other design or lifestyle preference. Even ticky-tacky has it's place. Running the risk of having tacky move in next door is the price you pay for your freedom to live as you please, inside of YOUR property lines. If you want to live in a neighborhood with strong rules and restrictions, make it your own choice, don't force it on others. When Peter and James and Andres were sitting on that Florida deck trying to figure out how to help beauty overcome ugly in American design, they must have taken a wrong turn when they left for home. The planners of beautiful things succumbed to the temptation to fast track their vision. They made unholy alliances with other groups that had their own agendas of greed and power. Instead of cultivating the seeds of beauty and freedom from the ground up,this unholy alliance has taken the message from the top down and the results will not be beautiful when it is crammed down the throats of the unsuspecting and unwilling.

It is about time that the nicety-nice people and their planning speak deal with issues of individual rights.

I am all for the type of planning that involves some collective decisionmaking,as there has to be some check on NIMBYs and snob zoning.

Planning shold exist for the purpose of sound water and environmental management, not for the purpose of propping up property values under the guise of "community character."

Individual landowners should not get carte blanche on their properties for real externalities their implications can cause, particularly pollution.

trust me, the individualists out there don't really want full independence from the public sector, as they would not want to/be able to build their own local road, extend telecom infrastructure, etc. to reach their house in the boonies.

it is all about balance - why is it that people are so full of partisan rhetoric that they cannot logically and rationally make opinions? everyone has to find a camp or group where their ideas are not challenged - this is true of smart growthers and conservatives.

re the design snot comment: sure buddy, the whole world revolves around design - forget economics, environmental science, etc...

ed

the various comments regarding joel hirschhorns article illustrate the fundemental dilema of modern planning process:--planning policy and to a great extent,zoning and land use decisions are generated by people who have a weak grasp of design ,if at all. both urban and suburban models in the hands of capable architects can be successful--the problem is that the "religion" of smart growth and new urbanism is largely driven by the rejects of the architectural and planning gene pool

If I am Joe suburbanite opposed to any growth, sprawl or Smart, what is the one good argument for which I will chnage my vote on the next growth issue on the local ballot? I've not heard it from anyone? I don't think there is one. The only advantage the 'Dream' advocates have is that growth would occur 'over there' and 'paid by them.' As long as 'over there' is a place that does not worry me - Joe Voter - why should I care? But, Smart Growth changes my neighborhood. I do care. Why should I support Smart Growth rather than let 'Dreamers" build over there?

In truth, we're going to have both types of growth. Maybe we should work together instead of being opponents?

In response to Art Weber's "Are property rights the only rights?", the answer is YES!

Weber writes:

"The current controversy over sprawl development raises a question that all the participants seem eager to ignore: Is sprawl development in violation of anyone’s fundamental constitutional rights?

"Critics of sprawl constantly remind us that it is “auto-oriented” and that “smart growth” is pedestrian- and/or transit-oriented. As a result, we’ve been attempting to encourage “smart growth” with incentives. Is this an appropriate remedial action for a flawed planning process that has ignored the needs of those who cannot, should not or choose not to drive and forced them and countless others to depend on automobiles?

COMMENT: WHAT "flawed planning process"? Are you referring to America's still-somewhat-free marketplace economy?

Many of us readily acknowledge that we’re forced to drive because the alternatives are inadequate.

COMMENT: "FORCED?"

But the analysis always stops there. No one bothers to identify those guilty of the coercion. Once past that barrier it should be easy to identify the culprits. They’re local and county planners and elected officials who make the zoning and development decisions. They’ve put a disproportionate amount of our new urban and suburban growth in places that are accessible and functional for motorists only.

COMMENT: They're elected to serve the majority. Motorists are the majority. Motorists pay the taxes. Motorists had BETTER be served!

For over half a century urban and suburban planning efforts have been attempting to accommodate every auto the manufacturers can sell. And in that time no one has ever acknowledged whether the rights of those who’re forced to drive, or who are disenfranchised for lack of a car, might be more important than the property rights of developers and land speculators. When considering our constitutional right to life, liberty and property we should remember that life comes first, liberty second, property third — and cars kill.

COMMENT: Your points of view are pure throwbacks to Europe before the American and French Revolutions. Property rights are fundamental to, are the linchpin of, FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We should prohibit any new development that is not at least as accessible and functional for non-motorists as it is for those who drive.

COMMENT: Who is "we"? Said another way, as in Plato's Republic, "who guards the Guardians?"

In a nation that’s mandated to protect our lives and freedom, local, county and regional land use decisions should not force us to depend on modes of transportation so dangerous that they require seat belts, air bags, crash helmets and personal liability insurance. Everyone is entitled to a safer alternative. If funds for public transit are in short supply we should remember that walking is still not considered to be a health hazard.

COMMENT: Get a horse!

There was a time when growth was neither "smart" nor "dumb". It was just "good" -- it was just good to have growth because the opposite of growth was (and, of course, still is) decay, decline, stagnation, and Robocop's Detroit. That time is coming back. Sierraklubbers and arrogant smartgrowthers will have to find jobs.

I wasn't too surprised at Mr. Hirschorn's attempt to sabotage our fledgling movement to expose the snob growth myths and illusions.

He and others in the Planners Intelligentsia find any opposition to snob growth and densification quite threatening. We are a dangerous group now, and I use that word in a positive sense!

Or, as my friend Patrick Zillacus would say -- "deadly."

Hirschorn's crack at the lack of women and minorities at the conference, plus the crack at conservatives in the audience, was all too typical.

All over the nation, except, perhaps, in cities with majority African American or Hispanci populations, there are few blacks and hispanics involved in land use and transportation issues. It's endemic all

over. I wonder how many people of color are in the Planners Intelligentsia that Hirschorn subscribes to.

Snob growth hurts those seeking affordable housing. It hurts those who've "made it" to that next rung in the ladder. This means, namely, people of color.

We have the facts. We just must succeed at the messaging.

We can counter this sabotage by having Representative Neal be our national chairman and making alliances with affordable housing advocates (including Habitat for Humanity, which has been hurt by the snobgrowthers in some parts).

We also should get contributions from a variety of sources -- not just the much-maligned right wing groups.

So, fear not, folks. Remember, the first two or three years of the American Revolution didn't go well for the Colonists either.

--

Thank you.

Ken Reid

Editor & Publisher

Washington Information Source Co.

(703) 779-8777

FAX: (703) 779-2508

www.FDAINFO.com

www.Expertbriefings.com

Unfortunately, The author adds nothing to what ought to be a reasoned debate. Marginalizing those who question elements of "Smart Growth" will not help us build better communities. Understanding those with differing viewpoints will be more productive than what Mr. Hirschhor's diatribe ultimately amounts to: A political operative's attack strategy.

The author repeats the word "conservative" on at least 11 occasions throughout the piece. Why such disdain for 50% American people.

This debate deserves better.

Don’t Sprawl on Me

Regarding the article by Daniel Brook on Philly’s "sprawl problem" (News, "Sprawl Squall," Jan. 3), I would like to warn Philly about the New Urbanists from my own personal experience. I own a home in a suburban North Carolina neighborhood that has found itself squeezed from both sides by Raleigh and Cary. The New Urbanists have made a lot of progress in N.C., installing themselves under the banner of "smart growth" as a new governmental agency. "Regional Planning" organizations have formed all over the state. It starts out sounding like a logical, environmentally concerned movement to plan growth. Who doesn’t want to save open space for wildlife and have friendly neighborhoods that you can walk around in?

Well, it turns out that the result of smart growth for my N.C. neighborhood is that we can no longer choose to remain under county jurisdiction. We must be forcibly incorporated into the nearest town. The Town of Cary dutifully set its "urban growth boundary," and we are inside this imaginary line and didn’t even realize it. We must abandon our community well-water system and be tied on to an already overburdened town water supply that is heavily restricted. We must now abandon our perfectly good septic systems and have the neighborhood torn up and put on the municipal waste treatment system. The wildlife that has flourished and been sustained for 30 years in harmony with this neighborhood will be forever altered by the disruption to the undergrowth along the creek.

Our quiet suburban neighborhood of longtime, mostly retired people will be saved from itself as the smart-growth people fill in the undeveloped land with multi-family housing units. This will all come to us at a cost of more than $25,000–$30,000 per household. Not an easy thing for the many homeowners who are on fixed retirement incomes or the few young families who are trying to save for their children’s college educations.

It is interesting to see how in North Carolina the municipalities are being told to model their growth to something that is very close to what Philadelphia has always been. But here in Philadelphia, you are told that you are a mess. The urban decline in some areas that I have seen is a shame, but more of the problem could be blamed on the 1960s’ Urban Renewal Project and bureaucratic strangulation than the growth of suburban neighborhoods. Perhaps if the government wouldn’t have come in and razed so many older structures and replaced them with urban ghettos and empty lots, the trend of revitalization that has taken hold in some areas by people who voluntarily try to save these older properties could have been encouraged in other ways. New Urbanists ideas are idyllic-sounding theories that could very well turn out to be as big of a fiasco as Urban Renewal, with the added fact that individual rights to self-determination will be eroded. And you can watch the cost of housing rise as the land inside the growth boundary becomes more scarce.

Catherine A. Heath

Philadelphia

Well, I'm afraid the phrase "smart growth" has already been corrupted by the developers...and, hey, by the supposed "good guys" who build New Urbanist Kentlands in the greenfields and can't get the urban, walkable center to hold. When I hear someone say 'smart growth,' I tend to say zip your wallets. Maybe we need an unsullied phrase to go for the transit-friendly, environmentally-sound...etc.etc. values we all hold.

As I say lately: if we don't hang together (in cities and old suburbs)we will all hang separately...jhk

Joel says,"urban growth boundaries are now equated with smart growth. Stay focused on the attributes of smart growth."

Or in other words, downplay some of those pesky intended and unintended outcomes of top down planning of human activities. Joel, as a delegate of the recent Preserving the American Dream confab, I'm sure many of us agree with you on a number of things including your freedom to live in the sprawl community of Chevy Chase. UGB are an intended outcome of the Smart Growth advocates that I routinely work with.

<< Smart growth must be unequivocally pro-growth.>>

WWWhat?!!!! Joel, isn't this a bit presumptive to tell smart growthers who the true believers are? I like your attitude here, but there is total unanimity on this one when I speak before the Sierra Club members and you're definitely odd man out.

<

Facts smacks. We are simply looking at freedom of choice from different sides. Your readers might get a clue to our strongly held belief of the sanctity of personal property rights by reading the "Prince" by Machivelli or, the Constitution.

<

I sell cosmetic lasers Joel, how does that fit into your matrix of the sprawl industry? I'm motivated by an encroachment on my families freedoms by smart growth advocates. You could have asked me and many others who were there for the same reason. If we're going to have an honest dialogue, don't allow your presumptions to get in the way of your professionalism.

>>You will hardly hear the words sprawl and environment spoken by conservatives.<<

Sprawl was spoken many time, but the meaning of the word is as elusive as asking a dozen blind men to describe an elephant. If his hoof is on your back, it might be described as the oppressive weight of government mandates. Anyway, the meaning of the word Sprawl is as elusive as trying to get your arms around so many feet of smog filled Sky.

>>Like the multitude of smart growth conferences, there was no one on the program who was a true, articulate opponent to directly and forcefully challenge the data, assertions, and conclusions being disseminated as gospel.<<

Andres Duany, our first speaker, was passionate, articulate, engaging, accomplished and he held the rooms rapt attention. He does advocate free choice of living arrangements so maybe that excludes him from the Smart Growth Club. I liked him and his Kentlands Smart Growth village and thought he made some good points.

The fact that I agree with several of your points proves that pro-freedom/choice warriors are reasonable people. But as you hinted in your article, we're mean, we're lean and we're not going to be relegated to the back of the bus (or Light Rail Train) anymore!

I attended the COnference on behalf of the American Planning Association. It was hard keeping my head down when hearing planners and smart growth advocates referred to as:

"quacks"

"smart growth wackos"

"evil bastards"

"a bunch of eggheads"

"a bunch of lying jerks"

"damnable liars"

"pointy-headed intellectual fascists" (this was by far the most repeated moniker)

"pointy-headed intellectual bastards" (pointy-headed was a big theme...)

"a bunch of commies"

"the bad guys"

"busy-bodies advocating latte towns"
and my personal favorite...

"a bunch of elitist, volvo-driving, brie-cheese eating blowhards"

The most valuable lesson I learned from my journey into the belly of the whale is to always print the name of the affiliated organization on people's name tags...boldy...and in large font. It's incredible what people are willing to say when they think everyone in the audience is in agreement.

Chris Cooper

American Planning Association

Some of my comments were cut off. I'll try to wrap the rest of them up.

Opening Debate: Duany opened noting he would not use statistics and was not a numbers person. He effectively utilized visual imagery. Using two screens, he juxtaposed development types. Showing on one screen a narrow urban street with short setbacks, sidewalks, and children playing in the street and on the other a wide suburban street with no sidewalks, maximum setbacks, multi-car garages, and no human activity. He appealed to the audience noting that code was inflexible and property owners had little choice. He advocated and discussed the benefits of mixed urban design from the perspective of human lifecycle needs. Duany is largely in the “New Urbanist” movement as opposed to the “Smart Growth” camp. While little distinguishes the two, my professor defined “New Urbanist” to be oriented towards issues of design while “Smart Growth” advocates being more oriented towards regulatory reform.

Cox followed in a decidedly different approach. He spent his 50 minutes discussing statistics, study results and showing charts and graphs. He did have some interesting comparative findings related to development patterns internationally. Many Smart Growth people advocate for density and urban form similar to those they suggest are found in Europe and Japan. Cox effectively illustrated the similarities of these countries – showing big box retail examples in Paris and growth, settlement and vehicle use similarities (again using statistics).

How to Influence a Transportation Plan: The session identified that most participants approached influencing transportation planning by presenting facts and figures in dispute of the plan – usually at inappropriate times in the process. The classic methods of influencing transportation planning (understanding process, participation, coalition building, grassroots organizing, litigation, etc.) were not addressed. The participants not only seemed incapable of identifying the means by which their opponents had been successful but also acknowledged being dumbfounded by the level of participation by special interest groups. Business interests in particular complained that they did not have time for participation.

How to Clean the Air: The presenters failed entirely to note that the reason conformity is important to transportation process is because it has been used as a mechanism for litigation by environmental interests in some areas (non attainment/maintenance areas subject to transportation conformity). The presenters provided information that was entirely inaccurate. The 8-hour standard was litigated and only now has a consent decree been agreed upon. A new rule is being promulgated and new areas will be designated in 2004. No rule has been promulgated for the PM 2.5 standard, but discussions are underway. Information presented related to mobile emissions outputs were clearly performed using MOBILE5 and the criticisms presented have subsequently been corrected in MOBILE6. No one spoke to MOVES which will depart entirely from a VMT based model. Similarly, new issues were not identified or discussed related to air quality - toxins, and the like. The overall message was that air pollution is no longer a problem and the CAAA is unnecessary. While air has indeed improved - it would not have without the technological improvements. These improvements would not have been likely without regulation - evident by the lack of improved technology on engines not subject to regulation. Transportation conformity has done less to change project mix (read Transit v. Highway) investments than has litigation by environmental groups using CAAA. Meanwhile, transportation planners have few tools to address air quality issues. The participants were not equipped to even discuss market based approaches used by other pollutant sources (intersector trading).

The remainder of the conference went as expected. Again, the anti-Smart Growth movement's fundamental flaw has been an inability to develop pragmatic, incremental approaches that balance equity and political feasibility issues. I personally desire the CHOICE to live in a high density area where I can walk out my front door to see a movie, get a bite to eat, and stop by the grocery store. I ride transit by choice - and it is packed during the peak. If each person on the train were on the road, there would be either 1. longer commutes, and/or 2. no more land for houses because highways would be HUGE. The visions I see when I hear the American Dream proponents is one of super highways with everyone driving for hours in their automobiles to and from their homes/work. The bottom line is that neither of us has that CHOICE. I am priced out of the urban core and they are stuck in traffic. What we need is a balanced approach and to quit arguing over numbers.

For those smart growth advocates who live in large cities or in suburban areas accessible to mass transit, smart growth makes perfect sense. For the rest of the world that can not afford to live in such communities, smart growth will do nothing for us but raise the cost of housing to an amount that most can not afford. The communities that surround Tampa are few and far between in affordability and access.

The cost of a new home in Hyde Park runs into the mid six figures....and that is without smart growth. Limit options in the county and what do you have? A 1300 square foot home for a cool million dollars.

Smart growth is not bad when applied in the right communities. Duany, who likes to run his mouth about his developments, refused to participate in the redevelopment of 60 acres near Tampa's downtown....it did not fit his vision for a community. Why? Because it would have required him to be creative in redoing an inner city development a mile from downtown. Instead, he chose to develop a community east of Brandon, in the middle of no where.

Just venting about the pie in the sky planners.....

As background, I am a doctoral student at Portland State University conducting my dissertation research on Regional Cooperation in Transportation Decision Making in the Portland Metropolitan Area. I also have 12 years of practical work experience in transportation planning related positions. I work for a public agency currently as a community planner with focus on air quality. My comments are personal and do not represent the views of any organization that I am affiliated with.

Further, I personally support regional planning approaches to urban service delivery (including transportation) and land use planning. However, I feel the Smart Growth movement dangerously attempts to apply successful tools used in Portland, Oregon to other communities without understanding the dynamic conditions necessary for successful application. In particular, Portland has had 30 years to develop under strong statewide land use planning regulation – fundamental to their success has been recovery and retention of a vibrant central business district (CBD). Many other areas adopting Smart Growth strategies are doing it without recognition or understanding of the condition of their CBD to greater regional economics. The following summary includes my commentary based on observation and experience and is not intended to be neutral or free from my own bias.

My overall impression of the conference was that the research and findings of the anti-Smart Growth interests are sound, but the message is a difficult sell. If these individuals ever are able to effectively package their message for marketing, they will be a formidable opponent to the Smart Growth movement. They had sound technical solutions to transportation problems, but failed to recognize issues of equity and political feasibility. The focus of the movement is arguing over numbers. The movement also seems to clearly see an end goal, but fails to recognize the pragmatic incrementalism of government and does not have a strategy to slowly achieve their objectives.

A note about demographics of participants. I was informed that approximately 200 individuals were registered for the conference. A visual examination revealed participants were overwhelmingly homogenous. Participants were largely trained economists, quantitative researchers, and some business persons. I observed 3 apparent minority participants (one a luncheon guest speaker), approximately a dozen women, and no persons of any obvious physically limiting impairment. Per the web site - of the 48 confirmed speakers, only 5 were women and an overwhelming number had very Anglo surnames (and appearance). Approximately 80% of the participants appeared to be over the age of 50. This homogeneity may be a factor in their inability to recognize their own weakness and develop strategies to move forward. The continued viability of this group remains in question, as they are clearly not “building coalitions”.

Property rights advocates were contradictory in that they advocated for their own property rights, but also wanted to ensure that high density housing development on the property of their neighbors was not allowed.

The group is largely still stuck in the common development phase where they are arguing over numbers and reaffirming their own positions. They also seem to be continually responding (reacting) to the Smart Growth interests and environmental concerns rather than pursuing their own agenda and promoting an alternative. They communicate in numbers, not easily converted to visual images – which limits their ability to appeal to individuals with a different preferred cognitive style or ability.

As a group of individuals that clearly understood economic principles, it was very strange to me that they overlooked that politics and public policy issues are decided on margins. They did not need to sway the converted (so called, preaching to the choir) rather they needed to determine a means to capture the “fence sitters”. As a first conference, it was not surprising that it was largely an affirmation exercise among participants.

There was a lot of focus on “the government” doing this or that. This disconnect appears significant nationally. I am not sure who they think “the government” is exactly. They clearly don’t subscribe to the “body politic” definition. Warning: slight digression follows: I hypothesize that calling citizens (a broad term meaning the “collective politic”, not a legal definition) “customers” for so many years makes them think that they deserve certain outcomes without having an obligation to participate. I offer that the government ultimately IS the people (representative democracy) and not an entirely separate entity. I have a strong personal objection to the use of this private sector business language (and model) in the administration of government services.

The Opening Debate: Du

The current controversy over sprawl development raises a question that all the participants seem eager to ignore: Is sprawl development in violation of anyone’s fundamental constitutional rights?

Critics of sprawl constantly remind us that it is “auto-oriented” and that “smart growth” is pedestrian- and/or transit-oriented. As a result, we’ve been attempting to encourage “smart growth” with incentives. Is this an appropriate remedial action for a flawed planning process that has ignored the needs of those who cannot, should not or choose not to drive and forced them and countless others to depend on automobiles?

Many of us readily acknowledge that we’re forced to drive because the alternatives are inadequate. But the analysis always stops there. No one bothers to identify those guilty of the coercion. Once past that barrier it should be easy to identify the culprits. They’re local and county planners and elected officials who make the zoning and development decisions. They’ve put a disproportionate amount of our new urban and suburban growth in places that are accessible and functional for motorists only.

For over half a century urban and suburban planning efforts have been attempting to accommodate every auto the manufacturers can sell. And in that time no one has ever acknowledged whether the rights of those who’re forced to drive, or who are disenfranchised for lack of a car, might be more important than the property rights of developers and land speculators. When considering our constitutional right to life, liberty and property we should remember that life comes first, liberty second, property third — and cars kill.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We should prohibit any new development that is not at least as accessible and functional for non-motorists as it is for those who drive. In a nation that’s mandated to protect our lives and freedom, local, county and regional land use decisions should not force us to depend on modes of transportation so dangerous that they require seat belts, air bags, crash helmets and personal liability insurance. Everyone is entitled to a safer alternative. If funds for public transit are in short supply we should remember that walking is still not considered to be a health hazard.

In this conservative corner of Southern California this debate has been polarized for some time, with a coalition of the private property rights folks, the home and road building industry, and the farmers who have come to rely on future home conversion potential as a necessity to get working capital from lenders. The rhetoric Hirschhorn reports is consistent with the business and conservative bent we hear so often here. Whether you see the "dream-ers" using spin or public relations, each of these constituencies have a financial interest in maximizing their potential land value - no matter how remote or how expensive to provide infrastructure or services to. Again, this spin is primarily in service of profit, not ideology or land use vision - thus the capacity to hold an entire conference on the matter with no real professional or peer analysis of the issues. And, their connection to all things currently conservative, that have attacked every other motive as being less than patriotic - when indeed, true conservatism (think Teddy Roosevelt) would actually conserve what they seek to marginalize.

Often here, in San Diego, the land of habitat plans and new subdivisions where tract homes on 7000 sq ft lots sell for upwards of 600,000, the builders argue for more - more land for housing - advocating that will drive prices down. We are too desireable as a destination or second home market for simple supply to bring housing prices down. Of course, our population could fit very nicely in the size of one of those suburban cities named Carlsbad - and look a great deal like Paris.

So - we won't be Paris, and we have hope we'll avoid the checkerboard sprawl/smog of LA. What will we be?

Those of us who advocate for thriving walkable communities, real villages should employ another powerful supporting fact:

The aging baby boom demographic will drive a greater need for walkable villages and transit as that generation loses their driving privileges. Lack of transit for seniors may finally isolate the dinosaurs who keep calling for more freeways.

In most major markets, entry level housing (or at least the most affordable options) are all multi- family - so the true demand is not for the sprawl that the dreamers espouse - but for starter and senior friendly multi-use development to support needed transit services and a safer, healthier walking lifestyle. The police call it - CPTED - community policing through environmental design.

Philip Langdon, senior editor of New Urban News says, "What the libertarians most need, however, is not money but intellectual honesty and decency.., without which, no American dream will long survive".

So it's not just me, questioning the integrity of leading anti-Smart Growthers.

Many Libertarians are known pot smokers. It's a stretch to equate their anti-government stance on that issue to those of land-use, but pot does muddy the thinking process.

This is how rumors get started, with a generalization: Did you know anti anti-smart-growthers are delusional potheads? Such a rumor might also be called, Fighting fire with fire, but likewise reflects poorly on integrity.

Alright, when will we admit the ugly truth?

Land Use decisions mostly end up being fought at the city/town level, and suburban folk will always use any weapon they can to keep new people, especially people with children and the unwashed (non-upper-middle to upper class) from entering the community. Schooling kids and providing services drains budgets. We all know how they do this - they protect some "community character" (regardless how bland or homogenized the suburb is...)and they zone out multifamily houses and regulate 2 or 3 acre zoning These people are NoGrowth-ers.

Do not confuse these people with SmartGrowth or New Urbanist folk who are looking to design(or re-design), at local and regional levels, communities and areas, with the expressed purpose of both private benefits (less traffic, giving people the ability to walk to a convenience store and not have to drive everywhere) and fewer bad collective externalities (pollution, reduced greenspace, etc.)

The conservatives are really mad at the NoGrowth-ers, as we all should, as zoning is what drives up housing prices(Notice that NoGrowt-ers benefit at others' expense).

If we want to be able to debate some of the conservative/libertarian arguments (some of them have merit...), let's attack it with some good examples - take the Libertarian politician Carla Howell from MA whose now trademarked slogan "Small Government is a Beautiful Thing" completely ignores the benefits of public infrastructure spending(roads, highways, subsidized gas) disproportionately benefits those upper-middle to upper class suburban folks (who, in the first place, need it less than poor folks who have been gentrified out of cities and marginalized to inner-ring suburbs)

I think the point of Hirschhorn's article is to illustrate the smear-campaign being perpetrated by the Preserving the Dream crowd. Thus, he does not even have the privilege of reacting to a diverse, balanced discussion - rather he is reporting on a conference that is tantamount to a strategy session designed to discredit an influential civil movement through sound-bite research, name-calling and fear-mongering.

See Sunday's Hartford Courant for more reporting from the conference:

http://www.ctnow.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-plclangdon0302.artmar02....

Looks like Mr. Hirschhorn labels everyone that questions smart growth as a right wing conspirator. Like any true believer, he's has no room for "diverse" opinions and will go down with the ship if he has to. A worthless and biased article in my opinion.