Arnold says...? Huh?

I wonder about Arnold Schwarzenegger's position on urban growth boundaries, sprawl, etc. His site says:

Would you support a state law, similar to one in Oregon, that controls where development can occur on the outskirts of cities?

While often well-meaning, such laws are not always solutions to the complex problem of poor land use planning, which has resulted in fiscally unsustainable sprawl, traffic congestion on commuter roadways, air pollution, pressure to consume scarce infrastructure resources, and loss of valuable open space. We must invest in our existing urban areas and remove barriers to smart growth. For example, there is currently no effective, widely used mechanism for identifying vacant or underutilized sites in urban areas to evaluate their potential for infill redevelopment. Working with local officials, my Administration will develop an Infill Incentives Package to help local governments deal with the jobs/housing imbalance throughout the State and to spur smarter development by providing a mechanism for planners to identify and evaluate redevelopment of blighted and underutilized sites, allowing cities to accommodate mixed use, compact development and urban infill growth, while curtailing urban sprawl.

Huh? I am missing something.

His heart seems to be in the right place; he seems to be saying all the right things. But what puzzles me is his remarks that
1. "...no effective, widely used mechanism for identifying vacant or underutilized sites in urban areas to evaluate their potential for infill redevelopment."
2. There needs to be any sort of "Infill Incentives Package" to encourage redevelopment in exisiting urban areas.

As to #1: Hasn't Arnold ever heard of the real estate market? There may be market failures (thanks to interference with the market by government, of course) at the highest, strategic level (e.g. building Interstate Freeways without having considered their impacts on city form) but at the micro-level the market functions extremely efficiently and accurately.

I do not know California but I know Western Washington (also a fairly robust real estate market) and I can assure you that if there is a parcel of developable land "lying fallow," then there is a real estate broker who has approached the owner about bringing it to market.

I find it implausible that there needs to be yet another government bureaucracy to identify lands with potential for infill development; competition between brokers for commissions is a pretty effective mechanism for such identification.

Likewise as to item #2: "Incentives Packages." Ugh! It makes me shudder. Government is a bad deal-maker. The best incentive for a builder is the hope of a profit. There is plenty of money to be made in in-fill development. That's how builders approach things. Make rules which are clear and easy to enforce and get out of the way. I am not saying "no rules" or urging the euphemism of "streamlining" (which really is code for "gutting.")

What I am talking about is focussing on the few simple key elements of what makes a good settlement and putting aside the others. Zoning should not be a Swiss Army knife of social revitalization. If you ask it to do too much --- as we do now --- then you get an over-worked machine.

California couldn't be much worse than Washington but here it takes at least 18 months to do the paperwork to subdivide a piece of land even when there is no opposition and the planners favored and actually suggest the idea! (I am speaking from direct personal experience.)

So yes there is need for reform. But Arnold's people might want to start with refining his position.

Comments

[JRoth]

Are you seriously saying that right now, an urban brownfield is equally likely to be developed as a suburban greenfield? Because that's what it seems to be what you're saying: that any "fallow land" [brownfield] will be developed by the market as long as gov't gets out of the way.

Which is so far out of touch with the real world that I can't believe you'd say it. I read this blog daily, and although your libertarian streak is stronger than mine, I feel as though we're generally in the same ballpark.

I'm not saying that AS is exactly right in his proposals, or that new programs/bureaucracies are called for (among other things, local groups are often pretty good about compiling info on potential infill projects to provide to interested developers), but your response seems to be off the deep end of libertarian Free Market Fundamentalism - get gov't out of the way, and All will be Good.

Gov't isn't the only source of market distortion. Banks are much (much) happier giving loans to greenfield development. Contractors give lower bids for greenfield development (IMO, out of proportion with actual costs). CEOs who have to drive to facilities weigh highway access more heavily than they do the mass transit that will serve their workers. All of those distort the "market." And all of them tend in a single direction.

[David Sucher]

Huh?

Brownfield sites? I don't see how they enter into the quote from Arnold above at all. If that's what he is talking about then he should use the term "brownfield sites" so his meaning his clear.

And anyway, those brownfield sites are indeed well indentified by the real eseate market.

I know a little about brownfield sites -- not a significant factor at all in the Puget Sound real estate market -- and your typical in-city gas-station or even dry-clearer (a far worse situation) is not one usually one of them as it is relatively easily remediated.

[Brandon]

I think we are having a problem with the word "brownfield," here. The first poster was speaking of brownfields as any non-greenfield sites, i.e. any piece of land that has been previously developed in any way. Therefore, using this understanding, a rural field outside of town is a greenfield site, but a site in the city that currently has/had a parking lot, building, or other type of development on it is called a brownfield, not just the most polluted sites that require massive cleanup. Most parcels available for infill in urban areas are brownfield sites, not lots that have never had development on them. It is much more expensive and complicated for developers to redevelop such lands in existing urban areas than greenfield sites on the edge of town for various reasons, indeed including environmental cleanup, but also the many factors listed by the first poster.

[thought]

http://www.foniatriaonline.com/wwwboard/messages/15515.html clungglisteningkeyboard