The New Snob Zoning

1. The New Snob Zoning Urban Sprawl, Social Cohesion and Zoning Exclusion in the United States “I had never belonged to a group of agitators and activists, but then again, never before had I found one whose members shared my fervor for fine cheeses.”* Edward H. Ziegler Professor of Law University of Denver College of Law *Alan Deutschman (2003) (his novel on fighting development in Sonoma Valley)

2. Out THE TWO URBAN GROWTH OPTIONSA Comparative PerspectiveBarcelona, Spain UP DENSITY OUT Density SPRAWL SPRAWL City of Denver, USA *Barcelona has 11x Denver’s Residential Density

3. SPRAWL IN THE REAL WEST Teton Sioux Village, 1880

4. SPRAWL IN THE OLD WEST Virginia City, Nevada 1888

5. SPRAWL IN THE NEW WEST Denver, Colorado

6. Typical Suburban Sprawl – All Land Uses Are Isolated Pods of Automobile-Dependent Development.

7. GROWTH IN THE UNITED STATES • +3 Million people annual population growth. • 1.9 Million new housing units built in 2003. • 1.5 Million of the new housing units built in 2003 were detached single-family homes.

8. The Dynamic of Urban Sprawl United States Population Growth / Land Development 1970-1980 Expansion in Population and Land Development Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1970 to 1980. Source: Planning and Zoning News, January 1993.

9. Most cities and downtowns grew in the 1990s

10. But, decentralization still dominates

11. Despite city growth, suburbs grew faster Percent population growth, 1990-2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau; cities and suburbs in the 100 largest metro areas

12. United States 1990-2000 Slow growing areas in the Northeast and Midwest consumed enormous amounts of land relative to population growth Source: Fulton et al., “Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S.”; Brookings Institution, July 2001

13. As a result, densities are declining

14. Density has dropped across all regions in the U.S. between 1982 and 1997 Source: Fulton and others, “Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S.”

15. COSTS OF SPRAWL • INFRASTRUCTURE AND FISCAL COSTS. • ECONOMIC COSTS TO HOUSEHOLDS. • AUTOMOBILE USE AND CONGESTION. • IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. • URBAN BLIGHT AND POVERTY IN • CITY CORE AREAS. • SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EXCLUSION OF LESS • AFFLUENT. • AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LESS AFFLUENT.

16. CAUSES OF SPRAWL • PRIVATE MARKET DEMAND • PUBLIC POLICIES AND SUBSIDIES • ROAD IMPROVEMENTS • LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL • CONCERNS • (Tax Revenue And Expenditures) • LOW DENSITY ZONING AND • EXCLUSIONARY GROWTH • MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS • (Built Environment NIMBYISM)

17. LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL CONCERNS(TAX REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES) AS A SIGNIFICANT CAUSE OF SPRAWL • Local Government Taxes Come Largely from Commercial and Office Development. • Taxes from Residential Development Do Not Pay for Public Infrastructure and Services. • Local Governments Utilize “Fiscal” Zoning to Exclude Residential Development (Especially Higher Density and More Affordable Housing).

18. BUILT ENVIRONMENT NIMBYISM (NOT IN MY BACKYARD)A SIGNIFICANT CAUSE OF LOW DENSITY ZONING, URBAN SPRAWL, AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION Causes of Exclusionary Zoning • Maintaining Low Taxes. • Protection of Low Density Character and Market Value of Existing Neighborhoods. • Class and Income Discrimination. • Racial and Ethnic Discrimination.

19. Old West NIMBY New West NIMBY Built Environment NIMBYISM Protecting Existing Neighborhoods and Already Developed Recreation Areas from New Development • “The wolf of exclusionary zoning hides under the environmental sheepskin worn by the stop-growth movement.” Fred Bosselman (1973)

20. THE LEXICON OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT NIMBYISM • NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard • NIMFYE: Not In My Front Yard Either • PITBY: Put It In Their Back Yard • LULU: Locally Unwanted Land Use • BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody • NOPE: Not On Planet Earth • NIMTOO: Not In My Term Of Office • NIMEY: Not In My Election Year

21. 1991Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing 1988, U.S. General Accounting OfficeConference on Housing 1987, National Housing Task Force 1981, President’s Commission on Housing 1980, Council of Development Choices for the 80s 1978, U.S. General Accounting Office Report to Congress 1979, Report of the Task Force on Housing Costs 1977, Task Force on Housing Costs 1973, National Housing Policy Review 1967, President’s Committee on Urban Housing 1967, National Commission on Urban Problems Studies of Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing

22. HOUSING POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES • Federal law and policy artificially stimulates • demand and subsidizes homeownership for • the affluent working class. • (but at the same time) • Local zoning and growth management • programs restrict building permits reducing • the supply of housing and significantly • increasing housing prices.

23. HOMEOWNERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES • As a Result of Appreciating Housing Prices • Homeownership is not perceived to be • just about finding a nice place to live. • Homeownership is widely perceived to be • a major economic investment in a large • bulk commodity.

24. URBAN PLANNING IN THE UNITED STATES Influence of Increasing Housing Prices • Local zoning programs are not widely • utilized to create livable and sustainable • communities for all types of Households. • Local zoning programs are largely directed • at protecting the property values of • existing neighborhoods.

25. SMART GROWTH Smart growth means using comprehensive planning to guide, design, develop, revitalize and build communities for all that have a unique sense of community and place; preserve and enhance valuable natural and cultural resources, equitably distribute the costs and benefits of development, expand the range of transportation, employment and housing choices in a fiscally responsive manner; value long range, regional considerations of sustainability over short term incremental geographically isolated actions; and promotes public health and healthy communities. Compact, transit accessible, pedestrian-oriented, mixed used development patterns and land reuse epitomize the applications of principles of smart growth. American Planning Association (2002)

26. SMART GROWTHPlanning Techniques 1. Open Space Protection and Acquisition 2. Preservation of Agricultural Lands 3. Environmental Protection Restrictions 4. View Protection, Aesthetic, and Design Controls 5. Exactions and Impact Fees 6. Concurrency Development Controls 7. Annual Growth Caps 8. Contiguous Development Controls 9. High Density Requirements 10. New Urbanist Development 11. Regional Planning/ Growth Boundaries

27. Built Environment Nimbyism and The Political Dynamic of Local Growth Management ProgramsSMART GROWTH REALITY MYTH More Comprehensive and Intensive Development Controls and Environmental Restrictions Fast Track Affordable High Density (New Urbanist) Residential Development Projects (Adopted) (Rejected)

28. Lowry Redevelopment Map

30. The Results of Smart Growth Dominated By Built Environment Nimbyism 1. May Protect the Quality of Life and Increase the Property Values of Existing Homeowners.

31. The Results of Smart Growth Dominated By Built Environment Nimbyism 2. When Implemented Independently by Local Communities, May Promote Low Density Sprawl Throughout a Metropolitan Region.

32. The Results of Smart Growth Dominated By Built Environment Nimbyism 3. May Increase the Costs of New Housing and Reduce the Supply of Affordable Housing.

33. The Results of Smart GrowthDominated By Built Environment Nimbyism 4. May Continue to Promote Social and Economic Isolation and Exclusion.

34. More than 30% of jobs in the top 100 metros are now located far from central downtowns. Share of metropolitan employment, 100 largest metropolitan areas, 1996

35. Possible Remedies Low Density Zoning and Exclusionary Growth Management ProgramsProblematic Technique for More Affordable Housing 1. Deregulation? 2. Incentive Zoning? 3. Inclusionary Zoning? 4. Impact Fees? 5. Judicial Review? 6. Required Minimum Densities! 7. Regional Planning (Fair Share)! 8. Direct Housing Subsidies!