I live in Springfield, so I have a big problem with the conclusions brought forth in this article. The article says:
Clay and other conservationists are quick to say they’re not opposed to construction of new homes and businesses. They just want it to happen in existing downtowns, like Springfield, Greenfield and Brattleboro. Run-down single-family homes can be replaced with small, energy-efficient apartment buildings. New stores can be built on the vast, usually half-empty parking lots around strip mall shopping centers. If more parking is really needed, multi-story garages can be erected.
It then later says:
Help bust the myth that more development will reduce property taxes. A recent study by the Vermont League of Cities and Towns is among several studies that have found that the New England towns that have preserved the most land from development have the lowest property taxes. That’s because they don’t need to spend as much on services like police and fire protection, roads and schools.
The people behind this smart growth initiative are saying that expensive McMansions aren’t worth it because they cost more in services than the property taxes that can be collected from them, but their answer for growth is to tear down single-family houses in cities like Springfield and put up cheap apartment buildings.
If an expensive McMansion in a wealthy community isn’t sustainable, then how could cheap units — perhaps 1/10 the per-unit value — in a poor community like Springfield be sustainable? And why would someone choose to live in a cheap apartment building over a suburban McMansion, especially when the quality of life in the city is far lower than the suburban community?
I believe in dense living, but this state has to invest to make it work. Dense living brings additional costs, such as:
- More responsive fire department since a fire in a dense neighborhood threatens more people.
- More policing, especially community policing which combats quality-of-life issues, because troublemakers in dense communities affect more people, and a shooting could make tens of thousands of people in close proximity feel threatened.
- Tigher code enforcement (which costs money), because run-down properties in dense neighborhoods are very visible, and because multi-unit property that is not owner-occupied frequently gets little attention by its investment-owners.
- Sidewalks must be constructed to support the walking environments that dense development favors.
- More traffic enforcement is needed to protect the pedestrian community.
- Trash service needs to be paid for, since garbage in close quarters has the potential to cause disease.
- Parkland must be constructed and maintained to make up for the smaller lots that each house sits on.
- If there is a concentration of low-income children, education costs will be higher because history has shown that low-income children face more educational challenges than children from wealthy families.
Since the primary source of municipal funding is via the property tax, building cheaper, denser units means increased costs and decreased revenue. That simply doesn’t add up.
When the increased cost of dense development is not mentioned in articles touting this plan, the entire plan smacks of a “pull up the ladder” scheme by people who want to increase the value of their land, increase their quality of life, and decrease their taxes.
I propose that in order to solve the growth problem, the state has to level the playing field and provide residents in denser communities with more opportunities than are available to communities that are build on sprawl.
This would increase the demand in dense communities, and decrease it in communities that we want to preserve. Prices would equalize across the state, and economic segregation would be reduced.
Is this a plan that our mostly Democratic, but mostly suburban legislature will address? Or are they content to artificially increase the property values of their constituents, keep their taxes artificially low, and ignore both the problems our cities face and our shrinking population coupled with dwindling economic opportunities?
I haven’t seen the Valley Advocate article, but the passages you cite tell me that the people who were interviewed (“Clay and other conservationists”) do not understand the full range of tools in the Smart Growth toolbox.
<
p>
Your list is better – code enforcement, community policing, pedestrian-friendly scale, urban amenities such as parks, etc.
<
p>
Infill and rehab housing in older urban centers can be charming and relatively low density – Woonsocket, Rhode Island has done wonderful things, and Lynn, MA has built some great single-family, affordable homes.
<
p>
Local officials should be educated, and local development regulations should provide for, cluster layouts for new subdivisions. The Center for Rural Mass. has been trying to educate and guide smart growth in this region for twenty years or more.
<
p>
Although most land use decisions are local, there is a role for the legislature, and for state agencies. Everyone knows that the quality (or perceived quality) of the local school system affects migration and investment decisions. When the next legislative session takes up consideration of formulas for Chap. 70 education funding, they will be under pressure to funnel more money to “high growth” communities. Thoughtful advocates need to get in on that debate to ensure that changes in the formula are not so extreme that they reinforce sprawling development patterns that favor suburban growth while further undermining traditional urban centers.
<
p>
Annual funding for the Agriculture Preservation Restriction (APR) program, paying farmers for the development rights on their land in order to preserve its use, is also a legislative decision. There is always a backlog of cash-strapped farmers patiently waiting for their turn to get this infusion of capital.
<
p>
State agencies should target discretionary funds in ways that will reinforce pedestrian-friendly, infrastructure-savvy, pro-transit and environmentally-prudent development. Some of my regional planning friends say that local officials are paying attention to the Commonwealth Capital program in a serious way.
<
p>
In land use circles, people often categorize programs according to the “either/or”, “carrot” and “stick” options. A lawyer who specialized in land use issues once described a third way – “Making the developer eat the carrot.” I bet BMG readers could describe other options that would promote smart growth that makes sense for the future of the Commonwealth.
And why would someone choose to live in a cheap apartment building over a suburban McMansion, especially when the quality of life in the city is far lower than the suburban community?
<
p>
False choice, and false conclusion.
<
p>
It’s a false choice because if you can afford a suburban McMansion, you can afford a spacious high end condo in a city. If you can afford a 1.5 bathroom house in the suburbs, you can afford a (less spacious) reasonably sized condo in a city.
<
p>
It’s a false conclusion because the quality of life in a city is better, at least for me. I don’t have to lose 5-15 hours per week commuting, I have nearly instant gratification for wants (movie theatre: 4 minute walk. grocery store: 2 minute walk. Over a dozen restaurants 3 minutes or less by foot. Public transit choices abound. Quiet parks, jogging parks, and ball fields all less than three minutes away by foot.).
<
p>
How is that a lower quality of life than the suburban community? Hint: it isn’t, at least not for me. Obviously, your results may vary.
<
p>
This kneejerk single family homeownership American Dream stuff is foolish, and a fairly modern phenomenon. Smart mixed development in cities allows for dense population, local city services and commerce, and lots of different jobs nearby. It results in the need for fewer fire departments, far fewer miles of road, and if you’re building tall enough, more property tax per acre of housing stock.
You may be thinking only of Boston. Take a look at other cities in the state — Worcester, Springfield, Holyoke, Lawrence, Fall River. There’s really no demand for high-end downtown condos outside of Boston, and urban housing demand is almost always the lowest at the center of any urban-suburban ring. Almost all development in the Springfield downtown in recent years has been converting or rehabbing units into low-income or elderly housing.
<
p>
Quality of life in urban areas outside of Boston rarely rises to the level of their wealthier suburban ring. Crime is significantly lower, and suburban police have time to enforce key quality-of-life issues like speeding cars and barking dogs. Urban police deal with shootings and stabbings on a nightly basis.
<
p>
Suburban educational systems are rated higher because there is more money to spend on students who need less attention. Suburban public schools have, in recent years, taken on almost a pseudo-private air to them — the town of Wilbraham wants to start charging $10k tuition to accept out-of-district students. The MCAS is now a public and concrete way to differentiate between districts.
<
p>
Even commerce is largely shifting to the suburbs — check the trend on things like urban grocery stores or even new shopping center development (not that I’m a proponent of the big-box…). Marketing experts are writing urban areas off as a bad economic risk, and they are instead moving to where the money is.
<
p>
Boston is a special case because it has substantial economic opportunity, commuting into it is somewhat difficult, and the T is a viable mass-transit system for commuting within it, and there are significant social opportunities.
in Worcester, Springfield, et al.
<
p>
Improve the quality and quantity of public transit. Stop making giant housing projects, but instead have mixed small development. Zone for small commercial, housing, and industrial where appropriate. Invest in urban “furniture” like quality trees, benches, and sidewalks. Get more cops, and put them on foot patrols.
<
p>
Use Providence RI as a model — a small city which has made great improvements in the past 10 years or so.
<
p>
P.S. The school argument doesn’t fly, as Boston schools don’t have strong reputation. What Boston does have is Brookline, Quincy, Waltham, Cambridge, and Somerville — the diversity in nearby governments helps provide the “right” amount of services for everyone.
I disagree about the schools; it is probably the top reason that people move from or refuse to consider cities over surrounding suburbs. I have tried repeatedly to convince my house-shopping friends to move to Springfield, their primary reason against moving here is school quality. I even have concerns about sending my children to a school where so many students don’t seem to be interested in learning.
<
p>
This may not be a factor for everyone, but for people who have or will have children and who don’t want to pay for a private education, the schools are the top concern.
<
p>
It’s my opinion that the schools in Springfield are not bad; the students who attend them are the bigger part of the problem. So solving this problem is very difficult — you have to attract better students to the system, but better students won’t come to an underperforming system.
<
p>
I agree with you that the state needs to invest in urban areas, however, if the recent budget that just went out is any indication, the state legislature is not concerned with urban problems. The Chapter 70 formula changed in such a way that Springfield’s increase was cut in half compared to if last year’s formula was used.
<
p>
Providence and Hartford have managed to improve themselves, but they are bad examples because they are state capitals. Hartford has had billions poured into it, and the payoff is just starting. I get the feeling that Springfield is viewed as a hemorrhoid on Boston’s backside.