|
BACON'S
|
|
For nearly a decade,
developers and environmentalists have observed an
unofficial cease-fire. With the real estate
industry in a coma during the early 1990s, there
wasn't much to argue about. Even when the economy
revived, conflicts remained muted while
developers worked through a backlog of projects
approved in the roaring '80s. But it's time to
take cover, because the shooting is starting
again: Developers are seeking new terrain, and
the environmentalists are out to stop them. If the past is any indication, the battle will be pitched in apocalyptic terms: Tree-hugging nature Nazis want to slam the brakes on jobs and growth. Corporate vandals are plundering the landscape to line their pockets with gold. Both sides will make some valid points, and both will miss the larger truth: Virginia's problem isn't growth, or even acquiring new land for growth. It's the extraordinary inefficiency with which we use the land we've got. |
| The pattern and density of land use in Virginia is hugely wasteful: Low-density, leapfrog developments consume billions of dollars by requiring extension of roads, utilities and buildings into green fields. Meanwhile, large pockets of land closer to existing infrastructure are left untouched. This urban sprawl drives up the cost of utilities and government services. It makes housing more expensive. It creates traffic congestion. It disrupts wildlife, even where "green space" exists, and it causes erosion and runoff. |
Classical economists analyze the economy in terms of three factors of production: land, labor and capital. In our society, the dynamics of labor and capital are well-understood. Indeed, the United States has more advanced financial institutions and deploys its capital more efficiently than any other nation in the world. Likewise, our flexible labor markets are the envy of all nations. Although the work force clearly has a skills gap, awareness of the problem is universal, and communities are mobilizing to deal with it.
By contrast, our system of land use is inefficient. Development is highly regulated through zoning and environmental controls. And it's highly subsidized through biases in our transportation policies and rates for electric, telephone, cable, water and sewer utilities, not to mention the delivery of local government services.
Developers are, to some degree, at fault for lobbying to build the roads that subsidize sprawl. At the same time, environmentalists pander to the Nimby -- Not In My Back Yard -- populism that inhibits development of property at rational densities. But mostly we ourselves are to blame.
Land use in America reflects our demand for single-family homes; the value we place on personal mobility, which translates into an automobile for every person 16 or older; and our preference for local, not regional, control over land-use decisions. We've largely gotten what we've asked for, unable to see that rising housing costs, traffic congestion and the escalating cost of local government are inevitable byproducts. Unwilling to shoulder any personal responsibility, Virginians spew rhetoric blaming the guys in the black hats -- the developers, the environmentalists, the international Zionist bankers.
I've been preaching this message for so long, to such little effect, that I am easily discouraged. But there's consolation in knowing that I'm not alone. Indeed, E.M. Risse, a Fairfax urban designer, has been saying much the same thing, but more authoritatively and for even longer. In fact, he's devoted the better part of the past 10 years to exploring the issues surrounding land use in a soon-to-be-published book, "The Shape of the Future."
Risse's book is so full of insight, much of it particular to the Old Dominion, that it should be mandatory reading for every local government official in Virginia. There are a few points especially worth emphasizing here.
There's more than enough land zoned for development to handle any foreseeable growth in population and jobs in Virginia through the 21st century. But why bother paving any new land? By redeveloping acreage in low-density, low-value neighborhoods -- at the same density and with the same proportion of green space as a planned community like Reston -- Virginia could accommodate all anticipated growth, plus return a lot of land to forest, farms or wetlands.
Whipping developers for building is like scolding dogs for hunting: They're just doing what comes naturally. Rather than restricting developers, with adverse consequences to the economy, we should redirect them. We should encourage them to fill in vacant urban spaces and rebuild declining districts by permitting higher densities and a finer-grained mix of housing, offices and stores -- much as Arlington has done in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor and Richmond hopes to do along its riverfront. Speculators holding land on the urban fringe might squawk. So might neighborhood activists who equate higher densities, wrongly, with midtown Manhattan. But the regional economies of our metropolitan areas would function more efficiently.
Is it too much to ask? Probably so. If you don't find my arguments persuasive, read "The Shape of the Future." If you're still not convinced, pull out your six-shooter and start blasting everyone with a black hat. You'll be busy.
James
A. Bacon
Publisher & Editor in Chief
© DECEMBER 1998, VIRGINIA BUSINESS
MAGAZINE