Decision Time

As we move ever closer to some type of resolution to the electoral process that already seems like it has gone on far too long, the constant bombardment of news and propaganda can be a bit daunting. Here in New York we're gearing up for the Super Duper Stupendous Extravaganza which will be, for most of us, another drab Tuesday. But despite my attempts to steer clear of the hoopla, even the world of land use pulls me back into the fray. For instance, there is a report out of Chicago where, in the words of Hillary Clinton, "slum landlord business" magnate Tony Rezko was arrested on various charges you would expect of a sleazy developer.

Usually such a news item is of little moment on the national stage. But when he also knows the junior Senator from Illinois, who is also running for president, the stakes are raised. In particular, the 20-year connection between Rezko and Obama yielded an odd transaction back when the Senator just won his seat. Obama bought his house for $300,000 less than the asking price. As someone who is in the market for a new home, I can only bow to honor his good fortune. On top of that, the same day, Rezko's wife purchased the property next door for the retail price. Thereafter, Obama purchased a small portion of the neighboring lot to expand his yard. During his time in the state senate, Obama offered his clout in support of some of Rezko's projects. What all of this means is unclear. Is it another Whitewater, or just another wild goose chase? (Yes, both are seemingly the same thing). But behind it recalls the shady real estate deals that have become a hallmark of seemingly all presidential administrations. A little Teapot Dome, anyone?

In any event, the real tidbit into which I wanted to delve had to do with decisions that Americans have already made. An organization known as the Saint Consulting Group releases a yearly survey, the aptly-named Saint Index, which sets forth the pulse of America when it comes to land use. A co-worker passed it along to me, and I couldn't stop keeping my jaw from dropping to its limits. According to those surveyed, 78 percent of Americans believe there should be no new development in their hometown. Asked what type of new development they’d like to see in their community, one in three Americans said “none,” by far the most popular choice. But when you get more specific, it gets even more confounding. For instance, people were more supportive of a new power plant than a Wal-Mart or a casino. According to the survey, people would rather have a landfill than a casino. For all those people who may need medical attention at one time or another during their lifetimes, fear one-third of your neighbors who said that they would oppose a hospital in their town. And what about for the Clintons and Obamas out there? Eighty-nine percent of Americans believe a candidate’s position on growth is important at election time.

Where we will be come November is way too hard to predict at this early stage of the game. Within days, if not already, the saga of Tony Rezko will no doubt be forgotten amongst the electorate. But either way, the lessons learned from the process of seeking an up or down vote on the candidates, and the issues, is that we land use professionals should be mindful of the sentiment that lies beneath any application brought before a land use board. It is difficult not to recall the lessons of Kelo, and how the decision incited such intense, popular fervor. And of course, it still continues. As reported in Professor Patty Salkin's Law of the Land blog, California is at it again with another eminent domain measure to reach voters in November. The people have spoken. And in this fantastic political system we have chosen as our mode of governance, they will continue to do so.

Darlings

Out of an unfortunate moment where we were a little too giddy with one another, my wife and I exchanged pleasantries in which both of us referred to the other as "darling." Unfortunately, this moment was also witnessed by my in-laws, who have ever since deemed us as "the darlings." This week I actually picked up a bottle of wine, with "Darling" on the label, mostly because of our nickname. The way in which we have been branded by my wife's family got me to thinking about the way in which certain places are treated in such fashion -- i.e., where media outlets and the population at large have certain perceptions of places as "darlings," or at least places that receive more attention, to the exclusion of others, when it comes to being the "hot" place, or being "up and coming."

Take for instance the love affair that continues unabated for Las Vegas. Starting with the boom in the late '80s ushered in by the Mirage, the metropolitan area has grown unabated as the fastest-growing settlement in America. Now the talk surrounds the next round of construction on the northern Strip, particularly in connection with the new resorts and new condo developments rising from the desert floor. "The building on the Strip is mind-boggling. There's more construction going on here than anywhere else in the world except Dubai and China," touts one local booster, a title insurance representative. It's still so hot, that owners of certain vacant lots are opening temporary casinos, for no more than a day, in order to preserve the properties' zoning designations permitting gambling on the premises. I have to admit -- I've been a follower of the trend for over a decade, and I've just put down more words devoted to the subject. But why do we choose to focus on these type of phenomena?

The same type of love extends to beloved landmarks. Take for instance Major League Baseball parks, where fans and city officials alike cannot wait to see the likes of Shea Stadium in Queens, New York, to be eradicated from the face of the earth. But the love continues for such places as Fenway Park in Boston, and Wrigley Field in Chicago. Not too long ago the City of Chicago, the caretaker of hallowed Wrigley, permitted the construction of seventy "bullpen box seats" to be added to the local landmark, but not without careful consideration. As a representative from the City's Department of Planning and Development made clear, "landmark buildings aren't frozen in time,[but] need to be maintained and can be improved while respecting their history." Separately, the Governor and Mayor are considering whether to have the State of Illinois' Sports Facilities Authority acquire and renovate the structure, as requested by the Cubs' current owner, the Tribune Co. Certainly a deal more about economics than preserving history, the government is nonetheless buying into the "darling" designation of the stadium.

But just as their are "darlings," there are perpetual punching bags as well. Not the least aided by another scathing season of HBO's "The Wire," which just began a few weeks ago, news came out of the real-life city of Baltimore, Maryland, that the municipality is suing Wells Fargo Bank for allegedly contributing to the massive number of foreclosures in the wake of the subprime scandal still leveling the housing industry. Similarly, in Cleveland, where the foreclosure nightmare has hit hard, rumblings continue to mount, even in its more affluent suburbs, like Shaker Heights, where some news accounts almost try and bait its residents to go along with what the writer seeks to argue. Another popular whipping place these days is Beijing, where the air quality is painted as being not exactly up to Olympic quality.

But finally, there are those places where people are trying to root for change for the better. In Newark, New Jersey, plans are underway to bring in high-end apartments into the downtown area. Sure, the usual artist stalwarts in the neighborhood bemoan the coming change. As one complained, "We've clearly become part of the strategy of using artists to turn areas into luxury enclaves." This may be true. But at least, until it gets to the point of being called a "darling," people are talking about Newark, without including the obligatory reference to the riots that happened there forty years ago. This may be a small step, but one hard-earned for the long-maligned city.

Zoning Makes the World Go 'Round

As Thanksgiving is now in the rearview mirror (and hopefully the remnants not now attached to our backsides), we forge ahead towards the next round of holidays to greet us in December. By the end of my last post, I realized I left things a little darker than intended, so now I would like to shift back in happy mode for this edition. In that spirit, let's take a look around us to find the success stories going on in the world of land use, and see how much a little ingenuity can change things for the better. In particular, kudos to certain zoning and other municipal measures that have fostered new programs and neighborhoods that seem to make people's lives a little better. Sure, these news items highlight the ways in which these policies can equally create unhealthy, unintended consequences on the built environment, but let's overlook that grouchy outlook for the moment.

Let's start in Chicago, where none other than Mayor Daley, the tree-hugger himself, has spearheaded the city's Green Alley Initiative, which aims to replace impervious, paved alleys with porous paving material across the metropolis. This ingenious approach cuts down on runoff and allows for more natural absorption into the ground, which in turn allows for natural cleaning of the drained water to someday make its way back into Lake Michigan, the repository of Chicago's water system. The city has also set up an expedited permitting process for builders willing to undertake green building techniques. As one pundit notes, "Recycling programs are all well and good, but the things that really move public policy and the industry are things like taxes and the building code." How right Martin C. Pedersen, the executive editor of Metropolis magazine, is. Unlock the power of municipal regulation, and who knows what could be accomplished.

How about in Denver, Colorado, where recent zoning amendments have fostered the rehabilitation of the Capitol Hill neighborhood, bisected by its main drag, Colfax Avenue. Once an open drug market, other more desirable types of activities and residents have moved into the area, creating an eclectic, electric part of the city. Specifically, the city has encouraged street-level retail, and the retention of residential units on the upper floors of buildings. In a plan that would no doubt warm the heart of the Jane Jacobs fans out there, the neighborhood enjoys a lively, active streetscape. In addition, crime has seen a significant decrease - down 40 percent since 2005. Give a little, and let, as one denizen noted, "Colfax be Colfax."

And what about Toronto, Canada, where zoning changes have allowed for the sprouting of Peace Village, a subdivision in suburban Vaughan, north of the main city. Like the Hasidic Jewish communities of Rockland County, New York, and Ave Maria, a community centered around a Roman Catholic Church near Naples, Florida, Peace Village is faith-based -- centered around the Ahmadiyya Muslim faith. The mosque had been built in 1992, but the area surrounding it was zoned agricultural. In 1994, the zoning was changed to residential, and the place took off with the construction of homes on an adjacent plot. The developer worked with the mosque to cater the homes towards members of the Muslim sect, which attempts to unite religious doctrine with modern reality. Word of mouth was sufficient to sell out the initial stock of homes. Although seen by some in Toronto as an attempt to distance the community from mainstream society, the man who foresaw the potential of Peace Village notes that it simply allows for members of his faith to pray with their iman more regularly. Besides, many of the residents commute elsewhere for work. Either way, the benefits to the people who have chosen to live in Peace Village are clear. All, or at least, a portion of the tide was turned with the aid of a rezoning.

The power of zoning and other municipal regulations -- their ability to give and take away -- is omnipresent. They can stimulate many good things, with just a little forethought. There was a reason the Progressives of the early 20th century took up the cause of zoning. Sure, much of their philosophy was misguided elitism. But as the concept has evolved over the course of a century, the true benefits can be seen. The only question is whether this will become the rule, or remain the exception.