An Embarrassment of Riches

In a nation where everything has to be bigger and better, especially around this time of year, it's novel to see the things going on around the nation to attempt to curtail our voracious appetites, especially when it comes to devouring the land. One recent story that struck my fancy came out of Los Angeles, where the land of sprawl is coming to terms with its increasing density. The city's Planning Commission is contemplating a measure to curtail the McMansion effect that has plagued many of the metropolis' communities over the last few decades. In some camps, the measure falls short of what they are looking for to end the age of monstrosities on tiny single-family lots, what one City Councilman calls "Mansionization." First, the measure will only effect homes falling within a single type of zoning district, and would still permit homes to be half the square footage of the size of their respective lot. In addition, architectural requirements have not been added to the proposal, which effectively would allow the same "box" construction that many hope the revision to the zoning ordinance would end. Nonetheless, in a city where the average new home measures out at 3,250 square feet, it's a start.

How about in New York City, where the crush of cars that clog the 1950's style highway system has brought on the congestion pricing scheme that continues to work its way through the lengthy approval process. For the unindoctrinated, the plan would charge for all cars seeking to enter the island of Manhattan below 86th Street during peak times. In particular, tolls would be charged at the inbound Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg and Queensborough (59th Street) Bridges. Tolls were originally charged on these bridges (the ones that were around) up to 1911. The issue has been considered in various forms since the '60s, but has never been implemented. This week, the state commission charged with the hot potato continues to evaluate the proposal. It must issue its recommendation to the New York State Legislature and New York City Council for their approval.

In the same arena, which likewise impacts the congestion around New York, the U.S. Transportation Department plans on imposing limits on the number of flights coming in and out of John F. Kennedy Airport to alleviate the clogged skies above the Big Apple. An auction process may be instituted to distribute the coveted slots. The airlines see the measure as nothing less than a Kelo-like taking of property. As one spokesman noted, "We would oppose any auction process that seizes the existing assets of the airlines that have invested hundreds of millions, if not billions, over the years. . . ." Either way, the plan suggests that we need to safeguard our precious space -- even if it's 30,000 feet above our heads.

Finally, a spirit of sharing has emerged from the latest landmark agreement to redistribute the resources of the Colorado River amongst the states of the Western U.S. With dropping reservoirs met by increasing growth in the states of California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming, the new plan fosters conservation and encourages scaling back the growth. As is unavoidable with any agreement, there will be grumbling. Environmental groups say it doesn't go far enough. The plan calls for decreasing water deliveries in times of drought. But nothing stops thirsty locales from sucking the river dry to those levels. Nonetheless, the realization has begun that maybe the era of America' embarrassment of riches may soon be over.

The Outsiders

There's a lot of news in the world out there lately. Here in New York, Mayor Bloomberg's plan to bring "congestion pricing" to lower Manhattan fell on deaf ears in the state legislature. In addition, there was a big hubbub about a parking space that costs $225,000, and has a waiting list, in Manhattan's Chelsea's neighborhood. HBO Sports released a marvelous documentary on the Brooklyn Dodgers, which carefully charted how Power Broker Robert Moses prompted the move of the beloved baseball franchise to Los Angeles by denying Walter O'Malley access to the Atlantic Yards, which are currently being fought over again as the future site of a basketball arena. Beyond the confines of NYC, down South, atop the Florida aquifer system, development pressures are putting an intense stress on the underground water supply of the region. If current trends do not change, saltwater will begin to encroach on the dwindling freshwater supply. News from the post-Katrina Gulf coast indicates that despite, and evidence indicates because of, the slow pace of redevelopment occurring in this region after the devastating storm, the people that have returned to the region, left with little of the social institutions they once enjoyed, have turned to the casinos that line the Gulf for solace. Casino operators are reporting record revenues, largely due to locals turning to them for escape.

But out of the spotlight of these bigger stories comes a simple example of the American land use system working as it always has -- on the local level seeking to solve small, yet vital issues that mean most to communities and their residents. Recently, I found myself sitting in on a Town Board meeting on the east end of Long Island. I was there to monitor a topic on the Board's agenda relevant to my practice. Aside from learning the Board's thoughts on this issue, I left with a reminder as to why land use regulation exists, and the undercurrents that so often go unsaid. The item on the agenda that caught my attention involved the Town's problem with dealing with out-of-towners who are using the Town's beaches, to great ire of the locals. Although each of the people who weighed in on the issue carefully sidestepped the obvious implications of the proposed action, which would make it more difficult for the "outsiders" to use the Town's beaches, everyone could see the white elephant occupying its spot in the Board's chambers.

At the core of the issue, the residents, one after the other, voiced their complaints that these "out-of-towners," "none of whom had New York state license plates," were using their beaches, leaving behind garbage, using the sand as their personal toilets, cleaning their day's catch on the street outside their houses. The angry residents suggested to raise the price of day passes to their beaches, increase police presence around the beaches and generally discourage these unwelcome visitors from coming back. Sure, they prefaced their remarks with, "I don't see anything wrong with people using the beaches," but then they proceeded to express how to keep them away. Granted, the way these visitors were treating their destination was deplorable, and something should be done. But such comments as, "my grown children were appalled when they came back and saw what was happening," and "it's not how it used to be," suggests that deep down, if these residents could put a fence around their town, and require people to present photo I.D.s to get in (which is essentially what they were suggesting to the Town Board), they would do it. By the end of the discussion on the agenda item, I was fearful they would spot me as an interloper, and throw me out of Town.

This issue of providing public access to beaches is an age old problem. For instance, in Los Angeles, the owners of exclusive homes in the enclave of Malibu go through the never-ending struggle to discourage people from crossing through their community to reach the beach -- even though these beachgoers are within their rights under the "public trust doctrine." Going so far as hiring private goon squads to keep out the public, Malibu types constantly battle with public authorities seeking to strike a careful balance. What causes normally reasonable people to hire private security forces, or to take pictures of people using the beach (as in the case in this Long Island beach community) with their spare cash and free time? What kind of condition creates some of the most important land use cases that have come from the U.S. Supreme Court in the last few decades? (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), for instance). It is these seemingly innocuous matters that determine whether a community offers a good quality of life, or a burden on top of the other stresses of modern life. The land use system encroaches on the day-to-day lives of all of us, no matter how big or small, and every decision has consequences. Who knows what the ultimate outcome of the battle waging on the eastern end of Long Island will be. But in the end, another issue will no doubt come along to raise the ire of the locals, oftentimes caused by those pesky "outsiders."

That Infernal Car

Okay, so maybe last week I was hasty in my musings on spring. We’re not quite there yet. The surest sign is every time I use the car, which luckily at the moment, occurs only a few times a week. I’m still adjusting to the street parking routine, with cleaning schedules and other land mines that may lead to a ticket. And maybe I’m a little too concerned about the whole process. But this is by far the worst time of year when it comes to finding somewhere to shove the car for free. The winter ritual of digging oneself out of a parking spot, and then, upon returning, sliding one’s way back into a space heaping with the snow and ice left to thaw at its own pace is my most hated of chores. Go ahead and laugh, all you Sunbelt types out there, but I’m sure you have your gripes about driving – particularly traffic. Wish you had a developed public transportation system now, don’t you?

Once the car is out and on the road, and I have the opportunity to reach a speed above forty, I must say that it is a marvel to have a network of highways that crisscross New York, and, for the most part, help us get from place to place a little faster than we would fighting the pedestrians and traffic lights of local routes. (Yes, we must acknowledge Robert Moses’s contribution). Sure, we’ve paid for this right by wreaking havoc on neighborhoods and contributing to global warming, among other ills. But what if we had to pay a little more? Or even a lot more? Maybe it would discourage a few of us from getting behind the wheel, and instead hopping aboard a bus or a train. In London, this question faces immediate scrutiny as the metropolitan region prepares to expand its existing system of charging all cars the privilege to enter the central city each day. The region will be requiring a $15.60 toll to all motorists who drive to additional portions of the city, in an effort to reduce congestion. Figures indicate that in the four years the mechanism has been in place, traffic has been reduced by 10 percent. Despite the success, a national campaign resulted in 1.5 million signatures opposed to the plan. Old habits won’t drive quietly into that good night.

Similar systems are being tried in Stockholm, and also the United States. Houston, Minneapolis and Denver are attempting to encourage people to ride instead of drive by charging for the right to guzzle their share of gas. In Orange County, California, just south of Los Angeles, State Route 91 has instituted a plan to charge motorists the privilege to drive in its express lanes, at a graduated range of prices, depending on the time of day. During rush hour periods, a driver must pay $9.25 to traverse its H.O.T., or high occupancy toll lanes, while the middle of the day price is just over a dollar. For those not willing to shell out the toll, they must run the risk of traffic in the “free” lanes.

These “congestion pricing” systems offer a glimpse into the future, as another way to get people out of the driver’s seat. Unusually enough, the Bush administration is in support of these approaches, devoting $130 million to them in his proposed budget for 2008. Aside from the environmental and traffic volume benefits, congestion pricing also appeals to the economist in all of us, assigning an economic rationality approach to the choice of whether or not to drive. Advocated by 1996 Nobel laureate William Vickrey, a Columbia University economist, charging people to use a public highway would build in additional costs to counterbalance the deleterious effects of this decision.

With a recent report noting that a larger percentage of commuters to Manhattan come from the outer boroughs of New York City, as opposed to the suburbs, than previously thought, maybe it is time to start thinking about ways to encourage more people to use public transportation. Drawn by free parking and free access to Manhattan, it is hard to see why New Yorkers would not take advantage. But if it wasn’t free, and not so advantageous, maybe trends would change. And people would leave their cars on the street, even in the middle of the summer, and hop onto a bus or subway train, because the pain in the pocket book would be just as biting as spending a half hour to dig oneself out of a snow bank. Then again, maybe not, as evidenced by the London reaction. And what about the metropolitan regions without quality public transportation systems? It’s a hard sell, no doubt, but one that requires serious attention, and the incremental steps like the ones taking place, as we move towards a post-petroleum world and think about the way our built up environment must adapt to this inevitability.