Though the term is broad, I would like to one day pursue a career in community development or planning that aims to create an environment that capitalizes on community assets and brings neighbors together in a sustainable manner. Similar to what Roseland discusses in Toward Sustainable Communities, I too believe that the most effective and direct form of change happens at the local level. In light of that, I would like use my first assigned blog post to address a community policy subtopic that is currently at odds with sound sustainable development: Zoning Laws.
Regulation, one of Roseland’s four policy instruments in Chapter 3: Making Community Policy, is largely seen as a tool to protect third parties from negative externalities caused by private market process and transactions. Though this is an area that SPEAONS value highly, not all regulation is devised in the public’s best interest.
Current municipal zoning laws across the United States continue to impede sustainable community development. Most cities and suburbs still encourage the archaic Euclidean model that isolates zoning into three main categories—industrial, commercial, and residential. Although I understand the idea that no one wants to live next to a smokestack, it seems that mixed-residential and commercial use need to become more prominent in the thought of community development and planning for a sustainable future.
Traditional residential zoning in suburbia.
Jane Jacobs famously declared that “the destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building” (Whealer and Beatley 34). Indeed, current zoning laws coupled with insufficient public transit options give community members the green light (pun intended) to drive all over to run errands and settle out in the sprawling margins of town. Behavioral change will likely result from structural change.
I have first hand experience at trying to alter the zoning law in Indianapolis. Over the summer, I worked as a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design- Neighborhood Design (LEED-ND) intern at the Mapleton-Fall Creek Community Development Corporation (MFCDC) (http://www.mfcdc.org). My fellow intern and I were pursuing LEED-ND Stage 1 certification for a section of the Mapleton-Fall Creek neighborhood. Most of our responsibilities included documenting the project area’s compliance with prerequisites and credits.
The criteria for one credit included having a bus shelter in the project area. To do so, we decided to build a bus shelter for the neighborhood children on a MFCDC owned vacant lot located at the intersection of 31st and Park Avenue. Unfortunately, we could not simply hire an affordable design-build architect and call it a day. Because residential zoning laws in the area are so limited, we had to either apply for a variance or an enchroachment license to build in the greenspace of the public right-of-way.
Since our budget was exceptionally limited ($2,500) for the project, we decided to apply for an enchroachment license for $375. Purchasing a variance permit would have cost thousands of dollars in fees before taking building permits into consideration. Due to the enchroachment license purchase our budget became even more limited. The process was too costly and time consuming just to build a bus shelter on the organization’s private property. I cannot imagine the cost of varying from the zoning law for a substantially different project. It signaled to me that zoning laws could certainly benefit from some flexibility in purpose.
Zoning regulation directly addresses six of Roseland’s ten community objective topics: energy, climate, transportation, land-use, housing and community economic development (36). It seems like common sense that neighborhoods need mixed-use buildings and a diverse selection of nearby services. With the peak oil crisis and rising fuel prices, individuals are beginning to understand the necessity of institutions and shops that are in walking distance of their homes.
New urban village with mixed-use zoning laws
Zoning laws that encourage responsible land-use development and juxtaposes residential and commercial space also benefit from local economic development. This type of community development provides people of all income levels with different service options. If someone has access to a car to drive to Target or Wal-Mart then so be it; however, those that would prefer to walk to the corner store a block away should have that option. I lived a few doors down from the downtown Sahara Mart last year and I know for a fact that commercial businesses that are in walking distance of residential areas are incredibly popular. Zoning laws and codes that promote these alternative choices are easy on your wallet and the environment.
As you can see, zoning laws that isolate structures by purpose ultimately increase the human ecological footprint discussed by Wackernagel and Reese (1996). In “What Is An Ecological Footprint” the authors expose that “the ecosystems that actually support typical industrial regions lie invisibly far beyond their political or geographical boundaries” (295). Because our supportive ecosystems are so far away our irreversible carbon footprint continues to increase. Zoning laws that allow individuals to choose local goods and service providers without having to drive miles from store to store will greatly deplete a community’s ecological footprint. The idea is to locate residents closer to clusters of goods and service providers so that it makes more sense to walk or bike to them.
Rezoning our communities also lays the foundation for fighting public health concerns such as obesity and asthma. Someday sustainable communities will be synonymous with healthy communities. Policies such as Health By Design (http://www.healthbydesignonline.org) and Complete Streets (http://www.completestreets.org) are at the forefront of tackling the issues of community design and connectivity. Sustainable zoning laws are the perfect complement to such initiatives. In fact, the percentage of neighborhoods with both residential and commercial options within a community could be a possible urban sustainability benchmark. Surveying neighborhood residents of how often they use the local goods and service providers could be add some further empirical evidence of sustainability practices.
Dr. Richard Jackson discusses the importance of planning and zoning laws and their effects on community, public health and sustainable lifestyles in the PBS feature “Desigining Healthy Communities.” Here is a video of Dr. Jackson discussing the multifaceted issue that is zoning and community structure with SPEA’s own Tavis Smiley:
Watch Dr. Richard Jackson, UCLA School of Public Health on PBS. See more from Tavis Smiley.
If you are interested in watching the “Designing Healthy Communities” DVD series, you can suggest that the Monroe County Library purchases it for its collection here: (http://mcpl.info/fiction/suggestion-purchase)
Addison, thank you for sharing your own experience in attempting to build the bus station. It is a perfect example of how most current zoning systems nationwide are anti-sustainability by nature. $375 out of your $2500 budget just to apply for a license that you really shouldn't have to pursue in the first place. The more red tape that we can reduce to make sustainability improvements, the better. I agree that industrial zoning may still be the odd-man out (NIMBY) but the future is clearly mixed-zoning. Local governments should make exemptions for public transportation, public health, and walk ability improvements.
ReplyDeleteI think the effort to rezone is awesome--an area that I'm just starting to bend an ear to. One of the things that really fascinates me with the use of residential space in particular, and that goes past zoning & into neighborhood associations/lesser city ordinances, is what's allowed in residential space. And I don't just mean a farm stand. I mean the right to use your private property to grow what you please rather than what has become some aesthetic norm. Yard after yard is being torn out across the country because people choose not to plant/use chemicals to "sustain" a lawn. I know, this sounds like a rant. But I think it ties into zoning issues and what's really at fault here--the construct that we've settled in about what a home is, what private property looks like & what it should be surrounded by. What I love about mixed zoning is that it usually goes hand-in-hand with developing functional, more native & diversified green spaces. Good times to be had by all.
ReplyDeleteWhenever I think about zoning laws, I always think back to a case from our Law and Public Affairs class in which relatives could not live together in a residential area because they were not as closely related as the zoning law's definition of single family required. Although this is not a sustainability issue directly, it is still another example of how inhibiting zoning laws can be. I think it will be interesting to see how rezoning can help decrease car-reliant suburbia by placing stores within walking distance of people's homes also. Who doesn't want to live within walking distance to a grocery store? How convenient!
ReplyDeleteHaving lived in places that utilize mixed-use zoning and do not, I agree with your assertion about behavioral change resulting from structural change. Walking/biking was, for the most part, not a great option where I grew up because of the town's layout.
ReplyDeleteThis post (and Megan's comment above) reminded me of the zoning regulations preventing people from using clotheslines outdoors. Tangentially related, but another example of how zoning laws can prevent the behavioral changes we need. These "clothesline bans" were in the news a lot a few years ago (example here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/us/11clothesline.html?_r=2&th&emc=th)...but I'm not sure what the effect of all the press was. In my apartment complex, we cannot put clothes outside to dry; so now my place looks like a giant blanket fort on laundry day.
I really like the fact that you want to bring neighbors closer to achieve community sustainability. Involving people is critical for any environmental initiative to be successful. Perhaps there should be a fourth zoning category or maybe within the three categories a certain percentage of the land must contain greenspace, trees, or something of that sort. Part of the problem I would imagine has to do with the governments desire to bring in revenue. The more people and businesses they can pack into an area the more cash the city will generate. Someone needs to tell zoning coordinators that sometimes less is more. With slightly less homes and businesses there will be more room for community greenspace and walkable/bikeable paths/streets which will improve the environmental health of the city (less pollution and more benefits from plants like oxygen production) and the overall happiness of its occupants. I think that if you are trying to build or do something that benefits the environment, the government, local or federal, should discount the cost or provide a stipend to carry out those activities. This way more people will engage in the activity. I believe that the only way we can truly globalize notions of sustainable living is if there exists monetary incentives to do so. This could mean getting a voucher to purchase flowers/plants at Home Depot or tax deductions for minimizing your waste output. I’m glad you brought the issue of zoning to our attention. Zoning communities in such a way that facilitates walking is a great way to address the issue of obesity and asthma. I’m sure there are tons of other health benefits that coincide with living in a sustainable community. I’m always so focused on waste management that sometimes I forget the other important information that pertains to making the world we have a greener one. So thanks for that! And a shorter lifespan than our parents?! I don’t think so! Let’s work together to achieve this common goal!
ReplyDeleteI like your suggestion that sustainable communities will one day be synonymous with healthy communities. It would be interesting to see how strong a relationship there might be between cities that score low on sustainability indices and high on rates of obesity, asthma, and diabetes, to name a few.
ReplyDeleteYou know, not being a policy person I don't understand zoning very well. I mean back during the Industrial Revolution who would want to live next door to any of those factories? But I know that personally given the option I would love to have a wind turbine, solar plant, hydro plant or something like that next door. And living above or close to a small business would be nice, not like a Walmart but something that closed at night. I might be weird about that, well, no, I am weird like that. I come from a town where I could walk my neighborhood as a child and only visit a tiny shopping area that basically had a video rental store and a park but nothing else was even close. I'm not a city dweller or a policy person, so I hope there are reasons that we still have what I consider basic zoning laws.
ReplyDeleteYou raise a great/interesting point about sustainable community planning directly affecting public health. As noted in Community Based Social Marketing, education is key to changing behavior. The further from the "how does this affect me" the harder education becomes. Perhaps, aside from emphasizing the environmental impact, if we elevate the individual health implications of mixed-zoning laws, consumers would be more motivated to petition their local governments, and we might see faster change. As health is a very personal, daily matter and consumers can see the repercussions of poor health more concretely and at times, more immediately, than environmental implications. I guess my question is: does the means matter? Or there are so many ways to attack the same problem.
ReplyDelete