Smart Growth means Our Style Growth

Recently Smart Growth principles were posted on Facebook. What follows is my brief take on them.

 “Mix Land Uses” is conceptually a good idea.  Certainly it’s a reasonable response to the extreme city antiseptic planning of a century ago. While it creates convenience it also requires tolerance. I remember working in an office building where the air ducts picked up the cooking smells from the restaurant next store and people felt olfactory assaulted. And remember than our General Plan EIR goes to extreme lengths to prevent or regulate noise pollution, an obvious problem outcome of mixed uses.

“Take Advantage of Compact Building Design” negates one’s freedom to live as they want. It’s not the government’s role to design buildings except for basics such as safe wiring, etc. North Natomas was developed as a smart growth area and the homes are too close together. They are like the homes I lived in that led me to leave for Amador County. They are the style of our prior less affluent society being sold as a new idea. Is this planning for a possible decline in the standard of living?

“Create a Range of Housing Opportunities and Choices” sounds nice, but when it’s not done in the free market but rather administered it becomes arbitrary. Ask people in Stockton about the required mini apartment ghettos in each new development. They hate it.  While this glib principle often means a contrived “statutory” diversity, apartments that fit into a neighborhood’s character are essential for the elderly to remain there. When one leaves their single family home they should be able to stay put and continue ties and affiliations.

“Create Walkable Neighborhoods” again sounds nice, but it often means “stack and pack” housing. I would submit that neighborhoods became less walkable when we gave up the grid pattern for the current curvilinear pattern along with cul de sacs. This is not about density, but rather just design.  But the other side of the curvilinear argument is the number of dwelling units than can be fit into an area and in some cases preserving the topography an environmental plus for many. Also some people prefer the privacy and lack of pedestrians (strangers) in curvilinear areas.  Doesn’t the reality of create walkable neighborhoods contradict creating a range of housing opportunities and also choices for people with preferences deemed politically incorrect by those in power?

“Foster Distinctive, Attractive Communities with a Strong Sense of Place” sounds yummy. If this is done over time by many individual people, it creates the charm and character we all cherish. But if it is administered by a committee the result is often contrived. In only a few seconds one can decide if the business they just entered was designed by a corporation or grew out of the unique experience of a person or family. Does anyone remember the old joke: What is a camel? A horse designed by a committee.

“Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural Beauty and Critical Environmental Areas” What is so smart about assigning subjective judgment calls, open to abusive interpretations, of natural beauty and critical areas to government seers or stacked consensus groups? This is only smart if you want a preconceived ideological outcome.  An example I have cited before is locating a restaurant or gas station along the Hwy 88 scenic corridor.  While most people would consider such a facility as convenience, it would mar the Sierra’s beauty for an esoteric, but empowered, few. As an example of this attitude a recent photo posted on Facebook claiming to represent the intended Newman Ridge project was regarded as disgusting by those who find any productive enterprise as ugly. This is a problem attitude best dealt with by psychologists, not planners. 

“Strengthen and Direct Development towards Existing Communities” This premise compromises the principle that people are free to live where they want. The government is here to serve us, not to make us accommodate their intellectual desires of social design divorced from our traditions. American land tenure, in rural areas, is your home near the middle of your property. This pattern made America freer and different from the Europe of crowded villages most of our ancestors left behind. Divorced from reality and tradition, this statement appears to be the product of isolated intellects with the hidden agenda of homogenizing us to look like Europe along with their roundabouts.

“Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices” How many potholes do we tolerate to placate the few, but vociferous bicyclists? Resources are not infinite. Or was my mother wrong when she told me that money doesn’t grow on trees? Public transit is a vital opportunity that allows people to help themselves, just as public education does. But given the prevalent patronage and social welfare model rather than a public sector business model, throwing money at most big city transit agencies is grossly wasteful without a revolutionary change in their planning and management.

“Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair and Cost Effective” Fair is a buzzword for social justice, the rebranding of failed socialism. How stable is a society based on entitlements compared with one based upon what you have earned?  Cost effectiveness can be judged by whatever unrealistic ideological assumptions are in charge. My prior discussion of a twisted and rather extended concept of externalities is a perfect example. While nothing can make life predictable, this desire requires at the very least an acceptance of stagnation.

“Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration in Development Decisions” depends, of course, on who is a stakeholder or community member. Certainly people without children and with extra time and means are most likely to appear at meetings as participants. Community groups often are multipliers of the same people appearing as more numerous than they are.  Sometimes I wonder if the number of groups concerned with the Mokelumne River equal the number of fish or frogs there. Caltrans found that neighborhoods often change more rapidly than project timeframes and only chaos and discord ensue. 

Smart Growth is an advertising slogan that can’t help remind me of “You can sure if it’s Westinghouse”. Remember that great company that dissolved with some parts now owned by foreign companies?

Copyright 2015, Mark L. Bennett