|
Smart Growth Fans Respond
Dumb or Dumber? What appears as "dumb growth" to Alan Nevin is at least a successful solution to the problem. Where are his suggestions? Natural balance, he says? Can you really call random greed-driven and socially misfitted behaviors "natural"? There is no natural creature that grows and destroys its own environment like humans. I believe had our "leadership" implemented truly smart growth directives each time they had the opportunity over the last few decades, then the corrective action now required to prevent a disastrous ("dumber") future wouldn't be necessary. I suggest we recycle the previously used parts of our cities; there's lots of opportunity here.
—Wayne Buss
Architect, Developer, Environmentalist
Alan Nevin summed up his article on growth management describing "smart growth" as "dumb growth" (Real Property, May 1999). There are plenty of affordable places to live in areas of the country where there are no growth controls. For example, cities like Houston, Detroit, Phoenix and Orlando. Would any San Diego resident want to live in any of these cities? No, because the lack of growth controls have ruined the environment and quality of life. Have you been to any of these cities recently? Can you imagine San Diego with Phoenix-like development? Compare those cities to places like Seattle and Portland, where the quality of life has been maintained and preserved under growth limitations. Americans have a responsibility and desire to preserve open spaces and waterways. It may be more expensive to do that. But just like the clothes that you wear, you get what you pay for.
—Eric Meline
San Diego
Putting aside his opinions about smart growth for the moment, so much of what Alan Nevin wrote in your May issue is factually incorrect, I wonder if he is living in the same San Diego as the rest of us.
Let's start with his most puzzling assertion: that San Diego is one of "three metropolitan areas on the West Coast [that] have launched the 'steel ring' concept." Apparently, he is referring to urban growth lines such as those that surround not only Portland (his example), but, by state law, every city in the state of Oregon. The fact is, San Diego has no such policy. It never has, and it probably never will.
Nevin states the rise in relative home prices in San Diego since the early 1970s "is the direct result of managed growth." Nonsense. There are many much more direct reasons for rising home prices, the most obvious being people’s continuing desire to live here. The truth is, there is very little effective growth management in this region, and today we are seeing the consequences. That's exactly why smart growth is a hot topic these days.
Nevin blasts growth management controls in the City of Carlsbad, saying they upset the "natural balance" between supply and demand in the housing market. Since 1990, Carlsbad has provided one new home for every three new residents, compared to one home per five new residents in the rest of the region.
He says that smart growth is a dumb idea because "80 percent of Americans continue to crave a single family home on a human-sized lot." He cites no source for this "reality," but I’ll take his word for it. (Personally, I also crave a Porsche, but that’s not likely, either.) As an "academic" who is "sufficiently skilled in the economics of supply and demand," Nevin is surely aware that the concept of a detached single family home for everyone who wants one, while perhaps warm and fuzzy, is not realistic. It never has been, it never will be, and given the amount of land that scenario would consume, it’s a good thing it’s not.
He even appears to be ignoring some of the very information his own company collects and sells: demand for multifamily housing is booming everywhere. Lofts, apartments and condos are renting and selling as fast as they can be built. Vacancy rates throughout the country are at historic lows. Given our demographic outlook for the next 20 years, there is little doubt that this demand will continue.
Smart growth means different things in different places. San Diego doesn’t need urban growth lines to grow smartly. What we need is a better geographic balance of jobs and homes, so people can make smart decisions about where to live. We need smart developers, too. People who realize there is a huge and growing market here for something other than large, expensive single family detached homes with built-in long commutes. We need a resolution to the construction defect litigation issue, so developers and lenders stop using it as an excuse for not thinking outside the box. And, perhaps most important, we need to reform the state-local tax system, so that local governments once again have a fiscal incentive to provide houses instead of big-box retail outlets.
What we don’t need is people declaring as bad ideas the very concepts that will help keep San Diego livable, prosperous, and most of all, sustainable over the long run.
—Paul Kavanaugh
Encinitas
|
