Author Archives: admin

About admin

Born and raised in Lower Macungie Township in the village of East Texas. B.A. in Political Science from Slippery Rock University. Co-owner of Bar None Weddings & Entertainment. I love and care about my hometown and frequently blog about local issues that I think are important.

Words have meanings….

Posted on by

Last week I posted a blog after visiting my favorite mixed use project. The project is a good comparison for LMT since we’ll have more greenfield pressure here at in-fill locations. The post outlines critical ingredients that a mixed use project must have.

Throughout the last year I’ve taken issue with board members and developers giving projects certain labels that do not apply. Words have meanings. You cannot just call something ‘mixed use’ when it isn’t. Just because it ‘smushes’ two incompatible uses together on a small parcel or two totally incompatible projects are built the same time doesn’t make it a mixed use project. To label a project as something it isn’t is misleading. More harm than good is done when you lead the public to believe they are getting they aren’t.

The local media reinforces this when they regurgitate and parrot developers mis-use of smart growth terminology terms in articles. The Jaindl warehouse project is NOT a mixed use project. Despite Mr. J’s assertions. It just isn’t.

Tonight the township has a resolution to apply for a grant on behalf of Hamilton Crossings. In the grant resolution they label the project as mixed use. It is not. Again, not even close. The Hamilton Crossings project has potential, (though it should definitely not be subsidized with taxpayer money) I like the developer. Good guy. I think he’s community friendly. But this isn’t a mixed use project.

It’s a suburban strip shopping center. Perhaps the Cadillac of a suburban strips, but a strip nonetheless. You can maybe get away with calling it a commercial town center. But not mixed use. Mixed use means something.

Yesterday strongtowns posted this great new SID TV video. This reinforces what is and is not a mixed use project.

Modern zoning regulations are concerned primarily with how a property is being used. What is overlooked is how the buildings and other improvements interact with the public realm and each other.

The neighborhood in this video represents the opposite of mixed use. It is what we have in many locations here in Lower Macungie albeit ours are shinier and newer with superficial bells and whistles. You could make this same video about Caramoor Village. Or the Trexlertown Mall and apartments. Or even Hamilton Crossings. If neighbors ask for buffers you have a Euclidean segregated project. You buffer incompatible uses. If your dealing with buffers or buffering you don’t have a mixed use project. You have two incompatible uses.

Look at the neighborhood in the video then take another look at the Lancaster post. Go beyond the fact that Lancaster is ‘shiny and new’ and Brainard isn’t. Really look to form and function. How the neighborhood ‘works’. The differences are obvious.

Words have meanings and their meanings are important. Stop throwing around terms when the meaning doesn’t apply.

This is mixed use

Mixed use – Retail 1st floor, apartments 2nd floor. Intregrated design. Emphasis on pedestrians. Strong neighborhood character. Compact design. Compatability. NO buffers needed here cause everything works together.

This is NOT mixed use. 

Strip Commercial next to residential. Segregated, not compact, no neighborhood integration. Residents see backs of stores. Emphasis on buffers.

This IS Mixed use:

This mixed use development has distinct qualities. Residential and Commercial are integrated. Plenty of parking, but cars do not dominate here. No buffers needed here!

This is a warehouse adjacent to a housing development. This is NOT mixed use.

This is a warehouse development next to a housing development. Just because they were built around the same time doesn’t make it a mixed use project. This is two incompatible uses built (Smushed) next to each other requiring buffering. That is the opposite of mixed use. Emphasis on large supersized buffers.

Letter to Planning Commission 8/13 – Jaindl

Posted on by

Below is the letter I wrote to Sara Pandl our township planner and the Chair of the Planning Commission yesterday. The Spring Creek Subdivision is on tonight’s agenda. The meeting is 7pm in the township building. There are unresolved issues with the project and plenty of opportunities for the public to weigh in. Tonight is one of those opportunities. My letter focuses on defining the form/function of the landscaped berms which were a part of “Plan B”

It’s critical “watchdogs” continue to monitor this project as it progresses through the planning process. I strongly encourage anyone interested to attend tonight’s meeting. I’m guessing Jaindl will be discussed no earlier then 730pm.

Here is my letter:

Planning Commission,
Some thoughts on Jaindl prelim/final subdivision on tomorrows agenda. I really wanted to be at this meeting but I’ll be away at a conference.
Sara indicated a note about the bermed buffer areas in her letter. I believe it’s critical to define the size/scale/context/look of these berms very early in the process. We should really be pushing every step of the way for above and beyond buffering.

Below is a side by side comparison I made of two examples of landscape banking on warehouse projects. The “beefy” example is located in Quakertown. The other LMT. Our goal should be to exceed both.

Side by side warehouse landscaping

Defining the tone of this early in the process is important. Mr. Jaindl promised the community the cadillac of warehouse projects and planners have an obligation to push him to deliver. He remains and has been open to constructive criticism.
In addition to physical form, I think it’s also important to define what these berms are supposed to accomplish. In my opinion that goes above and beyond the obvious visual screening but also containing noise pollution. I’ve read multiple studies that conclude berms reduce noise by approximately 3 dB more than vertical walls of the same height. Most quarries have extensive earthen buffering. It’s my opinion distribution warehouses should be treated the same way since their impact on a community is comparable.

Those who live near warehouses in the Alburtis area cite the noise of tractor trailers backing up (beeping) as the one of the negative by-products of warehousing. 
Thank you
Ron Beitler

 

Mr. Jaindl explains plan ‘B’ at a public meeting.

Thoughts on LV rail.

Posted on by

Every couple of months we see another article about the potential for passenger rail in the LV.

I am a big dreamer when it comes to potential rail service in the LV. To me it’s ridiculous we are the population center and the location we are and have no passenger connections to the rest of the NE.

The latest article in the Morning Call focuses on new leadership in the LVPC who may be interested in taking another look at rail.

“For some, Bradley’s arrival this month as the new  LV Planning Commission director also comes at a good time. Bradley succeeded Mike Kaiser, who directed the Commission for 45 years. Rail advocates frequently blamed Kaiser for not taking their pleas to bring passenger rail to the Valley seriously. Kaiser always explained that he liked passenger rail, but argued that the limited number of people it would benefit in the Valley didn’t warrant the more than $1 billion cost of building it.”

As I said, I’m admittedly a dreamer when it comes to the possibility of passenger rail.  I’m all for addressing the issue. BUT the key is building a true high speed rail (HSR) system. And the reason is to make the system financially viable. If we don’t truly commit to HSR then I tend to agree with Kaiser that the market just isn’t here. Why? The issue with Amtrak is profitability. Today with most destinations the bus network is a far better value then Amtrak. *And this is with Amtrak benefitting from massive gov’t subsidies. This won’t change until we unlock the potential of HSR. As a country we’re behind Laos, Thailand, Turkey, and Morocco in terms of HSR.

*You can make the argument that the bus system also benefits massive gov’t subsidies via highway funding. Though not the case in the Lehigh Valley where LANTA operates on a pretty streamlined budget.

Chinese Bullet train travels at over 300 mph. I’d love to see more train routes in the NE and specifically here in the LV. But the key is speed. 300mph bullet trains like this one here could people from the LV to NYC in less then an hour with stops. Speed is the key to making trains marketable and profitable.

It’s simple, until rail offers a significant advantage over buses and even goes so far as to compete with ‘short hop’ airlines there is no reason to make the investment and I wouldn’t support it. Once trains are getting people from Boston to DC in 3 hours then folks will pay a premium price and the critical mass of trains will run full. Just look to Acela, the train that runs by far and away Amtraks most successful route. Coincidently it’s the closest we have to true HSR. Even the most conservative estimates show a 20% profit margin with some bolder claiming upwards of 40%.

People will pay premium for convenience. With travel that means comfort and speed. Show me a rail plan that addresses these two critical goals and I’d be leading the charge. The economic benefits of HSR passenger connections for the LV would be tremendous.

UPDATE: Found this Express Times guest column which uses 2010 data from a study that was conducted. It supports my thoughts that anything “low speed” isn’t worth the investment. HSR would completely change the argument. The study cites a 2.5 hour train trip to NYC. The kind of HSR I’m talking about would get you to NYC in an hour. It’s interesting to see train supporters absolutely unload on this study in the comments which are worth reading. I tend to agree with many that the study seems seriously flawed and biased so look forward to tackling the problem from a more optimistic angle.

Here is a counterpoint in support – Kirk Raup has worked as an advocate for LV Rail for 2 decades makes a great case for the why. All of his logic on the ‘why’ I agree with.

With about 80 percent of our federal transportation dollars going to highways and aviation, we should have the best and least costly travel and commuting options anywhere. But we don’t, and there’s no excuse for it. Decades of widening roads, building new interstates and performing endless work on the Turnpike and routes 309 and 22 are breaking our backs; we all know this nonsense is unsustainable.

(Speaking of highway funding breaking our backs….)

His solution is a SEPTA like system connecting the valley to other lines. It’s an interesting proposal. I still think my argument that only higher speeds can change the games makes sense. People would pay double the projected price changing the whole base economics.

 

Lancaster Mixed Use Development – possible model for Lower Macungie

Posted on by

I was very critical (and remain so) of the Remington Allen Organ “Dual Use” ordinance. What began as an important task of creating our townships first much needed community serving mixed use ordinance devolved into building an ordinance to suit a sketch plan and a developer. The process in my opinion was backwards and rushed. At least that was my observation as an outsider looking in.

I believe the result is a euclidean segregation of uses on an auto centric foundation. Meaning the sketch plan represents an apartment complex and a strip box commercial development smushed together. No real integration or compatibility. Not a mixed use development.

To make matters worse of course, the whole process was in my opinion sullied since the realtor of the project was a seated township commissioner. (Who at the time sat on the planning and zoning committee).

When I critique I always make it a point to give positive suggestions. In this case I sent the Board of Commissioners links outlining what I felt was a true mixed use development in Lancaster. Obviously, it fell on deaf ears. For two years now I’ve read about this development. Finally yesterday I was in Lancaster for work and I had the opportunity to check it out in person. Also coincidently google maps updated it’s streetview of the project. Here are a bunch of screen grabs.

This in my opinion represents the type of mixed use development we should be promoting. This is the type of development that will attract the coveted “young professional” demographic. This fits in line with my vision of becoming an exceptional place. Not another cookie cutter, cut and paste community.

I believe pictures tell the story. This is a beautifully designed and fully integrated mixed use community. Every detail seems to be well thought out. Everything works. Everything is contextually sensitive. The place oozes charm. People here can buy with confidence that they will maintain their property values.

One of 3 main residential sections looking towards the centralized “downtown” commercial. I LOVE the design standards of these homes.

Walking into the commercial area, there are Auto uses BUT everything is properly scaled. This bank works (even with the drive through) because of scale. Nothing in this entire development is highway geometry. Even with the auto uses, the focus was on pedestrians. We have a habit of over-engineering and supersizing everything here in LMT. This development wouldn’t work with turning lanes and supersized roads. No one would walk. It wouldn’t have any charm.
And you know what? I was here during “rush hour”. Cars somehow managed to get around. Best of all since the roads were built “right sized” traffic moved slowly. Not congestion mind you. But calmed. The foot traffic was amazing.

Walking between the Bank (outparcel also has a subway), the Mainstreet commercial with apartments above on the right and up to the left a mini mart! Again, everything works and fits together cause this design emulates a small town. Everything is “right sized”
No need for a signal here cause traffic moves at appropriate speeds so the 4 way stop works fine. (Again these are google images and before full build out, I was here yesterday during the “rush”)
And one of the Main desirable traits of mixed use, “the sell” really is traffic overall is reduced cause people actually walk places!

Between the Bank and Convenience store looking down “Main”. Here we have neighborhood commercial with apartments above.
Some of the commercial included: 4 restaurants ranging from fancy to “Faster” food.
The Charlotte Shoppe (gift shop), A spa, A doctor’s office, Spycom offices of a home security firm I think, Drycleaners, Mathnasium a tutoring facility.
The centralized walkable location of this corridor is what makes this development vibrant. It’s readily accessible to all 3 of the residential components the towns, the singles and the apartments.

Everywhere you look is beefy landscaping featuring 4 season appeal. This area will look nice in the dead of winter thanks to use of evergreens. You can tell the developer put thought into this. They didn’t just “meet the minimum requirements”
This is the parking for the “Main Street” neighborhood commercial. It’s BEHIND the storefronts. So the walk down main is pleasant since car storage is focused behind the buildings. This is parking for the commercial usage and the apartments.

The townhouse phase is still being built out and are in high demand. People WANT to live in walkable communities! This would possibly be considered a connector road but there are no reverse frontages. The townhomes feature an alley where cars are parked and homes are serviced with garbage ect. Bump outs and crosswalks calm traffic. More street facing retail.  I saw only one commercial vacancy in the whole project that featured a “coming soon” sign.

Do not politicize Ross Twp.

Posted on by

I didn’t want to write about this issue here on my blog. But again today I read extremely ignorant comments on articles about the Ross Twp. tragedy. To preface this, like most people I have the information I’ve read in articles. That is what I am basing my opinion on. Perhaps more information will come out at some point and the narrative on how and why this man lost his property will become clearer if there is missing information.

I’m very frustrated because there are people who choose to make this tragedy into political fodder. It disgusts me quite frankly. Makes me sick to my stomach. I see it in comments on every article about the issue by ignorant people trying to move forward mostly wing nut agendas.

This man who shot up a public meeting murdering innocent people is no “property rights martyr”. Saying this tragedy is about a twp. who “backed a man into a corner” by unfairly “taking his home” is insane and ignorant. Comments that imply the twp. schemed some wicked plot to take this man’s land and circumvent his property rights are way off base.

The facts as I understand them are this:

  • This man had 17 years of notices and warnings to deal with the issues he alone created. It’s clear this man never had any intention on remedying them. He had no regard for policy or procedure; or the same rules the rest of his community somehow manage to follow.
  • Really this goes back to 1990 when this man bought a property with a deed transfer that read: “The above described premises are considered wetlands, do not perc (for adequate septic disposal) and no building permit is obtainable for construction thereon.” He bought a property knowing he could not build on it but he did so anyway. Everything stems from this. Again, nearly 2 decades this has been an issue.

 

  • This man maintained a property in violation of rules and regulations setup to protect the health and well being of his community. The conditions are well documented. Property rights are a two way street. Yes, they protects your rights but also equally important your neighbors rights as well.

 

  • When neighbors complained the twp. had an OBLIGATION to react. Most twp’s for the most part don’t seek out ordinance violations they respond to complaints. That’s how it is for the most part here in Lower Macungie. The township responds to complaints. A complaint triggers action.
  • The twp. didnt “steal” this mans home. They didn’t “rob” him of his land. They followed procedures and the court system to the only logical conclusion after this man forced their hand and refused over work with them over 17 years to address the issues he created.

 

  • You cannot easily kick someone off their property. It’s a long drawn out process. Our system protects deadbeats. Ask any landlord if it’s easy to evict a deadbeat. The system protects the property owner or the renter in almost all cases.

 

  • It was not the intention of the twp. to “get” or “steal” the property. After sheriff sale proceedings, there were no bidders on the property so ownership transferred to the township, as the lien holder that filed the action.

If you want to argue against zoning ordinances in the United States make that silly argument. We’ve had zoning in the United states for nearly a century. Without it you have land use anarchy. For better or worse the property value of the biggest investment you make in your life is directly tied to your neighbors. Without zoning laws it’s a free for all.  I believe in bottom up gov’t, the rule of law and a communities right to enact a zoning ordinance. Conversely I also believe in a communities right to not enact a zoning ordinance if they so choose. (Houston, TX)

Bottom line do not politicize a tragedy. There is nothing more pathetic. Yes, this brings up conversations about security at municipal meetings and yes I have some thoughts. I would not support armed guards at township meetings. You acknowledge we live in a sometimes crazy world and you take precautions but you do not live in fear. We need to have these important conversations absolutely. But do not use this to push an agenda. That isn’t a conversation. That is standing on a soap box and this isn’t the time.

More on why municipal stormwater authorities make sense

Posted on by

Scott Alderfer nails it on his blog “streamhugger“. Scott is the chair of LMT’s EAC. There should be no taxpayer funded free rides for largescale developers when it comes to stormwater management. I don’t want to pay for poor design and I don’t want to make you pay for it. The entities who cause flooding and pollution are the ones who should pay. I am always for bottom up gov’t. This gives municipalities the tools we need to control flooding issues. The alternative is broad clumsy state or federal regulations which lead to unfunded mandates and strain on taxpayers.

I know there will be some people griping that this legislation somehow amounts to a new tax – a stormwater tax.  Hogwash.  One of the first things that any student of economics learns is TANSTAFL – the acronym standing for, “There Are No Such Things As Free Lunches.”  Whether we’re talking lunch or stormwater discharge, if you are not paying for it yourself, someone else is paying for it.

In the case of a shopping center discharging huge volumes of stormwater runoff from their expansive parking lots during and following intense rain events, that property is sending way more stormwater runoff to the nearest body of surface water than the undeveloped land would have discharged.  Therefore, that shopping center should improve their capacity to retain and infiltrate stormwater on their own property.  If they chose to ignore that responsibility, the local taxpayers should not pay for infrastructure to mitigate that runoff, and they should not be inconvenienced by flash flooding from inadequate, private stormwater management facilities.  Thus, a usage fee assessed by an MSA is exactly that – a fee for services rendered.  Cutting off a property owner from a free lunch – in this case taxpayer subsidized stormwater management – is clearly NOT a tax.

Photo Credit: Scott Alderfer – The Lower Macungie Wal-Mart discharges so much stormwaterwater into the little lehigh that it often causes Spring Creek Rd. flooding to the point of having to close the road for extended periods of time.

The Willows Restaurant floods last year after a rainfall.

Another one bites the dust..

Posted on by

From the “Friends for protection of Lower Macungie Twp.” Facebook page posted by Friends board member Scott Bieber yesterday. Friends LMT started as a group that fundraised to fight the Jaindl rezoning. Since then they have expanded their scope to cover local issues in the entire East Penn area with a goal of advocating for smart growth and keeping residents informed. I used to be the chair of the group but stepped down to run for Twp. Commissioner.

In the following post by Scott laments the loss of another historic structure in LMT:

Another barn bites the dust as Lower Macungie leaves behind its agricultural past and moves into the 21st century.

The Morris Stine barn on Spring Creek Road at Route 100 is being dismantled to make room for a commercial development. The Pennsylvania standard barn, made of limestone and oak timbers, was probably built about 1840-1850, according to Greg Huber, a local barn historian.

Most of the timbers and all of the nice stones, especially the square corner stones, are being salvaged and will be recycled into new buildings, according to Ken Muth, who was hired by the owner to take down the barn. Muth is the region’s most prominent barn dismantler and has salvaged hundreds of barns and old buildings throughoust eastern Pennsylvania.

Muth said the Stine barn is structurally sound and in good condition.

I remember the barn being used when the Stine farm was still active in the 1960s. That was when the township was still dominated by agriculture and you could shoot a rifle in almost any direction and not worry about hitting a house.

SCB

The township loses another historic barn. This one off of Spring Creek Rd near Rt. 100.

(Photo Credit Scott Bieber)

These historic structures warrant protection. How do we do it? Do I believe we should mandate their protection? My answer is yes but no. No because in the end regulating isn’t the most effective way to protect. The solution that is best for the community but fair to the property owner is making these barns reflect their true community value through a form of de-regulation. How do we do this? The zoning code. By opening up more by-right uses of these historic structures we can make it a financially smart decision to keep these structures and rehabilitate them. Think about it, If a developer or property owner can rehabilitate these structures (like the new owner of the Lichtenwalner barn on Brookside Rd) and rehabilitation becomes the path of least resistance, then property owners are motivated to value them.

Unfortunately now, in a commercial context the path of least resistance is tearing them down and starting over with a cookie cutter strip. The problem is euclidean zoning limits what you can do with these structures. I would advocate for more permitted uses for historic barns.

So the solution isn’t regulating, but rather de-regulating. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if this structure was saved because the developer/land owner could make just as much or more money turning it into luxury lofts or say a high end restaurant? Sadly, what we will get is the townships 3rd Dunkin Donuts, 5th convenience store or perhaps 4th box pharmacy in yet another characterless box.

The answer to keeping our local charm and protecting ALL our property values in this case isn’t regulating, but rather deregulating. This is what the concept of form based codes is all about. Conventional zoning tells you what you can put where. By it’s nature it’s restrictive. Form based zoning addresses the relationship between building and the public realm. It’s more flexible in use as long as the structure fits. It’s not so much the specific use, but moreso the form fits the neighborhood. This approach contrasts with conventional zoning’s focus on the micromanagement and segregation of land uses. It’s unlikely we would ever totally re-do our zoning into a form based code given we just spent money on updating our old euclidean code but we can incorporate some aspects. This is one opportunity.

The end result is something like this: (Which would you prefer living near?)

300 Year Old Barn Renovated Into a Modern Yet Rustic Residence

Instead of this:

Cookie cutter strip

Gov. Corbett signs Senate Bill 351 into law

Posted on by

Senate Bill 351 was co-sponsored locally by state Senator Pat Browne (R). I wrote a quick letter of thanks to him today. Synopsis here.

Senator Browne,

Thank you for co-sponsoring Senate Bill 351 allowing municipalities to create local Stormwater Authorities. Your leadership in this area is appreciated. Recently, I won the Republican primary as the highest vote getter here in Lower Macungie Township running largely on a platform of ensuring that developers pay their own way in terms of mitigating their negative impact. This includes traffic, infrastructure and of course stormwater.

As you know, Lower Macungie is one of the fastest growing in the state. This is a tool we can explore utilizing to ensure private developers are held responsible for costs to mitigate their stormwater impact. This can now be accomplished by providing incentives for private stormwater management therefore reducing costs to local governments and most importantly the taxpayers

We have flooding issues here in Lower Macungie that we have to get a handle on. This is a tool to do that. Additionally as you know the quality of our streams directly affect the city of Allentown as we are a major source of drinking water for the city and region.

Thank you,
Ron Beitler

 

How your local state officials voted on this legislation:
State Senate passed 49-1
Bob Mensch – YES
Pat Browne – YES

State House passed 135-66
Gary Day – YES
Mike Schlossberg – YES
Ryan Mackenzie – NO
Justin Simmons – NO

Essential reading as we study Hamilton Corridor.

Posted on by

We’re about to spend 125,000 in grant money to “identify a complete street strategy for the Hamilton Boulevard corridor emphasizing land use changes, public transit, and intermodal amenities“. This is a joint project of Upper & Lower Macungie and Penndot.

I ordered “The Boulevard Book – History, Evolution and Design of the Multiway Boulevard” a couple weeks ago. Last week I was able to start getting into it. Having read through the introduction and first couple of chapters I’ve found it to be a fantastic read.

The intro clearly lays out the value of a true boulevard concept. They are statistically safer and more aesthetically pleasing while increasing property value for adjacent properties. The book contains an immense amount of research and documentation. It also lays out the artificial and flawed reasoning why we no longer build grand avenues and boulevards.

Our commissioners have pledged to build a “world class boulevard”. A concept I am 100% in agreement with. A true blvd. pays close attention to many important concepts. Livability, mobility, safety, economic growth and open space to name a few. The opposite of a blvd. would be a commercial strip. Where a boulevard becomes a living part of the fabric of a community, a commercial strip slashes it’s way through a community killing property values creating congestion and ruining quality of life. A true boulevard is a value capture machine vs. strip arterials which almost always cost more in terms of liabilities then they produce in revenue.

This attractive and very functional boulevard accommodates a lot of traffic,
encourages walking, and still allows for parking in front of the building.

This strip mall on an ‘arterial’ lacks the character of the above boulevard. Most suredly property values are lower across the street from this place. This is not a place where many people would want to walk or spend time in other then in a car going from one place to another.

I will be copying the intro from this book and giving it to our commissioners. I see it as essential reading as we begin the PCTI study. A main point of the book is how today’s design criteria that focuses exclusively on the automobile and incorrect superficial assumptions about what makes a good street inevitably leads us to build statistically dangerous and soul-less places. If we are to build a “world class boulevard”, then we have to get past these roadblocks.

There are so many ingredients that go into a boulevard. Traffic flow, parking, delivery of services, walkers, bikers and of course how frontages interact with the boulevard in a cohesive fashion. 

I believe currently there is a disconnect between what we are saying and what we are doing. It’s no secret I am no fan of recent land development plans that are in my opinion counter to the goals of a blvd. Namely projects like the very “strippy” potential “American Kitchens” tract. Others recently such as “Shepards Crossing” are better considering our low bar but in my opinion we can push the envelope even more.

Yes, there is a learning curve between concept and changing our zoning to match the concept. But in the meantime we can be more aggressive in soliciting buy in from developers. Developers who can then request the appropriate variances to build context sensitive designs. Afterall we gave 88+ variances (some major) to Hamilton Crossings for the potential shopping center. You would think we could grant some to accomodate the goals of the boulevard project.

The Kairos group is the firm contracted to lead the PCTI study. The power point presentation was loaded onto the twp. website. I think alot of the stuff included in the presentation is wonderful. The Kairos group talks about some of the concepts in the boulevard book. For example, the roadblocks to building great places. They talk about the conventional approach vs. a context sensitive approach. I think it is critical to understand these two sometimes subtle but different approaches. The conventional approach is more likely to produce something more like the “strip arterial” above. Vs. the context sensitive approach which is more likely to produce the avenue above.

Here are some examples from the Kairos group that show what Hamilton could look like with a little vision, some regional cooperation and real buy-in by our elected leadership.

Hamilton Boulevard as it currently looks overlayed with an artists rendering of a boulevard concept.

Hamilton and Brookside intersection. Right now at certain times this is a heavily congested mess. A roundabout would allow the intersection to flow much more freely. Roundabouts are also proven to be much safer both for cars and pedestrians. Imagine working in the office buildings on Brookside and actually being able to walk to lunch at Hunan Springs without taking your life into your hands.

 

 

 

No political party owns “smart growth” issue

Posted on by

As a Republican I’m often frustrated with the notion that one party owns “smart growth”.

Republicans fall into certain traps regarding “smart growth” and the big picture behind it. The big picture in my opinion can be boiled down to one sentence. Smart Growth is about making growth pay it’s own way. It’s about rolling back gov’t subsidies for suburban sprawl and leveling the playing field. Charles Marohn and the strongtowns organization is dedicated to raising awareness of the fiscal issues with sprawl. Sprawl is a by-product of decades of gov’t meddling with the market.

It all comes down to the “growth ponzi scheme“.
The ponzi scheme is:

When a local unit of government benefits from the enhanced revenues associated with new growth, it also assumes the long-term liability for maintaining the new infrastructure. This exchange — a near-term cash advantage for a long-term financial obligation — is one element of a Ponzi scheme. – Strongtowns.org

There is a problem out there among certain conservative circles because there is a total misunderstanding of what smart growth is and means. Again for me it’s based on the paragraph above. And I can’t think of anything more conservative. Think about it, I want growth to pay it’s own way. I want to eliminate the subsidies so the playing field is even. I want to save taxpayers the burdens of the 2nd and 3rd lifecycle of greenfield development so we can keep tax rates predictable, stable and low.

So why don’t conservatives flock to “smart growth”?

I think you can chock some of it to blatant mis-information. Misinformation that is perpetuated by the extreme right wing crowd. I’m talking about the kind of folks that carry around ridiculous “agenda 21” pamphlets to public meetings. Smart growth is an easy target because as Bacon points out in the interview linked to below “planners use terms with political baggage meaning half of America tunes it out as white noise“. When you use terms that only other planners understand it becomes easy to mislabel a movement. This is a problem with the planning community and their refusal to be “jargon conscious”.

Nobody makes the case that conservatives should be smart growth champions better then James Bacon:

Political conservatives should be smart growth champions, with James Bacon

If you walk into a Republican-sponsored function and boast about supporting “smart growth” people will assume you hate liberty, you promote centralized planning, you oppose family values, and you think trees are more important than humans.

Smart Growth for Conservatives

Smart growth is too important to leave to liberals. Conservatives must articulate their own vision for creating prosperous, livable and fiscally sustainable communities.

The most important historical aspect one must understand to “get” why a conservative would be so passionate about smart growth is the fact that throughout the last 30 or so years gov’t entities including local, state and federal have been in the business of subsidizing sprawl.

Here is a post full of examples:

Conservative pols hate gov’t subsidies, unless they subsidize sprawl.

How do conservative voters and politicians square their hatred for government subsidies with their city-shunning sprawl patterns that suck the lifeblood out of local governments – and taxpayers? Outward sprawl forces jurisdictions to keep building new roads and schools and to extend emergency services farther and farther afield. Sprawl induces driving and leads to more public pressure to expand roads — a vicious circle of new development and new roads. Even in rural areas, one lane mile of new road can cost up to $9 million