Cooperation Instead of Confrontation
from Smart Growth Trends by Edward T. McMahon (Planning Commissioners Journal #33, Winter 1999)

"A few years ago cooperation between environmentalists and developers was unheard of. Not anymore. In one region after another, developers and environmentalists are working together to promote smart growth. Both recognize that Nimby-ism is the biggest obstacle to new development, no matter how well conceived.

Growth is going to occur. The real questions for most communities are: where should development take place, and what form should it take.

Developers and environmentalists are starting to cooperate to change local laws and policies that impede smart growth. Both realize that land use regulations need to be more flexible to allow for innovation. Street standards, parking lot design, stormwater management, wetlands regulation, open space protection, mixed use zoning, and tree preservation are all areas where builders and environmentalists are finding common ground.

This cooperative approach has led to a series of smart growth conferences and roundtables. It has also led to the development of new consensus-based design guidelines such as Better Site Design: A Handbook for Changing Development Rules in Your Community. This publication sets out twenty-two model development principles endorsed by interests as diverse as traffic engineers, planners, homebuilders, fire department administrators, and environmental organizations.

While builders, environmentalists, and planning commissioners will never see "eye-to-eye" on everything, it is certainly true that all these groups have much in common. Establishing non-adversarial mechanisms for identifying common interests is one planning trend that benefits us all.

1. Published by the Center for Watershed Protection, 8391 Main St., Ellicott City, Maryland. To order, phone: 410-461-8323.

"Last year I attended a conference on environmentally sensitive development conducted by the National Association of Home Builders. Most of the speakers were developers interested in building more compact, mixed use, pedestrian friendly communities. Almost to a person the builders complained about the inflexibility of local subdivision standards, particularly excessive residential street standards.

As one builder put it, "the typical code requires us to build roads wide enough to land a 747 on." Or as another builder explained, "too wide streets encourage speeding and are unattractive." Over-designed roads are also expensive. According to one expert, "over wide streets can add up to $9,000 to the cost of a house."

Sitting next to me throughout the conference was a representative of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a regional environmental organization devoted to restoring the health of the Chesapeake Bay. After the first complaint from a builder about residential road standards he turned to me and said, "I completely agree with him." An environmentalist and a developer in complete agreement. This would come as a shock to many people, but the environmentalist quietly explained that less pavement meant less run-off, less sedimentation, and less non-point source pollution. This in turn meant a healthier Chesapeake Bay.

We often hear people say that a healthy economy and healthy environment go hand and hand and yet innovative developers who would protect the environment are often stymied by inflexible regulations. Ironically, when an environmentally sensitive design varies from the letter of the law, developers must often spend time and money arguing for their plan. When the cost and delay are too great, the "by-the-book" project will prevail over innovation, even if it hurts the environment. ..."

Edward McMahon is a land use planner, attorney, and director of The Conservation Fund's "American Greenways Program." He is former president of Scenic America, a national non-profit organization devoted to protecting America's scenic landscapes. McMahon is a regular columnist for the Planning Commissioners Journal.

Agree on How to Disagree or How to Have Useful Discussions
from Building on Common Ground, by Joseph R. Molinaro (Planning Commissioners Journal #12, Fall 1993)

"Obviously, we will not agree on everything. But we must agree on how to disagree and how to engage in more productive discussions.

Let's agree to not use doomsday scenarios in defending our positions. Builders' and developers' doomsday scenarios tend to suggest that any new regulation will drive them out of business overnight and make it impossible for anyone to buy a new home. From the public sector, we often hear doomsday scenarios suggesting that unless a particular regulation is adopted, public safety will be at risk and someone will die as a result. For example, there's the "100-year party" scenario, which argues that because someday, someone will have a big party that attracts lots of cars, we must require four parking spaces per unit and a 40-foot wide street to allow for emergency vehicle access.

It is also imperative that we speak in clear language and define our terms more rigorously. Planning is characterized by a lot of vague terms, terms that lead to fuzzy thinking about what we are trying to accomplish. For example, the term "mixed use" is not useful. It does not tell us what the uses are, how the uses relate to each other, or whether people will drive or walk from one use to another. "Mixed use" could apply to everything from Manhattan to Disney World.

Another term that is tossed around carelessly is "town center." A developer may call his strip shopping center a town center, but we should challenge that developer and say "that is not a town center."

Joseph R. Molinaro, AICP, is former Director of Land Development Services for the National Association of Home Builders. Molinaro is also author of Rethinking Residential Streets, which appeared in PCJ #1.