Sprawled Out: The Search for Community in the American Suburb

My remarks to the Common Council regarding funding the Drexel Interchange

My remarks before the Franklin Common Council (made up of material posted here previously) made prior to their special meeting on funding the Drexel Interchange. More on the meeting -- and a fairly startling position taken by Northwestern Mutual -- later in the day:

This interchange will happen with or without our subsidy. 

But I couldn’t just watch as a city with countless infrastructure and service deficiencies votes to commit half a million dollars of Franklin taxpayer money -- cleverly camouflaged -- to an interchange project that is unneeded by Franklin, a community well-served by two interchanges. [NOTE: Actually THREE, counting College Avenue]

And spending money on a superfluous interchange even as the Federal government launches initiative after initiative and grant after grant designed to bolster communities that pursue Smart Growth principles and alternative transportation options is poor strategy, to say the least. 

The smart community looks FORWARD, not BACKWARD; off-ramp development strategies are yesterday’s mistakes that we don’t need to repeat today.

I attempted to bring this topic up at Monday’s Economic Development Commission meeting -- the mayor reminded me recently that the EDC is ostensibly in charge of the Franklin half of the 27th Street Steering Committee -- but I was told we could not discuss $500,000 in “enhanced lighting” funds for 27th street and the possible diversion of those funds to an interchange as per the failed motion of last Tuesday’s meeting.

Also: I had heard that, at the last council meeting, former EDC member and 27th Street Steering Committee chairman Ted Grinjes claimed that the EDC had advocated for the interchange. I asked at the last EDC meeting, and was told that that is not the case.

Do WE need an interchange? When site location consultants evaluate Franklin, we get an “A” by virtue of two interchanges perfectly bracketing the city. 

Northwestern Mutual, it should be noted, owns an enormous parcel of land on the Oak Creek side of 27th Street, across from their campus. Their $1.6 million contribution has nothing to do with cutting 95 seconds off of their employees’ commutes. Also, they are quoted in the paper this morning as saying that the funds were pledged way back when they were building the campus, and are not reflective of the current economic or transit situation.

As a practical matter, the Rawson and Ryan interchanges create a natural traffic flow onto 27th Street, which is supposed to be our commercial jewel, the marketing alone of which is evidently worth our spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. Frankly, a Drexel interchange breaks that advantageous flow. 

Perhaps the deal we make with Oak Creek is this: We will suffer the interchange’s diversion of traffic as well as Northwestern Mutual’s $1.6 million leaving our community -- a community that didn’t get Northwestern Mutual here for free, by the way -- in return for freeing our $500,000 “enhanced lighting” pledge so we can actively promote and incentivise economic development in and around our neighborhoods and commercial areas, creating higher property values and a deep, sustainable local economy.

On the other hand, Franklin can continue to postpone maintenance and needed upgrades. "Fiscal conservative" aldermen can continue to attempt to derail pedestrian facilities such as the one planned for in front of our high school as "too expensive," while tripping over themselves to send $500,000 to Oak Creek -- and get their hands on a Golden Shovel at the groundbreaking.

These same “fiscal conservatives” are fond of reminding us that “the market will determine” whether this or that development will occur. They are not fond of the idea of even small incentives created by the city to help shape development that is more economically and socially valuable to the community in the long term -- rather than simply a good turn of the dollar for a developer in the short term. 

Yet, here we are, willing to dump $500,000 into an interchange that the market does not seem to be begging for.

SO, after the meeting, get back in your car; if you want to enjoy a coffee and conversation it will have to be in another community, because Franklin has not been "creative" enough up to this point to inspire a single coffee shop, deli, ice cream store, or other public gathering place within walking distance of its library, city hall and central city park.

And, as soon as this superfluous Interchange goes in, any chance Franklin had at developing the sorts of neighborhood-based, human-scale amenities that spur growth of a deep, sustainable local economy will be dashed like a bug on a windshield. It'll be Starbucks, Perkins, Sbarro, Dairy Queen, Burger King, Pizza Hut, etc. -- the royal court of fast food --  all swarmed up close to interchange, suckling on the sea of cars exiting for a bite before they get right back on and back up to speed.

Because, you see, we're on the road to becoming a drive-thru town, and tonight will seal the deal.

My drive-thru city gets ready to subsidize a superfluous interchange: "Politicians get reelected by building (and funding) new shiny roads and bridges that offer plenty of photo-ops and nice padding for their resumes come election time."

 

Tonight there will be a special Common Council meeting in Franklin regarding the superfluous Drexel Interchange. 

[NOTE: See update at bottom of post]

Come and bear witness to the overwhelming power of the road building lobby. Watch as a city with countless infrastructure and service deficiencies will almost certainly vote to commit half a million dollars of Franklin taxpayer money -- cleverly camouflaged -- to an interchange project that is A) unneeded by Franklin, well-served by two interchanges, and B) bound to occur whether or not Franklin throws city funds at Oak Creek -- even as the Federal government launches initiative after initiative designed to bolster communities that pursue alternative transportation options.

There are politicians already penciling in the anticipated date of groundbreaking so they can get there for their photo opp. You would be very naive to think Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker's March leash-snapping in Florida (Florida?) by Wisconsin road builders did not include pointed, back-room reminders as to the fact they effectively own him. (I picture elegant table centerpieces at a gala "build we must" banquet, each festooned with the name of a promised project. Right next to the relish on Table 16: The Drexel Interchange.) 

It's a done deal.

Any politician betting on a Walker gubernatorial victory very likely got on the phone. Greendale Republican legislator Jeff Stone, who "brokered" the potential Oak Creek-Franklin pay-to-play deal, will expect his reward, and a Golden Shovel at the gala groundbreaking.

Meanwhile, Franklin will continue to postpone maintenance and needed upgrades. "Fiscal conservative" aldermen will attempt to derail pedestrian facilities in front of our high school as "too expensive," while tripping over themselves to send $500,000 to Oak Creek -- and get their hands on a Golden Shovel. 

Franklin Mayor Tom Taylor -- who could have broken the deadlock at the last common council meeting, and, to his credit, did not fall sway to siren call of the Golden Shovel -- has said he does not want Franklin taxpayer funds going across 27th Street to Oak Creek. He wants the council to "get creative" in tonight's meeting. He is likely barking up the wrong tree.

So, come and watch - 6pm at Franklin City Hall. And, after the meeting, get back in your car; if you want to enjoy a coffee and conversation it will have to be in another community, because Franklin has not been "creative" enough up to this point to inspire a single coffee shop, deli, ice cream store, or other public gathering place within walking distance of its library, city hall and central city park. 

And, as soon as this superfluous Interchange goes in, any chance Franklin had at developing the sorts of neighborhood-based, human-scale amenities that spur growth of a deep, sustainable local economy will be dashed like a bug on a windshield. It'll be Starbucks, Perkins, Sbarro, Dairy Queen, etc., all swarmed up close to interchange, suckling on the sea of cars exiting the interchange for a bite before they get back on and barrel onward.

Because, you see, we're a drive-thru town, and tonight will seal the deal. 

••••••

More from Infrastructurist:

We’ve discussed how democracy has played a major part in our failure to have a modern rail system. And like it or not, our electoral system has had a bigger role than most people would like to admit in contributing to the dire state of our existing infrastructure. A report released this week by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, titled “Road Work Ahead: Holding Government Accountable for Fixing America’s Crumbling Roads and Bridges,” supports this idea:

The deterioration of our roads and bridges is no accident. Rather, it is the direct result of countless policy decisions that put other considerations ahead of the pressing need to preserve our investment in the highway system. Political forces often undermine a strong commitment to maintenance: Members of Congress, state legislators and local politicians thrive on ribbon-cuttings. Powerful special interests push for new and bigger highways. Meanwhile, federal and state policies – which should provide strong guidance in the wise use of taxpayer dollars – often fail to achieve the proper balance between building new infrastructure and taking care of what we already have built.

In other words, politicians get reelected by building (and funding) new shiny roads and bridges that offer plenty of photo-ops and nice padding for their resumes come election time. What’s far less sexy and soundbite-worthy is “I fixed every crumbling bridge and pothole-ridden road in this state.” For an unskilled politician, these massive new projects can lead to disaster (the Bridge to Nowhere, anyone?). But for most always-election-ready officials in D.C., new highways and bridges are easy makeshift symbols of progress and “getting things done.”

via www.infrastructurist.com

••••••

I learned via Greg Kowalski that turnout for the special meeting will likely be sparse due to other activities planned for tonight:

FRANKLIN PUBLIC LIBRARY: All meeting rooms are BOOKED tonight

FOREST PARK MIDDLE SCHOOL: Franklin Citizens for Community Development at 6:30pm. 

FRANKLIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS is having their reorganization meeting tonight

GREENDALE HIGH SCHOOL has a nationally-known speaker on teen/parent relationships tonight starting at 6pm. 

The folly of funding the Drexel Interchange: Part 2 - Subsidizing an off-ramp economy rather than creating a community-strengthening, sustainable DEEP economy

Continuing my discussion of a proposed Interchange on Drexel Avenue (see Part 1).

First, an updated report from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

The [Oak Creek] Common Council on Thursday scheduled a special meeting for 6 p.m. Monday to discuss the city's financial commitment to a possible I-94 interchange at Drexel Ave.

The council has already adopted a resolution pledging $3.75 million in city money. At time [sic], that was equal to 25% of the $15 million that the state Department of Transportation estimated the interchange would cost.

The DOT, however, requires 50% in local money to build an interchange.

Recently, however, the DOT reduced its cost estimate to $12.9 million and Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance, which has a large office complex in Franklin, has pledged $1.6 million toward the interchange cost.

The City of Franklin has not pledged any money to the proposed interchange, although it has said it would cover $500,000 in lighting on the Franklin side of S. 27th St. That would normally be the responsibility of the DOT.

A new resolution to be considered at Monday's special meeting would commit Oak Creek to the same $3.75 million it previously pledged for the interchange, plus $650,000 in lighting for Drexel Ave. and S. 27th St. and related utility costs.

The resolution was to have been considered at the council's regular meeting Tuesday, but the discussion was postponed.

The Franklin Common Council said this week it is open to further negotiations on a Drexel interchange.

So, Oak Creek -- a beneficiary of the superfluous-to-Franklin interchange by virtue of its location relative to Howell Ave. and the vacant Delphi plant; why wouldn't they be all for it? -- waits for Franklin to flinch. They are good poker players.

But if Franklin is smart, the city will stand pat and keep its half-million out of this blatant subsidy.

I'm pessimistic about the city's ability to play their cards right, though. Unfortunately, past and present Franklin members of the 27th Street Steering Committee suffer from cognitive dissonance when it comes to economic development in that area. This group, composed of self-professed "true conservatives," has gotten used to tossing around numbers like $265,823 for marketing materials related to 27th Street. Once you've committed to a writing checks like that, a half-mil is not so hard to part with when it might actually result in an actual work product (and, obviously, Boomgaard does not count as a positive outcome).

Meanwhile, putting sidewalk facilities in front of Franklin's high school (finally!) during the impending reconstruction of 51st street -- a vital, common sense piece of the rehabilitation this city sorely needs -- is bemoaned by 27th Street chair and Franklin alderman Steve Olson because, true conservative that he is, he believes the city should not spend money that, in his view, it does not have. (On the positive side, it should be noted that Alderman Olson is no Scrooge; he donated $50 to the Franklin Trails Committee's Walking Workshop, held last weekend.).

Here are some truths that need to be understood:

1. The interchange will be built, whether or not Franklin subsidizes it with its half million dollar "enhanced lighting" Trojan horse payment. The powerful road-building lobby has this in hand, and will deploy their bought-and-paid-for advocates;
2. Does an interchange near city limits create jobs? Yes - site location consultants count access to a freeway as a plus for any community they are considering;
3. When site location consultants evaluate Franklin for freeway access as a potential asset, they put a big gold star next to the city's name: The Rawson and Ryan interchanges bracket the city perfectly. (New interchange? No thanks - we're good);
4. Does a third(!) interchange near city limits create jobs? Yes, but 99% of them require a hair net and pay minimum wage;
5. Why is Northwestern Mutual kicking in? Northwestern Mutual owns a large parcel of land across 27th Street from their Franklin corporate campus. $1.6 million is a small price to pay to create the possibility of a lucrative off-ramp development (they are surely not looking to cut 95 seconds from their employees' commutes);
6. Franklin is facing infrastructure and municipal service challenges to the extent that $500,000 can and should be utilized within city limits, or on regional efforts that are more likely to strengthen the city's sustainability;
7. The Rawson and Ryan interchanges create a natural traffic flow onto 27th Street, which is supposed to be our commercial jewel, the marketing of which is evidently worth our spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. Frankly, a Drexel interchange breaks that advantageous flow;
8. The newly-created ramp-blight vs. potential opportunity equation weighs distinctly against Franklin. Off-ramp fast food jobs do not offset increased road damage, heightened "drive-thru community" image problems, and diversion of traffic away from already-expensive 27th Street.

Franklin faces a clear choice: Spend a half-million dollars to subsidize off-ramp fast food franchises and shoot more and faster traffic through town, or use that money to bolster a sustainable, deep economy that will attract quality businesses and jobs.

So, if site location consultants feel that Franklin is already well situated with regard to freeway access, what other factors do they look at that Franklin ought to work on improving? We'll look at that in Part 3 (and, hopefully, at the Economic Development Commission meeting on Monday night).

The "Enhanced Lighting" Trojan Horse and the folly of funding the Drexel Interchange: Part 1

 

 

TOP PHOTO: Abandoned restaurant on 27th street directly across the street from the Northwestern Mutual corporate campus, 2006. ABOVE: Same abandoned restaurant, 30 minutes ago.

An interesting debate is occurring in neighboring Oak Creek and Franklin regarding a proposed Interchange on Drexel Avenue.

Let's get this out of the way right now: This interchange will be built. Promises have been made, money has changed hands. The question is whether Franklin will be suckered into paying for an interchange we don't need.

The proposed interchange is in Oak Creek, directly adjacent to their growing Howell Avenue commercial corridor, a strip-mall-clogged, drive-thru abomination that nonetheless provides some level of sales tax and property tax revenue to the city, and that's nothing to sneeze at.

The citizens of Oak Creek -- which is an otherwise beautiful suburban community, don't get me wrong -- probably don’t point to this particular strip with civic pride (but, hey, there’s a Sonic Drive-In there!). On the other hand, a huge plot of land containing an abandoned manufacturing plant is ripe for just the kind of development that direct proximity to an interchange can bring; a new interchange would almost certainly put that parcel into play. Oak Creek has much to gain from what is to Franklin a superfluous interchange.

The length of Drexel Avenue between the proposed interchange and 27th Street, which is supposed to be marketed and developed as an Oak Creek/Franklin partnership, is laughably under-engineered. Though the road is ostensibly part of the Oak Leaf Bike Trail, it has no shoulder to speak of and is a virtual death-trap for any biker brave enough to traverse it.

The State Department of Transportation, which requires a 50% local-money commitment to new interchanges, has set a May 1st deadline for Franklin and Oak Creek to collaborate on funding their "shares."

Northwestern Mutual, whose campus in on the Franklin side of 27th Street, has offered to contributes $1.6 million to the interchange project. So their employees can get to work 90 seconds quicker from the south? No -- they own the empty land on the Oak Creek side of 27th Street, where an urban village has been envisioned.

Now it gets complicated, and I’ll paraphrase at this point. As part of the Oak Creek/Franklin 27th Street partnership, both cities committed to a half million dollars each for “enhanced lighting” on 27th Street.

“Enhanced lighting?”

Anyway, long story short: The State DOT said, in effect, we’ll pay for the “enhanced lighting” (“enhanced lighting”?), if Oak Creek and Franklin toss their funds originally earmarked for “enhanced lighting” (“enhanced lighting”?!?!) into the “build an Interchange” pot.

So, instead of paying for what could be considered an improvement for the potential 27th Street Corridor -- of benefit to Franklin AND Oak Creek -- Franklin taxpayers will be tricked into paying a half million dollars for an Oak Creek interchange of no real benefit to Franklin, a city which is bracketed nicely by the Rawson and Ryan Interchanges.

Last night, according to The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The Franklin Common Council deadlocked on a proposal made by Ald. Steve Olson. Olson proposed that Franklin pay for $500,000 in lighting improvements on S. 27th St. that normally would be the obligation of the DOT if the DOT built the Drexel interchange and required no money from Franklin for the interchange.

You don't even have to read between the lines to see the folly of such a move! The Trojan Horse was stopped at the door. For now.

Funny thing is: Oak Creek also took no action regarding the Drexel Interchange.

They are turning out to be much better poker players than the Franklin side of the road.

Part 2 to come, in which we discuss bad poker, new priorities and opportunities, and the effects of cognitive dissonance on 27th Street Steering Committee members  ...

Proposed agenda items for next Economic Development Meeting

 

Here are my submitted agenda items for the Franklin Economic Development Commission meeting scheduled for Monday, April 26 (6pm; room to be announced).

I'll post the agenda when it appears; unfortunately, there is no guarantee that any of these items will appear.

1) Digital Visioning Presentation: This will reprise the presentation I gave, at the mayor's request, to the Ad Hoc Development Process Review Committee. IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HAVE POWERPOINT CAPABILITIES FOR THIS; I can make paper handouts if PowerPoint is not possible. [Note: I'm long overdue in sharing my Digital Visioning presentation here on SPRAWLED OUT. The illustration above is a preview.]

2) Franklin Trails Committee update: Walking Workshop and next steps.

3) Web 2.0 and Economic Development: Discussion of implementations to the City of Franklin website that can be made at little or no cost; discussion of FaceBook page for Franklin Economic Development news and issues; etc.

4) Re-engagement with/re-assessment of the 27th Street project: I'm told by Mayor Taylor that the Economic Development Commission is essentially responsible for the 27th Street Steering Committee, yet it is my opinion/observation that the EDC membership is woefully under-informed as to the issues facing the project as well as the monies being spent. (I note, for instance, that the 4/20/10 Common Council agenda item G.5 concerns the Drexel Avenue Interchange in relationship to 27th Street, and the EDC has not offered the Common Council a recommendation on the issue.)

I think we have to:

• Tear this thing down to its component pieces, review the timeline, and make sure this ongoing expenditure still makes sense in the current (and anticipated) economic climate, as well as in light of Oak Creek's evolving indifference; and
• If we're going forward, reassess the streetscape planning and design to leverage new federal grant and funding opportunities that accompany certain design choices that I do NOT see in any current streetscape drafts.

If the 27th Street reassessment means distributing a bunch of binders full of review information at this meeting and then holding the discussion at a subsequent meeting (after the EDC membership has had time to review the material), so be it.

Making technology work: Lone blogger leapfrogs city's Technology Commission

Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!

Hats off to Franklin blogger Greg Kowalski for doing what the City of Franklin's Technology Commission evidently cannot; Simply visit his Franklin Today Community Meetings and Events page and you'll be presented with a GoogleCalendar interface loaded with city events and meetings (see above).

If you have a GoogleCalendar account, one click of the "subscribe" button (the little "+" in the lower right corner) integrates all of these events to your calendar and it automatically updates as needed.

Technology Commission: Can you emulate Kowalski and get this simple-but-extremely useful Web 2.0 implementation on the City of Franklin website, ASAP?

"Hey - this city-planning stuff is easy." SimCity Deluxe coming soon to iPhone

 
SimCity should be required "play therapy" for Common Council and Plan Commission members:

An updated version of the the preferred game for those who want to create cities and watch them prosper or founder is coming to the iPhone this summer. SimCity Deluxe from EA Mobile will have a user interface that improves on the current Sim City offering, with enhancements that make it look a bit more SimCity 4 on the PC. SimCity has been popular on the iPhone since it was released in 2008.

The game includes different seasons (with appropriate disasters, of course) and 7 starter cities just waiting for you to run them into the ground. The new version will sport improved frame rates, and the ability to modify terrain with a touch and swipe of your finger. These type of games go way back. I remember playing Santa Paravia which was a similar, but considerably more primitive economic simulation, way back when it was on the TRS-80. Ah, memories. The new SimCity Deluxe will work on the iPhone and iPod touch, and I reckon that you can count on an iPad version as well.[via Slide to Play]

via www.tuaw.com

UPDATE: The Party of NO: Thanks to Republican Senator Jim Bunning, We Have NO More Federal Transportation Law, and That’s Bad

 

3/3/10 Update: Sanity prevails - Senate extends Highway Trust Fund; DOT employees back on the job Wednesday

From INFRASTRUCTURIST.

Here’s a rundown of what happened: Late last week, Republican Sen. Jim Bunning filibustered a bill to extend federal unemployment benefits, arguing that the government needed to add a provision stipulating how it would pay the $10 billion tab. As a result, the Transportation Department has announced it’s going to furlough 2,000 employees (though it could be double that) without pay — including people like federal inspectors that keep state construction projects going. The job cuts will come from the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration.

What else does this all mean? We’ll likely see a total shutdown of federal funding for road, bridge, bike-ped, and transit projects, since a short-term extension of the Highway Trust Fund was attached to the dead bill. The government will also halt the processing of funds for stimulus construction work, which means the remainder of the ARRA money will sit gathering dust. And to top it all off, the federal spigot will be dry for state-based road safety groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

Economic Development: With a budget stretched thin, how about PROCESS incentives?

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." Thomas Edison

The Franklin Economic Development Commission spent a total of 30 minutes on Monday evening discussing possible incentives to commercial/business development the city. Unfortunately, no one present beside myself had attended the first meeting of the Ad Hoc Development Process Review Committee (the EDC representative to the ad hoc committee, Jim Kerr, was absent), so redundant specific process issues -- already addressed in a detailed plan staff proposal distributed at the Development Process Review Committee meeting -- dominated the early discussion. 

Given a city budget with no room for offering financial subsidies (and the fact that these subsidies tend to bite you back), I proposed taking advantage of the soon-to-be unveiled streamlined development process by offering PROCESS incentives to developers willing to meet certain yet-to-be-defined "Development Targets."

The snarled knot of fishing line that represents our current development process makes it nearly impossible to offer any sort of process relief. In other words -- using yet another metaphor --  if you're facing a giant tangle of logs, removing any one of them arbitrarily can bring the whole mess down. However, once we have an orderly structure, choosing which fees, waiting periods, approvals, etc. to waive or minimize can be done effectively and to the advantage of the developer.

As I noted when Franklin Automotive came to the EDC inquiring about possible incentives (see link for detailed explanation and graphics), there are opportunities early in the development process to improve poor site designs, unimaginative building plans, and to add other proven, market-friendly elements that spur further positive growth in the community. It's becoming clear, after all, that communities which can offer a diverse selection of neighborhoods, stores, businesses and public spaces are best weathering these tough economic times.

I noted in this space how the city's leading developer, Mark Carstensen, remarked that as far as he was concerned, building a Traditional Neighborhood Development-type (TND) subdivision -- the kind that has seen big success in communities across the country -- is impossible in Franklin. In Mequon, however, his company encountered actual incentives to build a TND development, and he reports that everyone was pleased with the end product.

So, I passed out the material below, explaining: We don't talk about process items; there's a committee doing that already (they meet again Thursday night at 5pm; in my chart I "greeked" sample process steps rather than try to attempt to illustrate the actual process). Instead, we leverage the impending improved system by finding a way to assess proposals early so the EDC can act as advocate for certain projects in its advisory capacity to the Common Council.

No one agreed with me. Or disagreed with me - - - My materials (posted below) were not discussed. We adjourned after a total of 59 minutes.

Somewhere, Thomas Edison shook his head in disbelief.

  

 

Download "EDC Development Incentive"

"The developers’ favorite role models, the laissez faire free-for-alls, are the most troubled, the suburban slums."

 

Tomorrow night is the first meeting of the Franklin Mayoral Ad Hoc Development Process Review Committee. It's mission, in short, is to streamline our development and approval process so developers can be more effective. I will attend, record, and post all pertinent documents.

Download Dev proc ad hoc agenda 2-18

Download Dev proc ad hoc resolution

The agenda has no "public comment" item included; I will be curious to see whether this will be a process that genuinely makes possible better development or if it'll simply be a forum for the two developers on the committee to vent their frustration and demand that standards be lowered further; "Get out of my way, I'm trying to turn a quick profit here!"

In a best case scenario where the development process is made more user-friendly, can we begin to expect developments with site plans that are more like the "after" example above, complete with more long term gains for developer and city alike?

Or, how about some "suburban rehab" to correct some of our existing, unsustainable mistakes and spur economic growth, as illustrated below? (Urban Sprawl Repair Kit via Inhabitat):

 

Unfortunately, there is no one on the new Committee who has demonstrated any particular affinity for Smart Growth, sustainable development practices, or any effort to significantly raise the standards to which developers must rise.

For those who think we can afford to just continue sprawling out wherever the developer's dart lands, here's potent food for thought via the New York Times online opinion section:

In the meantime, during these low, ragged years, a few lessons about urban planning can be picked from the stucco pile.

One is that, at least here in California, the outlying cities themselves encouraged the boom, spurred by the state’s broken tax system. Hemmed in by property tax limitations, cities were compelled to increase revenue by the easiest route: expanding urban boundaries. They let developers plow up walnut groves and vineyards and places that were supposed to be strawberry fields forever to pay for services demanded by new school parents and park users.

Second, look at the cities with stable and recovering home markets. On this coast, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and San Diego come to mind. All of these cities have fairly strict development codes, trying to hem in their excess sprawl. Developers, many of them, hate these restrictions. They said the coastal cities would eventually price the middle class out, and start to empty.

It hasn’t happened. Just the opposite. The developers’ favorite role models, the laissez faire free-for-alls — Las Vegas, the Phoenix metro area, South Florida, this valley — are the most troubled, the suburban slums.

Come see: this is what happens when money and market, alone, guide the way we live.

Read the rest here: Slumburbia (New York Times)