Nationwide overhaul of land use laws needed

Developers, environmentalists, Realtors, builders, planners, governors, citiizens — nearly everybody is talking about smart growth. In just three years this term has become a buzz word nationwide, a concept that makes so much sense “it’s hard to find anyone against it,” according to Don Chen, director of Smart Growth America, a new coalition of planners, environmentalists, and preservationists. Joel Hirschhorn, of the National Governors Association, calls smart growth “the most powerful grass roots movement I have seen in 30 or 40 years.” Even the Urban Land Institute, representing US developers, has embraced the concept. Although definitions of smart growth vary somewhat, proponents all agree that it entails more compact, pedestrian friendly development with a mixture of uses. At their core, the principles of smart growth and those of the New Urbanism are the same. One would think that with such a broad array of backers, smart growth, aka the New Urbanism, is poised to take over America. One would be wrong. Smart growth is illegal Smart growth may be popular, make sense, save money, save open space, and reduce dependence on oil. It may result in better places for kids, parents, single people, and senior citizens. It may do all that, but it is still illegal across the United States. And changing these laws can be done only at the local level, at significant expense, one municipality at a time, thousands of times over. A study by University of Illinois researchers (see page 1 of this issue) brings home the magnitude of the task. Their survey examines land use laws in Illinois, and determines that codes all over the state make it difficult or impossible to build smart growth. The barriers include setback, block length, and lot size requirements, street standards, prohibitions against mixed use, and other aspects of codes. Unfortunately, similar barriers exist in every state. When developers try to build smart growth, they are frequently faced with zoning changes and multitudes of variances. The hearings bring out opponents to development of any kind. “Developers of new urbanist projects ... are often stymied by stringent government regulations and vociferous resident groups,” according to a recent report in Globe Street, an internet real estate publication. Due to these barriers, “a New Urbanist project requires extra effort, extra time, extra money,” according to Colorado developer Stephen Schuck, quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times. The smart growth agenda is being promoted most strenuously by environmental groups, professional organizations, and state governments. But most of these efforts are not addressing the biggest problem — local codes. One exception is Wisconsin, where the state passed a “smart growth” statute requiring cities and towns with more than 12,500 people to adopt model traditional neighborhood development ordinances. This law will take effect in 2002. Ultimately, the battle of smart growth will be won or lost at the local level. Until the codes change, smart growth will remain an enticing vision, and development will be dominated by sprawl.