Testimony of Don Chen, Executive Director of Smart
Growth America
United States Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Wednesday, March 6, 2002
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, thank you for holding today’s
hearing on Smart Growth.
I am the Executive Director of Smart Growth America, a
nationwide coalition of more than 70 organizations, including the Enterprise
Foundation, the League of Women Voters for Smart Growth, American Farmland
Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the National Low-Income Housing
Coalition. Together, we promote smart
growth, a strategy of development that makes efficient use of natural resources
and infrastructure, revitalizes neighborhoods, keeps housing affordable,
protects farmland and open space, and provides people with more transportation
choices.
Smart Growth is a local issue that is driven by decisions
made by individuals and families. These
include everything from a developer’s decision to build a variety of
residential, commercial and retail buildings near a transit station to a farmer
or rancher’s decision to sell development rights to boost the viability of
working his land.
Land use decisions are
made locally, so many people naturally ask the question, is there a federal
role in smart growth? The
answer—unequivocally—is yes. Local and
individual land use decisions are influenced by incentives and policies that
have been made at the local, state and federal levels. The federal government has had an enormous
impact on development patterns for decades, if not centuries. A 1999 Fannie Mae Foundation survey of
leading urban scholars found the Interstate Highway System and the Federal Housing
Administration’s home mortgage insurance program to be ranked as the top two
influences in shaping American cities and metropolitan development during the
past half century.
The federal government
has affected development patterns in the past, and will continue to do so in
the future. The real question is, what
is the appropriate role? There are four
functions.
First, the federal government should share information about best
practices, decision-making tools, and research. State and local governments do not have the capacity to identify,
analyze or develop tools, such as complex predictive computer models or urban
planning software, nor should they need to reinvent the wheel in search of
practices and policies that will allow them to use their economic and natural
resources more efficiently.
Federal agencies can assist states and communities by disseminating
information such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s new
report on modern rehabilitation codes, entitled Smart Codes in Your Community:
A Guide to Building Rehabilitation Codes (August 2001). The report identifies and analyzes state
innovations that have yielded substantial smart growth benefits. For example, in 1997 the State of New Jersey
worked with developers, firefighters, building inspectors and environmental
groups to adopt a ground-breaking rehabilitation code to encourage the
renovation of decaying buildings. This
new code was necessary because in the past, rehabilitation codes were mainly
derived from inflexible new construction standards, which often required
unreasonable overhauls of older buildings.
Within a year after these new codes were adopted, rehabilitation
investment statewide rose by 8 percent.
In the cities of Newark, Jersey City and Trenton, spending increased by
60 percent, 83 percent and 40 percent, respectively. Gains in Newark totaled $41 million. The strategy was so
successful that other states, such as Maryland, are following suit. The HUD report catalogues these emerging
building rehabilitation codes to help other states and localities address the
widespread problem of decaying or abandoned properties, a top priority for HUD
Secretary Mel Martinez.
Rehabilitation
codes and other smart growth tools are already being used nationwide to help
communities make decisions on how their communities can grow. For instance, PLACE3S (PLAnning
for Community, Energy, Economic, and Environmental Sustainability) is a set of
predictive computer models developed by the Department of Energy that helps
communities understand how their growth and development decisions can lead to
better economic, community, and environmental outcomes. It integrates planning, design, and
quantitative measurement into a public involvement process that is appropriate
for both regional and neighborhood-scale planning. PLACE3S evaluates how efficiently a community
integrates land uses, provides housing and jobs, transports people and
materials, allocates public infrastructure improvements, and uses other
resources. It
has proven to be an invaluable component of many recent transportation and
land-use planning projects across the U.S. and is increasingly in demand.
For
example, the city of Salem, Oregon is creating a city-wide preferred growth
strategy using the PLACE3S model.
The city held a series of workshops to apply three land use scenarios
throughout Salem and analyze their impacts on nine neighborhoods. Workshop participants were asked to create a
number of alternative land use scenarios that met a target range of housing and
employment densities that matched the city’s vision and principles for future
population growth. The PLACE3S
model was used interactively to adjust the new scenarios in real time, compare
them against existing land uses and current zoning for each geographic
location, and then analyze the potential “livability” of a new land use
alternative based on a predefined set of community indicators, such as
jobs/housing balance, annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and air pollution
costs.
In Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, several communities
are currently engaged in a strategic community planning process to create a
regional comprehensive plan that addresses the future of their
communities. CommunityViz, a software
tool developed by the Orton
Family Foundation, allows planners, landowners, and interested citizens to
create and manipulate a virtual representation of a town, and explore different
land use scenarios and make informed decisions on issues that affect their
quality of life.
Mr. Chairman, I
understand that you are interested in developing legislation to catalogue
community decision-making and visualization tools and provide assistance to
communities wishing to employ such tools.
Smart Growth America would welcome the opportunity to work with you in
that effort.
Second, the federal
government should provide financial assistance to states and localities to
enable them to invest in practices and policies that they believe are in the
best economic and environmental interest of their citizens. A tangible example of the federal
government’s valuable role was a recent grant that the EPA provided to the
Envision Utah project, which enabled residents of the Greater Wasatch Area to
deploy state-of-the-art demographic projection and land use mapping techniques
to better plan for future growth. Using
long-range planning and visioning tools, project leaders determined that
continued sprawling, low-density development would result in a doubling of the
Greater Wasatch Area’s urbanized land area.
They estimated that a smarter growth scenario featuring major
investments in public transit would save 171 square miles of open space, reduce
the amount of driving by 2.4 million miles per day, decrease commute times by
5.2 percent, increase average speeds by 12.5 percent, and save the region $4.6
billion in infrastructure costs. Under
the leadership of Governor Mike Leavitt, the region is now pursuing the
attainment of these smart growth outcomes, which will likely include
infrastructure savings for the federal government as well as broad
environmental benefits.
Third, the federal
government should support smart growth innovations that give local governments
more flexibility in meeting federal requirements. A great example that merits replication is the Atlantic Station
development in Atlanta, Georgia, which applied smart growth principles to meet
federal air quality standards. To be
built on the site of the old Atlantic Steelworks, this 138-acre mixed-use
transit-oriented development project had the misfortune of requiring a small
bridge to improve connectivity with the region’s transit and road network at a
time when Atlanta was under a federally mandated moratorium preventing
investment in such infrastructure. The
moratorium was the result of Atlanta’s lapse in federal air quality
conformity—a necessary step to protect the public health. However, at the request of the developer,
the EPA’s technical staff determined that the site’s new neighborhood would in
fact reduce regional travel by 50 million miles per year because of its
excellent public transit access, walkability, and compact street design. In addition to reduced traffic, the project
is expected to decrease air pollution and its innovative stormwater management
system will reduce the volume of polluted runoff. The project’s smart growth benefits enabled the bridge
construction to go forward and led to EPA’s official guidance that allows smart
growth developments to qualify as Transportation Control Measures under the
Clean Air Act.
Fourth, the federal government should get its own house
in order so that its activities support states and localities in their efforts
to pursue smarter growth. The federal government has a major presence in
communities all across America, and its daily operations should not interfere
with state or local efforts to encourage smart growth. This ranges from the location and design of
federal facilities, including disposal of HUD foreclosed abandoned buildings,
to offering federal employees a choice to receive either pre-tax parking or
public transit benefits at equal cash value.
This Committee has taken up the federal facilities issue through its
interest in the Downtown Equity Act, introduced by Senator Leahy in the 106th
Congress, and which would require federal offices to be located in existing
business districts. We hope that it
will be reintroduced and that progress is made on this important measure.
The federal government’s role in supporting smart growth
has become increasingly important, as rapid changes in development patterns
overwhelm state and local governments trying to keep up with rising demands for
public services, facilities and infrastructure. In particular, several trends underscore the need for federal
action.
First, housing affordability remains a dire and
persistent problem for an astounding number of Americans. According to the Congressionally-established
Millennial Housing Commission, twenty-eight million Americans do not have
access to decent, affordable housing. In
2000, the National Low-Income Housing Coalition reported that there was not a
locale in the United States where a full-time minimum-wage earner could afford
fair-market rent for a two-bedroom apartment.
According to a new paper by Anthony Downs, Senior Fellow at the
Brookings Institution, affordable housing too often exists in either declining
neighborhoods that are geographically isolated from opportunities, or in fringe
ex-urban areas and require residents to spend a large proportion of their
income on car travel, which according to the Department of Commerce accounts for 40 percent
of income for America’s lowest-wage earners.
Another new report from the Brookings Institution presents the academic
evidence debunking the claim that smart growth and affordable housing are at
odds. This paper shows that good growth
management policies increase affordable housing opportunities even in
communities that are in high demand.
Second, traffic problems are stifling the economies of
regions all across America. Traffic congestion costs Americans $78 billion in lost time and
wasted fuel, and the average person spends 36 hours per year stuck in
traffic. What we once referred to as
“rush hour” now lasts three hours and occurs twice a day. This hurts everyday commuters, but it is
especially harmful for low-income workers, who face the unenviable choice
between the costly ownership and operation of a car and public transportation
services that are inadequately funded to meet the public’s demands.
Third, consumer housing preferences are changing. According to a new study published by the Fannie
Mae Foundation, aging baby boomers will constitute a growing proportion of
homebuyers in the next decade, and many of them express a preference for
compact, walkable neighborhoods over low-density conventional sprawl. The report’s authors—two professors from the
University of Southern California—estimate that between 31 and 55 percent of
active homebuyers will prefer this type of “smart growth” or “New Urban”
development during the coming decade.
Unfortunately, the report’s authors are pessimistic about the ability of
the market to meet this growing demand because of the rigid finance, insurance,
planning and regulatory conventions that facilitate sprawl development to the
exclusion of other development patterns.
As a result, the construction or rehabilitation of compact, walkable
communities is a commonly unpredictable challenge, introducing the potential
for expensive delays resulting from approvals for zoning variances and
neighborhood resistance.
As a response to these trends, Americans are
increasingly concerned about urban sprawl and are seeking better choices for
their communities. In the past five
years, large majorities of voters have approved hundreds of measures to raise
funds for open space and farmland preservation to protect valuable recreational
areas, scenic vistas, and biologically important habitats. In 2000, the Pew Center for Civic Journalism
released a report that found runaway sprawl and traffic congestion to be
Americans’ top local concern. A poll
released by Smart Growth America later that year confirmed these conclusions,
finding that large majorities of Americans are willing to support
specific smart growth measures, ranging from affordable housing production to
increased public transit funding. Even
after the tragedies of September 11, voters from New Jersey to Colorado to
California have indicated growth management to be a top local concern. This week, a poll by the University of
Toledo will report that metro Toledans strongly support smart growth measures
as well.
The bills being considered by this Committee can offer
better choices to communities that are grappling with these challenges. The Community Character Act, S. 975,
and the Brownfield Site Redevelopment Assistance Act, S. 1079, are two
proposals that will help communities respond to the impacts of rapid changes in
growth patterns that have left some communities with dwindled populations and
vacant buildings, and still others with overcrowded schools and overburdened
infrastructure. These two bills provide
valuable assistance to states and communities to address these issues in a
manner that is appropriate for the federal government.
The Community
Character Act offers assistance to state or tribal governments who have
identified a need to develop or update land use planning legislation, but lack
the capacity to do so. Appropriately,
the Community Character Act does not impose a mandate on states to update their
land use plans. Instead, it offers
state and tribal governments financial assistance to help cover their costs of
ensuring broad public participation, researching and developing land use plans,
integrating state, regional, tribal or local plans with federal land use plans,
and acquiring technology to support their efforts.
S. 975 will
help communities create a vision for the future, while leaving land use and
development decisions to state and local governments. In many places, part of that vision for the future will include
an effort to reinvest and encourage economic development in existing communities. This Committee has already shown great
leadership on this issue. Senator
Chafee, I congratulate you and the entire Committee on the passage of the Small
Business Liability and Brownfields Revitalization Act. Smart Growth America was one of the first
organizations to endorse S. 350, and we were delighted to see President Bush
sign the final bill into law.
The Small
Business Liability and Brownfields Revitalization Act will make a tremendous
contribution to brownfield redevelopment by assisting in their clean-up and
providing liability relief. However,
many of these sites are located in communities that have experienced such
widespread disinvestment that their recovery is dependent on additional
economic stimulation. The Brownfield
Site Redevelopment Assistance Act, S. 1079, complements the recently signed
brownfields law by targeting assistance toward the development of public
facilities and services, planning, training and technical assistance to help
communities overcome the burdens of brownfield sites.
Smart Growth is
about providing better choices for our communities. Across the nation, families are demanding more convenient,
affordable and safe transportation and housing options, communities want more
tools for grappling with rapid change, and civic leaders wish to have greater
predictability in the business of development and preparations for the
future. The federal government has a
responsibility to aide states and localities communities by sharing information
on best practices, providing financial and technical support to help
communities respond to changing growth patterns, and to be a good partner with
state and local leaders. The Community
Character Act and the Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act both
advance these goals to improve the quality of life of all Americans. Smart Growth America supports both of these
bills and looks forward to working with the Committee to see their timely
passage.