Charlotte city officials need to stand fast behind a three-year-old development directive which asks that new streets built by developers be connected to existing streets. Far from a perfect formula for universal happiness, such a bias reaffirms several important principles.
The first is that streets and roadways are important public goods that exist for the use and, yes, the enjoyment, of all local residents who pay taxes for their upkeep. Public roads should not be used as quasi-private amenities that exist only for those who live and work along them.
Another principle, maybe more of a mantra, is that roads do not cause growth. Growth causes growth. The choice for policy makers is to either ensure that roadways can handle the expected traffic loads or plan to deal with the congestion resulting from insufficient capacity.
Charlotte once tried to manage growth by restricting roads in the 1970s and it did not work That failed bizarro Field of Dreams model held that if you don’t build it, they won’t come. Charlotte even went through a phase where the city closed some roads to traffic, which did not address underlying issues of growth and development at all. The city, particularly East Charlotte, is still recovering from that misstep.
The current connectivity requirement rejects the cork-in-bottle approach and instead recognizes the value of providing as many alternative routes to main thoroughfares as practical. But now worries about connectivity have some city residents questioning that approach and city officials looking to clarify city policy. Several observations come to mind.
One, that it is a mistake to assume that greater connectivity and access to commercial development will always have a negative impact on adjacent residential areas. The cul-de-sac residential development model does increase isolation and an air of exclusivity, but at a price of connectivity and access. In sum, waiting 20 minutes to make a left turn from of a single entrance to a subdivision has a property-value impact all its own.
The second is that city officials must realize that they will never be able to craft a policy on streets so comprehensive and wise as to please everyone. Officials cannot duck such decisions or hold up arcane regulations to shield themselves from public upset arising from issues as fundamental as where streets go. Accountability is required and compromise is almost unavoidable.
In fact, compromise emerges as the key factor once it is understood that it is impossible to legislate good neighbors. And neighborliness is hard to define, but easy to see. It is when property owners recognize that their absolute right to enjoy their property should not deny someone else their right to enjoy their property. This principle applies for both the most well-connected developer in town and the most well-meaning neighbor activist.
If local officials think of themselves more as facilitators toward neighborliness rather than regulators or gate-keepers, then the often contentious issue of new development might go smoother. Being open to innovations like traffic circles in place of intersections can help buffer transitions between new and old development and serve all parties well.
The only certainty is that until someone comes along with enough money to buy all the property in Charlotte, city officials will have to referee legitimate disputes between property owners.
——————————————
Follow Up: A previous column questioned the wisdom of a $6.4 million city/county subsidy to Spectrum Properties to develop the site of the old Charlotte convention center. It now appears that a second developer is also interested in the $14 million property and does not believe a public subsidy is needed for the project.
Local officials were quite certain the site could not be developed without a subsidy.