CULLOWHEE – “I think you’re way out in front of your council right now.”
Although these specific words came from John Lassiter, a Charlotte city councilman, they might as well be attributed to city and county officials across North Carolina. That is, if they haven’t already been uttered, they will be. From Asheville to Wilmington, from major cities to burgeoning suburbs, professional managers are pushing for high-density, transit-friendly development. They believe, correctly, that they are carrying out the stated objectives of their elected officials. And yet, these same elected officials are frequently going to balk when it comes time to approve said developments.
The fact is, many residents of growing North Carolina communities will say they like the notion of high-density development in theory – as long as someone else is going to live there, and it won’t be next door. It’s like endorsing rail transit in a telephone poll: it sounds like other people will ride it, thus freeing up the highways, and so many drivers with no real intention to change their daily routine will express support for a transportation option they won’t use.
In the Charlotte example, the city transit system spent $9.2 million to purchase 17 acres around a stop on its South Boulevard rail line. It is now taking bids from private firms to develop housing, retail, and a public library next to the stop. But none of the bids so far is apparently going to allow taxpayers to recoup much of the investment, because complying with the requirements for parking and “affordable housing” turns out to be rather pricey.
Beyond that, there is the problem of zoning. Existing businesses and residents often tend to view high density as unattractive, and lobby against it in rezoning hearings. They argue that more people means more traffic and demand for parking, which is certainly true, and that the result is lower property values, which is less certainly true and, besides that, not the point. It is critical to distinguish between true takings or nuisances, which infringe on one’s property rights and invite proper governmental intervention, and changes in market value.
I feel sorry for the planners in these cases, actually. The various directives from above – make growth “smarter,” make it justify transit, but don’t disrupt traffic patterns or increase density near where anyone else lives – can be impossible to reconcile. Here’s a case where heeding market prices and focusing on individual incentives can be helpful.
For example, local governments should reconsider their approach to planning and parking. To assume that any new development must include a certain number of new parking spaces is to work at cross-purposes with their transportation and affordability goals. In a recent issue of The Independent Review, economist Dan Klein explored an alternative approach to the problem that relies on decentralization, incentives, and market prices for parking that would involve rather than simply affect neighboring residents and businesses. It’s well worth the read (and the subscription price).
As for the broader issue of development patterns, cities should neither forbid nor require developers to build in greater density. If there is sufficient demand for townhouses, condos, and walkable communities, they’ll be built and can then be served by flexible bus routes. Planners should not get ahead of demonstrated public preferences, true, but elected officials should stop sending mixed messages down the line.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.