In a 21 April 2006 posting, Jim Bacon reports on Gov. Kaine’s commitment to "conserve" 400,000 additional acres of land in the Commonwealth by 2010. He added a note on the topic today as well. Both were right on. There is however a larger issue:
Let us be clear:
If citizens could be assured that:
The 400,000 acres of land will be used in the future only for agriculture & forestry / air & water recharge / hunting &gathering / passive recreation and other extensive land uses; and,
It was certain that those 400,000 acres will be not be developed for intensive urban land uses; then,
The conservation of 400,000 acres could be an economic, social and physical benefit to the land owners and to the public in general; but only if,
All 400,000 acres of conserved land are IN THE RIGHT LOCATIONS.
Just as clear that if the 400,000 acres are IN THE WRONG LOCATIONS they will have the opposite result:.
Preserved / conserved acres can raise the speculative value of adjacent land for urban use ("no one can build next to your five acre lot"), cause urban development to leapfrog to unprotected land in even more dysfunctional locations, waste the public investment that has already been made to serve urban land uses on the newly "conserved" land. The list goes on.
Underlying the "location" problem is the fact that there are no region-wide – much less a Commonwealth-wide – strategies or plans to provide a context for conservation actions of 40,000, 400,000 or 4,000,000 acres.
A survey of past actions document that many of the "conservation" efforts – especially high-profile "rescues" by municipal and state action – are IN THE WRONG LOCATIONS.
A compounding problem is that just the announcement of a 400,000 acre goal generates a false impression that something really meaningful is being done to rationalize human settlement patterns.
An even greater problem is that 400,000 acres is an inconsequential percentage (1.6% of 25,000,000 acres) of the land area of the Commonwealth. The maximum land area needed (minimum functional urban intensity at the Alpha Community scale) for the daily activities of 95% of the citizens (the urban residents) of the commonwealth is around 700,000 acres.
Between twice and three times that amount of land is already committed to urban activities.
Worse, vastly more land is speculatively held for future urban land uses by those that advocate scattering urban land uses outside Clear Edges. For a discussion of Clear Edges see: "Beyond the Clear Edge,"26 May 2003 at http://www.baconsrebellion.com/ and the three part special report starting with "Wild Abandonment, 8 September 2003 at the same site. (Just enter the title in the search window on the home page.)
If someone has documented a different minimum density for functional settlement patterns at the Alpha Community scale, let us know. The formulas to determine minimum functional human settlement patterns are summarized in Chapter 4 Box 5 in The Shape of the Future. They are based on the human settlement patterns generated by the market over the past 50 years. The desired patterns and densities of land use for private-vehicle and shared-vehicle access are the ones for which citizens are willing to pay a premium on the basis of both acreage and square foot of built space.
An optimistic estimate is that there may be 10,000,000 acres of land already "conserved" or completely unsuitable for urban land uses. (Total unsuitability for urban land uses is not slowing down the pace of land subdivision for second home / retirement home / the hobby farm / "off the grid" and other forms of urban development.
Even if 10,000,000 acres are now conserved, that means the Commonwealth needs to "conserve" 1,000,000 acres of land a year, every year, for the next 14 years for functional human settlement patterns to emerge over the next two decades. That is just 10 times the pace of the Governor’s 400,000 acres in four years.
Spending the next 20 years to evolve functional settlement patterns may not be rapid enough given the rising cost of settlement pattern dysfunction. The impact of location-variable costs of goods and services is sapping individual, family, enterprise and agency resources. Settlement pattern dysfunction is best illustrated in the lack of access and mobility and the lack of affordable and accessible housing.
The 400,000 Acre Foolishness illustrates the systemic problem with land conservation efforts, as well intended as such efforts may be. They have not yet addressed:
1) The scale of the problem
2) The reality that there is already far more land committed to urban land use than will be needed in the foreseeable future
3) Fair and equitable ways to transition to functional human settlement patterns
We will be examine these issues in a forthcoming report on the Use and Management of Land.
These issues will also be a focus of PROPERTY DYNAMICS, coming to an Alpha Neighborhood near you soon.
EMR
Monday, April 24, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
One of the good things about this blog is the quality of the discussions - in a word - substantiveness enabled by authors who are quite knowledgeable about topics.
On the face of it - and Kaine knows this - most everyone supports preserving important historic, natural and cultural lands truly worthy of protection but unfortunately most folks assume (not illogically) that land conservation tax credits would be used only for legitmate (effective) purposes.
Setting aside permanently any size parcel at any location for any purpose including private uses and paid for by taxpayers is apparently what Virginia Law enables.
Is this what Bill Howell (and presumedly his GA staff-vetted legislation) truly intended?
Perhaps unfair as Monday Morning Quarterbacking - none-the-less, the law - as currently written - in a word is - dumb because it provides enabling mechanics without guidance as to goals and purposes. It's the wild, wild west.
Folks of financial means quickly determined personal financial benefits and amazingly to me, environmental and public interest groups apparently believe that such a law was a good start (verses having no law) towards land conservation.
Some groups believe (wrongly as pointed out by EMR) that ANY land set aside is land that won't be developed and thus a "good" thing.
The TDR law passed this year will, in my opinion, put on the table, the real question of what land should be designated for protection and what land should be designated for development AND density.
.. and I predict that when it comes time for a locality to designate "receiving" and "sending" areas that it will bring to the fore - THE issue because it will have the practical effect of zoning designations in which there will be winning and losing landowners.
An obvious use of TDRs would be to protect steep slopes near watersheds to protect water quality but current (overlay vs TDR) efforts in Stafford County are already under fire.
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/042006/04182006/183067
Here's the passage that says it all:
"Environmentalists and some county officials support the law as passionately as landowners oppose it. The first group hails it as a vital protection of water resources. The latter claims it is a deceptive and damaging way to slow growth."
EMR asserts that the real issue is designating not only where growth should occur - but also where density should be encouraged.
In other words - it's about more efficient use of land by determining where settlement patterns should be - and not be.
Landowners simply do not accept this vision.
They view their land as their 401(k). They chose land rather than mutual funds for the future.
Their view is that the land they own - regardless of it's location, infrastructure availability, steep slopes, wetlands, et al as buildable and developable per the basic tenet of "best and highest use" of the land.
Regulations and laws with respect to steep slopes, wetlands, DENSITY, et al are often viewed as "takings".
Landowners vote - at the local level. The only question is in localities where changing demographics have the effect of making landowners - voting minorities.
Ed, You said, "A survey of past actions document that many of the "conservation" efforts – especially high-profile "rescues" by municipal and state action – are IN THE WRONG LOCATIONS."
Can you cite specific examples of such high-profile rescues?
Some very thought-provoking discussion. EMR certainly identified a key point with the following: "Fair and equitable ways to transition to functional human settlement patterns."
Two related questions, for which I have no answer, are: "What are the reasonable expections (rights?) of people within an existing community against radical change in that community; and How are any such expectations (rights) to be addressed?
First, I want to make it clear that I'm not arguing against any change. It must be expected that, over time, communities will change. Most will grow, but some will stagnate. But, at the same time, aren't there important interests in protecting the character of a community? Changing a rural area into a suburb or a suburb into an urban area can have significant negative impacts on existing residents and small businesses. Who decides when and how these communities change? Is it fair for these changes to impose higher costs on existing residents in terms of increased taxes, overused infrastructure and a general deterioration in the quality of life?
If, as some argue, the urbanization of Fairfax County is necessary to protect the lifestyles of outer counties, shouldn't both the Fairfax County developers and the residents of outer counties provide some form of compensation (i.e., building infrastructure) to the existing residents of Fairfax County? (Personally, I strongly question whether urbanizing Fairfax County will stop sprawl. While there would certainly be a market for high-priced condos and townhouses in urban areas, there are many people in Virginia who simply want a suburban, single family home. If one wants urban, why not move to New York?)
As I indicated, I don't have answers to my questions, but I submit that they are important questions for public debate.
EMR - what is your view of the concept of Highest and best use?
Does it have, in your view, any useful relevance in discussions about settlement patterns and density?
Wikapedia states that it is a concept in Real estate appraisal where the value of a property is the fair market value of a property at the use that will yield the maximum possible value. This use, the Highest and Best Use, may or may not be the current use of the property.
The exact definition of Highest and Best Use varies, but generally the use must be:
* legally allowable
* physically possible
* have demand in the marketplace
* result in the maximum market value for the property
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_and_best_use
This whole conversation is nuts. We are not going to conserve 95% of the state, and if we do, how can we put very much of our current conservation in the wrong place?
I think the currently popular idea of using conservation easements to create greenbelts in order to try to enforce the clear edge concept is a lousy idea. You are conserving the very land that Ed claims is most likely to become the most highly desired and most valuable, some day.
We have strong evidence that there is a high correlation between household income and a choice to live in low density areas. Even EMR admits that open preserved open space raises the value of adjacent land. In fact, some evidence shows that it even raises the value of land on which an easement is placed. Then we have people like TMT and Fair Growth Fairfax agitating against further density in Fairfax, and despite Larry's characterization I think it is clear that environmental regulations are being used as a devious proxy to prevent growth, density and change. If you Google on Density / News you will find dozens of references citing meetings and groups that are opposing development because they know the density will cause more traffic congestion and other deleterious effects. And those that are opposing it are opposing everywhere from where it is in full bloom like New York all the way to where it is non-existent.
All in all, I don't see any justification for Ed and Jim's claims that "The Market" most highly values those areas that are most dense. There is nothing wrong with density, and if people want to pay the full locational costs to support it, fine. After all, to the extent that density is chosen as a lifestyle, it makes it a little easier to preserve open space.
That said, it is always true that a more densely built location is worth more than a less densely built location, even in the wilderness. I support preserving open space, and I consider myself to be an environmentalist, but I take issue with Larry's characterization of the situation with regard to environmental conservation. It is clear to me that environmentalists are being deceitful about their goals: they are using environmental exigencies to reduce density in what they consider to be the wrong areas.
While that is a gross generalization it is no worse than saying that "[landowners] view is that the land they own - regardless of it's location, infrastructure availability, steep slopes, wetlands, et al as buildable and developable per the basic tenet of "best and highest use" of the land."
If you took thirty percent of a hundred acres to keep aside for environmental purposes, I doubt very much that the owner/developer would complain if the density on the remaining acreage was increased to compensate. Instead, what we see is that land is deducted from the quota based on steep slopes or whatever with no credit given. Then, the builder is expected to set aside more open space in the buildable area as part of his proffers. Even when developers voluntarily set aside land, they are criticized for setting aside the land that is unbuildable!
As an example, we now see the case of density credits, wherein a builder is allowed more density (where he otherwise would not be, due to "environmental" concerns) as payment for beeing coerced into building a certain number of below market price units as affordable or workplace housing. This is environmental hypocrisy, and as Jim points out, it wouldn't be necessary if we eliminated the perverse zoning regulations that create the need in the first place.
In 1980 Fauquier and Loudoun were zoned by-right at something like one home per three acres. Through environmental and density fighting regulations those have been reduce in much of the area to one house per 25 or 50 acres. Frequently those regulations have been supported by landowners in the area, so we can't say that landowners are uniformly opposed. Unless you are willing to cast this as a case of urban, land poor liberals, trying to take control over the property rights of rural, wealthy, land-rich, property rights conservatives, then this argument doesn't wash.
I think it is hypocritical to claim that density is the highest and best use and most desired by the market, then use environmental regulations to create open space "for the public good" at private cost and not recognize the result as a taking. Where, after all, did the "by-rights" of 1980 go? And TMT makes pretty much the same case against further urbanizing Fairfax without recompense. Everybody, it seems wants something for nothing and they are willing to forget about what is yours and mine in the process. I think it is called stealing, but I’m old fashioned.
Then there is the matter of right and wrong places. I have previously related the story about how I asked a VOLF representative when they thought they would have enough land. You would have thought I had slapped her in the face. "Well, I don't know, but clearly we don't have enough." was her answer. Apparently the land hungry environmentalists are grabbing up land as fast and wherever they can get their hands on it - same as the developers, and doing just a bad a job at planning.
The difference is that developers are willing to pay for what they get. It is no problem for them, because they know they will pass the inflated price and cost of proffers and the additional profit margin they get along to the next environmentalist that needs a place to live.
In this respect, Ed is right, we are snapping up the land without real thought of how it should be used, how it will be enjoyed, and what the best use is.
Consider steep slopes. On steep slopes the water is going to run off anyway. Why not put the houses on the slopes where the land isn't going to allow the water to percolate in anyway? Building on a slope is a technical problem, but it certainly isn't any worse than Ed's idea of creating a city on a 45 acre concrete platform. Besides, if you build on the slopes, you have the valuable level land available for farming, ball fields, water absorption, etc. Obviously if the steep slopes really are adjacent to a stream, then this argument doesn't apply. Instead of thinking about it we make environmental knee jerk reactions. We frequently use roofs to collect water so it is hard for me to see that roofs contribute very much to bad water quality. Streets and dirty oily parking lots are another matter. But housing developments are going to have stormwater management anyway, why not do it on the slopes where gravity works to your advantage?
We need to rethink what we think we are saving, why, and who pays. According to Ed, we only need 1.25 million acres (5%) on which to concentrate almost all of the wealth of the commonwealth. At the same time he points out that 1.6% of the commonwealth as a 400,000 acre conservation goal is inconsequential. Why isn't 5% equally inconsequential? Why do we need 23 million acres of conservation land and why concentrate all the people where they can't use, manage, and enjoy it?
By Ed's own argument, concentrating all that wealth is going to make the landowners who own "the right" 5% very happy, but then we have to deal with something like 50% of the population that currently live in "dysfunctional urban use areas" in what we now believe should be a conservation environment. We are going to make their land and property pretty much worthless, we are going to charge them 10x more for trumped up location variable costs, and forcibly (or economically) relocate them to someplace they have not chosen to live. We are going to permanently make sure they don't ever have a chance to change their minds through durable conservation law.
I can't think of any better way to create a backlash, like we have never seen. If someone thinks there is an equitable way to pull this off, I'd like to see it.
Actually, we already have a way to do this equitably. It is called go raise the money and buy the land. It is a uniquie and age old proposition that guarantees that both parties agree on the value, and who owns what.
If Kaine wants to buy that 400,000 acres and set it up for all to enjoy, and if Jim agrees to the tax increase that makes it possible, then I don't have a problem no matter where the land is.
If I help pay for conservation land that is located in such a way I can't use it then I'm no worse off than I am paying for Metro, which I also can't use.
It would be nice, once in a while, to pay for something I can use. I suppose equity is too much to ask for, no doubt someone would see me using and launch a tirade about subsidies.
Aah, equity, how do I know thee? Letme count the ways......
Ray, you said, "All in all, I don't see any justification for Ed and Jim's claims that 'The Market' most highly values those areas that are most dense."
Compare the cost of real estate on a square footage basis in Washington, D.C. Arlington and Alexandria with real estate in Loudoun, Fauquier or Stafford.
The fact that the average price of new home sales may be higher in outlying communities is not the point -- the houses are two or three times bigger. Of course, people also value the size and amenities of new construction. But compare the price paid per square foot and I'll wager you'll find that people pay a premium to live closer to the urban core. What people value is the location (which you seem to be confusing with density).
I'm not arguing about the price. It is clear the prices are higher in some locations (I won't quibble over density for this purpose). Where I have a problem is claiming that this shows that "the market" most highly values those properties.
All it shows is that the people who choose to live there are willing (and able) to pay those prices. The fact remains that a high family income is strongly correlated with a preference for less dense areas. Even among those who can afford it, more people choose not to live in those areas than do, and they are willing to pay more for what they get, which is a larger and more comfortable home.
Then you come down a notch to people who simply can't afford the prices and have to buy a more modest home farther away. Like the 77 mile commuters, they have calculated the trade off in time and fuel is worth it.
Then there are those that can afford to buy but don't. They have decided they would rather use the equivalent money on something else.
When the stock market goes up or down, some people make money and some lose, depending on whether they bought or sold and which way the market went. Google and Berkshire Hathaway sell at high prices, but no one would say that people value them more just because the price is high. If anything people shy away from the high prices because there is more downside than up.
If, however, there was a flood of volume in Google, I might agree with you. On a volume basis far more homes are being sold in less dense areas. It is hard to see how you can claim, then, that they are less desirable.
I'm sorry, I think your characterization of this issue is just wrong, and this kind of obvious error poisons the rest of your arguments. Even if those people are buying those homes because they think there is more upside, I don't see that labeling them as speculators improves your position. (I don't actually recall you resorting to this, but several other commentors have.)
There are many markets, and many realities, but the best theories are the ones that accommodate the greatest number of facts while depending on the fewest number of ideas. I think it was NOVA Scout who had an excellent post on the dynamics of where people buy and why. (Maybe it was Virginia Centrist, I'm not sure.)
If we as environmentalists are going to try to persuade people to support the adoption of policies, beliefs, and value systems that we believe will help produce a better more sustainable world, then we are going to need to have arguments that don't make us sound like crazies, and proposed solutions that people will want to buy - at the price offered.
The difference is that developers are willing to pay for what they get. That is highly debatable. If that's the case why are the developer's lobbyists shilling for tax increases all the time? Why are they constantly pushing for tax increases to build roads or bond issues to build schools/parks/police/safety/etc if they are really paying for the cost of their development? Could it be they want someone else to spend the real money?
The big undiscussed issue here is IMMIGRATION. If the population of the US wasn't growing so rapidly there wouldn't be this rapid growth and development. Who cares who they are or where they come from and why they come here - as long as they spend money...
One of the main reasons for the growth in NOVA is the reallocation of money from the rest of the US to grow the size of government here. I'd love to see what percentage of the new people moving into NOVA is a direct AND indirect result of sucking at the teat of the government pig.
Doesn't sound like capitalism to me - more like communism - reallocation of wealth and resources to a preferred select few i.e. big government and it's subcontractors.
re: steep slopes and environmentalism.
building on steep slopes has adverse environmental impacts.
That is a fact that anyone who believes in environmental stewardship should know.
It's not the placement of the house, it's what has to be built to serve that house - the road, the parking and the water/sewer.
When you clear land on a steep slope, you remove the vegetative buffer that soaks rainfall and you increase the speed and velocity of the runoff - which causes scouring and erosion which puts those sediments into the watershed which smothers the aquatic life - both plant and animal.
Worse than that - pollutants such as oil, antifreeze, and basically anything that ends up on the impervious surface - almost immediately ends up in the waterways vice being filtered by soil and vegetation.
Next time it rans, do yourself a favor and stop at a bridge in an urban area and you'll see the proof and remember - this is headed for the Bay.
The number one threat to the Chesapeake Bay is not farmers, not sewage treatement plants but storm water runoff from impervious surfaces - growth and development.
This is a reality not a supposition. People who really care about the environment can not ignore this.
water/sewer. If a house on a steep slope has a septic field - there are obvious problems again because the sewage does not soak and filter but rather runs downhill.
If you want sewer - then you have to build the infrastructure - downhill to receive the gravity flow. This is very, very expensive and most developers do not want to pay for it but want taxpayers to pay for it. So, the real question is - is this a legitimate public expense for steep slopes vice land that could be developed for less expensive infrastructure.
Finally, I DO support the landowner retaining his density by-rights. If zoning permits 3 homes to an acre - and there are steep slopes and/or other land features that render some of it unbuildable - like wetlands or buffers, et al
- then YES - let him keep his density. It should NOT be used as a back-door method to deprive him of his rights.
I won't speak for all environmentalists - BUT I will point out that Ray calls himself and environmentalist but very much distrinquishes HIS environmental values from others whose environmental values he disagrees with.
I will point out that it's similarily unfair and unjustified for Ray to claim that "other" environmentalists are up to no good while his motivations are truly pure environmental stewardship.
Many folks claim to be environmentalists - they like to "wear" the "concept" but when it comes time to recognize realities that require reconciliation - the true test in my mind - is not to tar the side whose ideas you don't like but instead to put something on the table to advance the issue.
If one truly believes in environmental stewardship - it takes more than a self-applied nametag claiming that one is... while deriding whats been put on the table by others.
Either get in the game - or stop pretending to be something that one is not.
If one wants to claim to be an "environmentalists" then articulate how one would protect the environment - specifically in the growth and development arena - how to control storm-water runoff from impervious services.
Equity is a most important concept. No one person or group should be burdened unfairly but all of us must accept our rightful share.
WE go forward on what we AGREE on and the folks I value most are those seek to understand both sides and to get things on the table that can help move us to agreement.
We spend way too much time defending our own personal interests and values in my view and not near enough time trying to understand.
Headline: Fauquier Times-Democrat
"Prince William Planning Commission rejects 6,800-home development"
"Dozens of western Prince William residents turned out April 12 to voice their opinions on the Brentswood development, proposed for Gainesville on the Fauquier-Prince William border. After a five-hour debate, the Prince William Planning Commission opted not to recommend the 6,800-home development."
http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab2.cfm?newsid=16533919&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506066&rfi=6
I think this article fairly demonstrates both the issue of WHERE people should live and at what DENSITY.
By all appearances, this appears to a well-designed multi-use development that not only provides new homes but proposes a fairly efficient utilization of land AND the developers proposed substantial infrastructure upgrades for transportation.
The article illustrates the concerns of the public - and the diversity of those concerns:
"Everyone looked at the situation in Gainesville and agreed that traffic is a nightmare. The conclusions they drew from this fact varied.
Some argued that congestion is already horrific and therefore Brentswood should be rejected because adding 17,000 new residents would only make matters worse.
Others contended that congestion is already horrific and therefore Brentswood should be approved because the developer will pay to improve the roads that may otherwise never be fixed."
What we've heard in the Fredericksburg Area is very similiar. Often heard is the thought that "it's a good development but it's in the WRONG place".
"It needs to be somewhere else - where there is adequate infrastructure."
It's an interesting argument in that it's the same basic argument in NoVa where high-density redevelopment is also proposed.
Note that "more efficient settlement patterns" is absolutely NOT on the radar screen of the average citizen.
The developer cannot be blamed. He can only incorporate so much transportation infrastructure before the entire project would become so expensive that the allocated per-house costs would render them uncompetitive on the housing market.
He's essentially agreed to mitigate the locational impacts but not the regional impacts.
So - he could propose this development almost anywhere within a reasonable commuting distance of NoVa - even 50-70 miles away in Spotsylvania or even Caroline County and still have the same basic problem - regional transportation impacts.
It's not unreasonable to surmise that if there is a market for 6800 new homes that turning down this proposal.. won't mean that 6800 homes won't be built.
They will.. and they will be built as smaller scale "piecemeal" projects - perhaps a hundred or two hundred at a time... probably not as mixed-use and almost surely with less transportation infrastructure as most projects of the smaller size - get approved with right and left turn-lanes and perhaps a signal - vice a new interchange.
Larry, I fundamentally agree with you about steep slopes, my "what if" was a straw man for the purposes of creating brainstorming. I'm well aware of the problem as part of my property in Faifax is swamp / floodplain. Over the years I have observed the increase in velocity of the stream as more development occurred upstream.
I don't claim that my ideas are any more pure than the next guy. I'm merely stating my observation that there are many environmental arguments made that don't necessarily make any sense, or not enough sense to justify the costs, or may cause more problems than they solve.
Frequently they are repeated verbatim as if they were a Mantra, or as if enough repetiton will make them true. There is such a thing as public education and such a thing as brainwashing. When I see that those arguments are supported by demonizing the opposition, using emotionally weighted adjectives and other intellectual cheap shots, then my BS meter goes off. I'm pretty much convinced that the right environmental sentiments have been highjacked and are now being used deviously.
Cite the case of the woman in Washington state that bought a place and proceeded to clean up a pile of discarded appliances at the back of the lot. She was fined $15,000 for destroying habitat: the blackberry vines that coverd the dump.
Your response on the slopes issue is a good example. All I did was ask, what would happen if we looked at it differently? We could save the flat land for more valuable things. Any new development is going to have stormwater control anyway, maybe engineered control is actually better than natural vegetation in some cases. Developments are required to have catchment basins ssufficient that no additional runoff occurs anyway: maybe we can save some valuable level land by not filling it up with houses and catch basins. We can use the level land for septic and build the houses on the slope. Maybe the vegetation that soaks up the rain works better on the flat surfaces where is has more than a few seconds to do its thing. Maybe.
What I can tell you is that in Fauquier, at least, there is NO accomodation for land set aside for environmental reasons. The way it works is that they have a slidng scale. So first of all, the larger your lot the fewer rights you are allowed proportional to your size. The reasoning is to help save the largest contiguous plots: the effect is to punish those who managed to preserve the the land the longest.
Then they deduct for wetlands, streams, steep slopes, setbacks etc. The septic requirement is that you have over a 100% reserve area in case you need to replace it some day, and that goes on the best, most level ground. Then, if there is anyplace left to build, they will want proffers to support all the services they don't provide. I think it is pretty clear that environmental regs are used as a back door to prevent development.
Your response was to defend a given position as if anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron, or has ulterior motives, and not to even consider whether there might be some value in the alternative.
BTW, I'm pretty sure the biggest source of sedimentation in the bay is agriculture: if it isn't it is only because agriculture has been supplanted by development. Look at the CBF satellite photo of the Bay, and you can see vast areas of the lower Potomac and Rapahannock colored by runoff form agricultural areas.
I'll agree that water runs off a roof faster than a flat field, I'm not sure it is any cleaner or carries less grit when it leaves the field. I'll agree that lawns are over fertilized. All I'm saying is that if we are going to control runoff we should treat bare horse pastures or dirt roads the same as we treat bare construction sites: otherwise we risk looking like we have a bone to pick.
As for your second post: that is pretty much exactly what I have been trying to say. If we set up a situation where no one can win, we guarantee that everybody loses.
We can agree that BOTH sides recite mantras - right? :-)
So what's new?
We have folks who only know what they want to believe - and we have folks who truly want to understand the other side - and work to find equitable responses.
Do some greens attempt to utilize laws and regulation to stop growth? Yes.
Do some landowners attempt to use laws and regulations to maximize their profits and minimize their financial responsibilites that are a driect result of their land use? Yes.
That's why I refuse to adopt the mantras on the green side and why I strive mightly to understand the side that I don't.
If both sides hardline - we get nowhere.. fast or slow. Change comes from those who want to understand and want to accept responsibility. Those who don't want to understand nor accept responsibility also get to play unfortunately.
re: stormwater/farmers/et al.
Three questions:
100 years ago was there MORE farming or less farming of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed?
100 years ago was there MORE or LESS impervious surfaces in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed?
100 years ago - was the Chesapeake Bay healther or sicker than it is today?
Are farmers guilty of poor farming practices that pollute? Without question.
Are suburban and urban non-farmers guilty of dropping animal feces, anti-freeze, motor-oil, pestsides, et al on impervious surfaces and/or cleared land trimmed of vegetative buffers? Yes - but of course, it's not their fault and thus nothing they can do about it.
But, look at the gross numbers: How many farmers are there to compared non-farmers?
Conclusive evidence? No.. but .. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to say.. check out how much fertilizer Home Depot sells in NoVa verses Crozet, Virginia.
One cow pooping in a creek pales in comparison to one apartment building parking lot in terms of toxic brews draining into waterways.
Hell.. the cow can poop upstream and drink downstream with less ill effects than one drinking the runoff water from that apartment building parking lot.. :-)
I think many have a mindset that rain has a "cleansing" effect and it does... because it flushes thousands of gallons of oil and antifreeze right into the bay evertime it rains.
The healthiest year of recent record for the Chesapeake Bay was the DROUGHT!
It'll probably take scientists 20-30 years to "discover" this upon which they'll claim triumphantly to have finally "solved the puzzle".
And a final concluding thought about rooftops..
One rooftop - no matter whether it is one floor or 100 floors.. drains the same amount.
One does need to ask the question:
from the stormwater perspective - is DENSITY better for the environment ESPECIALLY if some of those floors are parking garages?
A lot of good thoughts.
Virginia’s senior conservation executive responded off line with several notes including “... imperfect land conservation is better than no land conservation.”
He is absolutely right but someone has to put conservation in perspective vis a vis functional human settlement patterns. The current trajectory is not sustainable.
At 6:01 AM yesterday Jim Bacon asked for examples. A good point. The original statement was based on a survey we did for a client several years ago. It needs to be up dated.
We started a list, it grew long. Jim, you will recall the map showing the location of the Core’s of 16 potential Balanced Communities inside the Clear Edge in the northern part of Virginia that we presented in the Spring 2003 session on Shaping the Future. There is a bad conservation story in every one.
We established some categories and will put up a response as a separate item soon.
Larry Gross asked for our take on “highest and best use.”
Inside the Clear Edge “highest and best” is the use / uses (most often “mixed” so it is uses) that contributes to the evolution of Balanced Communities. Balanced Communities help everyone, owner, users and the general public. There are a lot of options for every parcel (and every group of parcels) and those options change over time. We must not only balance J / H / S / R / A but also private rights and public responsibilities. The market and democracy have to be the vehicles. Fundamentally different “comprehensive” plans is a place to start as we outline in Handbook.
Outside the Clear Edge the answer is the highest and best use comes from fairly allocating the location-variable costs. All the costs, like to cumulative impact of miles driven and septic systems and distribution of electricity. There are 40 +/- of them.
EMR
Both sides have Mantras, and both sides live in houses. Agreed.
In colonial days the Potomac River was a hundred feet deep in Georgetown, and large ships frequented the Tobacco River. The Tobacco River is still not developed but it is a foot deep or something like. So the answer is that a hundred years ago the worst of the damage was already done.
For generations, the biggest source of damage to the Chesapeake was forestry and dairy in PA, and I'm not sure that even today the biggest source of pollution isn't cattle in PA. IF the damage being cuased today is from development, then that is a recent situation, by comparison.
I concede the oily runoff from streets is a problem. Maybe cars should have diapers, like they make horses wear.
Where would we dispose of the diapers?
It's not the one farmer, its the hundred or five hundred cows, and if you want to compare volume....
Last I checked, Fauquier still had more cattle than people, but its about to swap over.
By the way, those cows are feeding the people in the apartment building. You can't have either one without the other.
So, what you are saying is that we can protect 100 times as much soil from erosion by putting up 100 roofs over it as we can by putting up one roof? Sure enough, water that runs off a manmade surface runs off faster, but it doesn't take much of the surface with it. Every year I mow up a few more rocks, and it isn't because the rocks are getting taller.
What's the issue here? Is it soil erosion filling up the Chesapeake, or is it making sure that the water that runs in is as clean as possible? The Chesapeake has been filling up for centuries yet it was much cleaner and much deeper befere man came and screwed it up. no argument. But like you said, those 6800 homes are going somewhere, so we still have to figure out which river shed is going to take the heat and how much we want "those newcomers" to pay to prevent it. If we don't figure it out, and figure it out afffordably, those people will be living in the streets, and we'll have to put diapers on them.
Pretty much the same amount of water is going into the Chesapeake today as was 400 years ago. All the water that falls on the watershed goes downhill unless the plants or animals borrow it for a while. But the Chesapeake is filling up from the bottom with silt. So, all that water has to "pile up" a little more in order to make its way down. And the way we percieve that is as shoreline erosion, because the water is actually sitting a little higher on the bottom.
So anyway, that water is all going down, sooner or later, and we are going to clean it up, more or less. For 300 yars the answer has been less and we put the result in the Bay. Now we are going to stop, interrupt and filter much that water, and what are we going to do with the sludge? We are probably not going to carry it back to the suburbs on Metro.
As for developers and environmentalists, I've had developers knocking on the door to offer me a deal. They give me money and I give them what they want.
I can't say the same for the greens.
Being a green myself, I take money out of my own pocket and pay myself to do what I think needs done, as best I can. Frankly, I'm getting a little sick of it.
“... imperfect land conservation is better than no land conservation.”
I don't suppose you would consider that imperfect community development is better than no community development.
imperfect .. yes.. and certainly should not be the enemy of perfect by any means.
The Bay is literally what washes off of the land and of course the rivers themselves are too and transport runoff.
Waterways can assimilate waste and still be quite healthy. John Smith and company wrote much of the bounty often so thick that mere dip nets were all that was needed.
The tipping point comes when the runoff contains higher and higher levels of contaminates and the river/bay cannot assimilate them.
We went through this with really bad sewage treatment in the 40's, 50',s and 60's but we did make the commitment to get that cleaned up.
We now are faced with a different challenge which is known as storm water runoff - both in quality and quantity - because of impervious surfaces.
Cows/pigs/et al do little or no harm in they are in pasture and the runoff if buffered.. so that it filters through the soil before it gets to the creeks... not unlike a lot of folks septic fields - which essentially do the same thing...
The exception is CAFOs - Combined Animal Feeding Operations - which are not unlike cramming a lot of humans together and then shunting the waste - untreated to a creek or lagoon.
But, if you visit a modern sewage treatement plant - you'll see they essentially do the same thing that filtering through soils does...
they settle out the solids through sand layers then chemically "clean" the impurities that are not solids.
Impervious surfaces are a very different critter. A double whammy. The water is not filtered ..through soil/sand layers but instead is transported directly and immediately offsite laden with oil, antifreeze, dog/cat feces, pesticides (which are deadly to aquatic life), etc.
Storm ponds are now required and that is a big help but basically they retain the brew until a big storm event comes along and overflows the pond... into a receiving stream.
You may have noticed - many storm ponds are fenced - for very good reason. They are not good places for humans nor animals....
So .. to bring this back full circle - Conservation Easements placed in watershed areas and especially on steep slopes IS a GOOD THING .. even if it is done privately and especially if a landowner does it when given incentives to do it - by letting him retain his development rights with no penalty if he does set aside land for watershed protection.
It IS a good thing.. imperfect yes.. but good.
EMR and others actually promote clustering on land parcels ...according to the terrain. In other words.. cluster the homes on relatively flat.. well drained areas and set aside and protect steep slopes and wetlands.
Doing that also can result in less infrastructure in that when you cluster rather than equal-plot cookie-cutter.. you need less roads - another good thing - because they are impervious surfaces also.
and as I pointed out earlier.. a 20 story apartment building does not generate any more runoff than a similiar footprint one-story building.
I'm pretty sure we agree more than we disagree on many of thsse issues and I'm also quite convinced that the more I understand your concerns and vice versa - we'll agree even more. :-)
Cows/pigs/et al do little or no harm in they are in pasture and the runoff if buffered.. so that it filters through the soil before it gets to the creeks... not unlike a lot of folks septic fields - which essentially do the same thing...
This is just not true.
The Susquehanna River is the Bay's largest tributary and, on average, contributes more than one-half of the freshwater that enters the Bay.
The largest amount of nitrogen entering the Bay is contributed by the Susquehanna River, which drains some of the most productive agricultural land in the Nation.
In general, the amount
of nitrogen entering the Bay from each tributary is related to the area of agricultural land drained by that tributary and its contribution of water to the Bay.
The levels of phosphorus from the Potomac and the smaller rivers are related to their contribution of water to the Bay. Phosphorus levels entering the Bay from the Susquehanna River are low in comparison to its water contribution. Phosphorus, which is bound to soil particles, gets trapped behind a series of dams in the river. The high level of phosphorus entering the Bay from the James River compared to its water contribution may be related to discharge from sewage-treatment plants.
The increase in nitrogen is probably caused by the continued use of nitrogen fertilizer on lawns and cropland, growing agricultural animal populations and associated wastes, and atmospheric deposition of nitrogen from industrial and automotive air pollution.
http://water.usgs.gov/wid/html/chesbay.html
Runoff from farms is generally declining as farmers adopt nutrient management and runoff control techniques, and because the overall amount of farmland is declining.
Nutrients from septic systems are increasing throughout the watershed as development spreads farther into the countryside, beyond the reach of sewer systems.
Among the major land use categories, urban and suburban lands contribute, per acre, the largest amount of nutrients to the Bay when septic and wastewater treatment plant discharges are factored in.
(Note the per acre caveat. the largest source is still agriculture, by far.)
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/stressor1.htm
The lower Susquehanna River dams currently, trap about 50 percent to 70 percent of the sediment and prevents it from entering the Bay. Note that the Susquehanna serves large agricultural areas. Stormwater runoff actually adds little in the way of sediment, but the sudden rush of water stirs up sediment that already exists in the stream beds.
The storm ponds are fenced primarily to prevent drownings. It also turns out they make a convenient location to dump murder victims. They are sized to contain water from a storm of a given severity considering the area they serve. They are designed to hold the water and to percolate it back into the ground. If a storm pond runs over, it is a design failure. They need to be cleaned periodically because they also act as sediment collectors. The same problem (benefit) exists with the Susquehanna dams. Clearly storm ponds, stream buffers and other mitigation are important and low cost.
You are making the wrong 20 story comparison, or only one comparison. Consider the runoff from a 20 acre site of 20 single faqmily homes. Then consider the runoff from a 20 acre site with one home (or one tower). Pretty much the same amount of water will land on each site and the same amount will run off. Which one will carry more sediment with it? I can go ut in my fields and watch the soil move from year to year: underneath my house I can't.
On the 20 home site the amount of land around the home should be plenty of buffer to slow down the runoff from the roof. But then you have the driveways etc. Net, net the water runs off faster but carries less with it. Then it goes to a storm pond and goes back into the ground. On the tower site the water is basically uncontrolled, unless it has a storm pond, too. If the tower has a parking lot, it might be equivalent to the driveways, but more concentrated.
Thats nutrients and sediments. We haven't covered toxics, but I can tell you that, bad as they are, cars are not the biggest source.
Don't get me wrong, I partially agree with what you say, but I'm not convinced we are putting the right emphasis and money in the right places. We mandate sidewalks and then we wind up with unconnected sidewalks that we don't need or use, and at the same time demand less impervious surface!
We require someone to build on a flat spot, then he has to make his driveway twice as long to reach it. Maybe the hillside wouldn't have been so bad. Maybe he puts a ranch on the flat, but has a twostory walkout on the hillside.
We need to think more and mandate less.
In the meantime, clustering is prohibited, mostly and large lots are required.
Post a Comment