Introduction to Urban Sprawl/Smart Growth

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Introduction to Urban Sprawl/Smart Growth"

Roger Crawford
6 years ago
Views:

1 From the student leaders 1. From Michael Cano: He started it...no, she started it! Environmental Law s Land Use Management Introduction to Urban Sprawl/Smart Growth For October 22, 2003 The super-malls moved first...no, the housing developers did! Does it really matter? We all know that urban sprawl sucks, after all, it ruins the air, exacerbates global warming, increases water consumption, pollutes waterways, strains existing sewer & storm systems, destroys wetlands, kills wildlife & destroys their habitats...you get the point. Page 1 of 6 As future leaders, I'd like to quit playing the blame game and would like to start discussing solutions. This past summer I gave-up the city life (and all its efficiencies) for the sprawl lifestyle...i purchased a home in Sugar Land. Although I could probably list about 50 reasons why I made such a move, my decision was primarily based on 3 reasons: safer community; better schools, and; more home for my $ (most people who have made similar moves also list same 3 reasons). My solution: Give citizens back what they've lost...security, quality & value! Citizens were not forced out of the city; they were simply attracted away from the city by communities that offer security, quality & value. Let's quit the bull$#@! of passing restrictive laws and let's start attracting back the citizens. I believe the solution is to improve inner-city schools (not abandon them by offering vouchers), increase city security (higher pay - increase size), and provide city funded housing area development (NOT housing projects, but improve area that surrounds housing development). In my opinion, if the City of Houston could provide these three staples of my life, then I'll head back (as would hundreds of thousands of others). My discussion questions: Is my suggestion of improving city life so that it re-attracts citizens an illusionary idea? Are we better off just passing (more) restrictive laws?

2 Page 2 of 6 An urban sprawlin, pollutin, wildlife killin, gun toutin citizen of Sugar Land, Michael G. Cano 2. From Tim Daniel: Attached please find an April 24, 2002 article from the Houston Chronicle outlining the initial Texas response to the Lake Tahoe case. [Article is below the questions.] (NOTE: The Tahoe case follows the Gallagher article from this week's reading. Though we were not required to read this case for class, I recommend it with the full expectation that none of you will. With that in mind, the Chronicle does a decent job at briefing the case for us.) The following topics related to our assigned reading, unassigned reading, and extracurricular reading might be interesting to discuss in class on Wednesday: 1. For temporary moratoria on development, how long does it take for the moratoria to be deemed permanent keeping in mind that the Lake Tahoe case allowed for at least 6 years and the Ramapo case allowed for 18 years. (NOTE: even though the Ramapo plan did not outright say that an 18 year moratorium on development was to be implemented, the plan could conceivably allow for a similar impact.) How long is too long? We have a little guidance from these two cases, but what are your opinions? 2. I find legal merit to the Lake Tahoe dissenting arguments that these people own the land, pay taxes on the land, though they cannot develop their land, and this is a taking for which just compensation is justified. However, my heart and mind find more merit (not necessarily legal) in the state and local police power being able to implement and foster regulations to both regulate and foster organized growth and environmental stability. Your thoughts? Is there another way to regulate and foster organized growth and environmental stability? Should the state and federal government become involved? Is the current planning at risk of becoming just as disorganized as the growth it is seeking to conform? 3. In the aftermath of the Ramapo case, the city of Ramapo could not keep up with its plan, and the bulk of its challenged provisions were rescinded less than 13 years after their passage. How do we keep these mistakes from happening? Can we? Or, was the court the Ramapo case correct when it said, True other alternatives...may be available, but the choice as how best to proceed...cannot be faulted?

3 Paper: Houston Chronicle Date: WED 04/24/02 Section: A Page: 9 Edition: 3 STAR Page 3 of 6 Lake Tahoe case could be felt in Texas /Justices favor growth management over propertydevelopment rights By PATTY REINERT, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau Staff WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to expand private property rights, ruling that government does not have to compensate landowners when it temporarily halts development to protect the environment. The 6-3 decision is a defeat for hundreds of developers and landowners who have waited decades to build homes near Lake Tahoe on the California-Nevada border. It is a victory for environmentalists and local government officials who are trying to manage growth, and it sends a signal to states like Texas that have enacted property rights laws that favor landowners. For property rights people it is a definite major loss. That's all there is to it, said Clayton Trotter, a lawyer with the San Antonio-based Texas Justice Foundation, a conservative group that provides free legal services to landowners in property rights cases. In Texas, where 95 percent of the land is in private hands, landowners are better protected under state law than in many other states, Trotter said. But he said the high court's decision will dissuade those who are unsuccessful in state court from fighting alleged constitutional violations in federal court. Mary Kelly, a lawyer who directs the Austin-based Texas Center for Policy Studies, a nonprofit environmental policy group, called the court's ruling very appropriate. To have done otherwise would completely undermine the ability of communities to manage growth, she said. In Tuesday's case, the justices ruled against developers and individuals who had purchased land around Lake Tahoe to build retirement homes.

4 Page 4 of 6 The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency temporarily blocked construction beginning in 1981 because of concerns that development was changing the color of the lake from a clear blue to a murky green. After the temporary moratorium had dragged on for nearly six years, the landowners sued. They said the building ban violated the Constitution's Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from taking private land without paying the owner. The case, which sought $27 million in damages, has been tied up in the courts for two decades. The dispute landed at the Supreme Court after going before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals four times. President Bush normally backs private property owners in such cases and signed Texas' private property rights law in 1995 as governor. But the administration's solicitor general, Theodore Olson, backed the Lake Tahoe agency in this case, arguing that local officials should not be rushed or forced to pay landowners as they try to develop reasonable development plans before issuing building permits. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the court was sympathetic to the retiree landowners, some of whom died while the case was pending. It may well be true that any moratorium that lasts for more than one year should be viewed with special skepticism, Stevens wrote. But he said a lower court judge had found that the agency's deliberations on whether to rescind the construction ban were not unreasonably long. If the court were to impose a time limit on temporary ordinances, policy-makers might be too hasty to resolve conflicts and set permanent rules, he said. It would serve only to disadvantage those landowners and interest groups who are not as organized or familiar with the planning process, Stevens wrote. Formulating a general rule of this kind is a suitable task for state legislatures. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined Stevens. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, joined by fellow conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, dissented, saying the case is a taking that requires compensation because the landowners were denied use of their land for too long.

5 Page 5 of 6 As in this case, this initial designation does not preclude the government from repeatedly extending the `temporary' prohibition into a long-term ban on all development, the chief justice wrote. Lake Tahoe is a national treasure, Rehnquist said, adding that he does not doubt that officials' efforts to protect the lake were made in good faith. But, as is the case with most governmental action that furthers the public interest, the Constitution requires that the costs and burdens be borne by the public at large, not by a few targeted citizens, he said. In Texas, landowners are allowed to sue if a government action results in decreasing their property value by 25 percent or more. But the law does not apply to cities and it includes several exemptions that allow government agencies to control growth. In a case earlier this year testing the law, the Texas Supreme Court ruled against pecan farmers in Central Texas who sued over water-use restrictions. The court cited an exemption allowing government to act to prevent the waste of water. Trotter, who helped represent the farmers, said they are now asking the full court to review that decision. Failing that, he said, the plan was to take the case to federal court, a course he now considers less likely to succeed. Trotter said he fears a case similar to the Lake Tahoe dispute could happen in Texas, even with the stricter state law. Imagine you buy a piece of land on Lake Travis and you want to build a retirement home. You're still making the payments, still paying taxes on it, but the government says you can't use it, he said. You can go up there and admire your land, sit on it, maybe have a picnic, but you can't build. Have you lost something? Certainly. Did the government take it? You bet. And if you take something that belongs to somebody else and you don't pay for it, that's called stealing, he said. 3. From Kylie Finnell: Suppose in Ramapo there was no comprehensive zoning ordinance and there were facilities and services in the area under consideration but they were inadequate for current usage and additional development would overwhelm them. Could the city still slow growth? People complain about the problems that result from sprawl but do they want to make the lifestyle choices that end sprawl? The Sierra Club website has some really cool pictures of what smart growth looks like. It basically shows pictures of cities as they are and using computer

6 Page 6 of 6 imaging show how bland sprawl type streets could be changed. Some of the steps to end sprawl are also listed. 1. mixing land uses 2. taking advantage of compact building design 3. creating housing opportunities and choices 4. creating walkable communities 5. fostering distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place 6. preserving open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas 7. strengthening and directing development toward existing communities 8. providing a variety of transportation choices 9. making development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective 4. From John Purves: 1. Is urban sprawl the inevitable effect of a free market society? In other words, there would not be sprawl, or the components of sprawl (70,000 sq. ft. mega malls, big box stores, etc.) if there was not a demand for this lifestyle. Do you agree? Or are other forces at play here? Nobody likes traffic, but to me, at least, it appears that it is a tolerable living condition for most so that places like Kingwood, Katy, Sugarland, and the like exist. 2. The city of Boulder, CO has been very proactive in managing growth since basically the 1960's. What the city has basically done in a nutshell is buy up all of the "open" space surrounding the city (more open space than the city itself encompasses) and not allow development in this area. Thus, when driving from Denver, which is merely 25 minutes south and spreading, when you enter Boulder County (or whatever county Boulder is in) the development abruptly stops and there is nothing but open space until you reach a very defined outline of a city. What do you think about cities buying up open land around themselves to limit growth? Are there problems associated with this? I say there can be, but I guess you'll here more about this in class on Wednesday.

June 27, 2008 JUSTICES, RULING 5-4, ENDORSE PERSONAL RIGHT TO OWN GUN

June 27, 2008 JUSTICES, RULING 5-4, ENDORSE PERSONAL RIGHT TO OWN GUN By LINDA GREENHOUSE The Supreme Court on Thursday embraced the long-disputed view that the Second Amendment protects an individual