The following is part of a series of blog contributions by Robert Munson, a member of the CMAP Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC). The views expressed are not necessarily those of the CAC or of CMAP itself.
by Robert Munson, CAC member
12/3/09
 |
| This photo depicts the collaborative way Portland's regional government (Metro) works with local governments to create transit-oriented developments (in this case, Beaverton.) With state authorities for transportation and land use, Metro could have been heavy-handed and not given transit money to Beaverton in the early 1990s unless it first agreed to more compact development. But the town was a traditional suburb back then. So instead, Metro had the suburban rail built and the land around the Central station was undeveloped for over a decade. When it was ready, Beaverton permitted this mixed-use building recently completed. Served by five light rail stations, Beaverton today has 86,000 inhabitants, has developed a thriving suburban commerce and is Oregon's sixth largest city. With a good law, everyone wins. |
This lesson I got from a recent visit to the Portland, Oregon metropolis, a place many regard as America’s planning Mecca. This lesson has direct relevance to our emerging
GO TO 2040 Plan. Here is why.
The Portland region had a very good fight over its Urban Growth Boundary, a state law that allows their metropolitan government to control growth to preserve open space and farmland.
Why was this a good fight? Well, the three parties (the region, suburban leaders, and homebuilders) all changed each others’ minds and, instead of fighting, developed a new deal for growth.
Here is how this new deal emerged over 15 years of applying Oregon’s land use law:
Homebuilders worried the law would stop greenfield subdivisions. It didn’t. The law did not restrict Portland’s suburbs from sprawling single-family homes like their Chicagoland counterparts. But, two factors helped homebuilders change their minds. First, townhomes and multi-family buildings became more profitable per unit because land prices and impact fees rose so fast, as they did here by mid-decade. Second, some progressive homebuilders liked the Portland region more because its unique law actually helped reduce land costs per unit.
The second change came from suburban leaders. They feared the region would heavy-handedly change the unique character of each community. Yet because it had the weight of law, the regional government had leverage to help suburbs understand how compact communities lowered costs and increased revenue. Plus, communities today know how to make townhomes and transit-oriented developments; a likely requirement for federal transit dollars.
And finally, regional government was girded to do battle using state law. Instead, they discovered gentle persuasion was productive.
In this good fight, everyone won because everyone changed their minds. Today, it seems like the Portland area has a new consensus for development suited to the new century. In this regard, they are ahead of us.
Relevance to Chicagoland? Adapting this lesson to our region requires two adjustments. First, the Portland area has the nation’s only regional government, something that is not on the table in Illinois. Second, before we can enjoy the benefits of a good fight, we need to admit how our bad fights divided our region; chiefly, the third airport and the split of RTA sales revenue.
Stabilizing our divide has been achieved by the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus and the more formal bonding started by CMAP.
What would be a good fight for us? How could it be incorporated into the GO TO 2040 Plan so that, also over 15 years, everyone changes and we have a new deal on growth?
Consider why we need this re-thinking. Our real estate depression will continue until the industry’s financial system is rebuilt. This may take five years.
The depression causes a precipitous drop in impact fees. Weak property tax revenue follows. This means city managers will face several years of declining revenues and, then, only slow growth; perhaps taking a decade to get back to 2007 levels.
The GO TO 2040 Plan will provide a great service to developers and municipal budgets if it proposes win-win model ordinances for compact communities that reduce developer land costs per unit and reduce city infrastructure outlays and operations. Plus, we can compete better for federal transit dollars. And once parties see the benefits, perhaps the GO TO 2040 Plan will prompt some to conclude that greater Chicagoland should have the same leverage the Portland area enjoys.
To progress to the status of a world-class region, Chicagoland needs a good fight that produces a New Deal for growth; one in which every interest gets ready for the 21st Century and everyone wins.
permalink
