I read your Letter to the Editor in this morning's Valley News and thought I'd take the opportunity to answer the rhetorical question you pose. I don't know what "they" are afraid of, but I'm afraid of two things.
First, I fear that we are betraying the stated purpose of our land use regulations for a politically expedient one-off project. Second, I fear the finger-pointing and distrust among different townspeople have almost entirely choked off the forum for honest and candid debate.
Our 1996 Town Plan, and the revised subdivision regulations enacted subsequent to that Plan clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly state that our land use regulations should focus intensive development where higher density already exists. Our subdivision regulations adopt the existing zoning designations as threshold criteria to determine where higher density development may occur. The Agway project, as proposed, does not meet these criteria for that property. Everyone I've heard address this issue -- for and against the Agway project -- takes for granted the idea that it's perfectly alright to amend the zoning and subdivision regulations to address a single development project. I disagree.
Every single landowner who has come before the Town's permitting boards in recent years has faced the stark fact their right to develop their land is subject to the terms of our land use regulations. These land use regulations limit the development potential of properties all over town and their impact is real. Those who are denied subdivisions miss out on countless thousands, even millions, of dollars in potential income had they been allowed to develop as they proposed.
Right now, Simpson Development is appealing a decision by our Development Review Board which concluded that our land use regulations restrict the more intensive development they proposed at the edge of the Village Residential District. Shame on Simpson Development for not asking the Planning Commission to amend the subdivision regulations to allow their project? Shame on the DRB for not realizing the Town doesn't really take these regulations that seriously?
Some may say the difference is that Simpson was proposing market rate housing and the Agway project is proposing affordable housing. But our existing land use regulations make provisions for increased density where affordable housing is proposed and the proposed Agway project still doesn't meet our regulations.
So what do we do?
On the one hand, we can proceed as we now appear intent upon doing; namely, amend our regulations on a one-off basis to allow the Agway project as proposed. I won't lay down in front of the bulldozers should that come to pass, but I want everyone who supports that route to recognize the hypocrisy of amending our regulations where politically convenient while telling all the other land owners interested in developing their property that they're stuck with the regulations as written.
Don't comfort yourselves with the assumption that it's only Simpson Development and those seeking to build "huge house after huge house" that seek permits under our existing regulations. We've seen applicants looking to subdivide so their children can live in a modest house or trailer next door. We've seen applicants hoping to fund a house otherwise beyond their means by subdividing and selling off a portion of the land they own. Part of our affordability crisis in town can be traced to the limited development opportunities allowed under our existing regulations.
The other alternative, which I've been advocating, is to continue to take our land use regulations seriously and ask the questions those regulations demand of us. Do our current land use regulations permit the Agway project as proposed? No. Then what options do our land use regulations offer to increase the availability of affordable housing in this Town? In the Rural Residential District, where the Agway property and the vast majority of land in Norwich resides, Planned Residential Developments are available which allow a density boost for dedicated affordable units. But this won't accommodate the numbers and density proposed for the Agway site and we've already heard Housing Vermont and Twin Pines don't see the economies of scale necessary to go forward.
The other alternative is to seek higher density projects within the Village Residential District. One potential site where higher density development could occur would be the combined fire/police and Senior Housing parcels. If there were the political will to build housing consistent with our existing regulations, the opportunity to redevelop the emergency services and senior housing parcels holds great potential. I'd hope such redevelopment would strive to create mixed-income housing while incorporating the existing senior housing capacity simply because I think experience has shown mixed-income housing is more sustainable and seniors belong downtown where services are easily accessible.
I don't think redevelopment of these properties can, or should, reach the number of affordable units proposed by the Agway project. Instead, I think we get a more integrated, more sustainable project consistent with our land use regulations. I may be criticized for this incremental approach, but the number of units proposed for the Agway parcel has been dictated by the economics of the developer, not the characteristics of the land or our regulations. A successful redevelopment on the emergency services/senior housing parcels may help demystify "affordable housing" and allay fears of what such projects mean to existing neighborhoods, paving the way for future projects which can continue to pare down the affordability gap and offer more diverse housing stock we purport to want.
The opportunity to relocate emergency services to the Agway parcel and redevelop downtown along the lines outlined above has been raised a number of times over the past year. The response from the Selectboard has been underwhelming and the reasons offered to suggest why it wouldn't work seem pretty thin. Which brings me to my second fear.
In our current political climate can the Selectboard afford to pause and contemplate the options? Elections are five months away. Why would anyone facing reelection want to risk being branded as one of "them," afraid of affordable housing and standing in the way of democracy? Honest, well-meaning people can disagree about both the means and the ends involved in this debate. But why bother when you face such vocal criticism by those convinced there is only one answer and only one way to get there? In my opinion, there are some very irresponsible public figures in our Town who can't be bothered to entertain alternative points of view and cynically play real issues to settle political scores. That poison seems to me to be spreading and it won't stop until townspeople try harder to resist the easy path which paints everything black and white and deafens us to honest disagreement.
I've raised what I feel to be serious and honest concerns about regulation through amendment and I won't accept being branded as "anti-affordable housing" or "development-a-phobic" for asking honest questions. I didn't think I was a "they" or a "them" but I'm probably just old-fashioned and naive. I thought we were an "us," a community of people tied together by the fact we're responsible for governing ourselves. That means the loud few who keep us in the Valley News and Spectator as well as the reticent many whose ranks appear to increase with each election cycle. We have the freedom to govern ourselves and only ourselves to blame when we allow that freedom to be determined by the loud few through our acquiescence. I am absolutely certain Norwich will build the type of affordable housing it deserves. I'm afraid Norwich will build the type of affordable housing it deserves.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Off-Kilter - Harriet Miers, Abortion, and the Supreme Court (Valley News Op-Ed)
While no fan of George Bush or his judicial nominees, I can’t help but wince at Steve Nelson’s Oct. 16 assessment of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. As usual, this nomination was greeted by a torrent of verbiage telling us what a Supreme Court justice “should be.” These criteria, unsurprisingly, change with each nominee and generally reflect the political convictions of the writer. In Nelson’s column, we learn that he doesn’t like Miers, but the arguments say a great deal more about Nelson than they do about Miers.
First, Nelson makes the mistake of patronizing his opponents. He begins by gleefully rubbing his hands over the political storm that greeted Miers’ nomination. Citing the backlash within social conservative circles, Nelson questions how these critics can be so dense, claiming one “needn’t have supernatural powers” to know who Miers is and why she was nominated.
Lacking supernatural powers myself, I come to a completely different conclusion as to who she may be and why she has been forwarded by this administration. I think the Miers nomination speaks volumes about George Bush’s limited room to maneuver and reflects the Republican Party’s increasingly strained coalition.
Controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, the GOP could conceivably ram through another Robert Bork or Antonin Scalia, but has chosen not to. Why? The pundits and media, sniffing fire hydrants, blame Bush’s ham-handed management or simply enjoy the whiff of internal dissension so much they don’t bother digging further. I think the answer is plain to see and the social conservative backlash confirms it. The Republican Party cannot afford to see Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling on abortion rights, overturned.
Bush knows this, the Republican leadership know this, and now they’re doing back flips to obscure the fact from their social conservative supporters.
The Republican Party is a delicate balance of factions united in their opposition to the social and fiscal policies of the Democrats. With each passing year in power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, it’s becoming more difficult for the Republicans to stake out ground on fiscal matters. Conveniently, the Republicans can continue to stoke partisan outrage and oppose the Democrats’ social policies so long as Roe remains law.
Should a Republican-appointed Supreme Court overturn Roe, all bets are off. The outrage at what social conservatives see as government-sanctioned murder would be transformed to the outrage that libertarians, social liberals and a huge number of non-ideologues would feel at government intrusion into the most intimate, personal matters of conscience. Repudiation of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court would be a watershed event dwarfing the groundswell in social conservative circles that greeted the original decision, likely splitting the current Republican coalition irretrievably.
Pollsters from both parties have known this for decades and, oddly enough, Roe is a centerpiece in recruiting for each.
Viewed in this context, Miers is certainly a stealth nominee, but her ideology is meant to escape detection not from the Steve Nelsons of America, but rather from the core social conservative supporters the Republicans will depend upon in 2006 and beyond. Some will dismiss this analysis as fanciful or too clever by half, but they ignore the evidence. Why do Republican court nominees always skirt the Roe controversy at their hearings? None hesitate to discuss Brown v. Board of Education despite the fact that its practical meaning remains subject to litigation in cases about desegregation and reverse discrimination.
If Republicans were confident that a majority of voters felt Roe was an obvious injustice, they wouldn’t hesitate to press the issue, using nomination hearings to press home the fact that Democrats were out of touch with that majority. As it is, the Republicans couldn’t even muster a majority of senators to support an avowedly anti-Roe nominee. Many social conservative activists are up in arms because they see the Miers appointment consolidating the 5-4 decision in the 1992 Casey ruling, which saw three Republican nominees, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, join the 5-4 majority and hold fast on Roe as settled law. Chief Justice Roberts has already hinted he views Casey, and consequently Roe, as settled law. Miers shows every indication of lacking the overt ideology that has made Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia heroes among social conservatives.
Bush campaigned twice on the position that he would appoint overt ideologues such as Scalia and Thomas to the Supreme Court if elected. He’s blatantly reneged on that promise, and one must ask why. Why endure the internal dissension and public attacks for going back on his word? Because he has no choice.
Besides misreading Bush’s motives, Nelson’s column also indulges in intellectual bigotry. In Nelson’s universe, all “born-again” Christians such as Miers are social conservatives lacking Souter’s “agile and open mind.” He then offers George Will and David Brooks — two columnists who earn their bread writing condescendingly and authoritatively about every topic imaginable — as proof that Miers lacks “intellectual distinction.” Apparently Will possesses “the list” of our nation’s best legal minds and Miers doesn’t appear on it. Brooks, for his part, finds Texas Bar Association newsletters full of “vapid abstractions,” which any lawyer can tell you is a hallmark of every bar association newsletter in this country. Nelson cozies on in with these odd bedfellows to regale us with a novel legal distinction between judges who decide cases based on “an objective review of the facts” (apparently a bad thing) and those who properly hover in the ether of constitutional jurisprudence, “arguing late into the night about the Bill of Rights” and matching up “a contemporary social reality to the philosophical underpinnings of our republic.”
It’s no surprise Nelson disdains an “objective review of the facts” regarding Miers’ nomination, as he’s already reached his own decision.
Going for the jugular, Nelson impugns Miers’ character for choosing corporate law over public interest law or an academic career. He concludes that Miers “has shown no interest in or capacity to do the work for which she has been nominated.” Giants of American jurisprudence from John Marshall to Earl Warren had no judicial experience prior to joining the Supreme Court. There was a time where practical knowledge of the world, whether in politics or private practice, was considered far more important than “intellectual distinction” displayed in an academic career. Academics may disagree, but the core responsibility of judges is to make decisions, important decisions, often in less than ideal circumstances, often presented with strong arguments on both sides. The Supreme Court has precious few slam-dunk decisions, no matter what Justice Scalia may say.
The essential quality for a good judge is an ability to set aside preconceptions and remain wary of one's own bias so one may fairly weigh the opposing arguments that come before them. I don’t know whether Miers will be a great, or even good judge. I do know those who support or condemn her on the basis of the meager public record we now have before us clearly do so in ignorance and presume a great deal in so doing. Rather than shedding light on the Miers nomination, Nelson has simply made clear why we’ve never had a columnist nominated to the Supreme Court.
First, Nelson makes the mistake of patronizing his opponents. He begins by gleefully rubbing his hands over the political storm that greeted Miers’ nomination. Citing the backlash within social conservative circles, Nelson questions how these critics can be so dense, claiming one “needn’t have supernatural powers” to know who Miers is and why she was nominated.
Lacking supernatural powers myself, I come to a completely different conclusion as to who she may be and why she has been forwarded by this administration. I think the Miers nomination speaks volumes about George Bush’s limited room to maneuver and reflects the Republican Party’s increasingly strained coalition.
Controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, the GOP could conceivably ram through another Robert Bork or Antonin Scalia, but has chosen not to. Why? The pundits and media, sniffing fire hydrants, blame Bush’s ham-handed management or simply enjoy the whiff of internal dissension so much they don’t bother digging further. I think the answer is plain to see and the social conservative backlash confirms it. The Republican Party cannot afford to see Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling on abortion rights, overturned.
Bush knows this, the Republican leadership know this, and now they’re doing back flips to obscure the fact from their social conservative supporters.
The Republican Party is a delicate balance of factions united in their opposition to the social and fiscal policies of the Democrats. With each passing year in power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, it’s becoming more difficult for the Republicans to stake out ground on fiscal matters. Conveniently, the Republicans can continue to stoke partisan outrage and oppose the Democrats’ social policies so long as Roe remains law.
Should a Republican-appointed Supreme Court overturn Roe, all bets are off. The outrage at what social conservatives see as government-sanctioned murder would be transformed to the outrage that libertarians, social liberals and a huge number of non-ideologues would feel at government intrusion into the most intimate, personal matters of conscience. Repudiation of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court would be a watershed event dwarfing the groundswell in social conservative circles that greeted the original decision, likely splitting the current Republican coalition irretrievably.
Pollsters from both parties have known this for decades and, oddly enough, Roe is a centerpiece in recruiting for each.
Viewed in this context, Miers is certainly a stealth nominee, but her ideology is meant to escape detection not from the Steve Nelsons of America, but rather from the core social conservative supporters the Republicans will depend upon in 2006 and beyond. Some will dismiss this analysis as fanciful or too clever by half, but they ignore the evidence. Why do Republican court nominees always skirt the Roe controversy at their hearings? None hesitate to discuss Brown v. Board of Education despite the fact that its practical meaning remains subject to litigation in cases about desegregation and reverse discrimination.
If Republicans were confident that a majority of voters felt Roe was an obvious injustice, they wouldn’t hesitate to press the issue, using nomination hearings to press home the fact that Democrats were out of touch with that majority. As it is, the Republicans couldn’t even muster a majority of senators to support an avowedly anti-Roe nominee. Many social conservative activists are up in arms because they see the Miers appointment consolidating the 5-4 decision in the 1992 Casey ruling, which saw three Republican nominees, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, join the 5-4 majority and hold fast on Roe as settled law. Chief Justice Roberts has already hinted he views Casey, and consequently Roe, as settled law. Miers shows every indication of lacking the overt ideology that has made Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia heroes among social conservatives.
Bush campaigned twice on the position that he would appoint overt ideologues such as Scalia and Thomas to the Supreme Court if elected. He’s blatantly reneged on that promise, and one must ask why. Why endure the internal dissension and public attacks for going back on his word? Because he has no choice.
Besides misreading Bush’s motives, Nelson’s column also indulges in intellectual bigotry. In Nelson’s universe, all “born-again” Christians such as Miers are social conservatives lacking Souter’s “agile and open mind.” He then offers George Will and David Brooks — two columnists who earn their bread writing condescendingly and authoritatively about every topic imaginable — as proof that Miers lacks “intellectual distinction.” Apparently Will possesses “the list” of our nation’s best legal minds and Miers doesn’t appear on it. Brooks, for his part, finds Texas Bar Association newsletters full of “vapid abstractions,” which any lawyer can tell you is a hallmark of every bar association newsletter in this country. Nelson cozies on in with these odd bedfellows to regale us with a novel legal distinction between judges who decide cases based on “an objective review of the facts” (apparently a bad thing) and those who properly hover in the ether of constitutional jurisprudence, “arguing late into the night about the Bill of Rights” and matching up “a contemporary social reality to the philosophical underpinnings of our republic.”
It’s no surprise Nelson disdains an “objective review of the facts” regarding Miers’ nomination, as he’s already reached his own decision.
Going for the jugular, Nelson impugns Miers’ character for choosing corporate law over public interest law or an academic career. He concludes that Miers “has shown no interest in or capacity to do the work for which she has been nominated.” Giants of American jurisprudence from John Marshall to Earl Warren had no judicial experience prior to joining the Supreme Court. There was a time where practical knowledge of the world, whether in politics or private practice, was considered far more important than “intellectual distinction” displayed in an academic career. Academics may disagree, but the core responsibility of judges is to make decisions, important decisions, often in less than ideal circumstances, often presented with strong arguments on both sides. The Supreme Court has precious few slam-dunk decisions, no matter what Justice Scalia may say.
The essential quality for a good judge is an ability to set aside preconceptions and remain wary of one's own bias so one may fairly weigh the opposing arguments that come before them. I don’t know whether Miers will be a great, or even good judge. I do know those who support or condemn her on the basis of the meager public record we now have before us clearly do so in ignorance and presume a great deal in so doing. Rather than shedding light on the Miers nomination, Nelson has simply made clear why we’ve never had a columnist nominated to the Supreme Court.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Agway and Affordability - Open Letter to SB/PC
To the Planning Commission and Selectboard:
First and foremost, I'd like to express my appreciation for Creigh Moffatt's efforts to bring a concrete proposal before the Town. Creigh has shared her thoughts on this effort with me for some time and never once faltered when faced with my jaded outlook. Her energy and tenacity in pursuing this opportunity show once more than individuals can make a real difference in a community such as ours.
The debate regarding development of the Agway Property has included a number of broad assertions which, I am concerned, may obscure more practical difficulties. As I understand the issue, the Planning Commission is considering two options to secure the density boost necessary to accommodate the proposed housing project.
The first, an extension of the Village Residential District down Church Street/Route 5 North, would allow a Planned Residential Development ("PRD") under Section 12 of the Norwich Zoning Regulations based on the 1/2 acre minimum lot size permitted within the Village Residential District.
The second proposal would amend Section 12 to increase the "density bonus" granted for projects designating a certain proportion of units as "affordable housing," allowing the Agway property to remain in the Rural Residential District, but securing sufficient density to allow this project nonetheless.
The limited documentation I have seen suggests either option would be able to accommodate the level of density the developers feel necessary to make such a project economically viable. Nonetheless, I have practical and philosophical concerns regarding both options which I have not heard expressed thus far.
Whether one is talking about this project, "affordable housing" as a concept, or the affordability of housing in Norwich, one is ultimately talking about regulations and the policy goals they serve. Our zoning and subdivision regulations attempt to shape development in town by limiting the types of uses and density to designated districts. PRD's, as authorized in our zoning and subdivision regulations, do not alter the district-based density restrictions, but rather seek to govern large developments on a site-specific basis to maintain or mimic existing patterns of development consistent with the characteristics of the relevant zoning district.
In other words, our regulations ask a basic question which must be answered at the permitting stage for this project to go forward: "Is this where the town's regulations and Town Plan want this level of density to occur?"
Anyone who has carefully read our regulations will realize there is reason for caution. Our subdivision regulations are complex and highly restrictive of development on a number of surprisingly defined criteria. In addition, our PRD regulations specifically ask the DRB to assess applications against the stated goals of our Town Plan -- goals which, as in this instance, may be contradictory. In the end, I expect political pressure will force the issue, any contrary provisions of our regulations be damned. But the question is still worth asking and I haven't heard it asked.
Is this where the town's regulations and Town Plan want this level of density to occur? From a purely regulatory point of view, the answer is obviously "No." Village residential density belongs in the Village Residential District and efforts to extend that district are simply a reaction to an individual project. Neither our Town Plan nor our land use regulations contemplated village residential development in this area and we might pause to wonder why. Nor does it end there.
Are the developers in this instance aware of the site-specific restrictions they face under a PRD review? Our subdivision regulations establish mandatory requirements regarding consistency with existing settlement patterns; village residential settlement patterns in this instance. Even if we extend the village residential district, are the developers contemplating a village residential development? One fudge may require several more and expediency may usher in a series of unintended consequences.
Is this the direction we want to village to grow? Is this state highway corridor really the best place to extend a village settlement pattern and the streetscape such a pattern requires? This is currently an industrial site, after all, fronting a state highway and backed by a federal interstate highway, topographically isolated from the existing village. If we're willing to waive the existing regulations by amendment to allow this project to proceed to permitting review, are we also willing to waive the specific regulatory provisions which may make this project uneconomical to develop or simply untenable upon regulatory review? It may be worth considering specific amendments to those provisions as well so we can be sure the regulations achieve the right result.
To my eye, both the proposal to extend the village residential district and the idea of boosting the density bonus in the PRD regulations are broad regulatory changes prompted by a desire to accommodate a specific development proposal. That's not a great way to formulate regulations and begs the question what we thought we were doing in our strenuous efforts, as a town, to comprehensively update our Town Plan back in the early 1990's. If our regulations and Town Plan don't contemplate this level of density on this site, then where do they expect it to occur?
The simple answer is in the existing Village Residential District. If one follows the Simpson Development Corporation appeal, the answer is even more precise. Our regulations clearly expect greater than typical residential development to occur in the heart of the Village Residential District, rather than at its edges.
Coincidentally, even as the Agway property has come on the market, a substantial collection of properties at the heart of the village may also be available for development. There has been discussion that both the police and fire facilities need upgrading. Norwich Senior Housing has reached a regulatory threshold regarding it's initial HUD funding-based use restrictions. Today's paper suggests the brick house beside the Grange may also be available to the Town. Why not purchase the Agway property and relocate the Town's emergency services there? The existing fire and police facilities could then be redeveloped as residential housing placing more intensive residential density where our regulations suggest it belongs, nearer existing services and consistent with existing infrastructure. With a bit of ambition, Norwich Senior Housing might also be approached to expand the redevelopment area creating a new cluster which might incorporate the existing senior housing capacity within combined multi-unit and single-family housing.
If one assumes our regulations and Town Plan mean what they say, the question, then, is whether there is the political will to put our money where our regulatory mouth says this type of density should occur.
I also want to express my philosophical unease with the idea of siting an "affordable housing" project on the Agway property. I have worked in the affordable housing industry and seen first-hand the sullen bursts of opposition which occur when specific projects are presented, often coming from surprising constituencies. One of the real problems with "affordable housing" is the fact it often lacks the vested supporters found behind most for-profit development. As in Norwich, much of the support for affordable housing comes from policies, governmental agencies, and theoretical positions which prove malleable in the face of local opposition.
In the event, the path of least resistance often leads to physically segregated projects which concentrate "affordability" outside the existing fabric of the community. The eloquent letter from a Starlake resident in last week's Valley News speaks volumes to the overlooked infrastructure and transportation costs of distended development. There is also a social cost to segregation which we overlook at our peril. The proposed Agway development, while closer to the town's heart than Starlake, still lies a surprising distance away physically, topographically, and psychologically. For those who recommend the project on the basis of increasing the school population, I'd invite you to take your child or grandchild for a walk from Marion Cross to the Agway site one of these evenings. Ask them what they thought of the walk and whether they want to do it again tomorrow.
The alternative to concentrated, segregated "affordable housing" is integrated and dispersed "affordable housing." Unfortunately, these efforts don't achieve as much as quickly as a single big project, but they are more consistent with the way our town works and offer much better opportunities to foster diversity and community. A decision to purchase the Agway property for emergency services and redevelop the existing fire and police property would not sustain the number of units contemplated by the current proposal. The redevelopment option would have a better chance of achieving financial independence if some of the units were market-priced, reducing the total number of new affordable units still further. However, it's really a trade off between goals.
Are we looking to maximize affordable units in the short term or to maintain an economically diverse but integrated community in the long-term? The only reason to prefer the former, in my view, would be if one has no faith the latter will ever get done. I'd like to think it can be achieved and would suggest a few practical steps to get there.
First, add the idea of moving emergency facilities to the Agway parcel and redeveloping the fire/police property as integrated mixed-income housing as a third option in your discussions.
Second, the single best long-term vehicle to promote integrated, dispersed affordability is to promote rental housing in primary and secondary structures on existing properties within both the village and rural districts. A joint study subcommittee charged with reviewing what larger Vermont municipalities allow might be able to formulate specific regulatory language to encourage more rental housing within the existing housing inventory.
Third, address the apparent bar to multi-unit housing in the village district created in the last revision of the subdivision regulations.
Fourth, investigate the possibility of the Town entering an option agreement to acquire the Agway property either way to alleviate the time pressure tail which is waging this dog.
I think it would be a shame to waste Creigh's good work in this instance by failing to act, but I'd encourage the Town to act responsibly with regard to regulatory amendment and consider whether Creigh's efforts might be leveraged to set Norwich towards a more realistic and sustainable approach to housing affordability over the long-term.
First and foremost, I'd like to express my appreciation for Creigh Moffatt's efforts to bring a concrete proposal before the Town. Creigh has shared her thoughts on this effort with me for some time and never once faltered when faced with my jaded outlook. Her energy and tenacity in pursuing this opportunity show once more than individuals can make a real difference in a community such as ours.
The debate regarding development of the Agway Property has included a number of broad assertions which, I am concerned, may obscure more practical difficulties. As I understand the issue, the Planning Commission is considering two options to secure the density boost necessary to accommodate the proposed housing project.
The first, an extension of the Village Residential District down Church Street/Route 5 North, would allow a Planned Residential Development ("PRD") under Section 12 of the Norwich Zoning Regulations based on the 1/2 acre minimum lot size permitted within the Village Residential District.
The second proposal would amend Section 12 to increase the "density bonus" granted for projects designating a certain proportion of units as "affordable housing," allowing the Agway property to remain in the Rural Residential District, but securing sufficient density to allow this project nonetheless.
The limited documentation I have seen suggests either option would be able to accommodate the level of density the developers feel necessary to make such a project economically viable. Nonetheless, I have practical and philosophical concerns regarding both options which I have not heard expressed thus far.
Whether one is talking about this project, "affordable housing" as a concept, or the affordability of housing in Norwich, one is ultimately talking about regulations and the policy goals they serve. Our zoning and subdivision regulations attempt to shape development in town by limiting the types of uses and density to designated districts. PRD's, as authorized in our zoning and subdivision regulations, do not alter the district-based density restrictions, but rather seek to govern large developments on a site-specific basis to maintain or mimic existing patterns of development consistent with the characteristics of the relevant zoning district.
In other words, our regulations ask a basic question which must be answered at the permitting stage for this project to go forward: "Is this where the town's regulations and Town Plan want this level of density to occur?"
Anyone who has carefully read our regulations will realize there is reason for caution. Our subdivision regulations are complex and highly restrictive of development on a number of surprisingly defined criteria. In addition, our PRD regulations specifically ask the DRB to assess applications against the stated goals of our Town Plan -- goals which, as in this instance, may be contradictory. In the end, I expect political pressure will force the issue, any contrary provisions of our regulations be damned. But the question is still worth asking and I haven't heard it asked.
Is this where the town's regulations and Town Plan want this level of density to occur? From a purely regulatory point of view, the answer is obviously "No." Village residential density belongs in the Village Residential District and efforts to extend that district are simply a reaction to an individual project. Neither our Town Plan nor our land use regulations contemplated village residential development in this area and we might pause to wonder why. Nor does it end there.
Are the developers in this instance aware of the site-specific restrictions they face under a PRD review? Our subdivision regulations establish mandatory requirements regarding consistency with existing settlement patterns; village residential settlement patterns in this instance. Even if we extend the village residential district, are the developers contemplating a village residential development? One fudge may require several more and expediency may usher in a series of unintended consequences.
Is this the direction we want to village to grow? Is this state highway corridor really the best place to extend a village settlement pattern and the streetscape such a pattern requires? This is currently an industrial site, after all, fronting a state highway and backed by a federal interstate highway, topographically isolated from the existing village. If we're willing to waive the existing regulations by amendment to allow this project to proceed to permitting review, are we also willing to waive the specific regulatory provisions which may make this project uneconomical to develop or simply untenable upon regulatory review? It may be worth considering specific amendments to those provisions as well so we can be sure the regulations achieve the right result.
To my eye, both the proposal to extend the village residential district and the idea of boosting the density bonus in the PRD regulations are broad regulatory changes prompted by a desire to accommodate a specific development proposal. That's not a great way to formulate regulations and begs the question what we thought we were doing in our strenuous efforts, as a town, to comprehensively update our Town Plan back in the early 1990's. If our regulations and Town Plan don't contemplate this level of density on this site, then where do they expect it to occur?
The simple answer is in the existing Village Residential District. If one follows the Simpson Development Corporation appeal, the answer is even more precise. Our regulations clearly expect greater than typical residential development to occur in the heart of the Village Residential District, rather than at its edges.
Coincidentally, even as the Agway property has come on the market, a substantial collection of properties at the heart of the village may also be available for development. There has been discussion that both the police and fire facilities need upgrading. Norwich Senior Housing has reached a regulatory threshold regarding it's initial HUD funding-based use restrictions. Today's paper suggests the brick house beside the Grange may also be available to the Town. Why not purchase the Agway property and relocate the Town's emergency services there? The existing fire and police facilities could then be redeveloped as residential housing placing more intensive residential density where our regulations suggest it belongs, nearer existing services and consistent with existing infrastructure. With a bit of ambition, Norwich Senior Housing might also be approached to expand the redevelopment area creating a new cluster which might incorporate the existing senior housing capacity within combined multi-unit and single-family housing.
If one assumes our regulations and Town Plan mean what they say, the question, then, is whether there is the political will to put our money where our regulatory mouth says this type of density should occur.
I also want to express my philosophical unease with the idea of siting an "affordable housing" project on the Agway property. I have worked in the affordable housing industry and seen first-hand the sullen bursts of opposition which occur when specific projects are presented, often coming from surprising constituencies. One of the real problems with "affordable housing" is the fact it often lacks the vested supporters found behind most for-profit development. As in Norwich, much of the support for affordable housing comes from policies, governmental agencies, and theoretical positions which prove malleable in the face of local opposition.
In the event, the path of least resistance often leads to physically segregated projects which concentrate "affordability" outside the existing fabric of the community. The eloquent letter from a Starlake resident in last week's Valley News speaks volumes to the overlooked infrastructure and transportation costs of distended development. There is also a social cost to segregation which we overlook at our peril. The proposed Agway development, while closer to the town's heart than Starlake, still lies a surprising distance away physically, topographically, and psychologically. For those who recommend the project on the basis of increasing the school population, I'd invite you to take your child or grandchild for a walk from Marion Cross to the Agway site one of these evenings. Ask them what they thought of the walk and whether they want to do it again tomorrow.
The alternative to concentrated, segregated "affordable housing" is integrated and dispersed "affordable housing." Unfortunately, these efforts don't achieve as much as quickly as a single big project, but they are more consistent with the way our town works and offer much better opportunities to foster diversity and community. A decision to purchase the Agway property for emergency services and redevelop the existing fire and police property would not sustain the number of units contemplated by the current proposal. The redevelopment option would have a better chance of achieving financial independence if some of the units were market-priced, reducing the total number of new affordable units still further. However, it's really a trade off between goals.
Are we looking to maximize affordable units in the short term or to maintain an economically diverse but integrated community in the long-term? The only reason to prefer the former, in my view, would be if one has no faith the latter will ever get done. I'd like to think it can be achieved and would suggest a few practical steps to get there.
First, add the idea of moving emergency facilities to the Agway parcel and redeveloping the fire/police property as integrated mixed-income housing as a third option in your discussions.
Second, the single best long-term vehicle to promote integrated, dispersed affordability is to promote rental housing in primary and secondary structures on existing properties within both the village and rural districts. A joint study subcommittee charged with reviewing what larger Vermont municipalities allow might be able to formulate specific regulatory language to encourage more rental housing within the existing housing inventory.
Third, address the apparent bar to multi-unit housing in the village district created in the last revision of the subdivision regulations.
Fourth, investigate the possibility of the Town entering an option agreement to acquire the Agway property either way to alleviate the time pressure tail which is waging this dog.
I think it would be a shame to waste Creigh's good work in this instance by failing to act, but I'd encourage the Town to act responsibly with regard to regulatory amendment and consider whether Creigh's efforts might be leveraged to set Norwich towards a more realistic and sustainable approach to housing affordability over the long-term.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)