Allowing Process and Policy to Work

Even though I have spent a great deal of time reading land development regulations, I understand that there is so much to know beyond what your immediate focus is. The best piece of advice I ever received was from a construction executive at a massive billion dollar project that I worked on. He took somewhat of a liking to me and we walked the job on many occasions. I remember how quickly he moved through the jobsite, looking at every detail and corner. He liked that I knew a lot about what was going on at the job in my area and in areas beyond my work. We walked the job and he pointed out many little things of note. He said “You will never know everything about construction, there is just too much knowledge to keep up and things change constantly.” I have taken that advice to include all aspects of the built environment, policy, and innovations.

In the past few years there has been many regulations passed by our city leaders and planning departments to begin easing our dire housing situation. In Southern California, where single family zoning is king, these leaders have seen the need to add a bit of density to these areas simply because the vastness of single family zoning available to build upon. This has not been popular with homeowners and that is understandable. When one purchases a home, they look at all aspects of the neighborhood and make that important economic decision based upon various factors. It is upsetting when those things change and the neighborhood begins to evolve.

It seems that we understand evolution until that evolution begins to encroach in our areas. Another thing to understand is that there is no miracle or all inclusive solution. The solutions to our challenges will be many small decisions that create larger change.

Understanding the concerns of the community, we also must understand the concerns and needs of our community, city, and region that exists beyond the bounds of our property lines. Unfortunately, community desires will not always have the ability to meet the challenges that we are presented. I see a lot of blame levied on our leaders and especially towards developers. It is true that developers are opportunistic and rely on the feasibility of projects and profits. What is not mentioned is that a profitable developer is a developer that is continually building. A developer that is consistently building is the solution, not the problem. A successful developer, even more specific, a successful small infill developer, is just as important in providing housing units and employment to a wide variety of industries. Maybe we sometimes make the error of basing our assumptions and oppositions on the large banners hanging from the large housing developments that impact neighborhoods. Not everyone works for those large entities. The world is made up of many levels of developers, contractors, and laborers. The small guys are just as important, and community opposition is an obstruction at many levels, and in some cases, stunt the growth of their own neighbors, let alone, their community growth and prosperity.

Again, we must empathize with communities but we must understand that our leaders are not looking at the problems at the ground level, they see things from an elevated perspective. Our leaders are installed review the information, listen, and make the proper decisions. Our communities are not the arbiters of control, but rather the forward observers embedded at ground level. They should communicate what is happening and relay that important information without their intimate emotions of the location. That can be difficult but it is crucial to have that objective data so our leaders can take prudent steps.

One of the main things that I see is the time in which adjustments to policies take place. Take a look at the image below. It is taken form a local neighborhood group. They are highly organized and informed. I read their concerns and much of their strategies make sense, however, many of them do not.

What I noted when I read their information package and detailed graphics was that the images they present are of projects that are not yet completed. My first thought was how are we bringing forth complaints prior to the project being completed. Additionally, I imagine that these projects were fully compliant based on the relevant policy and regulations.

The images are also taken from an up-close perspective which makes them appear to loom over and dominate the neighborhood. Those small two story structures might be the only two story structures in a small radius. Each project in these images deserves to be viewed along with the adjacent context in its entirety. What would be the difference if someone tore down a one story house and replaced it with a two story home? This is not a real stretch when it comes to creating impact in the community. When thinking about parking, many families have more than one vehicle. With kids staying at home much longer, homes have many cars that take up street parking. I just do not see these neighborhood groups looking at the situation from multiple vantage points so that people can make better decisions. It seems more of a plea based upon incomplete data presented in a very thorough and complete way.

The image with the overfilled trash is the most misleading and lacking in context. Drive around any neighborhood on trash day and there are filled trash cans. We do live in a highly entitle consumer culture that creates a huge amount of waste. This waste is not just centered around a single family lot that might have three or four units. That amount of waste is generated by many people. Take a drive around any neighborhood after the Fourth of July, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years. I’ve seen that amount of garbage after a kids birthday party. When I see pictures like that, it just seems so silly and elementary. Is the picture staged. There are not any other trash bins out on the rest of the street. Is it always like that?

Unfortunately, a picture says a thousand words and neighborhood groups like this that can influence five or ten thousand people could account for tens, hundreds, or thousands of units. We must ask the difficult questions. Politicians and leaders are humans like us and they do the best they can. They take the blame for many things by a public mob that continually scrutinizes the complicated decisions that they must make daily. Is the community the sole reason for the housing crisis? Does the problem start there?

I think many people are beginning to realize that this is becoming more and more true. Much of the activism is based upon fear, and the fear of change. We all know that and fortunately our leaders are listening to the various voices and continuing to make the right decisions to solve issues for many people rather than a few homeowners trying to protect some notion of comfort and convenience that does not account for the realities of human life and the evolution of cities.

I read their presentation and the thing that struck me the most and generated a laugh was a quote they presented regarding single family zoning. It says: “No amount of opening zoning or allowing for development will cause prices to go down. We’ve seen no evidence of that at all.” - Insert name here - Professor, Planner, and Author: insert name of book here. I’ve intentionally left out the names to keep things general.

I just heard of this and did not read this gentleman’s book but I am sure that he is highly knowledgeable with planning and development. If you read further, this man is a professor and planner in British Columbia, Canada. It is true that zoning practices in Canada are similar to California, however, they are not the same and Canada does not have the same intricate issues that we have in California. I think it is a bit irresponsible to take a quote from someone that exists so far outside the local picture and use that as a tool to influence neighborhood residents that are not privy to the extensive workings of how cities are designed and built. The infographic goes on to state that upzoning in Vancouver failed but it does not go into detail as to why. That is a whole case study by itself.

I am not discounting the quote’s author or the reality that upzoning failed in another country that could have similar aspects as San Diego; I am discounting the lack of comprehensive follow through on the presented information. The neighborhood group could have at least stated that these are observations that have happened in another city with different land value determinations and conditions. It snows in Vancouver. It is very cold in Vancouver. All these conditions are relevant factors to place into the comparison between that city and San Diego. A similar situation would be if I am trying to sell a ground up home I’ve built, but in my real estate financial analysis, I use comparables from Vancouver, Seattle, Pheonix, and Salt Lake City. Any reasonable consumer would red flag this as absurd and that absurdity is reflected in this San Diego neighborhood group presentation.

Another lacking component to the argument is the way that the resident and tenant cycle works. When a new project is built, that new tenant leaves behind their old rental space. The new tenant on the new development is paying a premium to live in a new building for various reasons. This decision is based upon the desire to be closer to work, a great park, or their favorite restaurant. Regardless, a new unit leaves behind an empty unit to be filled and in most cases, that old unit is priced more affordable than the newly developed unit. When presenting any information on new development it is important to unveil the full cycle. It is foolish to think that a new unit is always magically inhabited by someone from out of town. No, new units are inhabited by many people in many situations. A new tenant that leaves home creates an empty room that can be rented. A new tenant that recently graduated from college may leave behind a college apartment. That employee that received a healthy raise moves into an new urban apartment and leaves behind their old one.

The thing that these group serious lack is a diversity of voices. These groups lack someone internal at the leadership level that has the strength to present a real picture based upon local factors. These presentations are just an attempt to sway unknowing residents to apply traction to a very individualistic cause. Their mission is one sided and guised under the spirit of educating the community. A real education entails providing a full scope of information so that residents can arrive at their own conclusions. Unfortunately, their arguments appear one sided and severely diluted. These types of presentations are geared to inspire anger and distrust in our leaders and the systems they are entrusted to build and maintain.

Those images of the incomplete projects are the premature reactions and speculations of events that have yet to transpire. As mentioned, I understand the concerns of the community and neighborhood groups such as these. I am a homeowner and my community has many ills. It is important that we reject the premature reactions and allow policies to move forward, and at minimum, arrive at some level of completion and functionality. The crying voices are creating adjustments to changes that have yet to happen or be quantified.

I am sure there have been some negative impacts to the policies. It is important to allow these policies a few years to develop and grow. When we move to adjust policies to quickly, we disallow natural solutions to be presented that occur on their own without the new regulations being established to counter new regulations that were recently enacted. When we react too fast, we do not allow the “unwritten” rules to surface and be established. This is no different that two neighbors sharing trash bin duties. I take the bins out the day before trash day and my neighbor brings them in. Sometimes it happens in reverse but it always happens and our garbage is removed. Whoever gets to the bins first walks them to the street and the other neighbor brings them in. I see these development issues being as simple as that. These mutual exchanges take time to rise and implement but the intense passions of a few residents who feel negatively impacted leads to these important social exchanges being stunted and twisted. Then there is a wave of energy directed to influence a community with as little as information as possible, whether those people are directly impacted or not. All of this is subjective and it has no business being the more important factor when crafting a solid built environment.