More fallout from Tacoma’s eco-regulations
May 28th, 2008 by Republican By DefaultTacoma has been implementing policies that are touted as eco-friendly for a while now. Some of them have come around to bite them, mostly in the form of higher costs or lost revenues (for the city and for businesses in the city). Another consequence of their il-conceived policies has reared it’s ugly head.
One of the major problems with these new policies is that they’re trying to force a supposedly ‘new way of thinking’ into existing environments. In this case they are encouraging multi-story mixed-use buildings (residential combined with commercial, such as retail) by giving tax breaks to developers. And without thought of the consequences the city has allowed these buildings with large reflective exterior surfaces to be built next to existing houses.
The consequence: sunlight is concentrated on existing houses causing the interior to heat up.
Some might think this is an acceptable consequence to protect the planet from its evil nemesis ‘urban sprawl’, but if you’re sitting in a solar roaster that was once a comfortable rambler, it ain’t so cool.
So how is the city dealing with it? The News Tribune has an article describing a ’study session’ held by the city council.
Councilman Jake Fey said the development occurring along South Pine Street wasn’t what officials envisioned when they established the exemption. As he drives by and looks at the development, Fey said he wonders “where in the heck the kids are going to play except in the road or alley.”
“It’s bad enough that they’re not providing open space,” Fey said, adding that the city doesn’t have to offer an incentive for the developers to build such developments.
The program was intended to encourage dense, urban-style development in part to comply with the state’s Growth Management Act, which aims to stop suburban sprawl and concentrate people in cities. The City Council shot down a staff proposal last year that would have placed limits on the kinds of projects eligible for the tax exemption. [emphasis added]
This is what happens when government gets involved where it shouldn’t. The law of unintended consequences goes on a rampage. Mixed use development should be market driven not encouraged by taxpayer subsidized kickbacks. If this type of development has a place in our community the free market will drive it to happen. If not, it’s best that it doesn’t happen. It’s pretty simple. Even a politician should be able to understand it.
The tax exemption program, begun in 1996, is credited with helping fuel the condominium boom that has revitalized downtown Tacoma. But it’s available to developers in 17 “mixed-use centers” throughout the city, including the Tacoma Mall Mixed-Use Center.
In the last 12 months, the city has received 13 applications for the property tax exemption. Of those, 11 were in the Tacoma Mall area and nine of those were for townhouse projects, the memo states.
What? Condominium boom? Aren’t there a bunch of downtown condo projects that are currently on-hold or have changed to other uses? What boom? Blip, maybe. And ‘revitalized downtown’? Tacoma’s downtown? The downtown with all of the empty lots, boarded up buildings and vacating business tenants? That writer might want to take off those rose colored glasses before sitting down at the keyboard. Sure there’s improvement, but ‘boom’, ‘revitalized’? If it were revitalized why is it still an Economic Empowerment Zone and why is the city planning to dump $140+ million into it to get it going?
But Tacoma officials failed to plan for the development that’s booming in her neighborhood, she said.
“Why didn’t somebody think ahead?” she asked. “This is not the first geographic area where poor planning has resulted in God-awful mish-mush.”
Well said.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Yep, the eco-terrorists will never think of the unintended consequences of their radicalism because their minds are set on change whether it is good for humanity or not.
Tragically, we ain’t seen nothing yet.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Good post! I would like to amplify one point, if I may. This is not just a case of the city government getting involved where it shouldn’t; it is a case of rank amateurs dabbling in areas where they have no expertise.
One has to wonder how this might have turned out differently, if the City Council were spending their own money. Might they have been just a little more diligent about studying the potential consequences of their actions?
May 28th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
So would no zoning be better for the urban environment? Is Houston, with no zoning, a better place than tightly regulated Seattle or Portland (I don’t think so!)?
I think Tacoma’s problems have more to do with a history of population loss to suburbs, a slowly recovering but historically weak economy, and perhaps substandard city planning. But too much planning doesn’t seem to me to be the issue.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Too much planning? If the planning is bad then the more of it the worse things will end up. Since this was bad planning, yes, this is an example of bad planning.
Tacoma’s City Council, Economic Development Board and all of the related groups (public and private) clearly don’t know what they’re doing. They’re pushing policies that may or may not work, but they push them anyway.
And all the while they’re pushing these bad policies they’re impacting taxpayers, businesses and anyone else who gets in the way. Ultimately it is the city council that decides on policy, so they are the ones who need to think things through, but they don’t.
We should seriously consider replacing some of them in the next election (2009).
May 28th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
So would no zoning be better for the urban environment? Is Houston, with no zoning, a better place than tightly regulated Seattle or Portland (I don’t think so!)?
Tacoma and Pierce County are a mess primarily because the County engaged in huge suburban sprawl subsidization which encouraged the near abandonment of the downtown and many of the urban centers. Pierce County, like Huston has been a train wreck for growth management.
Its far better tax wise to have the growth occur in the city center rather than in the suburbs which require even more expensive and subsidized road building and utility extensions.
Having taxpayers subsidize suburban growth has made living 30 miles away from Tacoma appear to be a free choice when the fact is that it has externalized a great many financial and environmental costs.