DOCSLIB.ORG

From Nimby to Yimby: Understanding Community Opposition to Special Needs Residential Facilities in Vancouver

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
From Nimby to Yimby: Understanding Community Opposition to Special Needs Residential Facilities in Vancouver PROM NIMBY TO YIMBY: UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITY OPPOSITION TO SPECIAL NEEDS RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IN VANCOUVER Liza Jimenez Bachelor of Arts, Simon Fraser University 2002 PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY In the Faculty of Arts & Sciences O Liza Jimenez, 2005 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Spring 2005 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Liza Jimenez Degree: M.P.P Title of : From Nimby To Yimby: Understanding Community Opposition To Special Needs Residential Facilities In Vancouver Examining Committee: Chair: Nancy Olewiler Nancy Olewiler Senior Supervisor Kennedy Stewart Supervisor Jon Kesselman Internal Examiner Date Approved: Friday, April 1 2005 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENCE The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. The author has further granted permission to Simon Fraser University to keep or make a digital copy for use in its circulating collection. The author has further agreed that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by either the author or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of this work for tinancial gain shall not be allowed without the author's written permission. Permission for public performance, or limited permission for private scholarly use, of any multimedia materials forming part of this work, may have been granted by the author. This information may be found on the separately catalogued multimedia material and in the signed Partial Copyright Licence. The original Partial Copyright Licence attesting to these terms, and signed by this author, may be found in the original bound copy of this work, retained in the Simon Fraser University Archive. W. A. C. Bennett Library Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Ethics Approval The author, whose name appears on the title page of this work, has obtained human research ethics approval from the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics for the research described in this work, or has conducted the research as a co-investigator of a project, or member of a course, approved by the Ethics Office. A copy of the human research ethics approval letter has been filed at the Theses Office of the University Library at the time of submission of this thesis or project. The original application for ethics approval and letter of approval is filed with the Office of Research Ethics. Inquiries may be directed to that Office. W. A. C. Bennett Library Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada Abstract This study investigates the nature of opposition towards a Special Needs Residential Facility (SNRF) for people with problems related to physical disabilities, psychiatric problems, addictions, legal custody, or emergencies. The term NIMBY describes people who oppose the location of such a facility in their neighbourhood. The literature on NIMBY argues that residents oppose these projects because they fear for their personal safety, property devaluation, and neighbourhood appearance. Qualitative and quantitative analyses revealed that Vancouver residents want more transparency and involvement during the planning stage of siting SNRFs. A review of seven case studies provided insight into the factors that determine the extent of NIMBYism. A survey revealed which individual characteristics predict who is more likely to be a NIMBY-minded person. A number of policy alternatives encourage discourse among stakeholders, to alleviate distrust among residents, and to reduce the chance of encountering opposition to establishing SNRFs. Executive Summary This study employs two approaches, qualitative and quantitative, to test why some community members are more likely to oppose the location of Special Needs Residential Facilities (SNRFs) in Vancouver. The acronym NIMBY, meaning 'not in my backyard', describes the opponents. Seven cases in five communities (Central Business District, KensingtodCedar Cottage, Killarney, Mt. Pleasant and Strathcona) compare common NMBY arguments and evaluate key factors that affect opposition. Common arguments against SNRFs include fears for personal safety, property devaluation, and neighbourhood degradation whereas common factors that influence opposition are characteristics of the facility such as size and clientele, characteristics of the consultation process and characteristics of the neighbourhood. Analysis reveals that size, location, or clientele types do not affect the extent of opposition. However, the cases support common arguments of NIMBYism such as fear of personal safety, property devaluation, and neighbourhood degradation. In addition, the timing of public consultation proved to be a factor in lessening NIMBYism. Agencies that engaged affected communities before applying for the development permit tended to face less opposition than those that did not. The investigation also uncovered a NIMBY argument that did not appear frequently in the literature. This is the argument of 'fair share' where some neighbourhoods felt overloaded with more than their fair share of SNRFs. Further investigation as to the distribution of SNRFs throughout the City revealed that in most cases these claims are unfounded when measured in terms of the proportion of the population relative to the proportion of total SNRF beds. Furthermore, over the past ten years opposition in terms of petitions and correspondence to the placements of SNRFs has decreased with time suggesting a decline in NIMBY. Survey results illustrate who are more likely to hold NIMBY attitudes. Conducted in a NIMBY neighbourhood, the survey sought to identify individual characteristics of NIMBY persons to profile who hold these beliefs and to evaluate the effectiveness of the public meetings. Logistical regression analysis reveals that long-tenn residents, those who have lived in the community for 15 to 19 years, are over three times more likely to have NIMBY beliefs than someone who has lived in the community for less than four years. Further, those who attended the public meetings are twice more likely to be NIMBY. In addition, the analysis revealed that public meetings did little to change minds of even the undecided attendees. These findings prompt five policy options. Each option is assessed against the criteria of equity, social feasibility, political feasibility, and economic costs. The first alternative is to maintain the status quo. As the survey indicates, NIMBY is not as prevalent as the media or others lead us to believe. In the neighbourhood where there was an uprising against a proposed 39-unit facility, 57 percent of the respondents held strong NIMBY beliefs, compared with 43 percent who do not oppose. Historically, the extent of community opposition, as measured by correspondence, turnout, and petitions, has been decreasing. This trend suggests a laissez-faire approach where the City adjusts to each contentious project may be just as productive as an intervention. Second, the City of Vancouver should publish annual SNRF reports to mitigate the underlying public distrust. This display of increased transparency will also address the NIMBY argument of 'fair share7where residents feel an unequal distribution of SNRFs across the city. Such a report should include all city owned and leased properties as well as any future SNRF plans for at least the next two years. This approach was undertaken in New York City and has been lauded by planners and decision makers, like the American Planning Association and ex- mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The report should also provide social demographics such as population density and income distribution to enable the public with more information to assess issues of equity. Third, the opportunity to ask questions and be included during the planning process is important to residents, but the City should reduce their reliance on large-scale public meetings as they are at best ineffective and at worst serve to increase NIMBYism. Instead, the City should mandate that SNRF applicants host small-scale public meetings where the number of attendees is more manageable and productive. Fourth, as long-term residents pose the most resistance to establishing SNRFs, the City should seek to develop SNRFs in new communities like areas such as False Creek. New residents are less resistant because they have not had enough time to establish strong community roots to the area or because new residents have not had the opportunity to network, which makes it difficult to mobilize a united opposition. New buyers will be aware that a SNRF existed prior to buying a home or establishing roots, which illustrates a transparent element in establishing SNRF on behalf of the City. Finally, the City should develop a policy network of applicants, health care professionals, social planners, citizens, and other stakeholders in order to exchange information on lessons learned and to develop educational material according to the type of clientele that the SNRF will house. Regression analysis shows which characteristics
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NIMBY to YIMBY: How to Win Votes by Building More Homes Part One: the Questions Less Asked
    From NIMBY to YIMBY: How to win votes by building more homes Part one: the questions less asked Nicholas Boys Smith Kieran Toms © CREATEstreets in 2018 Printed by Copyprint UK Ltd. Contents Summary .......................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 1 – is Britain worse than others at building enough homes? ....................................... 8 Chapter 2 – How British planning is so odd and why it matters ............................................. 30 Chapter 3 – Why are people NIMBYs? ................................................................................ 59 Chapter 4 – A case study: Creating Streets in Cornwall with consent ...................................... 77 Chapter 5 – where and how to break the circle: a menu of options ....................................... 104 Conclusion – building homes, winning votes...................................................................... 119 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 120 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 121 The authors .................................................................................................................... 126 ‘Any citizen, who tries to defend their home and their neighbourhood from plans which would destroy the view, pollute the environment, overload the transport network, upset
    [Show full text]
  • Development News Highlights MANHATTAN - MID-1ST QUARTER 2020 PLUS an OUTER BOROUGH SNAPSHOT Looking Ahead
    Development News Highlights MANHATTAN - MID-1ST QUARTER 2020 PLUS AN OUTER BOROUGH SNAPSHOT Looking Ahead Climate Mobilization Act’s Local Law 97: The Next Steps In April 2019 New York City enacted what has been described as “representing some of the most ambitious climate legislation enacted by any large municipality in the world to date.” The centerpiece of the (9) bill Climate Mobilization Act signed by Mayor de Blasio on Earth Day is Local Law 97 (LL97) which will require buildings citywide that exceed 25,000 square feet to begin reducing carbon emissions relative to 2005 base year levels by 2024, with reductions of 40% by calendar year 2030, and 80% by calendar year 2050. A New York City Climate Advisory Board was reportedly appointed by the mayor in December as per the law; and its members represent “a broad cross-section of real estate, environmental and organizational expertise” according to reports. The board has been tasked with putting together a report “addressing all manner of questions around just how LL97 will work — ranging from how landlords should report emissions data to how the city should penalize owners for non-compliance to how it might structure an emission offset program.” Although the board’s recommendations to be outlined in a report and delivered to the mayor and speaker by the start of 2023 aren’t legally binding, they are “expected to be influential, especially given how many of the law’s finer points remain to be nailed down.” Some cited examples of the difficult issues to be addressed, which weren’t completely sorted out include: • How exactly building owners will be instructed to calculate and report their properties’ carbon emissions, for instance: – Accounting for tenant space that was unoccupied in a building during the year they were reporting, which is going to impact calculations and could, in this case, skew results and deliver an inaccurate representation of how the building is being used.
    [Show full text]
  • No Place Like Home: Defining HUD's Role in the Affordable Housing Crisis
    adm_71-3_41554 Sheet No. 105 Side A 09/18/2019 13:09:53 ALR 71.3_SMUCKER_ME REVIEW.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 8/28/19 5:47 PM NO PLACE LIKE HOME: DEFINING HUD’S ROLE IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS K. HEIDI SMUCKER* Introduction .............................................................................................. 634 I.HUD: An Agency or Writer of Federal Checks? ................................... 636 A. The Evolution of Rental Housing Assistance: What Worked and What Didn’t ............................................................................ 637 B. A Funnel for Federal Funding ................................................ 639 II.Houston (and San Francisco, D.C., and New York), We Have a Problem ....................................................................................................... 640 A. The Rise (and Potential Fall) of San Francisco’s Restrictive Zoning .................................................................................... 641 B. Washington D.C.: Negative Implications of Cookie-Cutter Development .......................................................................... 643 C. I Heart New York, But Not The Rent ................................... 646 III.Baby Steps, Tiny Victories, and Their Potential for Impact ............... 647 IV.Affirmatively Furthering Affordable Housing: A (Possible) Recipe for Success ........................................................................................... 651 A. Reviving an Obama-Era Ghost in the Name of Efficiency .... 652 B. A Bird in the Hand
    [Show full text]
  • Emily Hamilton. “The Politics of Redevelopment Planning in Tysons
    Emily Hamilton. “The Politics of Redevelopment Planning in Tysons and Outcomes 10 Years Later.” Mercatus Working Paper, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, June 2020. Abstract Following the allocation of funds for a new line on the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s Metrorail system, the Board of Supervisors in Fairfax County, Virginia, undertook redevelopment planning for its Tysons area. The redevelopment plan was the first of its kind. The board adopted a comprehensive plan that established the objective of transforming Tysons from highway-oriented suburban office park development into a walkable, mixed-use area. The redevelopment effort has received extensive attention for its goal to turn a highly car-oriented area into walkable, transit-oriented development. But what is perhaps more notable about the Tysons redevelopment planning effort is its objective to allow extensive multifamily housing construction in a wealthy suburban community. So far, more progress has been made toward the goal of housing construction than walkability. JEL codes: R520, R310, R380 Keywords: Tysons, zoning, redevelopment planning, home building, housing, walkability, transit-oriented development Author Affiliation and Contact Information Emily Hamilton Research Fellow, Mercatus Center at George Mason University [email protected] Acknowledgments I thank Isaac LaGrand, Robert Orr, and Ann Miller for research assistance on this project. All remaining errors are my own. © 2020 by Emily Hamilton and the Mercatus Center at George Mason University This paper can be accessed at http://www.mercatus.org/publications/urban-economics /politics-redevelopment-planning-tysons-outcomes-10-years-later The Politics of Redevelopment Planning in Tysons and Outcomes 10 Years Later Emily Hamilton 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Building a Better Normal: Our Focus
    Building a Better NormalAUGUST 2020 Content LETTER FROM THE MAYOR OF SAN JOSÉ pg. 03 LETTER FROM THE SVRR CO-CHAIRS pg. 04 INTRODUCTION pg. 06 FOCUS AREA 1 How do we reopen safely and productively with minimal risk? pg. 19 FOCUS AREA 2 How do we make the recovery inclusive for our community’s most vulnerable members? pg. 24 FOCUS AREA 3 How do we enable businesses to survive and thrive? pg. 36 FOCUS AREA 4 How do we innovate to build the foundation of a better normal? pg. 46 NEXT STEPS pg. 59 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS pg. 61 APPENDIX pg. 63 Letter from the Mayor of San José The Silicon Valley Recovery Roundtable started with ambitious but critical goals: develop policy recommendations and practical strategies to help get families back to work, provide support for small businesses, and ensure our most vulnerable residents are able to fully participate in our recovery. As we gathered a cross-sector team from our three-county region, we soon realized we had an even bigger challenge to tackle: ensuring that we would return to a “better normal,” with a more equitable and sustainable economy. Our better normal features more equitable housing opportunities, more commute alternatives to our gridlocked freeways, and ubiquitous access to digital learning, harnessing the incredible innovation for which our valley is known. Over 100 days, our 59 roundtable members opened their calendars, perfected their remote meeting skills, debated the merits of different ideas, and multiplied our participants through their community networks. Our co-chairs—Carl Guardino, Lisa Su, Nicole Taylor, Sam Liccardo Bob Alvarado, and Chuck Robbins—provided keen Mayor, City of San José strategic guidance and challenged us to formulate bold recommendations that are also actionable.
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Area Council Amicus Brief in Support Of
    I HANSON BRIDGETT LLP KzuSTINA D. LAWSON (SBN 221131) 2 cHzuSToPHER A. RHEINHEIMER (SBN 2s3890) coLE A. BENBOW (SBN 31 1 I 18) Ja 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 4 Telephone: (415)777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 5 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae BAY AREA 6 COLTNCIL, ET AL. (see List of Amicus Curiae) 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 9 10 FRIENDS OF BETTER CUPERTINO, Case No.: 18CV330190 ' 11 KITTY MOORE, IGNATIUS DING, ANd PEGGY GRIFFIN, BAY AREA COUNCIL, ET AL.'S NOTICE 12 OF APPLICATION AND APPLICATION Petitioners, FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF 13 IN SUPPORT OF REAL PARTY IN v INTEREST; BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE t4 CITY OF CUPERTINO, GRACE SCHMIDT, [Filed concurrently with the Declaration of 15 and DOES 1-20 inclusive, Christopher A., Rheinheimer.l r6 Respondents Date: October 4,2019 Time: 9:00 a.m. I7 Courtroom: 10 Judge: Hon. Helen E. Williams 18 Action filed: June 25,2018 19 20 VALLCO PROPERTY OWNER LLC, and DOES 1-20-inclusive, 21 Real PartY in Interest. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.; 18CV330190 PARTY IN INTEREST I 5563419.14 BAY AREA COUNCiL, ET AL.'S AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF REAL I LIST OF AMICUS CURIAE 2 1. Bay Area Council J 2. Bay Area Housing Action Commission 4 J. First Community Housing 5 4. Habitat for Humanity 6 5. Housing Leadership Council San Mateo County 7 6. Housing Trust Silicon ValleY 8 7 Joint Venture Silicon Valley 9 8.
    [Show full text]
  • YES in MY BACK YARD How to End the Housing Crisis, Boost the Economy and Win More Votes
    YES IN MY BACK YARD How To End The Housing Crisis, Boost The Economy And Win More Votes John Myers The Adam Smith Institute has an open access policy. Copyright remains with the copyright holder, but users may download, save and distribute this work in any format provided: (1) that the Adam Smith Institute is cited; (2) that the web address adamsmith.org is published together with a prominent copy of this notice; (3) the text is used in full without amendment [extracts may be used for criticism or review]; (4) the work is not re–sold; (5) the link for any online use is sent to info@ adamsmith.org. The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect any views held by the publisher or copyright owner. They are published as a contribution to public debate. © Adam Smith Research Trust 2017 Published in the UK by ASI (Research) Ltd. Some rights reserved Printed in England CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 3 2 Getting neighbours to vote for more housing 5 3 The opportunity 9 4 Three suggestions 11 5 The problem and opportunity are both huge 33 6 Why these suggestions will work 45 7 The future 67 8 Conclusion 71 Appendix 73 YES IN MY BACK YARD 1 Executive Summary • It has become widely accepted, including by the government, that the UK is in the midst of a “housing crisis”, where prices and rents have rocketed in key locations. • There are a range of policies that would solve this, and many of them are well known.
    [Show full text]
  • Aesthetics of Gentrification of Aesthetics Edited by Christoph Lindner and Gerard F
    CITIES AND CULTURES Lindner & Sandoval (eds) Aesthetics of Gentrification Edited by Christoph Lindner and Gerard F. Sandoval Aesthetics of Gentrification Seductive Spaces and Exclusive Communities in the Neoliberal City Aesthetics of Gentrification Cities and Cultures Cities and Cultures is an interdisciplinary book series addressing the inter­ relations between cities and the cultures they produce. The series takes a special interest in the impact of globalization on urban space and cultural production, but remains concerned with all forms of cultural expression and transformation associated with modern and contemporary cities. Series Editor: Christoph Lindner, University College London Advisory Board: Ackbar Abbas, University of California, Irvine Myria Georgiou, London School of Economics and Political Science Derek Gregory, University of British Colombia Mona Harb, American University of Beirut Stephanie Hemelryk Donald, University of Lincoln Shirley Jordan, Queen Mary, University of London Nicole Kalms, Monash University Geofffrey Kantaris, University of Cambrigde Brandi Thompson Summers, University of California, Berkeley Ginette Verstraete, VU University Amsterdam Richard J. Williams, University of Edinburgh Aesthetics of Gentrification Seductive Spaces and Exclusive Communities in the Neoliberal City Edited by Christoph Lindner and Gerard F. Sandoval Amsterdam University Press Cover illustration: Oliver Wainwright Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden Lay­out: Crius Group, Hulshout isbn 978 94 6372 203 2 e­isbn 978 90 4855 117 0 doi 10.5117/9789463722032 nur 758 Creative Commons License CC BY NC ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by­nc­nd/3.0) All authors / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2021 Some rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, any part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise).
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome Visitors!
    WELCOME VISITORS! This is a preview of the paper version of A New Pattern Language for Growing Regions. This is a project of Sustasis Foundation, in partnership with the Centre for the Future of Places, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, and UN-Habitat. This project is open-source, licensed as “CC BY 2.0”. That means you are free to: • Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. The 1977 book A Pattern Language was a landmark in the design world, introducing a methodology that has become influential across many fields. Among them are software and “design patterns,” and important spinoff technologies like wiki (the basis of Wikipedia) and Agile Methodology. Yet curiously, the field where pattern methodology began – the built environment – has lagged conspicuously. As one remedy, a number of long-time collaborators with the original book’s lead author have followed the explicit guidance of the book, and developed a new collection of 80 patterns offering tools and strategies for a new era of urban challenges. This new collection emerged in part from a five-year collaboration with UN-Habitat to address new urban challenges, including rapid urbanization, slum upgrading, sustainable urbanism, and new technologies. Together with the launch of an online companion pattern “repository” (available at npl.wiki) this volume aims to expand the capacity of pattern languages in support of a hopeful new era of open-source, human-centered, life-enriching technology.
    [Show full text]
  • SAN FRANCISCO's HOMELESS CRISIS: How Policy Reforms and Private Charities Can Move More People to Self-Sufficiency by KERRY JACKSON and WAYNE WINEGARDEN
    CALIFORNIA IDEAS IN ACTION SAN FRANCISCO'S HOMELESS CRISIS: How Policy Reforms and Private Charities Can Move More People to Self-Sufficiency BY KERRY JACKSON and WAYNE WINEGARDEN CALIFORNIA IDEAS IN ACTION 1 San Francisco’s Homeless Crisis: How Policy Reforms and Private Charities Can Move More People to Self-Sufficiency By Kerry Jackson and Wayne Winegarden June 2019 Pacific Research Institute 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415-989-0833 Fax: 415-989-2411 www.pacificresearch.org Nothing contained in this report is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation. ©2019 Pacific Research Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without prior written consent of the publisher. 2 Key Points • While California accounts for only 12 percent of the U.S. population, 25 percent to 30 percent of the country’s homeless population are found in the state. • The number of homeless in the state has spiked in recent years. • Health care workers estimate there are 10,000 homeless in San Francisco. • Roughly 34 percent of the homeless in San Francisco are homeless due to direct economic factors, such as evictions and job losses. Another 12 percent became homeless when they lost the safety net of family or friends. • About 15 percent are due to drug addiction or substance abuse. • San Francisco could make great strides in relieving its homeless crisis by encouraging and supporting private-sector involvement while making policy changes that will invite a homebuilding boom.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Growth and the Diminishing Natural State of Arizona
    NumbersUSA Population Growth and the Diminishing Natural State of Arizona POPULATION GROWTH and the DIMINISHING NATURAL STATE of ARIZONA Analysis of National Resources Inventory & U.S. Census Data on Development and Habitat Loss in a Thirsty Grand Canyon State By Leon Kolankiewicz with Roy Beck and Eric A. Ruark December 2020 About the Authors About the Authors LEON KOLANKIEWICZ is Scientific Director for NumbersUSA. He is a national environmental/natural resources planner and a former planner with the Orange County (California) Environmental Management Agency. He has a B.S. in forestry and wildlife management from Virginia Tech and an M.S. in environmental planning from the University of British Columbia. He has worked as an environmental professional for more than three decades in three countries and more than 40 states, including stints with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, University of Washington, University of New Mexico, and as a Peace Corps Volunteer promoting natural resources conservation in Honduras. He has written or edited more than 400 articles, blog posts, reports, conservation plans, and environmental impact statements, and is the author of Where Salmon Come to Die: An Autumn on Alaska’s Raincoast (Pruett, 1993) and a contributor to Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation (University of Georgia Press, 2012) and the anthology of classic and contemporary environmental writing Environment and Society: A Reader (New York University Press, 2017). He has been the lead author of ten studies on sprawl for NumbersUSA in the past two decades.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case for Zoning
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\96-2\NDL206.txt unknown Seq: 1 1-DEC-20 14:01 A CASE FOR ZONING Christopher Serkin* Due to a remarkable convergence of criticisms from both the right and the left, zoning is under more sustained attack than at any time in the last seventy-five years. A consensus is building that zoning is what ails America. Simultaneously, the traditional justifications for zoning, like separating incompatible uses, have become increasingly anachronistic in an age of mixed-use development and a desire for vibrant, dynamic places. This Article offers an updated defense of zoning, and in particular density regulations. Today, local governments deploy zon- ing not primarily to keep industry (or apartment buildings) out of residential neighborhoods, but to preserve community stability by regulating the pace of change, protect property values, and allocate the costs of development and growth. Zoning serves important but unappreciated pur- poses that must be included in the ledger when evaluating zoning reform. INTRODUCTION For nearly a century, zoning has shaped the way we live in America. Born out of the Industrial Revolution, it was designed to keep industry and other incompatible uses out of residential neighborhoods and to impose a measure of rational planning on the development process. It has endured its share of controversy and criticism. Some decried its restrictions on property owners’ development rights.1 Others bemoaned the homogenous single-use residential suburbs that it created.2 And still others worried that it had © 2020 Christopher Serkin. Individuals and nonprofit institutions may reproduce and distribute copies of this Article in any format at or below cost, for educational purposes, so long as each copy identifies the author, provides a citation to the Notre Dame Law Review, and includes this provision in the copyright notice.
    [Show full text]