Table of Contents | Chapter 3 | Chapter 5
Chapter 4
Strengthening Communities
Creating a better future depends,
in part, on the knowledge and
involvement of citizens and on a
decision-making process that
embraces and encourages differing
perspectives of those affected by
governmental policy. Steps toward
a more sustainable future include
developing community-driven
strategic planning and collaborative regional planning; improving
community and building design; decreasing sprawl; and creating
strong, diversified local economies
while increasing jobs and other
economic opportunities.
FLOURISHING COMMUNITIES ARE the foundation of a healthy society. One
measure of America's potential for long-term vitality will be the
emergence of communities that are attractive, clean, safe, and rich in
educational and employment opportunities. Sustainable development can
easily remain remote and theoretical unless it is linked to people's
day-to-day lives and seen as relevant to fundamental needs such as jobs,
clean air and water, and education.
It is often easier to make these connections in the context of
communities. It is in communities that people work, play, and feel most
connected to society. Problems like congestion, pollution, and crime may
seem abstract as national statistics, but they become personal and real
at the local level: for example, people are frustrated by long commutes
that take time away from family life. It is in communities that people
profoundly feel the effects of shifts in the national and regional
economy. Although decisions may be justified based on restructuring or
other economic needs, workers experience the loss of wages to provide
for themselves and their families when factories or military bases are
closed. It is within communities that children gain basic education,
skills, and training for jobs in the changing marketplace. It is within
communities that people can most easily bring diverse interests together,
identify and agree on goals for positive change, and organize for
responsive action. While the challenges facing the nation are
difficult to resolve at any level of government, local communities offer
people the greatest opportunity to meet face to face to fashion a
shared commitment to a sustainable future.
The role of local communities is becoming increasingly important as the
United States, and much of the rest of the world, moves toward more
decentralized decisionmaking. The federal government will continue to
bear the responsibility for bringing together diverse interests to
establish national standards, goals, and priorities. The federal role
is important and necessary in areas such as these because national
interests may not always be represented in local decisions, and the
effects of community choices are felt beyond one municipality. As
discussed in chapter 2, "Building a New Framework for a New Century,"
the federal government is providing greater flexibility and expanding
the roles played by states, counties, and local communities in implementing
policies and programs to address national goals. This new model of
intergovernmental partnership will require information sharing and an
unprecedented degree of coordination among levels of government. Local
government will play a key role in creating stronger communities from
planning and facilitating development, to creating community
partnerships, to providing leadership.
It is clear that the scope of a problem determines the level at which it
is most appropriately solved. For example, some issues have global,
regional, and interregional ramifications. Air pollution is one such
issue. The air pollutants in acid rain may originally have
been emitted hundreds of miles from where the precipitation ultimately
falls. The cooperation of more than one region is required to correct
this type of problem.
Sustainable communities are cities and towns that prosper because people
work together to produce a high quality of life that they want to sustain
and constantly improve. While it is not possible today to point to a
list and say, "These communities are sustainable," the emerging ideal of
sustainable communities is a goal many are striving to achieve.
And while there is no single template for a sustainable community,
cities and towns pursuing sustainable development often have
characteristics in common. In communities that sustain themselves, all
people have access to educational opportunities that prepare them for
jobs to support themselves and their families in a dynamic local economy
that is prepared to cope with changes in the national and global
economy. People are involved in making decisions that affect their
lives. Businesses, households, and government make efficient use of
land, energy, and other resources, allowing the area to achieve a high
quality of life with minimal waste and environmental damage. These
communities are healthy and secure, and provide people with clean air to
breathe and safe water to drink.
In sustainable communities, people are engaged in building a community
together. They are well-informed and actively involved in making
community decisions. They make decisions for the long term that benefit
future generations as well as themselves. They understand that
successful long-term solutions require partnerships and a process that
allows for representatives of a community's diverse sectors to be
involved in discussions, planning, and decisions that respond directly
to unique local needs. They also recognize that some problems cannot be
solved within the confines of their community and that working in
partnership with others in the region is necessary to deal with them.
In sustainable communities, people use a participatory approach to make
conscious decisions about design. The concepts of efficiency and
liveability guide these decisions. Development patterns promote
accessibility, decrease sprawl, reduce energy costs, and foster the
creation of built environments on a human scale. Use of environmentally
superior technologies for transportation, industry, buildings, and
agriculture boosts productivity and lowers business costs while
dramatically reducing pollution, including solid and hazardous wastes.
In sustainable communities, partnerships involving business, government,
labor, and employees promote economic development and jobs. Participants
cooperatively plan and carry out development strategies that create
diversified local economies built on unique local advantages and
environmentally superior technologies. These efforts can strengthen the
local economy, buffering it from the effects of national and
international economic trends that result in job losses in a community.
Such partnerships also invest in education and training to make
community members more productive, raise earning power, and help
strengthen and attract business.
Much of what is needed to create more sustainable communities is within
reach if people and their community institutions join forces. Many
communities are beginning to use sustainable development as a framework
for thinking about their future. The big institutions in society--
including federal and state governments, businesses, universities, and
national organizations--can and should provide support for local
community efforts. And in some cases, these institutions need to review
the barriers they sometimes inadvertently have erected that diminish the
ability of communities to pursue sustainable development.
The Council was inspired by communities throughout the country that are
using innovative approaches to reinvigorate public involvement in
finding solutions to community problems. From small towns like
Pattonsburg, Missouri, to cities like Chattanooga, Tennessee, to large
urban centers like Seattle, Washington, many communities are taking
responsibility for meeting their economic, environmental, and equity
objectives. While none of these communities has been transformed into a
utopia, much can be learned from their efforts and progress. By
building upon their leadership and innovation, marshaling and
reorienting government resources, and creating new standards for process
and participation, strengthened communities can provide the foundation
for a stronger, revitalized America.
Building A Community Together
The Council believes that one of the best ways to strengthen
communities is to ensure that people have greater power over and
responsibility for the decisions that shape their communities. Time and
time again, community leaders told us that a fundamental component of
implementing sustainable development locally is having people come
together to identify a community's needs and then work toward
collaborative solutions. Accomplishing this requires both political
leadership and citizen involvement. They also told us that creating
mechanisms for communities to work together cooperatively is necessary
to deal with problems that cross political jurisdictions.
The capacity of democratic institutions to solve problems and create a
better future depends on the knowledge and involvement of citizens in a
community decision-making process that encourages systemic thought and
broad-based action. Systemic thought is required so that economic,
environmental, and social problems are recognized as integrated and
actions to address them are coordinated. Because these problems are
interconnected in daily life, approaching them one at a time does
not work. In fact, such a strategy is often counterproductive, leading
to short-term fixes and long-term difficulties--a situation society can
ill afford. The integration of local decisionmaking offers a way to
improve the economy, the environment, and social equity in communities.
Broad-based action is needed because local government alone cannot
accomplish long-term solutions to community problems. Nor can
individuals, businesses, community groups, or state and federal agencies
do so by working in isolation. Lasting solutions are best identified
when people from throughout a community--as individuals; elected
officials; or members of the business community, environmental groups,
or civic organizations--are brought together in a spirit of cooperation
to identify solutions to community problems.
But make no mistake: this work is difficult, and there are barriers to
its success. The time and energy of many families are already drained by
juggling the demands of the workplace and the home. Cynicism toward
government is high, and. all too frequently. Participation in civic life
is declining.
Despite the obstacles, some communities are succeeding in ambitious
efforts to involve citizens in building a stronger community. For example:
- Since 1984, more than 2,000 Chattanooga residents have worked together
to identify broad goals to lay out a vision for their city's future.
- In Pattonsburg, which was nearly destroyed by a flood in 1993, residents
came together and, with the assistance of experts on sustainable design,
decided to rebuild their community on higher ground.
- In Seattle, a local citizens' group spearheaded an effort to measure
the progress or decline of key social, economic, and environmental
indicators that were identified by the community as priorities.
- Metropolitan areas like Portland, Oregon, and states like Minnesota have
begun to use broad-based goal-setting and benchmarking projects in
planning their collective future and measuring their progress.
By listening to the stories of communities throughout the country, the
Council learned that there are fundamental steps to a community-driven
strategic planning process. A critical
first step is to assemble a broad cross section of the community to
participate in an open, public process. Through a series of meetings and
events, the community develops a vision
for its future. It then conducts an inventory and assessment of its
economic, natural, and human resources. Specific economic,
environmental, and social goals are determined; these
build on the community's vision, resources, and needs. Next, the
community sets priorities for its goals, identifies specific actions, and
establishes indicators or benchmarks to
measure progress toward the goals. If successful, the strategic
planning process results in a clear sense of direction and timing. It
specifies the actions and responsibilities to be undertaken by business,
residents, government, and community groups.
Fundamental to the long-term success of community-driven solutions is
the opportunity for all residents to participate, including people who
have been historically underrepresented in decisionmaking. While
citizen participation is primarily an individual decision,
government and the private sector can encourage people to be more
involved by addressing barriers to participation. By developing a
strategic plan that involves the diverse
sectors of the community and generates leadership to bring about
specific actions, communities have taken steps to create a better future
for their residents.
Cooperation among communities in a metropolitan area is also necessary.
For some time, there has been a trend toward increased concentration of
the U.S. population in metropolitan areas. This trend is linked both to
population growth and people's migratory patterns. The number of
Americans living in metropolitan areas rose from 140
million in 1970 to more than 203 million in 1992.[1] This
trend affects
such concerns as congestion, urban pollution, and high demand for public
space and services, which
together lower the quality of life in cities and contribute to the
exodus from central cities
that is occurring in many parts of America. By working together,
communities can tackle issues--like transportation planning--that
affect, and whose resolution can benefit, an entire region. This
collaborative approach is not only an opportunity, it is a necessity.
Community leaders who met with the Council emphasized that without regional
approaches to solve many critical problems that affect communities--such
as economic development, transportation, land use, sprawl, and water
quality--little long-term progress can be made.
By creating incentives to encourage communities to work together, state
and federal governments can improve the decision-making process and
promote long-term, holistic solutions to regional problems. Building
stronger links among people, communities, and the decisions
that affect them can revitalize grassroots democracy and thereby
strengthen communities, regions, and the nation. The actions listed
below need additional commitments of time and
resources, but we as a Council believe they are necessary and worthwhile.
CHATTANOOGA: A CITY REMAKING ITSELF |
Chattanooga's story of the last 30 years is not
unusual. Suburban sprawl beginning after
World War II drained the downtown area of much of its retail and almost
oil of its residential
development. The economic base collapsed as traditional manufacturing jobs
moved elsewhere; and many local companies laid off workers, were sold to
outside interests, or closed down. Racial
conflicts, poor schools, and an eroding infrastructure all signaled urban
decline. Further manifestation of this decline came in 1969, when
Chattanooga was dubbed the "worst polluted city" in America.
The second part of the Chattanooga story is all too rare among
American cities. In recent years, concerted efforts by government,
business, community organizations, and citizens have resulted not only in
cleaner air but also in a willingness to undertake bold initiatives conceived
within a shared vision, integrating Chattanooga's economic,
environmental, and social aspirations. During the Council's January 1995
visit to Chattanooga, community leaders shared lessons learned in
their quest to become an "environmental city," where everyone works
together to generate a strong economic base, nurture social
institutions, and enhance the natural and human-made landscape.
Today, public-private partnerships are the norm in Chattanooga.
Collaborative efforts have generated the capital resources, political
commitment, and civic momentum to tackle such complex problems as
affordable housing; public education; transportation alternatives; urban
design; air and water pollution; recycling; job training; human
relations; downtown and riverfront development, neighborhood
revitalization; and conservation of natural areas, parks, and greenways.
Community involvement in the planning of these efforts has been a key
factor in the efforts'success.
Since 1984, in a series of planning projects, the city has
invited all members of the community to envision what they want for the
future. This process has paid off handsomely. In 1990,
when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recognized Chattanooga for
meeting its clean air requirements, the city was designated on Earth Day
as the notion's best environmental turnaround story. An article in
Sports Illustrated described Chattanooga as "not a miracle, but a
nuts-and-bolts model of how tough government, cooperative businessmen,
and a verv alarmed public can make a dirty world clean again."
Chattanooga today sees itself as a living laboratory where ideas
can be explored, leaming is ongoing, and both people and nature can
prosper. The Chattanooga story is not finished: it is
only just beginning. As a new city slogan says, "It takes oil of us ... It
takes forever."
|
POLICY RECOMMENDATION 1 |
COMMUNITY-DRIVEN STRATEGIC PLANNING
Create a community-driven,
strategic planning process that
brings people together to identiy ,
key issues, develop a vision, set
goals and benchmarks, and
determine actions to improve their
community. |
ACTION 1. All levels of government and the private sector
should build multisector decision-making capacity at the local
level. They can do so by providing information and financial
and technical assistance to communities that wish to engage in a
collaborative, communitywide process to integrate economic
prosperity, environmental health, and opportunity in their decisions
and actions.
ACTION 2. All levels of government should ensure substantial
opportunity for public participation in all phases of planning and
decisionmaking to allow those affected to have a voice in the
outcome. Specific steps include creating and expanding methods
for public participation in legislation, ordinances, and community
advisory boards. Special steps should be taken to ensure
that historically underrepresented groups are involved.
ACTION 3. All levels of government, especially local government,
should identify barriers to greater citizen involvement in
decisionmaking -- such as lack of child care or transportation -- and
develop strategies to overcome them. Employers should
give employees flexibility and incentives to increase the time
they and their families can devote to community activities.
ACTION 4. Community-based coalitions can create educational
media campaigns to encourage citizen participation in government,
disseminate high-quality information on community
issues, and promote public discussions that identify solutions to
problems. Coalitions should be as broad as possible, including
industry and business, schools, newspapers, television and radio
stations, community groups, environmental organizations, labor,
and local government.
ACTION 5. Federal and state agencies should help local
communities that wish to use profiles of potential environmental
risks as a tool to identify and set priorities for solving
environmental problems. The agencies should provide information on
and facilitate access to communities that have successfully used
this tool.
ACTION 6. Community-based coalitions can work together to
draft an economic development strategy to fill basic needs and
take advantage of new trends as part of the strategic planning
process. Coalitions should include businesses, employees,
unions, chambers of commerce, environmental organizations.
local government, and residents.
ACTION 7. Community-based coalitions can develop and carry
out programs to increase voter registration and participation,
working with national voter registration projects where
possible. |
POLICY RECOMMENDATION 2 |
COLLABORATIVE REGIONAL PLANNING
Encourage communities in a region
to work together to deal with issues
that transcend jurisdictional and
other boundaries. |
ACTION 1. States, counties, and communities should cooperate
to create a system of regional accounts that measures the costs
and benefits of local land use, development, and economic
trends on a region's economy, environment, distribution of
benefits, and quality of life. States and regions can consider the
use of collaborative benchmarking, such as those used in
Oregon and Minnesota, to look at a broad range of social,
environmental, and economic measures. The federal government should
work with state and local governments to ensure
that federal statistical resources are available and used appropriately
to support state and local governments in measuring
benefits and costs.
ACTION 2. Federal and state governments should encourage
cooperation among communities by providing incentives fo
regional collaboration on issues, such as transportation, affordable
housing, economic development, air and water quality, and land use, that
transcend political jurisdictions.
In encouraging such cooperation, they should look to the
example of the federal Empowerment Zone/Enterprise
Community Program, which required communities to draft
funding proposals using a collaborative strategic planning
process.[2] This kind of cooperation should be encouraged
among communities within a region to advance common
objectives. Federal and state agencies responsible for environmental
protection, economic development, land use, and transportation policies
should work with one or more geographic areas to establish planning and
development activities. These agencies should create incentives to
encourage regional planning and development, such as waivers of state
matches for transportation planning funds and more favorable federal and
state tax treatment for site cleanup costs.
ACTION 3. Local and county governments can pool resources
from local property taxes to increase equity in public services,
improve the quality of education, break the exacerbating
regional mismatch between social needs and tax resources,
reduce local fiscal incentives for sprawl, and end competition
for the tax base within a metropolitan area. Local and county
actions to accomplish this should receive federal and state
incentives. |
Designing Sustainable Communities
Society's investments should aim to create places that people want
and can sustain
The built environment is a critical factor in shaping the quality
of life, accessibility, environmental burden, and unique character of a
community, which contributes to a sense of place. The ways in which
homes are designed and constructed,
commercial buildings erected, roads and sewers laid, whole neighborhoods
and communities planned and built, and open space allocated and
preserved are all fundamental to creating a community that is
sustainable. Design and architecture also play an important role in
facilitating or discouraging human interaction. Communities built with
sidewalks, town history, and culture.
Sustainable building design and community planning make efficient use of
existing
infrastructure, energy, water, materials, and land. Not only does such
use save money, it
also safeguards public health and the environment and conserves natural
resources.
Building codes can shape how much energy, water, and materials a
building consumes
in its construction and operation. Zoning ordinances frequently
influence decisions on
the construction, design, and siting of buildings and developments.
Efficient land use
protects vulnerable environmental areas that provide important benefits
to society. For
example, coastal areas, watersheds, and floodplains absorb the forces
unleashed by
nature. And preserved wetlands can filter water far more cheaply than
expensive water treatment facilities.[3] In contrast,
development in these areas exposes people and their
investments to unnecessary risks and natural hazards.
Location efficiency is another important component of sustainable
design. Zoning ordinances that allow for mixed-use development, such as
having a store, apartment building, and school on the same block, can
give people easy access to a range of facilities and the ability to walk
to obtain goods and services. This can result in decreased reliance
on motorized vehicles, thereby reducing congestion and air pollution.
Sustainable community design is based on an understanding of the
powerful effect of the
built environment on aesthetics, scale, and a sense of history and
culture. Historic buildings give society an important sense of
tradition and education about the past.
Preservation of existing structures also offers a way to reuse and
recycle materials and related infrastructure. By rehabilitating older
buildings, communities can save energy and materials and establish a
sense of continuity.
Localities have used zoning and other ordinances to foster historical
connections. For example, the bay windows contributing to the beauty and
character of Boston's Back Bay
were the result of a zoning code that allowed one-third of each building
to extend to the street. Charleston, South Carolina, and Savannah,
Georgia, among many other historic
areas, have protected their architectural heritage -- and enhanced their
property values -- by using design control measures and by making
historic preservation a priority.
Some communities are working together to create regional strategies for
transportation,
land use, and economic growth. For example, in the Portland, Oregon,
metropolitan area,
communities are working together to plan for the explosive population
growth the area
has experienced since the 1980s. By using coordinated decisionmaking
and establishing
an urban growth boundary, which contains future growth, these
communities are
conserving open space and prime farmland to preserve the quality of life
that has
attracted so many people to Portland in the first place. They are also
using community
impact analyses to inform themselves about proposed development during
the planning
phase when adjustments can be made more easily.
Design that is coordinated among communities can help address issues
related to growth.
While some growth is necessary, it is the nature of that growth that
makes the difference.
Sprawl typically is development situated without regard to the overall
design of a
community or region. It often results in types of development -- such as
rambling,
cookie-cutter subdivisions and strip malls -- that perpetuate
homogeneity, make inefficient use of land, and rely almost exclusively
on automobiles for transportation. Sprawl development provides
immediate and direct benefits to the people who move there, but
the costs are longer term and borne by society at large. This is a
"tragedy of the commons" in which individuals acting logically in their
own interest harm a common
resource. Sprawl is caused by a combination of incentives established
by governmental
policies and individual decisions made in response to a complex array of
factors. This combination results in urban decline and is made worse by
competition among local jurisdictions with little regional cooperation.
The brownfields issue is an example of the need for regional
strategies. Brownfields are
abandoned, contaminated, and/or underused land that is often found in
the inner city. In
contrast, greenfields are relatively pristine, undeveloped land, usually
found at the edge
of a metropolitan area or in a rural area. A company deciding whether
to invest in building or modernizing a plant in a city center or
building on rural or suburban open space
weighs many factors. What is the cost of development? How much time
will it take? What are the uncertainties? What are the operational
costs? What is the proximity to the
market or the workforce? Answers to these questions depend on a number
of factors, such as labor skills and public safety concerns. The economic
opportunities presented by
brownfield redevelopment are discussed later in this chapter; but the
issue of brownfields is clearly linked to sprawl, land use, and regional
design as well.
Land use and infrastructure policies have a significant impact on
development decisions.
If the cost of cleaning up brownfields is borne by the developer but the
cost of roads and
utilities needed to serve greenfield development is borne by government,
the scales tip.
If the uncertainty of time and liability associated with brownfield
development is greater,
the scales can tip further. And if the tax burden in a newer, more
affluent suburb is less
than in the urban center, the case for greenfield development could be
substantial. While
it is a private decision made by individuals and businesses, it is
greatly influenced by
governmental policies that are not always readily apparent.
Benefits of developing open space are experienced one house or one
business at a time.
These benefits are tangible and immediate. The costs are harder to
measure. In contemplating open land for residential or industrial
development, an awareness and appreciation of what might be lost and of
the environmental costs should be taken into account.
Visionary planner Frederick Law Olmsted described urban parks as the
lungs of a city.[4] This concept also applies to rural
regions. Forests, farmland, mountains, plains, deserts,
and swamps give the nation vital breathing room. New development should
be based upon the carrying capacity of a region, which is the environment's
finite ability to support life and renew itself.
Given the importance of the physical design of communities and their
infrastructure, it is
essential that communities continue to work cooperatively to understand
and evaluate
the potential long-term consequences of decisions made and to adapt them
for their long-term well-being. State and federal governments should work
collaboratively with communities to devise ways to measure these
consequences in order to help local governments make their decisions.
Design, by definition, involves planning and making deliberate
decisions. This occurs at
different scales in the context of a community. The following
recommendations are organized along these scales of design. The first
scale relates to the design of buildings and
other structures within the community. The second relates to the
physical layout of streets, transit, residences, stores, and workplaces
in the community. The third ties the community to others in the region.
POLICY RECOMMENDATION 3 |
BUILDING DESIGN AND REHABILITATION
Design and rehabilitate buildings
to lise energy and natural resources
efficiently, enhance public health
and the environment, preserve
historic and natural settings, and
contribute to a sense of community
identity. |
ACTION 1. Federal, state, and local governments should work
with builders, architects, developers, contractors, materials
producers, manufacturers, community groups, and others to
develop and enhance design tools that can be used to improve
the efficiency and liveability of buildings. These include
models for building codes; zoning ordinances; and permit
approval processes for residential and commercial buildings,
public infrastructure, and landscapes. Model building codes
should consider energy efficiency; durability; use of nontoxic
materials; indoor air quality; use of recycled and recyclable
materials; use of native plants that can reduce the need for
fertilizers, pesticides, and water for landscaping; and use of
designs that promote human interaction.
ACTION 2. These groups should disseminate these design
tools, making the information easily accessible to local decisionmakers
in interested communities which can use the model
codes as a starting point, adapting them to reflect local conditions
and values.
ACTION 3. Groups in communities that have made historic
preservation a priority can inventory and prioritize historic
properties and identify financing to rehabilitate these buildings.
Local governments can enact ordinances to preserve historic
buildings and remove incentives that encourage demolishing
them. They can create incentives for rehabilitating and adapting
historic buildings for new uses, where appropriate. |
NOURISHING COMMUNITIES: JORDAN COMMONS |
When Hurricane Andrew blew through Homestead, Florida, on August
24, 1992 it left in its
wake $2 billion in damages and an immeasurable emotional toll on the
rural and agricultural
community. About 100,000 homes were severely damaged or destroyed,
induding more than
1,600 units of public housing. Today, the tent villages ore gone and many
homes have been rebuilt.
Yet for thousands of low-income families, life has not retumed to
normal. With a continued lack of affordable housing, they still feel
the effects of the storm in the most fundamental way. Homestead
Habitat for Humanity, a nonprofit ecumenical Christian organization whose
mission is to encourage
private homeownership for low-income families, hopes to alleviate some
of the shortage through Jordan
Commons, a pilot project in community building.[5]
Jordan Commons will provide 187 single-family homes built with
government support, $15
million in private donations, and the sweat equity of individual
volunteers and future homeowners
working side by side. As in all Habitat projects, homeowners will
reflect the ethnic and racial
composition of their community. At Jordan Commons, approximately 40
percent of the owners will be
African-American, 40 percent Latino, and 20 percent white. Moreover, in
addition to providing
quality housing, the Jordan Commons project aims to tackle a much larger
challenge. It hopes to use
new principles in design and community planning to build a thriving
neighborhood.
Eliza Perry, Homestead city councilwoman and Habitat board chair,
describes some of the
neighborhood's planned features. "The streets are designed for people.
The roads will be narrow an the tree-shaded sidewalks wide. All homes
will have front porches. Three small parks will allow
children to play near their homes. The town center will draw homeowners
out onto their sidewalks. This focal point of the community will house a
10,000-square-foot recreation center. Additional
community buildings will hold a day-care center, a food co-op, continuing
education programs, and an
after-school program, all aimed at supporting fomilies and encouraging
social interaction."
Jordan Commons also plans to design environmentally sound homes.
Scientists from Florida
lnternational University and the Florida Solar Energy Center have
developed a list of energy-efficient
approaches for building homes. With these innovations, the new homes
are expected to be 38 to 48
percent more energy efficient than most homes of comparable size. Water
heating will be supplied
primarily through solar systems, and water will be recaptured and, after
treatment, returned to the
groundwater system. Alternative transportation will be encouraged
through bike paths and racks, as well as a shaded bus stop station along
nearby U.S. Route 1.
Underlying the thoughtful planning and family-friendly design is
one central goal: citizen participation. As Dorothy Adair, Homestead
Habitat president, states, "Simply building a
community hall or neighborhood park does not necesscirily create or encourage
community. It is the
common identity, public concern, and ultimately the collective action of
residents that truly sustains and
nourishes an evolving community. The facilities and services of Jordan
Commons have been
designed to
engender such elements. and this is the true message of the lordan
Commons model."
|
POLICY RECOMMENDATION 4 |
COMMUNITY DESIGN
Design new communities and improve existing ones to use land
efficiently, promote mixed-use and mixed-income development, retain
public open space, and provide diverse transportation options. |
ACTION 1. Local jurisdiction should structure or revise local
zoning regulations and permit approved processes to encourage development
located along ransit corridors, near a range of transit alternatives, and
in rehabilitated brownfield sites, where appropriate. Where there is
demand for it, zoning should allow mixed-use development siting including
residences, businesses, recreational facilities, and households with a
variety of incomes within close proximity.
ACTION 2. Federal and state governments and the private sector
should offer the assistance of multidisciplinary design teams to local
jurisdictions that want help with sustainable community design. These
design teams should include leading experts in a broad range of fields,
including architecture, transportation, land use, energy efficiency,
development, and engineering. Design teams should work with state and
local governments and community residents with related experience to
design, develop, and make accessible to communities alternatives to
sprawl development, models for regional cooperation, and sustainable
building practices.
ACTION 3. The federal government should work with lenders to
expand research on location-efficient mortgages. Such a mortgage would
increase the borrowing power of potential homebuyers in high-density
locations with easy access to mass transportation. A borrower would
quality for a larger loan based on expected higher disposable income from
a reduction in or absence of automobile payments, insurance, and maintenance.
ACTION 4. Federal and state governments -- in consultation with
local government, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations
-- should support local planning that integrates economic development,
land use, and social equity concerns and engages significant public
participation through existing planning grants. These principles, which
were integrated in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act,
should be reaffirmed during the act's reauthorization and expanded as
requirements for federal and state funding and tax incentives for
economic development, housing, transportation, and environmental
programs.[6]
ACTION 6. The federal government should give communities credit
toward attainment of national ambient air quality standards under the
Clean Air Act when they use community design to lower traffic by
adopting zoning codes, building codes, and
other changes that encourage more efficient land use patterns to
reduce pollution from motor vehicles and energy use.
ACTION 7. All levels of government should work with community
groups and the private sector to ensure that no segment of
society bears a disproportionate share of environmental risks in
a community. Collaborative partnerships could periodically
conduct evaluations to ensure that desirable transportation and
infrastructure investments -- such as those in roads, buildings,
and water projects -- do not disproportionately deliver greater
benefits to wealthier, more politically active communities and
disproportionately fewer benefits to poorer, less politically
active communities or communities of color. |
PATTONSBURG: A TOWN RENEWAL |
In Pattonsburg, Missouri, a small community of
250 that was nearly destroyed by the Midwest floods of 1993, a federally
supported design team is working with residents to move the town --
literally -- to higher ground.
The community seized this opportunity to incorporate concepts and
technologies for sustainability at oil levels of their relocation
scheme, from the physical structure of the new town to
economic strategies for redevelopment.
Pattonsburg adopted a Charter of Sustainability -- a set of
principles to guide the town's development -- as well as building codes
to ensure energy and resource efficiency while
preserving the community's character. It also created a privately funded
Sustainable Economic Development Council to spearhead the expansion of
environmentally responsible industry in the town.
Plans for the new town include use of the latest environmentally
sensitive technology and eco-efficient design to meet the community's
social and physical needs. The street layout is designed
to be pedestrian-oriented and to maximize southern exposure to each home,
giving residents the best opportunity to use passive solar heating to
lower energy needs. A system of artificial wetlands
will use the natural contours of the land to capture and treat polluted
urban runoff, thereby saving money on sewer construction. A methane
recovery system will help nearby swine forms convert an odor and
pollution problem into energy.
Pattonsburg is an example of collaboration among loccil, county,
state, and federal governments. It is also a noteworthy public-private
sector partnership. Most importantly, it is grounded
in broad-based community involvement and support. It shows how a rural
community can turn tragedy into an extraordinary opportunity to shape a
sustainable future.
|
POLICY RECOMMENDATION 5 |
COMMUNITY GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Manage the geographical growth of existing communities and siting of
new ones to decrease sprawl, conserve open space, respect nature's
carrying capacity, and provide protection from natural hazards. |
ACTION 1. States and communities should evaluate the costs of
infrastructure in greenfield or relatively undeveloped areas to examine
subsidies and correct market incentives in the financing of capital
costs of infrastructure, such as sewers and
utilities, for development of land bordering metropolitan areas.
ACTION 2. All levels of government and nongovernmental
organizations can conserve open space through acquisition of
land and/or development rights. For example, public water
departments can budget to acquire land necessary to protect
public water supplies. Private land trusts can expand their
acquisition of wetlands or other valuable open space.
ACTION 3. Local governments and counties can create
community partnerships to develop regional open space
networks and urban growth boundaries as part of a regional
framework to discourage sprawl development that threatens a
region's environmental caffying capacity.
ACTION 4. Local governments and counties can work together
to use community impact analyses and other information on
the environmental carrying capacity of a region as the foundation for
land use planning and development decisions.
ACTION 5. All levels of government should identify and eliminate
governmental incentives, such as subsidized floodplain
insurance and subsidized utilities, that encourage development
in areas vulnerable to natural hazards.
ACTION 6. The federal government should redirect federal
policies that encourage low-density sprawl to foster investment
in existing communities. It should encourage shifts in transportation
spending toward transit, highway maintenance and
repair, and expansion of transit options rather than new highway or
beltway construction. |
CALIFORNIA SPRAWL |
Unchecked development accompanied growth and prosperity in
California over the past three decades. Today, along with many states
and communities across the country, California must deal
with the consequences of that kind of post growth - chief among them,
the problem of sprawl. "As we approach the 21st century, it is clear
that sprawl has created enormous costs that California
can no longer afford," says the 1995 report Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of
Growth to Fit the New California. "Ironically, unchecked sprawl has
shifted from an engine of Califomia's growth to a force that now
threatens to inhibit growth and degrade the quality of our life."
Sprawl takes its toll on society as well as on the landscape.
The report identifies a variety of consequences. There is a dramatic
increase in automobiles and time spent in traffic jams.
Irreplaceable prime agricultural land and forest land are lost. Taxes
and other costs for individuals and businesses increase to provide new
infrastructure. Sprawl frequently widens the distance between where
people live and work. It also results in abandonment of investments in
older communities, which continue to suffer long-term decline.
This appraisal comes from a joint study undertaken by the Bank of
America, Colifornia's Resources Agency, the Greenbelt Alliance, and the
Low Income Housing Fund. It makes a compelling argument for reorienting
growth to create more compact, efficient communities. The net effect
would be to improve the business climate, conserve agricultural land and
natural areas, and revitalize cities. Beyond Sprawl sheds light on
problems faced by communities not only in California, but in the
Rust Belt and the Sun Belt, in the Midwest, Southwest, and Northwest.
"This is not a call for limiting growth, but a call for
California to be smarter about how it grows -- to invent ways we can
create compact and efficient growth patterns that are responsive to the
needs of people at all income levels, and also help maintain
California's quality of life and economic competitiveness," says the
report. Community action, public policy, private business practice, and
individual effort will all be necessary to attain this objective. The
report also recommends multi-stakeholder collaborative efforts to create
a constituency to build sustainable communities.
|
Promoting Economic Development and Jobs
Sustainable development is premised on improving how society meets
human needs for all people in a manner consistent with protecting the
natural environment. A strong local economy is at the core of a
sustainable community because economic
development and the jobs it creates are the vehicles for meeting human
needs. Before anything else, people must be able to provide for the
basic necessities of food and shelter for themselves and their families.
The economy of the nation as a whole depends significantly on the
success of its many interconnected local and regional economies. In
recent years, dramatic changes in the
global economy have resulted in major shifts in local economies as both
national and local markets adjusted to the trends. In some cases,
the nation became more competitive. In the process,
however, many local economies lost jobs and/or
income; for some, the future of their communities was
endangered. Government has, in some cases, an obligation to address the
human consequences of policy decisions on environmental, trade, or
defense issues that result in job losses in a community. For example,
economic assistance and retraining for new business opportunities have
been provided to fishermen whose income has been drastically reduced
because of unsustainable harvesting that necessitated strict
conservation measures. Assistance has also been given to
communities where military bases have closed, or that have been
adversely affected by trade agreements.
These situations can be seen as opportunities to direct
government aid to help communities take advantage
of new kinds of economic development.
Strategies to create strong, diversified local economies are needed to
weather -- and
even take advantage of -- fundamental shifts in national and
international economies.
The communities that prosper will be those that develop strategies to
create resilient
local economies that make the unique strengths of their people and their
place a source
of competitive advantage. Local economic development proposals should
fill a niche in
the regional economy. Local economic health is often strengthened by
partnerships
among the private sector, employees, educators, and government. These
efforts can
create an environment that promotes entrepreneurship, innovation, and
small business
growth to marshal resources within the community to fill local economic
needs.
Given that perhaps the only natural resource that can be considered
unlimited is human
intellectual capacity, training and lifelong learning are essential if
sustainable communities are to develop a flexible, well-educated
workforce, a subject explored further in
chapter 3, "Information and Education." Education and training are
arguably the most valuable pieces of any economic development strategy
because they are the only way to build the intellectual capacity
necessary for a trainable and employable workforce. This
capacity, in turn, allows a community to adapt to the fundamental shifts
in national and international economies that will continue in the years
ahead. Partnerships that involve
employers, unions, educators, and workers are key to ensuring that
employees can take advantage of the opportunities offered by emerging
industries.
A key part of a local economic development strategy is encouraging
businesses and
industries that are at the forefront of environmental economic
development opportunities. Environmental technologies promise both
cleaner traditional industries and an
important opportunity for creating jobs for the future based on cleaner
and more efficient technologies. Strategies include investments in
resource efficiency to improve the profitability of small businesses,
using the solid waste stream to develop community-based recycling
businesses, supporting eco-industrial parks, and targeting the benefits
of increased efficiency to create economic opportunity and social
equity. A systems approach to communitywide economic development
promotes maximum resource and energy efficiency of businesses, the
community, and the region. Economic growth is achieved and human
needs are met with improved efficiency and environmental
performance. Pursuing such concepts requires imagination and
effort. Initially, extra resources may be called for, but the rewards
can be significant.
The creation of an eco-industrial park is an example of a new
form of development that pays both economic and environmen-
tal dividends. Eco-industrial parks are an environmentally effi-
cient version of industrial parks. They follow a systems design
in which one facility's waste becomes another facility's feed-
stock, and they ensure that raw materials are recycled or
disposed of efficiently and safely.
Increased efficiency in resource use provides
an opportunity to target some of the benefits from innovation to
produce jobs and social equity. The benefits and avoided costs
that will accrue to society from more efficient use of existing
resources can provide the basis for an
economic expansion that will increase economic prosperity for all. By
preventing pollution, reusing and recycling materials, and conserving
energy, new technologies can increase profits, protect and create jobs,
and reduce threats to the environment.
There will also be opportunities to target the benefits from regulatory
flexibility to encourage social equity and economic development. An
example is a cash-for-clunkers
program in which companies that own stationary sources of air pollution
can purchase and scrap older, more polluting cars rather than make expensive
investments in pollution
control in their facilities.[7] Such a program benefits
industry by allowing a more cost-effective method for reducing air
emissions and benefits the environment by removing some higher polluting
cars from the road. This program could provide further social
benefit if some of the economic savings were targeted to provide training
and jobs to low-income workers to repair older vehicles to meet air
quality requirements.
Urban communities around the country are also working to redevelop
brownfield sites to improve public health and the economic
competitiveness of these sites and surrounding
neighborhoods. Cleveland, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Chicago,
Illinois, are examples of cities that are cleaning up brownfield sites as
a strategy for revitalizing their local
economies. By targeting economic development in otherwise wasted
brownfield areas, these cities are hoping to create jobs, generate tax
revenue, and improve the environmental quality of the inner city. They
are working to identify and eliminate barriers to redeveloping
brownfield sites and to create partnerships among city, state,
and federal environmental agencies, residents, local businesses, and
lenders. They are also using
incentives to attract and retain business activity. Closely tied to
issues of sprawl, brownfield sites are often not competitive with
greenfield sites -- undeveloped suburban or
rural areas -- because the true costs of development are not clear. For
example, developers often do not consider the infrastructure costs of
undeveloped areas, such as the cost of sewers, roads, and electrical
lines that need to be built to support the growth.
POLICY RECOMMENDATION 6 |
CREATION OF STRONG, DIVERSIFIED LOCAL
ECONOMIES
Apply economic development strategies that create diversified local
economies built on unique local advantages to tap expanding markets and
technological innovation. |
ACTION 1. As part of a broader community-driven
strategic plan, a community can conduct an inventory and assessment
of its economic, natural, and human resources to identify its unique
comparative advantages and strategic niche in the larger regional economy.
ACTION 2. State and federal governments should promote labor force
development when they fund physical infrastructure projects for
transportation, public housing, and sewer and water systems within a
community by hiring locally and providing skills training for workers.
ACTION 3. Federal, state, and local governments should assist
low-income workers through programs to improve access to
education and training and tax and development strategies
targeted at the creation of jobs in new markets integrating
economic and environmental goals.
ACTION 4. Federal and state governments should review and
where appropriate, strengthen labor standards by ensuring an
adequate minimum wage and proper health and safety standards and by
encouraging greater flexibility in work hours to allow more time for
community participation and/or parenting. |
POLICY RECOMMENDATION 7 |
TRAINING AND LIFELONG LEARNING
Expand and coordinate public and
private training programs to enable
all people to improve their skills to
match future job requirements in
communities on a continuin
basis. |
ACTION 1. Businesses, unions, schools, students, and local
government within a community should develop and integrate
training programs to ensure that workers -- especially those
who need it most -- have the necessary skills to take advantage of
current and future economic development opportunities. They should work
together to integrate current programs
and acquire funding from the private sector, schools, and
government to fill identified gaps. Training programs that
should be integrated and potentially expanded include school-to-work
arrangements, apprenticeships, community service, summer employment, and
job corps opportunities.
ACTION 2. Federal and state governments should help those
who want to pursue further education and lifelong leaming by
providing individuals with tax deductions for tuition, assistance with
financing, or other incentives. |
POLICY RECOMMENDATION 8 |
ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Capitalize upon economic
development opportunities from
businesses and industries that
target environmental technologies,
recycling, and pollution prevention
to create jobs. |
ACTION 1. Federal and state
agencies should work with the private sector to create a one-stop shop
for financial and technical assistance to small businesses that would
identify cost-effective investments in resource efficiency and financing and
help make pollution prevention standard practice. The federal
government should work with lenders to develop ways to validate the
outcomes of investments in resource efficiency to address their concerns
and so improve access to capital.
ACTION 2. Federal and state agencies should assist communities
that want to create eco-industrial parks that cluster businesses in the
same area to create new models of industrial
efficiency, cooperation, and environmental responsibility.
Assistance should include making relevant information available,
allowing flexibility in permitting and other regulator
areas while ensuring that environmental goals are met or
exceeded, and enacting mixed-use zoning that allows for eco-industrial
parks that have low or no emissions.
ACTION 3. Local communities can adopt programs to reuse
materials and collect and recycle secondary materials diverted
from what some call the urban mine - the municipal solid
waste stream. Such programs minimize wastes, prevent pollution,
provide opportunities for new businesses and industries
such as recycling-related manufacturing, generate jobs and
revenue from recycling collection and processing, create
high-skill industrial jobs and sizeable sales revenues from
manufacture of recycled products, and conserve landfill space.
The federal government should work with state and local
governments to establish related guidelines and model
programs and create incentives to promote secondary materials
use and recycling-related manufacturing.
ACTION 4. The public, private, and nonprofit sectors should
work together to identify innovative opportunities to target
some of the economic benefits from more efficient use of
resources and greater regulatory flexibility in terms of creating
jobs, opportunity, and social equity in communities. |
CREATING CLEAN JOBS |
Clean Cities Recycling, Inc. (CCR), is a nonprofit community
development corporation formed
as a joint venture involving 2-Ladies Recycling, Inc., of Hobart,
Indiana; the Gary Clean City
Coalition, a community-based environmental organization, and Brothers
Keeper of Gary, a shelter for homeless men. CCR's stated mission is 'to
benefit the public interest and lessen the burden
on government by creating permanent employment by utilizing the economic
opportunities available through the processing and marketing of
residential recyclables."
The joint venture was formed in 1993 to compete for a two-year
contract awarded by the Lake
County Solid Waste Management District to set up and operate 2S drop-off
recycling centers.
The district and its board were established in 1 99 1, when Indiana set a
goal of reducing trash to
landfills by 35 percent by 1996 and 50 percent by the year 200 1.
To date, the firm has set up I 0 drop-off centers at grocery
stores, The sites are open Monday
through Saturday, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and are serviced daily. They
collect clean, source-separated
household recyclables: glass, aluminum, steel cons, newspaper,
cardboard, and some plastics.
Materials are sold to local markets and established scrap dealers in the
Greater Chicago area.
Fiber is purchased by a paper mill in Lake County, glass is bought by a
company just over the county
line in Illinois, and steel returns to the steel mills.
Clean Cities Recycling now employs six full-time and two part-time
workers who are paid
$6.SO to $ 1 0. 00 an hour. It provides job training, work experience,
and letters of recommendation to homeless shelter residents, who are paid
a stipend for their work. The venture also helps
provide continuing financial support for Brothers Keeper. Benefits from
the business flow to the city of Gary and surrounding
communities.
|
POLICY RECOMMENDATION 9 |
REDEVELOPMENT OF BROWNFIELD SITES
Revitalize brownflelds -- which are
contaminated, abandoned, or
underused land -- by making them
more attractive for redevelopment
by providing regulatory flexibility,
reducing process barriers, and
assessing greenfleld development to
reflect necessary infrastructure
costs. |
ACTION 1. All levels of government should work in partnership
with community residents, environmental organizations,
community development corporations, industry, and businesses to
redevelop or stabilize brownfield sites by eliminating barriers and
creating incentives for environmental cleanup and by reorienting
existing state and federal economic development funding and programs to
include these sites.
ACTION 2. Federal and state agencies should encourage
investment in brownfield redevelopment by using the
polluter pays principle, assuring prospective purchasers and
lenders that they will not be held liable for cleanup in cases
in which they did not contribute to contamination.
ACTION 3. The federal government should work with states,
counties, and communities to develop tools that compare, on
a site-specific basis, the local economic and environmental
costs of developing a greenfield versus redeveloping a
brownfield site. |
[1] U.S. Department of Commerce, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1994), p. 97, table 39.
[2] Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103-66,
107 Stat. 312. Under this statute, businesses and employers of the nine
empowerment zones are eligible for three major tax benefits, including
employer wage credits, increased Section 179 spending, and tax-exempt
bond financing for qualified properties.
[3] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wetlands Fact
Sheet #4: Economic Benefits of Wetlands (Washington, D.C., 1993), p.1.
[4] Frederick Law Olmstead, Jr., and Theodora Kimball, eds.,
Forty Years of Landscape Architecture: Central Park (Cambridge:
MIT Press, 1973), p. 45. The passage is from a report Frederick Law
Olmsted, Sr., submitted to the Department of Public Parks in 1872.
[5] For more information, see Homestead Habitat for Humanity,
Concept and Background, Jordan Commons: A Pilot Program for
Sustainable Community-Building (Homestead, Fla., 1995).
[6] Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991,
Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914.
[7] U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Retiring
Old Cars: Programs to Save Gasoline and Reduce Emissions (Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1992); Environmental Law and Policy
Center, Components of a Model Accelerated Vehicle Retirement
Program, report to the Energy Foundation (Chicago, 1994); and
President's Commission on Environmental Quality, Partnership to
Progress: The Report of the President's Commission on Environmental
Quality (Washington, D.C., 1993), pp. 30-31. Examples of cash for
clunkers programs include the Accelerated Vehicle Retirement project and,
in the private sector, the Union Oil Company of California in which 7,000
model-year 1970 and older vehicles registered in the Los Angeles Basin
were scrapped.
|