Fitchburg is planning for the past

By RICH EGGLESTON

It's only coincidence that communities across Wisconsin are required to have their much vaunted comprehensive plans completed not long after the last SUV rolls off the General Motors assembly line in Janesville.

But it's no coincidence at all that our best efforts to map our future via comprehensive planning could end up just as ungainly a dinosaur tomorrow as the Chevy Suburbans that made big money for GM in the era of $1.15 a gallon gasoline.

That's because we're drafting plans for a future that threatens us with $4, $5 or $6 a gallon gasoline under parameters established by the state when gas was $1.15 a gallon.

By the time most communities even thought about comprehensive plans, gas was heading toward $2 a gallon and urban density was still the poor stepchild of development. It never got invited to the ball.

At $6 a gallon, density might be the life of the party. But government is a dinosaur all its own, and a lot of time and effort has been invested in planning for a future of $2 a gallon gas. We have to shift gears, and fast.

Written only 10 years ago, the comprehensive planning law uses terminology that today is outdated as a roadmap to the future. It tells us to plan for transportation and utilities but doesn't say a word about climate change, energy conservation or sustainability.

As a result, we're driving full speed ahead into the past, and our brakes are bad. Fitchburg approved marvelous developments that were well suited to $2 a gallon gasoline. But as the words "subprime mortgage" entered the vernacular, miniature mansions for the masses still rose on Fitchburg's skyline.

The surest way to ease the pinch of high energy prices is to reduce energy consumption. Make the kids walk or bike to soccer practice. Pick up the phone instead of the car keys. Take a train or bus. Let's design our community to make those things easy to do instead of almost impossible.

Around the country, transit saves 3.4 billion gallons of fuel each year, saves us 541 million hours that otherwise would be spent in traffic jams and cuts greenhouse gas emissions by 26 million tons.

According to USA Today, Americans drove 22 billion fewer miles from November through April than during the same period in 2006-07. We are doing it.

And it's happening in a society that until yesterday was transit unfriendly. At $4 a gallon, it might be possible to get people out of their cars without prying their cold, dead hands off the steering wheels. At $6 a gallon, it's a sure thing.

As Fitchburg finalizes our comprehensive plan, we must plan to do more with less energy. If we don't, we'll have a community that is just as well suited to the future as a bunch of ungainly dinosaurs are suited to the 21st century.

And we're going to have to settle for a lot less in terms of quality of life and economic growth as a result.

Suburbs feeling the pinch as fuel prices soar

Open letter to District 2 alders
Submitted by Rosanne Lindsay

This is about the third article (click here) I've seen in as many days, on the need to rethink the status quo planning of suburbs. It offers some ideas to consider. Do we really need to plan and build extra homes when so many are standing empty and those who commute are struggling to fill their gas tank? I'm writing to you to consider how our times are changing and to reflect on these changes when considering the Fitchburg Comprehensive Plan and the approval of development in the NE Neighborhood Urban Service Area. Is there really a true need to add another 1000-plus homes to our Northeast corner when the dollar is heading south, gas prices are heading north, foreclosures and unsold homes are on the rise, and apartment rentals are gaining while home ownership is failing?

When many builders are going bankrupt, and others are trying to unload their unsold lots (see article), then something needs to give. Planners and local governments must find new paradigms. Does Fitchburg really want to add and pay for services to reach the far NE corner when the "core" is really just identifying itself as the area around City Hall and there is plenty of room to promote infill development first? If a new library does go in at the City Hall site, how will new residents on the NE side access it at an affordable price? Will we add transit services? At the moment, we don't even have enough money to expand our current transit service beyond the few runs down PD and Fish Hatchery. Has the Plan Commission considered these pressures on our budget and the pressures on the average homeowner?

Thanks for your consideration.

Suburbia - The Next Slum?

Here's an important and timely email (with emphasis added) from Rich Eggleston to the members of the Plan Commission, Common Council, Citizens Advisory Committee on the Comprehensive Plan, and Mayor Tom Clauder.

Monday, 25 Feb 2008

One of the hallmarks of a comprehensive plan that works is flexibility. What we know about the proposed Northeast Neighborhood now, for example, is more than we knew about it two weeks ago, much less two years ago or 20 years ago.

That's why I was miffed by a member of the Plan Commission who suggested recently that I should have brought up concerns about the proposed Northeast Neighborhood in 1985, or, presumably, forever hold my peace.

The need for flexibility in planning is highlighted further by developments in the national economy over which Fitchburg has no control, and immutable demographic reality. You folks are getting older.

A business column in Saturday's New York Times cited research by Arthur C. Nelson, director of Virginia Tech's Metropolitcan Institute, who has predicted that, by 2025, there will be a surplus of 22 million "large-lot homes" (those built on at least one-sixth of an acre) in America.

The column quotes Leinberger as ascribing that surplus to “'the pendulum swinging back toward urban living,' thanks to a set of economic, social, and demographic trends." The result, he says, could be that low-density suburbs “may become what inner cities became in the 1960’s and 1970’s — slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.” (article here)

The column built on an article in the latest Atlantic Monthly (here) that said, in part:

"In most metropolitan areas, only 5 to 10 percent of the housing stock is located in walkable urban places...

"Yet recent consumer research by Jonathan Levine of the University of Michigan and Lawrence Frank of the University of British Columbia suggests that roughly one in three homeowners would prefer to live in these types of places. In one study, for instance, Levine and his colleagues asked more than 1,600 mostly suburban residents of the Atlanta and Boston metro areas to hypothetically trade off typical suburban amenities (such as large living spaces) against typical urban ones (like living within walking distance of retail districts).

"All in all, they found that only about a third of the people surveyed solidly preferred traditional suburban lifestyles, featuring large houses and lots of driving. Another third, roughly, had mixed feelings. The final third wanted to live in mixed-use, walkable urban areas—but most had no way to do so at an affordable price. Over time, as urban and faux-urban building continues, that will change.

"Demographic changes in the United States also are working against conventional suburban growth, and are likely to further weaken preferences for car-based suburban living.

"When the Baby Boomers were young, families with children made up more than half of all households; by 2000, they were only a third of households; and by 2025, they will be closer to a quarter. Young people are starting families later than earlier generations did, and having fewer children. The Boomers themselves are becoming empty-nesters, and many have voiced a preference for urban living. By 2025, the U.S. will contain about as many single-person households as families with children."

Topics for comprehensive plans to consider.

Rich Eggleston
Fitchburg

Politics and Planning

Submitted by Phyllis Hasbrouck

I must recommend Fitchburg Plan Commission meetings to FitchburgVoices readers. Though Terry Carpenter and I are sometimes the only people there who aren’t either elected officials or someone putting up a new deck or trying to get a liquor license, it isn’t as boring as you probably imagine. You really learn a lot: about the people who make decisions for you; about planning topics; and about politics.

This last meeting on Sept 18 was especially interesting.

There was high drama (for the connoisseur who knows how rare it is) when the Plan Commission voted 5 to 1 against Mayor Tom Clauder, to send the draft map for a 50-year Urban Growth Boundary on the Common Council. Sitting in the audience, knitting a purple scarf, I felt torn. On the one hand, I appreciated the Mayor referencing the West Waubesa Preservation Coalition’s statement of “We don't have to rush this.” The truth of that statement still stands: there is no rush in approving more development when there is a housing glut in Fitchburg, and water questions remain unanswered.

On the other hand, the comments of the other commissioners resonated much more strongly with me. In response to the Mayor’s plea to “Let the market do the growth,” John Freiburger answered very strongly, “If you want to see the market, go to Houston!” He painted a picture of unplanned growth gone wild, and said that real estate courses now point to Houston as an example of why zoning and planning are necessary.

Jay Allen agreed, saying that the problem with saying “Let the market decide” is that “you end up destroying wetlands,... creating problems with lakes and streams, you end up with fly ash dumps" and "all sorts of transportation problems.” He also indicated that he would like to make a plan to incorporate lower income housing into new neighborhoods, and to take a closer look at groundwater issues.

Ed Kinney defended the map as it stood, and said, “We put together a map that identifies the areas of Fitchburg that best meet those parameters." (Now I'm paraphrasing.) This map takes the politics out of the planning process.... We make it clear.... Of course, there are going to be changes to the map.... If you don’t want to be bothered by more proposals like Ballygrady, then vote for this plan. Otherwise, you open the door for politics.”

Al Cooper agreed that it was time to pass the plan on, as work expands to fill the time allotted.

And Mark McNally, though he was clearly uncomfortable abandoning the Mayor, seemed to be convinced by the other commissioners. When he asked for just 2 weeks delay to let the Mayor meet with the superintendent of the Oregon School District, John Freiburger said, “The Oregon School District cannot tell us how to plan. If we wait 2 weeks, in 2 weeks there will be another argument, and then another.”

In the end, they all voted yes except the Mayor, who said (I think) “With deep inner resolution, No.”

For me, it was a mixed bag. I totally agreed with the motivations expressed in favor of planning, and yet it was painful to see the Northeast Neighborhood (NEN) being included as part of the Urban Growth Boundary. I just have to take comfort in John Freiburger’s statement that “We’re showing the Northeast Neighborhood all in red, but we all know that we’re not going to develop it all.”

But there was one topic that I disagree with John on. He said that you can’t make plans for traffic until you’ve agreed on a map of where the development will take place. City Planner Tom Hovel concurred, saying, “Traffic studies don’t tell you ‘Don’t grow there.’ They tell you how to accommodate your traffic.”

I assume that he’s right in saying that (so far) traffic studies haven’t said, “Don’t grow there.” That probably has something to do with the mindset of traffic engineers, who can always envision a wider road, more on and off ramps, or a new frontage road. But maybe elected leaders should say “This traffic study indicates that we shouldn’t grow there,” if they see that the accommodation measures would violate certain values that the community holds dear.

Take, for example, the case of the Northeast Neighborhood. With only two possible routes into Madison, (the destination of choice for most of the tens of thousand of daily car trips that development will cause), the measures necessary to accommodate that traffic need to be looked at carefully before approving development.

At a meeting last summer with the Dept. of Transportation and Fitchburg officials, widening Hwy. MM to four lanes, or even six lanes, was discussed. They called it “improving” MM, but I wonder if the scores of people with houses on it would feel improved by having a highway in their front yard.

And the people who enjoy the Lussier Family Heritage Center, Lake Farm Park, the Capital Springs Centennial State Park and campground, or the Capital City Bike Trail, might like to know sooner rather than too late that Lake Farm Park Road will become clogged with traffic as people try to avoid the Hwy. 14 and Park Street jams caused by the NEN traffic.

Sure, a traffic engineer could tell you to improve traffic flow by making Lake Farm Park Road four lanes wide, but how does that mix with the quiet, rural experience that people seek when they go there? Of course, Fitchburg wouldn’t have to pay for that “improvement” or deal with the landowners who don’t want to move their houses, because it’s in the Town of Blooming Grove and the City of Madison. But, as Jay Allen has so rightly said, (in the case of the planned Grandview development on Fitchburg’s western border) it isn’t fair for one community to create a development that will pile transportation problems and costs on their neighbors.

If we talk about these clearly foreseeable traffic problems before approving a development, people have a chance to make their wishes known to Fitchburg alders and planners. And that’s what our system is all about: democracy – rule of the people. Hmmm… that reminds me of some very disturbing comments made at the end of this most interesting meeting. More on that later, so please stay tuned.

Thanks to all who read these words for taking the time to become informed. I hope to see you at the next Plan Commission or Common Council meeting!

The Trouble With Happiness

I’m finishing up the last chapters of “Stumbling on Happiness” by Daniel Gilbert (link here), an entertaining and thought-provoking book about how the mind works. What does the mystery of the mind have to do with Fitchburg? Plenty!

Gilbert explains that based on various studies “Starting points matter because we often end up close to where we started.” So, it was inevitable that after a maximum growth rate for Fitchburg of 75 acres per year was voted in, it would be seen as a target instead of a maximum. (Those of you who follow Council and Commission meetings may remember that I predicted this danger at the time. But admittedly, it was intuition not research that led me to that conclusion.) Every time I’ve heard it mentioned since then, the statement includes a comparison such as “we have enough land already identified in the Urban Service Area to last for X years at 75 acres per year.”

However, back on Feb. 20th, before this “maximum” was established, a presentation to the Planning Commission by city staff included the statement that, as of 2005, we had about 1,000 acres left to develop within the current Urban Service Area (USA) so we only need to add 250 acres from outside the USA to take us from 2005 to 2030. The assumption was based on a growth rate of, not 75, but 50 acres per year.

I don’t want to stray too far, but the February presentation also included an example of what would happen if we continue to develop at 100 acres per year which is close to the 104 acre average since 1990. The result when factoring in a “50% flexibility factor” is that by 2060, we’d use up roughly 10,000 of the remaining 11,000 acres that could be developed outside of the current Urban Service Area. If you aren’t alarmed, reread the last sentence! Let me put it another way. Under this scenario, all but a small portion of our entire 36 square mile city that isn’t preserved as a park or someone’s lawn could be covered with roads and roofs by 2060.

What if we want to protect more farmland and open space and “only” pave over 50 acres per year… or even 25 acres? Those amounts are still less than the maximum established (so they meet that criteria) but they are no longer even being considered as options at any of the meetings I’ve attended (and I haven’t missed many in the last six months). Was silencing all other discussions about Fitchburg’s rate of growth the intent of the 75 acre per year maximum or was it one of those unintended consequences?

This brings me back to the happiness problem. It turns out that it is quite difficult for us to predict what will make us happy in the future partly because, as Gilbert explains, “we use our present feelings as a starting point” and we “expect our future to feel a bit more like our present than it actually will.” So, when Steve or Hans or Phyllis describe a future with fewer car trips, we can’t imagine it since that’s not what most of us are currently experiencing.

Remember being warned that you should not grocery shop when you are hungry because you’ll buy things you don’t need? Similarly, we shouldn’t shop for Fitchburg’s Future with gasoline in our veins. It’s going to sway our judgment.

Instead, what if we used the gas shortages of the 1970s as our starting point when talking about the future of Fitchburg? (You may need to ask your parents or the all powerful Google about this if you are under 50.) How would being able to walk or bike to work, or the convenience of taking a commuter train or an express bus, compare with being stalled in traffic jams and waiting in line for hours every time you had to buy gas at ever increasing prices?

I contend that if you walked up to someone, who anticipated an hour or more wait to buy gas (like the picture below), and offered them an instant ticket on the Fitchburg Express (and a convenient way to get to the terminal), you could probably convert an unhappy driver into a happy passenger.

Line at gas station on Sept. 15, 1979 (from Wikipedia)

Another limitation of our brain, that affects our happiness, is described by Gilbert this way: It is “so much easier for me to remember the past than to generate new possibilities. I will tend to compare the present with the past even when I ought to be comparing it with the possible.” In this case, the past is not the 1970s but the more recent past. We have a hard time generating new possibilities going forward. This takes vision and requires a willingness to consciously remove some things from the table to make room for new ideas. By design, most of us are not gifted in this area. (More about this later.)

Our lack of vision also means that we often “fail to realize that our future selves won’t see the world the way we see it now.” I believe our inability to recognize that our future selves will be living in a different world, (with a different set of facts, and therefore a different set of values and beliefs), hinders our ability to make the changes necessary to create a better future.

It turns out that we are programmed to pay attention to the things we want to hear, to remember details that support our views, and to accept a lower standard of proof for facts with which we agree. While that seems like a rather immature way to act, it’s all in the name of happiness. In Chapter 8 - Paradise Glossed, Gilbert explains that people have a “Psychological Immune System that defends the mind against unhappiness in much the same way that the physical immune system defends the body against illness… A healthy psychological immune system strikes a balance that allows us to feel good enough to cope with our situations but bad enough to do something about it.”

Yes, there is trouble with happiness. We need to happily cope with today’s problems. But, let’s not let things get bad before we do something about them, because today’s solutions (including inaction) could create irreversible problems in the future. And that’s a place that we (or someone we love) must live.