Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Before I started focusing on land use issues, I never fully appreciated how much local land use planning is driven by federal and state road-building policy. I suspect this is also the case for much of the general public.
At first glance, roads and buildings seem to be distinct topics. Unfortunately, that's the way we've treated them for much of the post WWII development cycle--despite the fact that they are inextricably linked.
Case in point: a poorly designed road can completely undermine the usefulness of a well-designed building just as a well-designed road can suffer if poorly designed, misplaced buildings line the frontage of the road. A textbook example of this would be the problems that would result if you placed a nice, well-proportioned 2,000 Craftsman cottage...along a six lane, high-speed arterial.
Clearly, this would be out of context and, in the big picture, so much of the success in land use is about syncing up the right overall context between streets, blocks, and buildings.
Related to this topic, is a recent article at Planetizen by Samuel Staley that does an interesting job explaining how the economic angle of road building:
In a previous blog post, my discussion of externalities, public goods and roads spurred an unexpectedly lengthy set of posts and repostes. In this article, I want to address a trickier topic: Whether road users have effectively shifted the burden for paying for roads to non-users and whether the reason we pay for roads out of general taxes is a result of that lobbying effort.
Read the entire post if you get the chance. It really presents a thought-provoking argument about how everyone--including those who don't drive very often--pay for the cost of our expansive and complex national driving system.
--Chad Emerson, Faulkner U.
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Can UberPOOL Make Carpooling Cool?
- Are Earth Day cookies an endangered species?
- Fordham Urban Law Center's Sharing Economy | Sharing City Conference - April 24
- Land Use, Telescopes and Sacred Land in Paradise
- Tekle on Percent-for-Art Ordinances