Most of the articles in this edition were written by CEDS president Richard Klein. In general, each article addresses a specific issue suggested by an advocate for community or environmental preservation. In responding to each issue I have sought to provide a summary of the latest research, rather then just my opinion, along with the experiences of those who have successfully dealt with each issue. Links to the source of this information is provided as colored text. If you would like to suggest a topic for the next edition then e-mail me at:
Rklein@ceds.org. Also, please feel free to send comments regarding an article, which I will run in future editions of this newsletter when appropriate. To subscribe to this newsletter just e-mail me and type newsletter in the subject area. If you wish further detail on any of the issues addressed in this newsletter then contact me at 1-800-773-4571 or Rklein@ceds.org.Shelly, of the Bayside Beach (MD) Improvement Association, asked about traffic calming devices such as flashing speed limit signs.
Stand-Alone Signs Generally Ineffective: Signs, including radar speed signs, are an important component of a neighborhood traffic calming program, but achieve only a modest, short term speed reduction when used as a stand-alone measure. However, under some circumstances a sign can be highly-effective. For example, CEDS helped residents living on a new, unusually long court with a traffic problem. Motorists unfamiliar with the new street system would drive down the court thinking it connected to a main road. Upon reaching the dead-end many drivers became frustrated and raced back out at dangerous speeds. A Not A Through Street sign was placed at the entrance to the court. The residents reported that traffic volume and speeding on the court decreased considerably thereafter.
Physical Measures More Effective: Measures involving physical changes to a street are far more effective in reducing speeding and cut-through traffic. For example, speed humps and speed tables will reduce vehicle speed by 18% to 23% and collisions by 11% to 45%. Other physical measures include chokers, roundabouts, raised crosswalks, chicanes, and more. The cost of physical measures begins at $2,000 each. Some motorists object to these measures. There is also a concern that emergency vehicles are forced to slow down as well. But our experience has been that the majority of community residents view traffic calming as providing
benefits far in excess of the disadvantages. In fact most neighborhood groups want traffic officials to relax limitations on physical measures, a goal we’ve helped a number of neighborhood associations achieve.
Through Traffic: As congestion increases on main roads commuters begin searching for alternate routes. Unfortunately the alternate is usually a residential street where increased traffic volume, speed, noise, and air pollution threatens health, safety, property value, and degrades quality of life. While traffic calming measures can reduce cut-through traffic, the effect is limited. As main routes are allowed to become more congested traffic volume will continue to rise on residential streets. Unfortunately a conventional traffic analysis will rarely address this impact. Instead the analyses is limited to congestion at main intersections. Furthermore, the conventional analysis would not note a problem until intersection volume reached 14,000 vehicles per day (vpd). However, we believe traffic volume becomes excessive on residential streets at 1,000 vpd. More importantly, we have won cases where a proposed development project would increase through-traffic on residential streets beyond this threshold.
Cul-De-Sac Streets: Some of the most severe quality of life impacts occur when a cul-de-sac (dead-end) street is converted into a through-road or the street is extended so more homes can be added. Frequently residents will have paid more for their home just because its located on a quiet cul-de-sac. So its particularly unfair when local officials consent to adding more traffic. If converted to a through road then it is unlikely that quality of life can be preserved even with physical calming measures. Instead we urge citizens to aggressively oppose the extension. There are lots of examples of where citizens have won these battles. For an example of how to preserve a cul-de-sac visit:
ceds.org/pdfdocs/culdesacs.pdf.For further background on traffic calming visit
StopSpeeders.org, TrafficCalming.org, or the FHWA Traffic Calming webpage. For specific questions not answered by this article or for help in resolving a traffic issue contact CEDS at 1-800-773-4571 or Help@ceds.org.Gretchen, of the
Chatham (NC) Conservation Partnership, suggested an article on how to effectively respond to or counter private property rights arguments (the "I have a right to do whatever I want to with my property..."). This argument comes up in the context of changes to zoning or other laws that restrict the uses an owner may pursue on their property.Getting Past the Rhetoric: I believe we can all agree with the basic premise of the property rights argument: People should be free to use their property with few restrictions. Of course disagreements begin when uses pursued on one property adversely affects neighbors. The more articulate property rights advocates will quote
Sir William Blackstone, who wrote in 1738 that property rights cannot be violated even for the general good of the whole community. Sir William was referring to the inherent right of Englishmen to own property. Blackstone went on to say that property could be used and enjoyed without control or diminution save only by the laws of the land. Clearly, these "laws of the land" would include those designed to restrict property uses injurious to neighbors. In fact, English land use laws can be traced back to 450 B.C. and the Roman law known as the Twelve Tables, which contained setbacks and other property use restrictions intended to protect neighbors.Property Rights & The Law: In the United States the authority of government to regulate the use of property derives from general police powers within the constraints imposed by the due process, equal protection, and taking clauses of the
5th and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Following is a very simplistic and incomplete description of this extremely complex topic. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld land use laws provided there was: 1) a solid factual foundation proving that a law was necessary to protect public health, morals, safety, or welfare; 2) an opportunity was provided for property owners and all other affected parties to express their views on the adoption and application of the law; 3) there was a rational and reasonable basis for why the law applies to some properties or uses but not all; and 4) the law does not deny an owner all uses of their property even though the value may decline by up to 90%. This topic is further complicated by the provisions of State constitutions.Countering the Argument: The best first step in winning this argument is not to argue at all. Instead I urge you to
negotiate with property owner(s) in hopes of finding options which achieve your goals while allowing the owners to get most of what they want. But our experience has been that substantive negotiations only begin once the opposition comes to believe that it may cost them more to continue fighting you in contrast to seeking an equitable solution. Getting to this point requires a thorough analysis of strategy options and the aggressive pursuit of both legal and political options to gain the necessary leverage with the opposition.For specific questions not answered by this article or for help in overcoming opposition from property rights advocates contact CEDS at 1-800-773-4571 or
Help@ceds.org.Jim, of South Arundel (MD) Citizens for Responsible Development (
SACReD), asked about big box versus community stores and the impact of driving to destination shopping to buy at the lowest price.Big-Box & Community Stores Defined: A
big-box store is broadly defined as being housed in a large, rectangular building (usually a single floor) with a footprint (roof area) ranging from 20,000 square feet to 200,000 square feet. Familiar examples include Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Barnes & Noble, Sports Authority, and Target. For a big-box to be successful there must be a minimum population of 50,000 within 5- to 15-miles.Community stores are frequently located in a
neighborhood scale shopping center consisting of 3 to 15 businesses with a supermarket serving as the anchor. Roof area will total 15,000- to 50,000-square feet. Of course these small retail businesses also include a single convenience store at a rural intersection or a strip of stores situated along a road. Community stores are generally designed to serve a population of 3,000-40,000 living within 1.5-miles.Low Prices? While it is generally true that prices are lower in big-box stores, this may not always be so. Researchers have found up to a 25% difference in the price of specific products sold in stores belonging to the same big-box chain but located in markets with varying levels of competition. National chains can afford to sell a portion of their goods for very little profit. Locally owned stores simply cannot compete and go out of business. So as time progresses competition diminishes and big-box prices tend to rise. There can be more to the price paid at a big-box store then just the amount you fork over at the check-out counter. Researchers have found that dollars spent at community stores tend to cycle through the local economy more often when compared to money spent at big-box stores. Some of these studies show up to a
doubling of local economic benefits and job creation when dollars are spent at locally-owned versus big-box stores. Finally, we may all be paying a bit more in taxes or medical insurance due to the poor healthcare plans provided to employees of some big-box retailers.Big-Box Traffic Impacts: A 200,000 square foot big-box store generates
5,000 to 11,000 car trips a day. However, a study conducted in 2003 indicated that big-box store traffic may be routinely underestimated by as much as 42%. A community store, such as those in a neighborhood shopping center, would generate 1,800 to 6,000 trips per day. Those shopping at a big-box would drive an average of 5- to 15-miles while neighborhood shopping center patrons would travel 1.5-miles. The significance of traffic volume and distance is two-fold. First, congestion and drive time would be substantially greater when shopping at a big-box store, which would also mean more time wasted and higher pollution emissions. Second, a widespread consensus has emerged recently that we all need to spend less time driving with more walking or cycling, both of which are far more likely when community stores are available within a mile or so. In fact, a 2005 study conducted in Washington state found that those living in areas with neighborhood stores, schools, and parks drove 26% fewer miles per year compared to residents of communities lacking local services.Safeguarding Community Stores: According to various polls, 58% to 75% of Americans have a favorable opinion of big-box stores. Suffice to say, they are here to stay and more are coming, at least in the near-term. So the question becomes: How do we ensure that big-box stores are guided to locations where they will not drive viable community stores out of business or exacerbate congestion, pollution, and other quality of life impacts? Of course the answer is through improved planning and zoning supported by an active citizenry. Comprehensive plans are supposed to serve as the fundamental guide for growth. Yet few comprehensive plans contain a thorough analysis of: a) the viability of local businesses, b) resident desires for new retail shopping opportunities, c) how existing businesses may be supported to meet these desires, and d) the best location for new retail to meet needs beyond the capability of established businesses. Such an analysis is critical to making decisions about the need to rezone land for big-box retail and, if so, where. The analysis is also essential to modifying zoning ordinances and other development regulations to limit big-box stores to avoid unfair competition with community stores as well as preventing undue impacts to nearby residents. Without these protections in place local business owners and residents must wage difficult battles to defeat inappropriate big-box proposals. For further detail on these analyses and examples of community store safeguards contact CEDS at 1-800-773-4571 or Help@ceds.org. You can also find lots of great information at
newrules.org, www.mainstreet.org, and sprawl-busters.com.Chris, of the
Greater Baltimore (MD) Sierra Club, suggested an article on "restoring our watersheds." Jim, of the Anacostia (DC/MD) Watershed Society, recommended related topics: "river restoration, water quality protection, stormwater management, and environmental protection."Poor Watershed Management Hurts Us All: For the most part there’s no home east of the Mississippi which is more then a 15-minute walk from a wetland, stream, pond, river, or other waters. Many of our children know these waters as treasured playgrounds. Yet a disturbingly large percentage of these waters suffer from poorly managed watersheds. At best, these waters are less interesting due to a paucity of aquatic life and, at worse, a threat to our children’s health. According to the most recent
National Water Quality Inventory nearly half of our rivers and lakes are degraded. Unfortunately, the current trend is toward more degraded waters, not less. We all suffer from this disgrace through lost recreation opportunities, higher taxes and utility fees, threats to our health, property value loss, and an overall decline in our quality of life.Watershed Development is the Leading Threat: Watershed development (buildings, streets, parking lots, etc.) is the principal factor accounting for the increase in degraded waters. Each new house degrades 60 feet of stream, an acre of parking lot impacts 175 feet, and a mile of highway damages an average of 1,275 feet of waterway. The degradation is caused by the pollutants washed from rooftops and road surfaces, the increased volume of floodwaters and channel erosion, and a decreased amount of rain soaking into the earth which recharges wells and provides groundwater inflow to wetlands and streams between storms. To restore our waters we must first halt the impact of future development, then reverse the impact of existing shopping centers, highways, and that of our neighborhoods.
The Stormwater Management Myth: Ponds and other measures have been used for more then three decades in an attempt to manage stormwater in hopes of reducing the impact of watershed development. By the mid 1980s it became increasingly clear that the conventional pond-based approach was not fully protecting aquatic resources. This was confirmed by studies conducted in the 1990s throughout North America. At the start of this decade local and state governments began requiring additional stormwater practices with the hope of achieving more effective aquatic resource protection. But two critical issues create doubt regarding the success of these improved practices. First, we lack programs for ensuring that practices are properly installed and maintained. For example a recent
CEDS study documented that three out of four stormwater practices in Saint Mary’s County, MD were in such poor condition that essentially no protection was afforded downstream waters. Second, those who design and review stormwater plans have a limited ability to tailor projects and practices to the unique requirements of the sensitive aquatic resources present in many watersheds. As a result, a number of these resources have been needlessly damaged. While these issues are considerable, this does not mean stormwater management is without benefit. In fact even the old pond approach kept substantial quantities of pollutants out of downstream waters and the improved practices do an even better job. However, it is unlikely that even these improved practices will keep nearby waters safe for our children without watershed development limits. For further detail on this topic see Local Water Policy Innovation: A Road Map for Community Based Stormwater Solutions by American Rivers.Limiting Watershed Development is Critical: Beginning with a
study I published in 1979, numerous researchers have found a direct correlation between watershed development and aquatic resource health. Most have used percent impervious area to quantify the degree of development. Impervious area is any surface preventing rain from infiltrating soil and includes rooftops, streets, parking lots, sidewalks, etc. Our most sensitive aquatic communities (trout waters, bogs and other wetlands) begin to suffer when 2% to 4% of a watershed is covered by impervious surfaces. This degree of imperviousness equals about one house for every eight- to ten-acres. Most other waters decline at a watershed imperviousness of 8% or one house per three acres. However, a waterway may continue to support aquatic life and remain relatively safe for our children up to an imperviousness of 15% to 20%. Beyond 25% - four houses per acre - most aquatic life will disappear and it is unlikely the waterway could ever be restored. Again, while stormwater management measures have the potential to substantially reduce watershed development impacts, the current state of the art has failed to reach this potential. At this point the only way to reliably protect highly-sensitive aquatic resources is to manage watershed growth to keep imperviousness below critical thresholds.Watershed Growth Management: The primary document guiding growth throughout a town, city, or county is the comprehensive plan. While many regard this plan as relatively meaningless, this is definitely not the case. In fact, we’ve helped many citizens use comprehensive plans to win a variety of development battles. But few plans do a good job of setting forth a comprehensive strategy for managing watershed growth to preserve aquatic resources. Fortunately this is changing. Two of the best examples of change is the
Water Resources Element, which most Maryland counties and cities must add to their comprehensive plans by October 2009, and the integrated watershed planning approach required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).However, even these two good examples fall short of what is needed. What is needed is a plan based upon the following five-part analysis: 1) Evaluate the current condition of all waters within the jurisdiction along with the sensitive aquatic resources and human uses each presently supports, 2) Identify waters presently unfit for sensitive aquatic communities and human uses, 3) Determine the effectiveness of existing stormwater management and other programs to protect aquatic resources from watershed development impacts, 4) Make a projection of the growth permitted by the present comprehensive plan and how build-out at present zoning is likely to affect aquatic resource health, and 5) Evaluate the ability of alternative growth scenarios to allow reasonable growth without undue aquatic resource degradation while beginning to reverse the effects of past development. This approach will only produce the desired result if backed by a well organized coalition of citizens pursuing an aggressive technical, legal, and political strategy. For further detail on this approach see
Watershed Growth Management 101.Why is this important?
Well, CEDS has found that citizens generally have a low probability of getting the courts to overturn decisions made by planning commissions and zoning boards. There are other
approaches which are far more effective in resolving citizen concerns when compared to just appealing decisions. The difficulty in reversing commission and board decisions stems from the deference courts give to both bodies. This deference stems from the presumption that both are neutral administrative bodies representing a fair cross-section of those living in a county, city, or town. If these bodies are composed of people with a pro-development (or anti-development) bias then they certainly are not neutral and judges should not accord their decisions with a presumption of validity.The Drake study included an interesting next step. They asked a representative sampling of the general public to take a survey in which they had to approve or disapprove eight development scenarios involving: a big-box store, a gated community, environmental protection, etc. Next, the researchers asked a sampling of planning commission and zoning board members to take the same survey. The researchers found very little difference in the answers given by the two groups. While this might seem to indicate a lack of bias on the part of commission and board members it is not proof positive. The real test would be to compare the actual decisions made by members of both bodies with those of the general public. An example can be found in the following CEDS study,
A Citizen Perspective on the Baltimore County Development Review Process. To discuss how you can assess (and resolve) the bias of your local planning commission or zoning board contact CEDS at 1-800-773-4571 or Help@ceds.org.Is it healthier to live near a landfill, a transfer station, or an incinerator? While helping a community fighting a waste transfer station I came across a Columbia University study that answered this question,
Options for management of municipal solid waste in New York City: A preliminary comparison of health risks and policy implications. According to this study its not healthy to live near any of the three. However, if one were forced to choose then the least healthy option is to live near a landfill followed by a transfer station then an incinerator. This does not mean that an incinerator is best for public health or the environment overall. The study just addressed how the health of nearby residents would be affected.I also came across research on the health effects of living near yard waste composting facilities and wastewater treatment plants. A literature review conducted by Cornell University,
Health Impacts of Composting Air Emissions, found that airborne levels of bioaerosols (bacteria, fungi, viruses, and other possible disease-causing particles) were elevated up to 1,640 feet (0.31 mi) downwind of outdoor yard waste composting facilities. Two studies dating from 1980s, Potential Health Hazards from Microbial Aerosols in Densely Populated Urban Regions and Effect of an Activated Sludge Wastewater Treatment Plant on Ambient Air Densities of Aerosols Containing Bacteria and Viruses, documented elevated airborne levels of bacteria and viruses 750- to 2,800-feet downwind of wastewater treatment facilities open to the air.Does this mean those living downwind of waste facilities are at greater risk for adverse health effects? Not necessarily. There are a number of variables that would determine actual health consequences. These variables include a number of measures which can dramatically reduce the health threat posed by existing or proposed waste facilities. For further detail on these variables and how health consequences can be determined (and resolved) contact CEDS at 1-800-773-4571 or Help@ceds.org.
Your thoughts on how to improve this newsletter would be deeply appreciate. If you have a moment could you click the following text for a five-question survey:
Newsletter Survey.To see the results from others who have taken the survey already, click the following:
Survey Results.