‘Planning for healthy growth and healthy watersheds’
Comments by John Sewell,
International Joint Commission meeting, September 19, 2003.

The assumption made by reasonable people looking at the future of the lands surrounding the Great Lakes is that urbanization will continue apace for at least the next 20 years, probably for the next 100 years. Population will grow, and most of the additional people will live in new suburban communities designed very much the same as they have been designed during the last half century.
But a continuation of what has occurred in our life-time will, as we all know, be an unmitigated disaster for the natural environment. There are virtually no studies apart from puff pieces from the development and home building industries which show that low density auto-dependent development improves water or air quality. There are many many studies which show that the social and environmental results of sprawl are devastating.

The New York Times reported on August 31, 2003, (Section 1,p.15) that people who live in suburbs weigh more than those who live in cities, and have higher blood pressure, and those who walk or ride bicycles are three times more likely to be killed in traffic accidents in the suburbs. It is not just that low density suburbs harm air and water – they are a public health hazard.

It is not as though these critical studies are hidden away, are not available to the general public. They are widely available, much discussed, and well known. Virtually every land use decision-maker is well acquainted with the ideas of Smart Growth and the critiques made of suburban form. More public education is clearly not the answer – there is plenty of information available to everyone already – just as there is no need for further studies – which will simply confirm what is already known.

What is to be done? How can physical growth be controlled so it does not denigrate further land, air and water? How can watersheds be returned to health? How can we begin to turn around the harm that land use does to the Great Lakes?

1. Admitting failure

   First off, we must admit that the land use planning systems we have used for the last 50 years have done almost nothing to restrain bad growth, and in fact they might be responsible for legitimizing much of what is undesirable. Current land use planning systems must be replaced with something which produces good results.

   The present land use planning systems in North America are based on governmental authorities defining objectives and setting rules, regulations, and bylaws. Applications are then made by developers for the approval of particular plans or schemes.. Rarely do the objectives or rules require that projects create good communities, protect water and air quality, or improve biotic life. If they do, they are often amended to allow bad projects to be built. Developers generally get approval to do what they want.

   This may sound unduly cynical, but the proof of these statements is all around us. Surrounding every urban centre are miles and miles of sprawling low density, auto-dependent, single use, development. This is what our planning system has given us. Clearly, there is a big problem.

   As has been stated by many, the development of cities is largely a result of market forces. An entrepreneur sees an opportunity to meet a need and proposes to build something. The developer turns to an investor for financial support, usually a bank or an insurance company, knowing that one form of security is the experience that a similar kind of development turned out well last time around. Funders are innately conservative.

   The promise of money in hand, the developer must secure planning approvals. This is where the real risk is for the developer - not in the market, but in the approval process. Developers have often found the best way to ensure a favourable decision is by contributing heavily to election campaigns, being friendly with politicians and planning staff, and generally greasing the local wheels. None of these activities have anything to do with achieving good urban design.

   And there’s another deep issue at work. Low density auto-related development has become very popular, not least because it creates enormous profits for developers. There is significant public pressure to build more of it.

   Very simply, the urban development which has resulted comes about because of this Gordian knot of financial imperatives, cultural prejudices and structural limitations. Alternatives that are less costly, more socially interesting, less environmentally damaging, and more equitable, are of little interest to those in charge of land use planning decisions.

   In the last two decades, there have been two big hopes for planning reform. Some thought that changing the context of planning to one of the watershed would make everyone more aware of consequences. When that proved ineffectual, some suggested that senior government intervention, through subsidies and statements of principle (like Smart Growth) would help create good results. But neither change has had much of an impact. Growth continues generally in the same awful way as it had in previous decades.

   It’s time to admit that land use planning systems in Canada and United States have failed. They should be abandoned. Better to save the money now being spent maintaining these systems, and consider where else it might be used.

   If you think this is a radical suggestion, ask yourself this question: would development have been appreciably different in the past two decades if these planning systems were not in place. If so, how? I suspect the changes would have been negligible.

2. What next?

   Once the idea that the planning system should be amended is out of the way, then it is possible to talk about what one wants to prevent from happening. Here are the things that should never be permitted to happen to land:

   • messy human footprints as represented by low intensity residential, commercial and/or industrial development over thousands of acres
   • single uses of land
   • intrusion on significant natural features
   • impingement on water and air quality

   The model that should be followed to prevent these things happenings is one that is tried and true, and generally effective: establish laws which prohibit the harmful activities. This is the general approach used to maintain rules of the road, the criminal justice system, the marketing of products, and many other human activities. While these systems are not entirely effective in preventing undesirable behaviour, they have generally worked to keep harmful behaviour to a tolerable level in most venues. It is worth noting that virtually no other field of human activity is regulated by a porous system comparable to land use planning.

   One should note that reasonably good systems are in place to ensure that the foods available for purchase are those which will not create illness, since public health is seen to be more important than private profit and action. (Some would argue that is not entirely true, now that genetically modified foods have so swamped the North America market.) The same is generally true for the marketing of pharmaceuticals, although the ability of doctors to over-prescribe creates some concerns. The legal systems applied to food products and pharmaceuticals share elements of what is proposed regarding the development of land, which is why it may be effective.

   Laws should be passed which make it an offence for any person to develop land in these ways and/or own, lease or occupy land developed in these ways.

   These laws would specify such things are:

   • A minimum density of twenty units per acre for residential use
   • A minimum density of 1.5 x coverage for commercial, office and industrial coverage
   • A requirement that in any 100 acres of developed land there must be a mixture of residential, commercial, office and industrial uses, and a public transit system which accommodates at least 15% of riders in rush hours
   • Significant natural features must be protected from developmen
   • Air and water systems may not be degradated.

   This is not a law which can be amended for each applicant. It is a law that applies to all development, it is the base on which all development proposals must be designed. Those who do not adhere to the law will be prosecuted.

   A well-funded administration should be established to investigate and prosecute cases which break these laws. One thing which strengthens enforcement is that land development is a very public undertaking. Many will see it happening and will intervene.

   Of course, it is entirely likely that governments will resist enacting these kinds of laws. If that is the case, one would be back trying again to reform the existing land use planning system, which I believe is a futile task. But I think that there is good reason for optimism. Most everyone has agreed that sprawl is bad for water, air, our health, our social life. But people don’t see how they can use the existing land use planning system to achieve the results they want. If they could, they would. They want to find a way to more effectively ensure good outcomes.

   If we want to plan for healthy growth and healthy watersheds, we should admit the land use planning system is a failure, and instead press for strong laws that will prevent development which results in low density, auto-dependent, sprawl.