Top Obama Administration Officials to Promote Sustainable Communities, Environmental Justice at Smart Growth Conference

From the Obama administration:FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 4, 2010


THURSDAY: Top Obama Administration Officials to Promote Sustainable Communities, Environmental Justice at Smart Growth Conference

WASHINGTON – U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will visit Seattle on Thursday, February 4, to address the 9th Annual New Partners for Smart Growth Conference. They will be joined by Environmental Protection Agency Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus.

Speaking before an audience of more than 1,500 key planners, public health professionals, developers, government staff and elected officials Secretaries Donovan and LaHood and Assistant Administrator Stanislaus will discuss the ways their agencies are working together through the Obama Administration’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities to improve access to affordable housing, provide better transportation options, and protect public health and the environment.

“EPA, HUD and DOT are working together to rebuild our foundations for prosperity, a process that starts with rethinking the ways our communities grow,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “The interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities is working to give our communities what they need to grow and thrive with economic resilience and environmental sustainability.”

“I am proud to announce HUD’s brand new Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities today,” said Donovan. “Working with our partners at DOT and EPA, this new office will help us streamline our efforts to create stronger, more sustainable communities by connecting housing to jobs, fostering local innovation and building a clean energy economy.”

“Our Partnership really is a new way of doing business in Washington, to help our nation meet 21st century challenges,” said LaHood. “Working together, we’re creating jobs to revitalize our economy, while helping state and local transportation agencies to build the capacity they need to promote livable, walkable, sustainable communities.”

The President proposed $527 million in his budget for an ambitious new livability initiative at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Its Office of Livable Communities will be a focal point for initiatives such as expanding transit in low-income neighborhoods. It will fund a grant program to help state and local transportation agencies provide more transportation choices that spur economic development.

The New Partners for Smart Growth Conference, taking place Feb. 4-6, is the premier national smart growth conference, bringing together experts from a wide range of disciplines to discuss transportation, housing and urban development, public health, equitable development, environmental protection, and other topics. The partnership agencies are working together more closely than ever before to meet the president’s challenge to coordinate federal policies, programs, and resources to help urban, suburban, and rural areas build more sustainable communities.

The New Partners for Smart Growth Conference is managed by the Local Government Commission, in partnership with EPA, DOT, and other public and private sponsors.

More about the Partnership for Sustainable Communities:
http:/www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/partnership

More on EPA’s Smart Growth Program:
http:www.epa.gov/smartgrowth

More information on HUD’s Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities:
www.hud.gov/sustainability

For People Who Hate Driving and Long Commutes

U.S. News and World Report: 15 Cities for People Who Hate Driving and Long Commutes

I like this report because it balances two often opposed concerns: (1) wanting to drive less and (2) maintaining a reasonable commute time.  As the article notes, some cities with heavy public transit ridership did not make the list because of the time it takes to commute on public transit.  That statement may be a little misleading.  There are certainly other factors to consider in those long-transit-commute cities - auto traffic, parking availability and cost, convenience - that make public transit the preferred option for folks despite the time commitment.  Cities in this category should not be surprising: New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, among others.

The cities that did make this list have a common element - compactness.  That characteristic makes non-motorized commuting a viable option.  There should also be little surprise that several college towns make the list - Chapel Hill, Boulder, Eugene, Madison, and others.

The desirability of commuting options - including walking, cycling, and the like - has led some cities to try and incorporate elements of the named towns into neighborhood design.  Denver's Living Streets Initiative is one example.  Some of the aims of the initiative are multi-model transportation access (including non-motorized transportation) and increased mobility for the population in general; efficiency (increasing convenient stops per outing); sustainability; community; and encouraging a healthy lifestyle.  The initiative is integrated with the zoning code revision that I have written about several times recently, particularly the new code's Main Street districts.  In some neighborhood commercial areas, for example, the initiative would narrow lanes to slow car speeds and allow for wider sidewalks.  I live near the University of Denver in Denver.  The restaurants and shops along both Evans Avenue and University Boulevard are perfect for such a design.  For one thing, parking is not sufficient.  It is incredibly frustrating to try to drive to and park at many of the restaurants, especially during peak times.  Secondly, because of the rate at which traffic moves along both Evans and University, I sometimes do not absolutely safe walking, particularly at night or when I have either my dogs or infant son with me.  In short, the skeleton of great, compact, walkable neighborhood are there, so why not implement the necessary policies and physical changes to encourage that profile?

Such planning is not without its critics.  A recent opinion column in the Denver Post criticized and ridiculed the Living Streets Initiative.  But I think the author is ignoring an important aspect of the initiative - it will not work for every street in Denver.  Two of the roads he mentions, Colorado Boulevard and Hampden Avenue are major arterial streets (three lanes in most places) and serve very busy commercial districts.  While it might be nice to make those commercial areas more accessible, the reality is that it would require significant alteration of the infrastructure already in place.  Any of you who live in Denver and know the areas to which I am referring know there is a vast difference between Evans near DU and Colorado Boulevard.  I could also counter the author's arguments about traffic and induced congestion, but I will not belabor that point.  I will say, generally speaking, that advocating the status quo,  as the author does, certainly will not alleviate and is more likely to perpetuate the complaints he describes.  At least a fresh perspective represents a chance at progress, even if it ultimately fails. 

For those of us who feel tied to our cars, the cities in the U.S. News and World Report article are encouraging and inspiring, even if a bit aspirational.  Personally, I appreciate the efforts of my city to provide myself and fellow Denverites with options.  

Let a Little Sunshine In . . .

Disclaimer: This post will be primarily of interest to you Denver readers out there.

If you are not already aware, Denver is undertaking a massive rewrite of its zoning code. The rewrite aims to overhaul how the city handles planning, zoning, and land use matters. The new code is also taking particular care to incorporate sustainable practices and the variety of mobility options available in Denver. Despite being basically a from-scratch rewrite of the zoning code, the new version is based significantly on the neighborhood characteristics and building types that already exist in the city.

I suppose one downfall of such an ambitious project is the possibility for little issues to become lost in the shuffle. The link below to a Denver Post commentary illustrates one such issue that seems minor in the abstract but would be quite noticeable in practice.

"Retain Solar Access in Code"

For those readers in Denver, I would encourage you to check out the site www.newcodedenver.org. There you can find all sorts of information, summaries, blogs, and profiles of the folks who are actively working on this project. I would also encourage you to take a look at the proposed zoning maps and see how your property or neighborhood might be impacted by the code revision. On the site, you can also find information about public comment, meetings, and hearings if you do have concerns about how the new code will affect you. I am working my way through the second draft of the proposed code, so if you have questions, feel free to get in touch with me and I will see if I can be of any help.

(If you are really really interested (read: nerdy interested) in Denver zoning, you can compare the old zoning code with the new proposed code. The old code can be found here. Scroll down the table of contents on the left to Chapter 59 - Zoning.)

The Elephant in the Room

"Let's Try Cap-and-Trade on Babies"

"The single most concrete, substantive thing a young American could do [to help curb climate change] is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius. It's having fewer kids."

That statement by Andrew Revkin, author of the New York Times Dot Earth blog, highlights the problematic relationship that exists between the environmental concerns facing the global community and the increasing population crammed within its confines. Talk of family planning and population control rarely elicits a benign response. But remove emotion and philosophical ethics from the conversation and a relatively simple concept remains. In ecological terminology, the concept is called carrying capacity, and it refers to the population of a particular species that its habitat can sustain. When graphed, carrying capacity appears as a curve in which the Y value (population size) increases exponentially until it abruptly plateaus at a particular value. Once the population reaches carrying capacity, it may fluctuate just above or just below that line, but the size will not ever indefinitely increase above the carrying capacity.

I highlight this article and present these thoughts not as an advocate for population control, family planning, or whatever other moniker you would like to give the concept of limiting the global human population. What I do find interesting about this scenario is the way social influences dictate the way we address problems and solutions. The number of people on this globe is a fundamental contributor to many of the global crises of the past few decades - food shortages, water shortages, climate change, pollution. Even if population size is not a cause of the problem, so to speak, population size magnifies and exacerbates those issues. On top of an increasing global population, many more people are living an increasingly consumptive lifestyles as developing countries continue to grow economically.

But the solutions for dealing with the size of the global population seem to be taboo when it comes to discussing action to deal with the aforementioned issues. Instead of dealing with foundational problems, solutions attack symptoms that are, in relative terms, uncontroversial. When I was younger, a bit more brash, and much more naive, I would get myself moderately intoxicated and pontificate about the merits of population control measures, reproductive limits, and licenses to breed. Like I said, the point of this piece is not to advocate for those measures. For me to do so would, at the least, a little hypocritical, if not a return to the brashness and naivety of my youth. Rather I want to point out, as I often strive to do, the difficult underlying issues that few people want to talk about. Certainly I believe that we can all do small things in our lives to help alleviate the symptoms of the global issues that touch us in big and small ways each day. But I wonder if, at a certain point, that will be enough . . . .

Then again, maybe I worry too much about things that won't change -

"The universe is expanding . . . . Well, the universe is everything, and if it's expanding, some day it will break apart and that will be the end of everything." - a young Alvy Singer, Annie Hall

Encouraging Walking and Biking Among Kids

I recently read about an organization called Freiker, a contraction of the term "frequent biker." The organization has created incentive programs that encourage kids to walk and bike to school, when (and where) possible. The organization issues ID tags to students at elementary schools and places scanners outside the schools so that participating students can check-in electronically. The electronic scanners allow Freiker staff as well as the students to keep up with accrued points and track progress toward Freiker-sponsored prizes.

Walking and biking to school has declined in recent decades, with a variety of causes. Sunset Magazine indicates that in 1969, 88% of students living within a mile of their grade schools walked or biked to school. Currently, less than 16% do so. Numerous safety concerns are obviously one reason for the drop. But the increased prevalence of cars and driving-dependent lifestyles play a role as well. It should come as no surprise that taking away this source of everyday physical activity has contributed to the increase of weight-related health concerns among young children.

Obviously, this is a situation in which a balance must be struck among all concerns. Fears of crime or traffic accidents should not be taken lightly, particularly among young children who have not had the opportunity to gain knowledge that comes with life experience. However, I also believe that parents should not pass upon the opportunity to teach some basic lessons and instill some foundational values at an early age. A simple activity like walking or biking to school, when and where appropriate, can provide parents a chance to converse with their children about a myriad of issues - exercise and health, traffic safety, safety around strangers, etiquette, the environment, and community. I applaud organizations like Freiker who are helping to make those chances a reality.

More on Everyday Conservation

This report from The Cleanest Line provides a summary of new paper issued by the National Parks Conservation Association regarding climate change and its effects on species habitats and migration. I won't rehash the details of the report or the paper itself. There's a link to the 50-page report on The Cleanest Line's page.

What I want to highlight is the realization inherent in this report that combating the effects of a changing climate requires comprehensive solutions and collective action. Compartmentalized thinking and segmented action cannot adequately address phenomena that are geographically and philosophically widespread. Finding solutions to the issues raised in the paper will require cooperation among state and federal authorities and private landowners that surround the parks in question.

On a broader thought, in addressing any problem, social or scientific, we can attempt to address the problem by targeting and neutralizing specific symptoms of the problem, but that won't eliminate the problem altogether. For example, improving automobile fuel efficiency and utilizing alternative, "clean" means of energy production are certainly laudable goals in combating carbon emissions. But neither of these solutions address the root cause of increasing emissions - rising consumption. A comprehensive medicine that allays symptoms and attacks the source of the illness will be much more effective in the long-term search for a cure.

Those thoughts really turns me back to The Everyday Conservationist post I made earlier today. Implementing a comprehensive and cooperative solution begins with each of us and the choices we make each day. Confronting these decisions and discussing them with friends and family is a great start to finding solutions that will be effective now and in the future.

Reducing Energy Consumption and Carbon Emissions Through Building Code Reform

As Edward Mazria explores in his piece, "Oh, those sexy building codes," the real key to both reducing energy consumption and dependent carbon emissions in the U.S. is tackling the problem in the small scale. Mazria demonstrates, with projected data, how the building code requirements of Section 201 of the Waxman-Markey bill (H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act) would have a greater impact on carbon emissions than would building 100 nuclear power plants. The nuclear plants would reduce carbon emissions; however, those plants would merely serve as a replacement for other energy sources and not affect actual energy consumption.

On the other hand, Mazria's article reveals an opportunity to dramatically impact both energy consumption and carbon emissions. The built environment is in constant flux, and Mazria states that between now and 2050, 75% of the current built environment will have either been renovated or rebuilt. According to Mazria, assigning energy requirements to each of these projects will, in concert, reduce both energy consumption and carbon emissions by close to 50% of current projections by 2050.

Mazria's article illustrates a point that I made in my initial post discussing the concept of sustainability. Effective change at a small scale is much simpler and much more accessible at this time than a top-down, heavy-handed regulation scheme. The key, of course, to that statement is quantity. Individual decision makers must be convinced of the benefits - economics, environmentalism, morality, publicity, self-satisfaction, etc. - of making a sustainability decision in order for the concerted effort to be effective. To mandate that decision, to some extent, is certainly one solution, as is offering tax breaks, energy rebates, mortgage benefits, or other incentives. Ideally, an individual would examine her role in and her effect on her community and make decisions that are as mutually beneficial as possible. But, if some mandatory encouragement is necessary to spur such thinking, I can live with that.

A Few Thoughts on Sustainability

To kick off this effort, I would like to put some of my ideas about "sustainability" on paper. I do not intend for this blog to become one purely or even primarily dedicated to sustainability. However, I do hope sustainability will be one of the considerations by which to weigh some of the ideas, policies, and decisions that will be discussed herein. In other words, I plan to consider the ramifications of a particular policy or action on the sustainability of the affected community and the sustainability of individuals' lifestyles within that community.

Now, what do I mean by "sustainability," a term that has quickly become a prevalent buzzword in today's culture. I think sustainability is too often linked to modifiers like "eco-" and "green"; by such use, its scope is unfairly limited. Dictionary definitions define the root word, sustain, more generally in terms of longevity, prolonging, or keeping up. With this denotation, sustainability becomes an evaluator with much broader application, and with that tool, we can examine each action, idea, and policy with an eye toward each's long-term value and applicability. This is no doubt the type of analysis conducted by shrewd executives and investors in evaluating proposed deals with significant financial stakes.

It seems intuitive, then, that this same analysis should be forefront in the minds of elected officials, public deciders, and policy makers who have our communities' and citizens' futures at stake. However, these persons must act and react within a fast-food life context - instant gratification and what-have-you-done-for-me-lately. Thus, decisions are driven by this short-term, quick-fix attitude, and such decisions do not often stand the test of time. I would be unfair if I did not require the elector to shoulder equal blame as the elected. After all, finger-pointing is not my aim. Rather, I want us collectively to recognize the foundational problem at hand and, by doing so, take the first step to rectifying it. Thus, I believe that each issue, no matter the subject, deserves a sustainability analysis in terms of the longevity of its benefits, consequences, and relevance. Questions of economic policy, healthcare reform, transportation goals - for each we should ask how this decision will help each of us prolong a viable lifestyle that benefits and upholds our community as an economic unit, social group, and geographic environment.

A final word about sustainability. Sustainability will not just happen. Nor will a top-down type scheme really do the trick. Sustainability builds from everyday decisions of everyday persons. Not to make it appear black and white, but each decision we make in our daily lives often has a more sustainable and less sustainable option. Some of these I hope to address with some thought here on this blog. Others might pop up as tweets as I confront them myself here in Denver. To make my intended point, a sustainable lifestyle requires some measure of individual responsibility, with a mind toward the social impact of that individual responsibility. I am currently reading a Wendell Berry commentary in which one of the main themes discussed is his idea of defining the individual in terms of his community. I hope as I get a better grasp on Berry's philosophy, perhaps I will be able to incorporate it in my musings here, as one of my aims in these writings is to explore how we each fit into our present communities and the reciprocal relationship in establishing and sustaining the viability of each.