The Value of Place...

Alan Durning of the Sightline Institute writes about Life, Liberty, and Property Values this week in Cascadia Scorecard News. I think he realizes the need to bridge the divide between private property rights advocates and the greater good. Just like Ed Fitch appeals for in Laura Oppenheimer's December 3 article on Measure 37. Or like George Gurley's op-ed about losing his backyard view... Only through regional planning will we have the communities we desire; only through working with landowners will we have regional planning.

These questions, debates, and needs will continue until we start using a combination of ecological/economic analysis to determine land use plans. Not parcel and political boundaries. Land use planning is an extremely difficult and deeply personal issue for property owners. Imagine living on a piece of ground for decades, if not owning it for generations. Imagine the care you take in maintaining it, getting to know it, and love it. Then all of a sudden a group of people who have never set foot on your property are telling you what should and shouldn't be done with it. Landowners' frustration is understandable.

Understanding 'location, location, location' like Alan describes, property owners ought to be given the tools to work with their neighbors creating land use plans that meet both their individual needs and those of the greater good. Believe it or not, it can be done...

Thanks for reading.

Growth happens...

Here are some interesting statistics... According to the Census Bureau Population Clock, in the US, a child is born every 8 seconds, a person dies every 12, and an immigrant arrives every 28 seconds. The bottom-line: The US gains one person every 13 seconds; 277 people per hour; 6646 per day; 2,425,846 per year.

They will have to live somewhere... As landowners, we can't keep our heads in the sand any longer. We must be proactive and involved in planning for this growth.

Thanks for reading.

A Better Way to Plan Regionally...

‘Sprawl’ exists due to the nearly infinite decisions made by individuals over the course of time. This will continue until either, a) we run out of land or b) governments’ restrictions become so onerous as to prevent development in greenfields. It’s human nature.

A new alternative is developing... market-based regional planning via Landpooling. To see how it can work in your area, follow the steps below.

1. Fire up your GIS basemap

2. Erase parcel and political lines.

3. Perform basic economic and ecological analysis to determine planning areas.
i. Planning areas are effectively groups of properties that ‘should’ be planned as a whole according to how they act economically and ecologically
ii. Locally appropriate sizes – urban redevelopment may be an acre to 5 acres or more; rural areas landpools may be 10 to 50,000 acres or more
iii. Determine landscape carrying capacity
iv. Estimate market demands and absorption rates

4. Talk with every land/property owner in the proposed planning area. Determine specific needs and interests of property owners, looking for win-win opportunities and common interests/bonds among them. Remember, visions are not plans. Visions must be translated into plans through specific actions built upon specific information. Take the information learned from the property owners and compare it to what was learned earlier from the landscapes and markets. If the property owners needs and interests do not outstrip the opportunities and constraints presented by the market and landscape, begin talking with them about creating a specific plans. If it does overwhelm existing opportunities, tell them that as well.

Bottom line - Whatever you do, begin the conversation.

Thanks for reading....

Planetizen OpEd

Check out www.planetizen.com for a new piece about privatization and the future of regional planning.

For Planning's Sake...It's Time for a Change of Perspective

Why planners, developers, conservationists, and landowners should take another look at what they (and each other) are doing.

It's something we all fail to do. We get so busy doing what we're doing that we fail to pick our heads up and take a look around to see what others are doing, and more importantly, take the time to learn why.

As a landowner, particularly as a rancher, day to day issues keep us busy year round. Other than a few meetings a year, we rarely have the time to sit and discuss the big picture items that should guide our day to day activities. Why are we considering new pivots? Why enhance upland bird and waterfowl habitats? What kind of place are we trying to create here? How can we make that happen? A neighbor calls, says some cows are out or a ditch is leaking, and we're outdoors again, the meeting ended and nothing resolved.

Conservationists face similar crises. As not-for-profit organizations, fundraising is a constant struggle. Building relationships with landowners, reacting to plans for a new subdivision, or staving off political opposition keep these groups on their collective toes.

Developers find a project, circle their wagons and fend off all challengers until, sometimes through attrition, they manage to get a project approved and off the ground. They are not always successful, but when they are, much money and man-hours have been wasted defending their turf, their project, and their profits.

Planners, somehow, are to coordinate these disparate groups and their various goals. Now add to that pressure from overly ambitious politicians and the pressure of unending public scrutiny.

Common to all stakeholders, is the need to extract as much as possible as quickly as possible, because there is no certainty of what the future might bring. Landowners sell for as much as they can, developers build to the absolute parcel line, and conservationists protect as many acres as possible. Each of these do what they can with what they have. Few, if any, do what is best-suited for what they have, wetlands are bulldozed for agriculture, prime soils are paved over for parking lots, and appropriate developments are stifled, because they are, well... developments.

As everyone fights for their own self-interest, someone is bound to get trampled. Time and again, it seems to be the environment that is the biggest loser. Notice I say the 'environment' not the organizations. Land development and conservation is not a zero-sum game. There are ways to coordinate conservation and development to benefit to everyone.

Broadening perceptions can add incredible value to a communities' development by reducing the fear and uncertainty of growth and its impacts.

It starts by taking a step back and taking a look around.

Thanks for reading... David

Eminent Domain: It's necessary but not the only way....

A brief summary of eminent domain's major drawback and a simple solution.

The Supreme Court's recent ruling has many up in arms. Regardless of the ruling, eminent domain has its supporters and detractors, but no one can dispute its necessity. The problem arises in its application and in the determinants of just compensation. Property owners are promised 'fair market value' for their property, and in most cases, they are also compensated for relocation expenses.

What property owners aren't given is compensation on the 'subjective value' or on the 'assembly value' of their property. Subjective value can be construed as part of market value, despite the fact that market value is defined as 'what a willing seller gives to a willing buyer' and well, that doesn't take into consideration the arm twisting that goes on in eminent domain cases. The real tragedy comes with assembly value. Quite simply, an assemblage is vastly more valuable than a bunch of individual parcels. This is where most of eminent domain's inequity occurs.

Property owners have no option to participate in the value increases that redevelopment offers. A simple solution, one that could remove a significant amount of backlash, would be to allow property owners to assemble their parcels under a corporate umbrella and participate in the redevelopment through a public-private partnership. Securitization offers liquidity to those in need of it, while those with a higher risk tolerance may choose to participate in the uptick in value promised from redevelopment.

There are no panacea's, but I believe, simple, common-sense alternatives such as that proposed, can reduce much of the fear, distrust, and inequity in today's eminent domain and redevelopment issues.

Thanks for reading... David

Land as a Real Estate Asset

Why we have urban sprawl and what can be done about it.

Landowners, farmers and ranchers in particular, do not do a decent job of managing their lands as a real estate asset. If they did, urban sprawl would not be an issue. Landowners need to recognize the value of their property is largely external. "Location, location, location" means just that... a property's value is mostly determined by what surrounds it.

To realize the full potential of their property, economically and environmentally, property owners have to work with their neighbors. Parcel and political lines rarely recognize economic and ecological realities. Property owners are forced into Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons because they have no control over other's land use decisions. As properties are planned, conserved, and developed, each individuals' decisions spill over into the next property affecting its potential and its value. For example, a conservation easement on one parcel may cause another to be developed as it is now next to protected open space. On the other hand, a new subdivision may ruin a young farmer's plans for expansion. The risks, traffic, and escalating taxes being too much to overcome.

All this can be avoided through better planning. Actually, better planning isn't the problem. Implementation is. We all use the best techniques available, we all want to do the right thing, but when it comes down to it, individuals will always act in their own self-interest, versus the good of society. We can't fault individuals for that, we simply need to change the rules of the game so we can all benefit from their choices.

The main change necessary is land securitization. If property owners pooled their land resources under a corporate umbrella in return for pro rata equity shares in the business that managed conservation and development regionally, they could control the supply of land in to markets, improve conservation sustainability, and better manage the process of how raw land parcels convert into urbanized areas.

This is called landpooling. Property owners set a vision and create a business to implement their plans. Conservation and development can occur where it is most appropriate, and regardless where each happens. If property owners want or need instant liquidity it is available without unplanned development further fragmenting the landscape. If they wish their heirs to gain from their foresight, they simply pass on shares of stock or membership units in the landpool business.

This blog will discuss this and other ideas I have. I hope you find them of interest and I hope you participate in these discussions. I am open to honest, critical insights and comments. I truly hope to advance the thinking of planners, developers, conservationists, and landowners through these discussions.

Thanks for reading... David