It was the best of times in Saint Paul, it was the worst of times, it was the age of affluence, it was the
age of poverty, it was the epoch of opportunity it was the epoch of squandered chances, it was the season of progress, it was the season of the status quo, it was the spring of competence, it was the winter of partisan incompetence, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us.
Saint Paul is a challenged city that has made a lot of mistakes. It has overused Tax Increment Financing (TIF), rendering it fiscally poor and unable to perform basic city services such as snow plowing, filling potholes, or reconstructing and repaving streets. The TIF also impacts the City’s schools, impacting their taxing capacity to fund programs.
In addition, stretching over several administrations and city councils, there just does not seem to be a priority or interest in addressing core city services. For years I used to argue that one could get elected to local office anywhere in the US by running on core services such as streets, sidewalks, parks, fire, and policing. But that no longer seems to be the case, at least in Paul.
In part due to the polarization and nationalization of American politics that extends down to the local level, voters seem less interested in these issues than before and candidates for local office run on national or global issues such as world peace or climate change. Public officials in St. Paul seem uninterested in local issues, unwilling or uninterested in the nitty gritty of what local government is supposed to be about. Single party rule, where there is no chance that come November this year when city council faces re-election, renders the threat of losing less than a viable check to force officials to focus on what is important as opposed to what is needed or essential. Partisan and interest group capture have corrupted the decision making process.
But St. Paul officials also seem bent on simply making choices in the absence of evidence. This is the case now where the City and Planning Commission are preparing to eliminate single-family zoning.
There is a fashionable belief among planners now that elimination of single family zoning will decrease residential segregation and housing costs. There is no evidence that densification will do that. We already know in Minneapolis and from larger macro studies across the US that densification has not improved housing affordability and it has done little to increase overall supply. Moreover, we see signs in Minneapolis that the elimination of single family zoning has led to venture capital buying up undervalued property in undervalued neighborhoods (mostly populated by people of color). Eventually the new unit produced will be for more affluent users because developers will build those units which are most profitable, and not necessarily those that are the most needed or affordable.
Think of the elimination of single family zoning as government-sponsored property flipping. It is a new version of redlining that will foster gentrification in St. Paul. The neighborhoods that will be most affected by the elimination of single family zoning will be Midway, Frogtown, Rondo, and perhaps the Payne and Arcade areas of the city. Some of these neighborhoods have already experienced the largest property tax increases in the city; again an early city of gentrification.
But there are other reasons to question the elimination of single-family zoning. Jane Jacobs, whose Death and Life of Great American Cities is perhaps the best book ever written on planning and cities, points out, cities are generators of diversity. They thrive on diversity in all forms, including architecture, design, and lifestyles. Cities need many different types of neighborhoods and housing to be successful.
Years ago I consulted with one local city. We realized they had a problem. They were a bedroom suburb that had only one type of housing. What they lacked is housing for everyone and for the cycles of our lives. Cities need housing for singles, young couples, families, empty nesters, and then older people. If one does not provide this diversity of housing people leave.
Cities need to retain all types of residents, including middle class individuals who wish to own their own home. There are all kinds of reasons to encourage home ownership, ranging from wealth building, producing neighborhood stability, to maximizing lifestyle choices.
In moving to eliminate single family zoning, St. Paul will do little to rectify the intense economic and racial residential segregation that exists. Instead, it will only exacerbate existing gentrification and development patterns characteristic of the city for the last generation or so. What is needed is a change in policy and in how the City is run, but this decision is not an example of what positive change should be. It is another sign of uniquely the problems St. Paul confronts.
Alas, all well-run cities are alike; each badly run city is badly run in its own way.
No comments:
Post a Comment