| For a community to be successful in implementing smart growth, it must be embraced by both the private and public sector.
Only private capital markets can supply the large amounts of money needed to meet the growing demand for smart growth developments. If investors, bankers, developers, builders and others do not earn a profit, few smart growth projects will be built. Fortunately, government can help make smart growth profitable to private investors and developers. Since the development industry is highly regulated, the value of property and the desirability of a place is largely affected by government investment in infrastructure and government regulation. Governments that make the right infrastructure and regulatory decisions will create fair, predictable and cost effective smart growth.
Despite regulatory and financial barriers, developers have been successful in creating examples of smart growth. The process to do so, however, requires them to get variances to the codes - often a time-consuming, and therefore costly, requirement. Expediting the approval process is of particular importance for developers, for whom the common mantra, "time is money" very aptly applies. The longer it takes to get approval for building, the longer the developer's capital remains tied up in the land and not earning income. For smart growth to flourish, state and local governments must make an effort to make development decisions about smart growth more timely, cost-effective, and predictable for developers. By creating a fertile environment for innovative, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use projects, government can provide leadership for smart growth that the private sector is sure to support. |
| Change, of course, is often met with resistance from the public. Smart Growth concepts, such as mixed-use and work-live housing arrangements are new to many people and may be looked upon skeptically by a citizenry whose input has often been neglected by developers and town leaders.
Balancing interests fairly is important, and a clear, predictable, timely, and participatory process helps to ensure fair results. One such process is a "charette," a series of workshops in which community members discuss their concerns, ideas and goals for development; developers explain their proposals; and professional designers illustrate these ideas and suggest ways to fulfill the community's vision.
In Davidson, North Carolina, for example, every new development proposal must go through a charette. This type of collaboration gives residents a fair chance to express their concerns and goals, while developers benefit because the process is predictable and enables them to line up public support so that their projects can move forward smoothly.
A shining example of the charette process occurred right here in Connecticut. In 1998, after 150 years of manufacturing wire cloth, netting, fencing and other goods, the Gilbert & Bennett Company closed its 55-acre Georgetown wire mill facility in the town of Redding, CT, and filed for bankruptcy.
The Town of Redding (population 8,500), located at the nexus of three affluent Fairfield County communities, immediately began seeking a partner who would purchase the million dollars' worth of tax liens and revitalize the blighted property known as a "Brownfield" site.
The right partner materialized in 2002: Georgetown Land Development Company (GLDC), headed by Stephen Soler, a local developer with proven expertise in Brownfield reclamation projects and a fervent belief in the anti-suburban-sprawl principles of Smart Growth.
In October 2003, GLDC hosted a week-long "charrette" at the Redding firehouse, a series of public meetings where everyone-government officials, business and civic leaders, the public-was invited to share their ideas and concerns for developing the Gilbert & Bennett (G&B) property. Over 1,000 people attended. An on-site team of architects and designers working 12-to-18-hour days analyzed and fleshed out all suggestions. Every idea received a full hearing and assessment.
Out of this intense collaboration came a master plan for a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly, environmentally responsible new village center.
Ultimately, "fair" does not mean that everyone will agree with the result. What it does mean is engaging the public in development decisions in good faith. This mean involving citizens early enough for their input to be effective, letting people air their concerns openly, assessing impacts, addressing undue hardships, and providing developers with a more predictable process. |
