Recently, I wrote about "Density versus Sprawl". I was referring to the choice the City of Richardson faces in updating its Comprehensive Plan. In another post, "The Road to Zero Degradation", I identified increased density as part of the solution to the eternal challenge of finding enough money to fix potholes. I said, "Mayor Pro Tem Arefin gets it, saying in a recent City Council meeting, 'We have to have revenue from new sources to get our infrastructure fixes.'"
A reader privately challenged me, not about the need for more density, but about how much Mayor Pro Tem Arefin actually does "get it." He cited two votes recently that suggests Arefin (and a majority of the City Council) in fact doesn't get it. In June, 2022, the City Council voted to approve an application for redeveloping a VW dealership in the Interurban Sub-district, whose vision is as an "edgy, mixed-use district built upon the existing bones of the development." Then in March, 2024, the City Council approved an application for redeveloping another business to include outdoor storage of building materials, again in the Interurban Sub-district.
In my defense, I said these two votes were both bad votes, but they weren't exactly pitting density vs sprawl. Those votes were to spruce up existing, decades-old, sprawl. I said the Comp Plan will be a more direct test of density versus sprawl. On that test, we should hold Arefin to his words.
Let's take a closer look at those other votes more closely. They were to spruce up an auto dealership and an outdoor storage yard, respectively. That's like putting lipstick on a pig. Sure, the sites will look better to some, they will probably raise some tax revenue. But those effects will be marginal. The cost to us is another generation of land use incompatible with the long-term vision for that area of Richardson. That, in turn, might dissuade neighboring businesses from redeveloping in line with the vision.
If the City Council had said no to these two rezoning applications, it would have sent a message to developers not to bring projects investing thousands of dollars sprucing up aging sprawl. It would have told developers to instead bring projects investing millions of dollars replacing aging sprawl with something compatible with the vision, something much better than what's there now. Eventually, developers will get the message that Richardson is serious about its redevelopment visions.
Why can't we have good things? I contend it's partly because we don't use our existing zoning regulations to insist on good things. It's time we quit putting lipstick on our pigs. It's time we let them die natural deaths.
"Rejecting the pig,
Waiting for the true vision.
Firm stance pays rewards."
—h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment