Got Sprawl?

March 9, 2003 3:34 PM

Got Sprawl? This story from Maine’s Portland Press Herald about a rich widow “from away” (as we say) who wants to build a high-end subdivision on her land in scenic Falmouth against objections from the Town Council -- which is citing her property as the most valuable undeveloped tract in the town -- illustrates on a very human level (complete with affluent in-family spats) what rural towns in New England and the rest of the country feel is at stake in their fight against unplanned development. (more inside)
posted by damn yankee (34 comments total)

Watching the issue first-hand here in southern Maine, it really is dramatic: people are literally fighting to preserve a way of life. A lot of ground has been lost here already to expanded development, but developers have also, for the most part, had to fight tooth and nail for every victory. I just worry that the conservationists are being pushed further and further north, and eventually there will be nothing left of our country but subdivisions and sprawling big-box retail campuses.
posted by damn yankee at 3:35 PM on March 9, 2003

I hate big-box stores, and I hate subdivisions. They deplete our city cores, cause people to sprawl out to school districts that can't support the increased population. The big-boxes are ugly and horrendous on the landscape. Here in Cincinnati, they want to build a big-box campus right in the city core, and I'll be damned if the inner-city won't put up a fight, because we will. If you can integrate your stores into a proper context of the neighborhood, fine. But skip the sprawling out, it's a waste of space, and further causing sprawl to the subburbs.

(Yes, I wouldn't mind seeing a 3-story Target store with escalators. Even at my age I can remember these types of stores in the downtown of the city, and would love to see the concept re-born with modern day retailers.) Apple gets it with their larger-city boutiques, why can't other retailers?

As people move further out from the central city to escape "the urban element", they are abandoning their cultural cores as well. Instead of putting up a fight to improve the city they want, they run away from it. But I guess it is more proof of our Surburban/White Bread/SUV world. People can't live towards the center of the city, take buses to work and to the stores... because then they might actually have to look at another human being. With their SUVs, they can drive to their big-box campuses, towering over all the other cars, run in, rarely run into anyone else as they shop, and run back out. And of course, do it all while wearing a sweat suit, because perish the thought you might actually get dressed in something decent to go to the store in this day and age.
posted by benjh at 3:57 PM on March 9, 2003

"A group of homeowners calling themselves the Woodville Area Civic Association...argue that continued unplanned development will increase taxes and, eventually, destroy what remains of the town's rural character."

It sounds like the typical "We got in, now we want to bar the gate behind us" mentality to me.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:58 PM on March 9, 2003

With some of her supporters, Davis also has formed a nonprofit group called Falmouth Against Raising Taxes

Hee hee ...
posted by carter at 4:10 PM on March 9, 2003

Yeah, NIMBY's the lot of them.

I did like the part about the formation of a nonprofit group called Falmouth Against Raising Taxes.

I have a puerile sense of humour though.
posted by squealy at 4:11 PM on March 9, 2003

During the last 15 years, I have watched my hometown of Concord, New Hampshire, go from a large town with a decent core "downtown" to a small city with a section where sprawl seems to be spreading without constraint. I would mention that the sprawl has been slowed by the economic downturn. This has been the case for all of southern NH though, the whole area is becoming Massachusetts' bedroom.

Anyway, Massachusetts and NH are now planning on expanding the highway from Boston to Manchester to an 8-lane strip.

I don't want to take sides in this issue except to say that I hate Massholes.
/joke
posted by crazy finger at 4:16 PM on March 9, 2003

It sounds like the typical "We got in, now we want to bar the gate behind us" mentality to me.

Yes and no. While there's been ongoing spot development in Falmouth for as long as I can remember, it's mostly a rural town with very old farmhouses. Most residents have been in the town for generations, and many newer arrivals have bought existing homes rather than construct new ones. But the McMansions have been springing up, and now there's the new grocery store on the edge of town, and I think the residents can begin to see the possibility of things slipping away.

To give you some perspective of how rural and beautiful this town is, my aunt lives there and she was just telling me at lunch the other day that she had 11 deer in her backyard that morning. She saw a bear when she was out walking recently. Falmouth has moose. It's a gorgeous place -- worth getting up in arms about protecting.
posted by damn yankee at 4:19 PM on March 9, 2003

Damn right NIMBY! They bulldozed my friend's childhood home to put up a Rite-Aid and a highway.

Seriously though, I don't think sprawl is the way to go for anybody's backyard. An economics Professor at the UNH named Robert England specializes in these types of issues. He was working on a report (I can't find a link right now) that provided an economic plan that would change the property tax system to stimulate growth in the city centers and would possibly lead to less sprawl. It was interesting and one thing that I remember was that it involved raising taxes on lower-valued property in the cities (undeveloped/abandoned lots) in order to get the landownders to develop that land. Current tax structures encourage sprawl so this could very well be a step in the right direction.
posted by crazy finger at 4:27 PM on March 9, 2003

Correction: The Professor is Richard England
posted by crazy finger at 4:27 PM on March 9, 2003

If it's worth "protecting", then why don't these people move out, demolish their own houses and return their own land to a "natural" state instead of worrying about what this lady is doing with her property? If it's good policy to keep her from building, it ought to be even better policy to return their own spoiled land to its pristine condition, don't you think? Then there'd be all kinds of places for "people (to) stop their cars to watch the sun set or to watch herds of deer that gather in the fields".
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:32 PM on March 9, 2003

It was interesting and one thing that I remember was that it involved raising taxes on lower-valued property in the cities (undeveloped/abandoned lots) in order to get the landownders to develop that land.

Oh, that sounds like a great idea! But, why not just shoot the poor people on generationally-owned property in cities and save some time! After all, everybody knows God made downtown areas for rich people's cute little boutiques and pretentious restaurants, not to actually live in. There's nothing like taxing the proles out of the neighbourhood to start the day off right!

</bitter>
posted by IshmaelGraves at 4:52 PM on March 9, 2003

And, at the same time, my local city is fighting a developer who wants to rebuild downtown with apartments instead of shops. They don't want him to because it would ruin a heritage building.

Stuck between a rock and a hard placel, what does one do?

This.

And, as someone out in the country who wants high speed internet and roads without holes in them, I'm happy.

So there. :-)

</not bitter>
posted by shepd at 5:15 PM on March 9, 2003

the sprawl in Maine is getting pretty bad, or at least was when I was living up there (until 2001). Portland has it relatively easy compared to places in central Maine. People still want to live in Portland -- they're not fleeing to the suburbs like in some other places because its a thriving, culturally rich place. If anything, people live outside it because they can't afford the steep rents. Up in places like Lewiston, Augusta and Waterville the downtown areas are like ghost towns and the stores are in huge strip developments right off of the interstate. The opposition to the box stores is there, but not very strong because the towns are desperate for the jobs and taxes that go with them. Those are the places I found really depressing.

As far as the Falmouth thing goes, it's sounds like an ugly situation. Opportunitistic land owner on one side and neighbors worried about declining property values on the other. Of course, Falmouth isn't exactly rural Maine -- it's pretty much a suburb of Portland. I drove through it often on my way into Portland and it never struck me as fitting the "quaint N.E. town" mold. Maybe I haven't seen the quaint parts though. Still, I'm all for communities taking control of development, just because I don't like to see everywhere look exactly like everywhere else.
posted by boltman at 5:32 PM on March 9, 2003

If it's worth "protecting", then why don't these people move out, demolish their own houses and return their own land to a "natural" state instead of worrying about what this lady is doing with her property?

Given that this is not likely to happen, these people are working to do what they consider to be the right thing. And while there are some newcomers to the area who have contributed to sprawl, there are also, in this particular area, many people who have been on their land for generations. Their families once ran farms, which is why their land is way out in the country and the houses are so far spread apart. Even the people who have moved into the town during the last 50 years have tended not to build new structures. I think this is probably the case in many areas that have been aware of and resistant to unplanned development before the word "sprawl" was even a blip on the Zeitgeist radar screen.

So I don't think it's a fair or honest argument to say people should tear down existing homes and clear out of the area, if you're honestly interested in addressing the problem.
posted by damn yankee at 5:35 PM on March 9, 2003

Oh, that sounds like a great idea! But, why not just shoot the poor people on generationally-owned property in cities and save some time! After all, everybody knows God made downtown areas for rich people's cute little boutiques and pretentious restaurants, not to actually live in. There's nothing like taxing the proles out of the neighbourhood to start the day off right!

I think you missed the point, Ishmael. The “low-valued” land the city wants to raise the taxes on are ones that are currently not being utilized, like empty lots. These lots constitute wasted space in the city, which is fighting to stop people and businesses from leaving and placing a further drain on the city’s tax revenues. At the same time, rural suburbs like Falmouth (which does have an entirely different character once you get off the main drag that runs through town, Boltman – it’s amazing) are pushing back at these residents and companies that are leaving the city in search of cheaper property taxes and a newer infrastructure elsewhere.

So while increasing the property tax on unused lots to convince developers to build something there that will contribute to the viability of the city (housing, retail, services) and will generate revenue for the developer (sale of the parcel, rent, sales receipts, etc) makes some economic sense, it also carries the risk of further alienating commercial-land owners who probably already feel over-taxed. This could be the last straw – the one that sends them packing to the suburbs.

So while high property taxes and high rents are absolutely a problem when it comes to retaining socioeconomic diversity in urban centers, the proposal to raise taxes on undeveloped lots is actually an honest (albeit dubious) attempt to staunch the flow of warm bodies and tax dollars from a city – not to merely gentrify it into salvation.
posted by damn yankee at 5:49 PM on March 9, 2003

"...if you're honestly interested in addressing the problem."

No, I honestly don't see a problem, other than the obvious one of people trying to keep someone from exercising her rights as a property owner, which is the same problem that's occurring all over the country. It's fine and dandy to talk about protecting the habitat of animals and preserving the views as long as it's someone else that has to bear the burden. My admittedly tongue-in-cheek proposal was an attempt to show that.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:53 PM on March 9, 2003

All things change. Too many people, and growing. Give the land back to those who were there first: Indians. They used condums.
posted by Postroad at 6:00 PM on March 9, 2003

raising taxes on lower-valued property in the cities (undeveloped/abandoned lots) in order to get the landownders to develop that land

This is a wonderful idea, but they should go further. When I lived in New York City I was constantly appalled to see huge derelect factory buildings decaying in areas where apartments would go for $2500 a month. This would infuriate me not just because the buildings were simply ugly, but because when you have giant old factories and vacant lots you invite a criminal element to an otherwise healthy area. And with rents so astronomically high in the area, it's not like a redeveloped building would have a hard time finding occupants.

But nooo. The landowner wants to reap huge profits from the land, so they just fucking sit on it until they get a "good enough" offer. They want to fix it up into luxury apartments, then condo it off to the highest bidder, not simply renovate it so regular middle-class people can live and pay rent there. They want a quick payoff, or nothing at all. This is completely unsatisfactory.

Richard England's idea of simply raising taxes on the land isn't enough, because for the most part, that land is highly undervalued. For example, I currently reside in Boston's North End. There is a beautiful brownstone across the street from me that is vacant. It's a mid 18th century architectural beauty complete with the copper siding common to Boston brownstones of that time. And it's completely empty. It doesn't need to be gutted or renovated, the owner is just a prick that doesn't want anyone to live there (but doesn't live there himself). The city of Boston has a wonderful website where you can look up the owners of any building and see what the current assessed value is for it, as well as what the taxes that are being paid for it. This five-story building, in the center of the North End where single-bed apartments routinely rent for $1200 a month, required a total tax payment of a mere $2500 for the year. That's for the assessed land and property value combined.

Of course, if you were to try and actually buy a complete brownstone in Boston, you'll be confronted with the reality of the realty market. A full building located anywhere near downtown will run you at least a million and change.

I'd like to think that intertwined with the concept of land ownership there is some civic responsibility required, at least in areas with high occupancy rates. In Amsterdam, for example, the law states that if you leave your building in a squalid condition for more than a year and squatters take it over, it belongs to them. Damn fucking straight.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:01 PM on March 9, 2003

It's fine and dandy to talk about protecting the habitat of animals and preserving the views as long as it's someone else that has to bear the burden.

Mary Alice Davis has no burden to bear. She already lives in a multi-million-dollar mansion on a huge plot of land, and if people who have lived in that town longer and have tried harder to conserve what is really a communal resource (because the concept of land-ownership, elevated to the level of “I can do anything to my land, even if my neighbors who cohabitate in this same mini-ecosystem protest that my decision is harmful” is really a very extreme and not very defensible viewpoint that I fear too many Americans have thoughtlessly adopted), then I say more power to them for being good stewards of those lands. Because as you have so aptly pointed out, people are not likely to tear something down and restore it to its natural state once an area has been developed. So once this land is gone, it’s gone.

Pardon me for thinking that the good of the many is more important than the profit of the already-filthy-rich one. Even the family to whom the land rightfully belongs is against this woman’s actions.
posted by damn yankee at 6:13 PM on March 9, 2003

> Instead of putting up a fight to improve the city they want,
> they run away from it.

That's the way it's supposed to work. Otherwise we'd all still be living in Babylon and Ur.


> because then they might actually have to look at another
> human being.

But exactly. Nothing ruins the view faster than a bunch of nasty people. For one thing, they insist on bulldozing eveything in sight and building shit. Want a nice neighborhood? Keep the people out.


> people are literally fighting to preserve a way of life.

Tell it to the indians, dude.
posted by jfuller at 6:19 PM on March 9, 2003

Pardon me for thinking that the good of the many is more important than the profit of the already-filthy-rich one.

Wouldn't it make more sense, be more honest, and be fairer, for the many to condemn the land out from under the already-filthy-rich one for what some court or another says is a fair price and tax themselves to pay for it? Or to do so for whatever portion of the land they can pay for this year, and plan to do more next year?

What you're suggesting is that everyone else
gets whatever benefits arise from leaving her land undeveloped, but that she has to pay all the costs (in foregone income). That doesn't sound hugely fair to me, and it certainly doesn't sound like Falmouth is strapped for cash like a dead mill town in the Rust Belt.

Even the family to whom the land rightfully belongs is against this woman’s actions.

Her hubby can leave it to who he pleases to. If the family doesn't like it, that's their prerogative, but it was his to give to his wife, to them, to his cats, or the Whoever Memorial Foosball Academy For Wayward Shemales.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:29 PM on March 9, 2003

Wouldn't it make more sense, be more honest, and be fairer, for the many to condemn the land out from under the already-filthy-rich one for what some court or another says is a fair price and tax themselves to pay for it? Or to do so for whatever portion of the land they can pay for this year, and plan to do more next year?

From the article (in case you, ahem, didn’t read it):

Over the past decade, Falmouth has spent $2 million to buy and preserve more than 700 acres of open space, land that was identified as having significant "view sheds." The town ranks Davis' property as the most important undeveloped land left in town.
They probably would buy the land from her if she would sell it at a price they could afford.

Her hubby can leave it to who he pleases to.

His land, yes, but she also inherited her father-in-law’s land next door – all 180 acres of it. I don’t the details of how this worked – whether the land had been left to her husband and she got it by default (my guess) or what. Either way, she’s in possession of a lot of land that the previous owners obviously had a more ethical connection to, given that they didn’t develop the hell out of it.
posted by damn yankee at 6:37 PM on March 9, 2003

"They probably would buy the land from her if she would sell it at a price they could afford."

Hey, I would buy it from her if she would sell it at a price I could afford. If they can't afford to give her what it's worth, why do they have any right to keep her from selling it to someone who can, even a piece at a time?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:43 PM on March 9, 2003

If movies have taught me anything, this is best resolved by climactic sporting event. In this case, regatta.
posted by condour75 at 6:54 PM on March 9, 2003

The only ethical thing she can do with land that she rightfully owns is to leave it to lay fallow for the pleasure of other people? Is that really the ideal that we want to put forth, that the only ethical thing that property owners can do is what other people want? Other people who bear absolutely no responsibility -- financial or otherwise -- for that property?

Well fine. I want the neighbors across the street to demolish their garage so that I can see the ravine behind it. It's only ethical. It's what I want.

Of course, the neighbors behind me would like me to demolish my house so that they can see the ravine which my neighbor across the street has demolished his garage so that I can see, so I guess ethically I have to knock my house down too...
posted by Dreama at 7:11 PM on March 9, 2003

I have an uninformed opinion about this brouhaha, of course, but I'll pass for now. I just wanted to share a story.

Today I took two girls to a mountain park (Daniels). It
took a long time to find it, because since I had been there last, Denver's suburbs had swallowed up the road I used to use to get there. And when we got there, it turned out the view was not nearly as pristine. (It was still a transcendent experience for three city kids.)

I live and work not too far from downtown, and can go for months without journeying to the distant lands where most of the white folks live. The suburbs disturbed me.
In the midst of thousands of lookalike homes and lookalike shoppes I feel paranoid and horrified and ashamed of being such a liberal artist elitist.

That said (and I go to Portland every summer and know a little bit about this), I say - hey, it's her land: let her do what she wants.
posted by kozad at 7:22 PM on March 9, 2003

Wouldn't it make more sense, be more honest, and be fairer, for the many to condemn the land out from under the already-filthy-rich one for what some court or another says is a fair price and tax themselves to pay for it? Or to do so for whatever portion of the land they can pay for this year, and plan to do more next year?

Perhaps, but the concept of communities restricting the property development rights of landowners is well established. For example, developers in my home town of Chicago recently started building tall, sunlight-obscuring apartment buildings in neighborhoods that previously had only 2- and 3-flats. So the city council changed the zoning law to prevent any more of these taller buildings from being erected. Does this damage property owners' and developers' ability to make money? Definitely. Is it fair? I think so. After all, the main reason a plot of land in Chicago has so much value (and income potential) is because it is in Chicago. Putting up with the community's restrictions on how one uses that land is the price one pays. Don't like the restrictions? Go build somewhere else.

That said, I'm disturbed that in the Davis case, there is no previously existing law or regulation preventing her from building those homes. Seems a little ex post facto to me.
posted by spotmeter at 7:34 PM on March 9, 2003

the ex post facto thing really only applies to criminal laws. Zoning and development regulation is going to be ex post facto by their very nature because zoning boards make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

IMO, towns have every right to extensively regulate how the people that choose to live in those towns can build on their land as long as they aren't being totally aribitrary and capricious in their decisionmaking. Individual property rights have to be balanced against the expectations and interests of the surrounding community.
posted by boltman at 7:52 PM on March 9, 2003

They probably would buy the land from her if she would sell it at a price they could afford

They can condemn it under eminent domain and pay what a judge thinks is a fair price for it, at least if they can state a good reason why they need the land.

spotmeter: yeah. I got no beef with regulations as such, but this seemed closer to a thinly-veiled taking than an at-least-arguably-sensible regulation like you mention in Chicago.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:56 PM on March 9, 2003

This five-story building, in the center of the North End where single-bed apartments routinely rent for $1200 a month, required a total tax payment of a mere $2500 for the year. That's for the assessed land and property value combined


HUH!!!!?? WTF!!! I live in central Mass, Barre. My sister went to Northeastern and lived in the North End. My cousin owns an apartment around the corner from the north end church. I know, and love the north end.
Out in Barre, I have just over half and acre, a 1600sq ft colonial, and I pay $2600 in taxes. How can a 5 floor building in the north end get away with 2500? That is total BS.

As for the story in Maine. I especially love how she was a "cosmetologist" out in Arizona. Po' white trash married into money. I cannot believe the children aren't fighting her in court to regain their fathers assets.
I'd shoot her dog too.
posted by a3matrix at 6:20 AM on March 10, 2003

a3matrix: I'm not sure if by "it's total BS" you mean that the policy is total BS, or my statement is total BS. Erring on the side of caution, I urge you to check out the link I provided to the city of Boston's property info page. The parcel ID for the building is: 0302506000. In the picture link in my previous post, the building in question is the one with the copper (green) sides in the center of the image on the right. The building is completely empty. It's in a prime real-estate area. Actually, if you check out the map of the location after you enter in the parcel ID, you can check out other buildings on my street. They're all paying around $2500-$3000 for taxes for the year. The buildings with businesses in them pay more, so most of the places on Hanover Street are at about $10k a year. But residential units are vastly undervalued.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:26 AM on March 10, 2003

I was referring to the amount of taxes paid on the 5 story apt building in the north end. Nothing wrong with your statement. Sorry I didn't clarify that better.
Just seems to be a bit inequitable that he pays $100 less than I do for a house in central Mass, for a 5 story building in the coolest part of Boston (IMO)
posted by a3matrix at 5:31 PM on March 10, 2003

My weekend object lesson in sprawl and rising costs of living in a city:

On Friday night, I got sick. By Saturday night, I was in the ER at Massachusetts General Hospital. I waited hours for treatment and hours during treatment because the hospital is short-staffed. My nurse had five other patients.

Yesterday, I woke up long enough to read this article about sprawl around Boston and the high costs of living in the city. And it occurred to me that my night in the ER was an object lesson in the dynamics of the sprawl phenomenon: one of the reasons that MGH is short-staffed is that nurses and residents can't afford to live here.

Whether it's destroying rural life or urban life, sprawl is sucking the soul out of communities. Good luck to Falmouth. I hope the Town Council wins.
posted by swerve at 6:41 PM on March 10, 2003

here's a link about how the other portland (and vancouver :) deals with growth and development, vis-a-vis seattle, via boingboing; i thought these other links on portland's urban planning, growth boundaries and "view corridors" were interesting as well!

If there was one event that has defined Portland in the last 25 years, it was killing the Mount Hood Freeway--a six-mile, eight-lane asphalt behemoth that would have vaulted across the river from Johns Landing to I-205.

The story of the freeway's demise is a tale of urban America after World War II and a lesson in what distinguishes Portland from other West Coast cities. It gave us strong neighborhoods, proud schools and MAX. It cemented the region's commitment to ecology and the reputation of a brilliant political leader. The murder not only saved 1,750 households in Southeast Portland from the wrecking ball, it also established Portland's philosophy of urban livability--the idea that cities are for people, not just for commerce and cars.
posted by kliuless at 7:19 PM on March 10, 2003