Zoning Policy is Energy Policy

Zoning Policy is Energy Policy
Have you ever seen a LEED energy efficient building surrounded by acres of parking lots and miles of highways? This LEED structure, admittedly energy efficient, is only accessible by using enormous amounts of energy over the life of the building to use it. It is not a fault of the engineering, which is first rate; it is instead a continuing defect in zoning policy.

Many community zoning codes in Colorado were written for an age when there were fewer Americans using cheaper fuel to go places that were much closer together. Now that the spread of cities and suburbs has shown us a future of expensive automobiles and fuel, hours of time wasted in commutes and continuous potential for violating clean air standards, we may need to rethink the zoning policies that have lead us to put miles and highways between homes, schools, stores, and jobs.

Colorado communities are not alone in these zoning policies; the prevailing zoning codes of most American cities intentionally created residential, industrial and retail districts that were miles apart from each other and which could only be serviced with automobiles. It was a worthwhile objective for the decades before and after WWII, when urban homes and the inner city housing stock were in terrible condition, and the smokestack industries of the past two centuries were hardly anyone’s first choice for a neighbor if they could move to the cleaner, newer suburbs.

Zoning separated suburban homes from everything, except other homes; whatever might detract from an individual home’s value by it’s proximity was banished to remote locations. Cars were cheap then, and incomes were rising. New and used automobiles were inexpensive, credit was cheap, and the total cost of owning a car was relatively low. It was easy to foresee buying at least a used car for each driver in a family, and it was a necessity for many families who lived miles from anything except their neighbor’s homes.

What happened?

Several trends have converged at the same time, some economic, others demographic. Vehicles have become increasingly expensive in initial purchase cost, excise taxes, fuel, insurance, parking and HOV fees, and other costs of urban auto ownership that have made owning multiple automobiles increasingly less desirable. Economics has also led to a declining pool of potential suburban home buyers and hence, automobile buyers, due to lowered expectations in income and lifestyle. A generation just coming of age cannot find jobs that would allow them to purchase homes and cars; they are looking for a lifestyle that will let them live comfortably without an auto.
The suburbs in many areas have often proven to have as many problems as the inner city areas. In turn, inner city zones, after reaching their limit of decline, have been recovering population and a tax base. Efforts to escape from cities on racial and ethnic grounds have been muted by further demographic changes and several generations of a more fully integrated society, along with the influx of newer ethnic populations. Smokestack industries in the cities have been largely replaced, and old structures in urban areas have been recycled with mixed use redevelopment.

These changes in economics and demographics are leading to a change in lifestyles and spending that will not return to previous patterns for the foreseeable future; a wholesale move back to cities seems unlikely, however, and is undesirable. A substantial population move back to cities risks an enormous loss in the value of suburban housing.

For zoning boards, protecting home values in suburban areas should become a primary focus, not by maintaining previous practices, but by permitting the suburbs themselves to evolve with a sensible policy of re-zoning. Suburban communities could actually buy and tear down houses in some areas to create zoned areas that permit walking to schools and retail areas. Zoning policy that encourages mixed use development is critical to making communities desirable from an economic standpoint, and a focus on making communities walkable and liveable without an automobile, is easily the most effective way of creating a sustainable community energy policy.

There are precedents in the Denver area for teardown and reconstruction of communities, most recently in the shopping malls, and many communities could purchase houses at the current market value to tear them down and redevelop the resulting vacant land for mixed-use.

Communities that engage in ‘suburban renewal’ could qualify to receive substantial revenue from carbon cap and trade policies; re-zoning can create permanent reductions in their carbon footprint, and under the current program proposed in congress would qualify for monetization. Permanent energy sustainability is within each community’s grasp in it’s zoning policy.