“Do they actually want this?”
The more things change, the more they stay the same. This especially holds true when it comes to how governments determine the level of change they claim to pursue versus their willingness to enact it.
A common denominator
Leadership officials have a tremendous obligation to the public, upholding their fiduciary duties and focusing on progressive action. Although there are many ways in which those responsibilities are sustained, certain agendas often drive alternative priorities under the false guise of aligned goals. Personal ambitions become intertwined with direct agendas, yielding arbitrary decisions based on the magnitude of one’s opportunity cost. Just as a mayor may neglect a local community’s needs for certain developments out of fear for a compromised election legacy driven by oppositionists, a councilwoman may be politically inclined to voice support based on reciprocating enticements. While various factors motivate unilateral decisions, others can provide the opportunity to create bilateral ones.
The idea pathway
All results start with ideas, but not all ideas end with results. Municipal officials have mastered the ability to mask underlying intentions while skewing community perceptions, awarding them the best of both worlds. About every decade or so, municipalities review their comprehensive plans with the intent to implement modifications based on their community’s current standing. The rationale behind this procedure is to avoid outdated regulations and ad hoc zoning actions, however the underlying incentive is all about money. During these periods of assessment, local officials look to incorporate features and laws that are correlated to grant programs issued on a federal, state and county level. Having hundreds of different programs ranging from environmental sustainability, housing growth, infrastructure enhancements, transit-oriented developments and more, local governments analyze which path is the most feasible and lucrative to pursue. The interesting part about some of these programs is they can be satisfied merely with ideas rather than action. Let’s say a town has an opportunity to be awarded a grant for creating more multifamily housing, however they know the community base will boisterously oppose any developments that would be proposed. How do they balance catering to NIMBYs while achieving their financial ambitions? They incorporate the concept without regard for results. A town can expend capital on studies and analysis to draft a new zoning code that now permits multifamily housing in dozens of zoning districts, however, they impose ridiculous criteria that makes it impractical. This can be through absurd recreational fees, extremely low density, miniscule FAR or many other creative ways to ensure no development would occur. Would you build a multifamily residency if you were only permitted 2 units per acre on a 2-acre property? How about if you had to pay nearly 15% of your budget in miscellaneous fees? By creating preposterous regulations under the misleading intention of facilitating growth, they can qualify for the subsidies while protecting their political integrity locally.
Action is expensive
While some of these obscure tactics are created to avoid development, other methods are enacted to leverage developers in an alternative win-win fashion. In some instances, there are regulations that have unfavorable standards, however they can be modified if additional features are offered. Some codes state that if you provide community benefits such as affordable housing, donations to infrastructure funds, creation of public parking lots, dedication of land and many other external contributions, you can be relieved from crippling criteria in order to proceed with a feasible project. This is a clever way for municipalities to apply for more grants on the back of developers, utilizing external funds towards expenditures they would otherwise need to account for while publicly demonstrating their ability to leverage community wide benefits without impacting taxpayer dollars. New Rochelle for example has the Community Benefits Bonus Program which grants projects bulk incentives in return for contributing towards certain criteria. As much of an effective program as it is, other large community issues such as the hazardous condition of the Lake Isle Dam remains segmented. A senior housing development, Wilmot Lakeside Living, was proposed to be constructed on a property abutting the lake, where the development team offered to subsidize the repair of the deteriorating dam as a part of their entitlement process without any request for bonus incentives. Regrettably, the mayor felt the needed development was not a priority for the City and instead decided to raise the taxes of the residents within the district to pay for the repair instead of utilizing voluntary action. Other towns like the Village of Mamaroneck drafted a unique Point-Based system for new developments which are mandatory rather than incentivized. Intended to incorporate criteria into their projects that would either enhance local infrastructure that is otherwise subpar or depleted and implement elements that could qualify the municipality for State grants. When analyzing the point system, it is evident which criteria is prioritized, making the minimum accumulation of those points impractical without introducing those which the government wants.
Incentives for growth
It is apparent that the true driver for change is not the will to do so, but rather the incentives it provides. Though the cyclical routine of municipal officials has not changed, the complexity of their operational integrity has evolved. If only the results of those intricate efforts would yield the same benefits as their intentions.
Have you been involved with comprehensive planning and grants? Comment below!
