"Tradable development rights" (TDRs): Smart Growth via free markets?
Some farmers that I talk to in Baltimore and Harford counties are big supporters of tradable development rights.
The concept:
people in the conservation areas are given development credits. Landowners in the development areas can develop their properties only after buying an appropriate number of credits from the people in the conservation areas. This insures that income from developments are shared by all.
TDR supporters believe it can remedy a common complaint about traditional zoning:
[traditional zoning] allows people in the development zones to earn significant income that landowners in the conservation areas, through no fault of their own, are unable to share.
One aspect of the traditional approach that bugs farmers (and others in downzoned rural areas):
the land values in the development zones are often enhanced by the presence of the conservation areas.
This link, citing a new Brookings study*, lists places where TDRs have been implemented:
Among the most well-known TDR programs are those in Montgomery County, Md., and the New Jersey Pinelands. Established in 1980, the primary goal of the Montgomery County program is to protect farmland from further development. To date, it has preserved over 40,000 acres with TDRs alone.
* "TDRs and Other Market-Based Land Mechanisms: How They Work and Their Role in Shaping Metropolitan Growth"
What effect does federal money have on regulatory recommendations of "big green"?
Jonathan Adler of The Commons asks the question -- which is a good one -- and begins to point the way to some answers:
The media's coverage of alleged political "payola" -- government payments to opinion writers who support administration policies -- ignores the larger story. [...] every year the government dishes out several hundred million dollars to nonprofit advocacy groups -- groups that have as their primary aim influencing federal government policy.
He focuses specifically on large environmental groups:
Groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation and World Wildlife Fund receive mililons from the EPA and other government sources -- a fact that is rarely disclosed or discussed. In other words, the EPA is giving money to groups that then turn around and advocate greater EPA authority.
"Maximizing Return on Public Investment in Maryland's Rural Land Preservation Programs"
Tom Horton says today in his column that this new report* is a must read.
My reaction to the title: it may be the first time I've seen the words "return on investment" mentioned in a discussion of land preservation. It's a subject worth pursuing, and Tom's column today is terrific and meaty.
Horton thinks that the report gives Gov. Ehrlich an opportunity to "get back in the game" on the difficult issues of preserving open space and dealing with sprawl.
*Written by the Maryland Department of Planning and sponsored by the Maryland Center for Agro-Ecology.
Navy balks at Maryland "flush fee", says it's really a tax
According to the Baltimore Sun (Jan 15, 2005) the Navy believes that precedent supports its position:
[Dominick] Yacono [environmental counsel for the Navy ...] pointed to a 1971 case where Maryland imposed an environmental surcharge to raise revenues for a power plant site-evaluation program. The federal government challenged the state in court, and won - the court declared the fee a tax.
But others suggest that precedent favors Maryland:
[The Chesapeake] bay program's [Mike] Burke recalled a case six years ago n which federal agencies balked at paying a storm-water charge in the Washington, D.C., area. In that case, he said, the Clinton administration required that they pay the fee.
What is the difference between a fee and a tax? The Sun cites Garrett Power (a law professor at the University of Maryland who focuses on land and water resource issues):
A tax is money that goes into a general fund to be used for whatever purpose the government deems necessary.
In contrast:
a fee is a direct payment for a service.
One obvious question: would the Navy's share of the flush fee be in proportion to the Navy's actual use of sewage treatment resources?
Thoughts on refocusing the Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort
In the January-February edition of the Bay Journal [p. 21-22, not yet online] Fran Flanigan suggests some ways to change the focus of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup:
One suggestion relates to economics:
[We] should shift [attention] from water quality models to economic models [...]
"it's time for the [Chesapeake] Bay restoration community to decide to work within the market system by changing specific economic penalties and incentives, rather than attempting to override market forces with collective action."
[Emphasis added.]
A second relates to monitoring:
More effort needs to be dedicated to monitoring, and then turning the knowledge gained from real measurements into information useful to average citizens...
Yup.
Unintended consequences? How zoning & green regs may restrict education options
Bahaa Seireg and Lisa Snell see an interesting connection, summarized by Peter Gordon:
[There are] "four goliaths" that stand in the way [of opening new private schools]: the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), zoning laws, parking requirements and building codes are identified as major obstacles.
Seireg & Snell's study is called Addition and Subtraction: State and Local Obstacles to Opening a New Private School.
Dan Esty gets it: "Environmental protection in the information age"
In this terrific article*, Daniel Esty seems optimistic that new information technologies are poised to drive big changes in our system of environmental regulation: changes in laws, changes in enforcement practices, and changes in institutional structures.
Esty, a professor of law & forestry at Yale and former deputy administrator at EPA, is verrrrry thorough. His analysis brings to mind McKinsey's MECE technique, which I wrote about earlier.
*NYU Law Review, April 2004, p. 115.
(via The Commons)
Oregon's prescriptive sprawl regs crumble; Md's incentive-based regs more durable
From the Baltimore Sun:
Last month [...] Oregon's [...] voters [...] approved a ballot initiative [by a 61-39% margin] entitling landowners to be compensated if any environmental or zoning regulations reduced the value of their property or to get an exemption from those rules.
Known as Measure 37, it takes effect today.
The ultimate cost is uncertain:
No one knows how many property owners might be eligible to file claims under the measure that takes effect today and applies retroactively.
Planners have been watching developments in Oregon closely:
Gerrit Knaap, director of the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of Maryland [said,] "If this happens in Oregon, it strikes fear into planners everywhere."
The Sun article explains how Maryland's anti-sprawl approach is different:
[Maryland does] not impose statewide zoning restrictions, as Oregon does. Instead, the state attempts to discourage sprawl by directing funds for roads, sewers and other infrastructure to existing communities.
