by Charles M. Barnard
There have been a number of issues raised in this paper over the past few weeks which all seem to relate in one way or another to what might be termed ‘community growing pains.’
These have included: road congestion, water quality, library services, restaurant & bar licensing among other issues.
One way or another the common element in all of these issues is population growth.
Mayor Kropp rightfully points out that even with extreme protective measures (which are politically ‘difficult’) the lake cannot be cleaned up in significantly less than 50 years. This is actually quite reasonable, the lake did not get into it’s current condition overnight either. And it may not even be correct. Lake remediation, while a beneficiary of science and engineering, is still a very young art and science. What is certain is that it will not even begin to improve until measures are taken to improve it. Sooner started, sooner finished.
Many of our problems that relate to population pressure—water qualities, congestion even quality of life, are intimately connected to land use issues. These, in turn, are directly influenced by people’s desires and expectations.
In an article regarding the issuance of a license for the rebuilding of a supper club on Broadway where the Gulch was, the owner is quoted as saying, “Menomonie needs a supper club.”
Menomonie may want a supper club, may desire a supper club and may contain a profitable market niche for a supper club. It is not, however, a need. We need to be careful to differentiate needs from wants. (I’ve always told my daughter that “it’s good to want—it gives you goals.”) But wants are not needs.
Which brings me to land use, and the American Dream.
The American Dream, circa 1940 was (and to a large extent still is,) to own your own home on your own land. In 1950 this meant a 500-700 square foot house on a quarter or sixth of an acre lot. This was enough space for a family and a garden large enough to produce much of their food needs. In 1950 there was expected to be a single wage-earner in the family, and most of the leisure time was spent at home.
In 2004 the ‘home’ is rapidly expanding into 5,000 to 7,000 square feet of multi-media entertainment systems, garages larger than the 1950’s home and 5 or more acres of mowed grass with no garden at all. Both parents work, no one is home much except to sleep, but a family of four “requires” up to 10 times the interior and 30 times the land space of their 1950’s counterpart. And, of course, this mansion must be located outside of town.
One of the many problems with this is that each new house as described actually costs more in infrastructure requirements (roads, emergency services etc.) than it returns to the township in taxes.
Much of what can be ‘done’ to protect our environment (our lives!) is truly not a matter of ‘doing’ as much as it is a matter of ‘refraining from doing.’
The simplest way to reduce the impact of people is to issue fewer building permits for such wasteful structures. Require higher density housing. Reduce the number of single house permits in rural areas. Require that existing buildings be used or rebuild before issuing permits for new structures. Avoid issuing permits for commercial structures outside of currently developed areas. Require new and replacement construction to reduce impervious areas (paving, roofs) to a minimum. Design roadway systems that cover the minimum area in paving to permit access. Refuse to permit new structures or roadways within 100 yards of waterways. Prohibit livestock from being grazed into streams and on steep hillsides. Do not issue permits for mini-malls. Require soil analysis before fertilization of lawns and crops (without testing you are unlikely to give either a lawn or crop proper nutrients. Require new parking areas to contain embedded green space. Mandate that new area lighting and street lighting be designed to minimize sky glow (light which goes into the air rather than illuminating the pavement.) Provide for high-density parking. Provide for economical public transport. Refuse to increase traffic capacity on main roads. (If you build it, they will come. One per car.)
Of course, none of these are easy to implement—there are lots of people with lots of money who will fight very hard to maintain the current unsustainable growth rate. But these people are the very people who will take their money and leave after devastating the area.
Or we can continue the pattern we’re in, and look like the suburbs closer to the Twin Cites do today. It is your choice. Before you make it, drive through the outskirts of the Twin Cities, Chicago, Milwaukee or even Eau Claire. They are the future you’re building here today.