In 1996, District 1 Council representative Lee Smith asked me to serve on the Plan Commission. I didn't except right away and did what any self-respecting citizen would do when asked to attend meetings regularly without pay: I gave him my best excuse as to why I didn't have time. It was a valid excuse because I was then working on a huge project taking as many as 100 hours per week (seriously!). He asked me again more than once over the next six months and by then things had settled to something more normal at work.
 
I accepted, mostly because I thought it was my civic duty. I had had a lot more experience before city councils and planning and zoning commissions than the average citizen and been more involved in development than most but I still had a lot to learn. It wasn't too long that, rather than "doing my time," I was enjoying having some positive effect on the growth of our community.

 
My solution to major problems then was much the same as I've heard from so many others for years since: bulldoze it and start over. There are some serious challenges (particularly legally) and wrongs with that idea.
 
My attitude as to how best to bring change now relies more on developing a vision forward that all parties understand and essentially support, that recognizes that change will be incremental, that respects property rights, and that removes government as a barrier to progress. It's not the easy route. While firing up the bulldozer is a naive concept, it would be so much easier — if I or government were always correct and knew best. My difficulty with that is I'm not always correct and I trust the market more than any panel of decision makers.
 
Having said that, I don't mean to imply that developers should be given carte blanche to do as they please. We still need planning and building codes and enforcement. In many parts of the country examples can easily be found, where there is no enforcement of building codes, houses without safe electrical installations, pipes that crack the first freeze, faulty foundations, unsafe disposal of sewage, and every other condition that can exist when cost-saving, but life-threatening, shortcuts are taken. Beyond the house, there are subdivision-size problems with sewage disposal or water or streets.
 
However, on the government side, regulations that limit growth to what has sometimes been called suburban sprawl have had just as much negative impact on the other end of the spectrum. These regulations have forced suburbs to be built in ways that require a car to basically get anywhere. A shopping center can be behind your home but because regulations require masonry fences separating uses, you have to get in your car to drive several blocks to a destination that might be 100 yards away. Developers are usually required to place most of the infrastructure of streets, water and sewer lines, etc., when they construct the subdivision. Streets are often wider than necessary. However, as that infrastructure declines, cities are responsible for replacements and upgrades. Tax dollars are required to pay for the improvements; tax dollars that come from relatively few households per acre. The cost per household in taxes that must be paid to keep streets and utilities in good repair eventually gets to be quite high. This is the way it has to be: it's regulated.
 
Of course, if the regulations change to allow more options, buyers in the market can have more choices, and many more possibilities become available.
 
Consider this: there has been a lot of enthusiasm for the recent developments in Downtown. The buildings are close to the street. There can be one use on the bottom floor and another on the second. Parking can be off-site. Everything I just mentioned that is a boon to Downtown is illegal under our current standards. While Downtown benefits from having existed before the modern regulations, to have a Firewheel Town Center took waiving the current rules and creating new ones. It can be done but few would bother. Why not have regulations that require quality buildings but also allow more flexibility in the types of products that can be constructed?
 
Through the Envision Garland process that is underway, we will make some strides to remove these self-imposed handcuffs on development. Other efforts are also underway that demonstrates a new enlightenment within our community. I'll be reflecting on some of those in future posts.
 
Stay tuned.