Ten Ways City Government Frustrates Smart Growth

by Tony Palmeri

June 10, 2001

Recognizing that haphazard sprawl development has had negative consequences for community life, a good number of cities and state legislatures have adopted "smart growth" policies. As noted by the Northeast Midwest Institute : "Throughout the nation, state and local governments have initiated 'smart growth' strategies to foster economic development that protects the environment and preserves the quality of life. These efforts encompass a wide range of goals, including revitalizing town centers, relieving traffic congestion, preserving open space, developing affordable housing, and protecting natural habitat." Cynics might argue, with some justification, that Smart Growth initiatives do not go nearly far enough in getting at the root causes of sinking quality of life in the United States (e.g. our consumer lifestyles, our allegiance to the automobile, our national refusal to deal in a serious way with issues related to poverty, health, etc.). Still, it is not insignificant that most states have now through legislation mandated some kind of smart growth development for cities. Summaries of Wisconsin legislation can be found here. Another excellent site is 1000 Friends of Wisconsin.

In Oshkosh, newly elected Common Councilor Shirley Brabender Mattox ran her campaign on a "smart growth" platform. When she recently voted to rezone a Washburn St. area from residential to commercial, Mattox said she was voting for "the good of the city." I found this puzzling, as neither Mattox nor the 4 councilors who voted with her explained how a potential big box retail store or similar development will be for the "good of the city." Indeed, Mattox wasted a golden opportunity to use the Washburn rezoning issue as a way to introduce citizens to smart growth principles. Appearing on Commentary recently, Mattox even acknowledged that she was not thinking of smart growth principles with the vote.

Had Mattox decided to open up a conversation of smart growth principles, perhaps she could have identified ways in which the city government at present not only does not support such principles, but actively frustrates them. I have compiled below my own list of 10 ways in which city government frustrates smart growth. The list is neither exclusive nor organized in any kind of hierarchy; any reader I'm sure can identify dozens of other ways in which smart growth is frustrated.

For more information about smart growth, a good place to start is the electronic interview I recently conducted with Stacy Mitchell, a researcher for the Institute for local self-reliance. Ms. Mitchell provides many good links to sites that deal with smart growth issues.

And now on to 10 ways the government of Oshkosh government frustrates smart growth:

1. Willingness to allow development of an entire block of downtown in spite of limited public input and (as a result) no public enthusiam for the project.

2. Rezoning a residential area to allow for commercial development without having any information about the environmental, economic, and/or community impact of the potential development.

3. Lack of a systematic process for allowing public input on planning issues, resulting in comprehensive plans that have little support and are thus "only as good as 4 votes on the council."

4. Embracing external consultants' reports (i.e. the LDR International Downtown Revitalization Report) when the report supports something the city council wants to do (e.g. tearing down the Walgreens building), but ignoring the same report(s) when the report clearly advises against something the city council wants to do. (e.g. placing a "modern" office complex in an area with historic character).

5. Little evidence that the majority of elected officials and city staff are (a) aware of and/or (b) care about smart growth successes in cities the size of Oshkosh.

6. Lack of clear, comprehensible criteria for evaluating which developments are desirable and which are not (resulting in a kind of NIMBY-NOT IN MY BACKYARD syndrome among elected officials; when a bad development is proposed where they live, they suddenly become neighborhood and smart growth activists).

7. Questionable use of Tax Incremental Financing Districts (e.g. Park Plaza, the 100 block).

8. No clearly developed, accepted and articulated vision for the city (resulting in the NIMBYism mentioned in #6).

9. A dogmatic adherence to planning policies that place the needs of automobiles and large retailers ahead of pedestrians and small businesses.

10. A refusal on the part of elected officials and city staff to admit planning mistakes of the last 40-50 years (resulting in a continuous pattern of repeating those mistakes).

I must close by pointing out that I am NOT questioning the integrity, character, or professionalism of our elected officials and city staff. Like most human beings, Oshkosh officials do the best that they can within the frame(s) of reference that they operate and with the information they have at their disposal. However, a smart growth policy for Oshkosh will require that our leaders take real steps to broaden their frame of reference and actively solicit new and additional information. I hope the Council, City Manager, and city staff are up to the task.

Tony Palmeri welcomes your feedback

Return to Commentary