Brad De Long wrote:
>
> Ah. But how, exactly? In the U.S. we have lots of local democratic
> land-use planning, and yet our urban design seems grossly inferior to
> that of, say, Baron Haussman...
>
> Brad DeLong
And Doug wrote:
>Brad De Long wrote:
>
>>In the U.S. we have lots of local democratic land-use planning
>
>Where? I thought most urban planning in the U.S. was a byproduct of
>real estate scheming, lubricated with campaign contributions.
>
>Doug
to which Brad De Long replied:
Yep. That's what political democracy turns into when the stakes are large for the few, the attention of the voters is limited, and the devil is in the details...
>
I think Brad is blaming the victim, and Michael Perelman and Doug have it right.
I live close to Westlake, TX, a town that was torn apart when it opposed H. Ross Perot, Jr's development plans. I guess Westlake would not enjoy much sympathy -- it is described by the local media as "affluent rural". That needs decoding for non-Texans. Texas businessmen and professionals when they reach a certain amount of wealth and success love to buy country property for "ranches". It's the cattleman myth that surprisingly still holds a lot of attraction for successful Texans. The "ranch" should be not too far from the office. One has horses for the children, and a few cows to qualify for farm and ranch tax rates. In New York, one might buy a place in the Hamptons. In Texas it's a ranch in the country.
What makes Westlake's troubles interesting is that the participants were the few; the attention of its voters was riveted on Perot Jr, and the town leaders were masters of these kinds of details. They used lobbyists to counter Perot Jr's. Sometimes one side would win in Austin, sometimes the other. Since Ft Worth had joined with Perot Jr in the Alliance Airport scheme (built mostly with taxpayer money), the court in Ft Worth was key. So, Westlake brought in the right Ft Worth law firm. In this part of the country, one or two law firms dominate in a county, and you are well advised to cut them in on any important action. The mayor of Westlake is a particularly savvy lawyer.
Michael mentioned "subsidies". Let me bore you someday with Municipal Utility Districts, a developer's dodge in Texas to force taxpayers to pay the developer's cost. Naah, I won't bore you now. Let's just say that Perot's three MUDs were a secondary issue; the main one being Perot's Jr's plans to develop his property that conflicted with Westlake's development plans.
Nevertheless, the town councilmembers disannexed their property, Perot Jr's property, the Solana office complex, and in short, disemboweled the town. To watch a town commit seppukai in public is a very strange thing. They impeached the mayor to boot. Perot Jr's people had lined up Ft Worth to annex his property for a much more favorable development code. There was so little of Westlake left, patches here and there, that under Texas law, it probably was not a municipality any more.
Eventually, in a couple of years, the Westlake mayor prevailed, but only because of a deus ex machina that I'll explain if there is interest.
Basically, Doug and Michael are right. Although the town supposedly has control of development, state laws favor the developer over the locals. And state politics definitely does; the law is modified gladly in Austin to suit the developer's needs. Local control is really a sad joke. Not even a town as affluent and powerful as Westlake can prevail unless there is a deus ex machina that won't happen again in a hundred years.
Westlake has a web site with the gory details. http://www.westlake-tx.org/turmoil.htm
It's a good story.
-- John K. Taber