This is an update to something a wrote about in February (it seemed long ago enough to warrant a new post instead of an addendum). The Minneapolis City Council recently passed a major funding bill that Mayor Hodges signed to fix and update park and recreation center facilities over a 20 year period. It will be funded by a one-time property tax increases and some smaller levies but will provide a designated stream of maintenance funding for two decades. This is a huge deal. While time will tell if the funding is sufficient (and also if the city will now view its duties as fulfilled), locking in funds for parks and ensuring that it isn't an unfunded mandate to be paid for "somehow" or by cuts in services is rare and noteworthy. An alternative method would have been to take advantage of historically low interest rates and pass a bonding bill, but those are more complex and challenging (and potentially even more controversial than property tax changes). Either way, I'm pleased with this development and hope that it is a sign that Minneapolis will be continuing to make commitments to and investments in its world class parks system.
Additional note, this will be my last post in the series for my real estate course, though for any readers I have picked up, I do hope to keep this going now that I've restarted, on a fairly regular basis. I have a number of places I've visited since I left off writing that I'd like to review and am constantly coming up with other little ideas, so hopefully this won't trail off. I don't know what the frequency will be, but I intend to find or make time to do at least a little bit of posting. I'll also probably return to a more explicitly public lands and parks focus, though, this being my personal blog, I reserve the right to talk about whatever else I want (but mostly property, land and environment, because that's what I like). I'm also going to be starting a fellowship with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service soon working on wetland acquisitions, so I'm excited to start that, combining my legal, geographic, mapping, and real estate knowledge in the service of environmental preservation and biodiversity. Pretty good stuff.
Thursday, May 5, 2016
Monday, May 2, 2016
Wolves and Moose on Isle Royale
Isle Royale National Park is an island in Lake Superior reachable only by ferry from the mainland. Though part of the state of Michigan, it is much closer to Minnesota and the Canadian province of Ontario than to the Upper Peninsula. While it was formerly occupied and used for copper mining, the archipelago is now a designated Wilderness area (there are still historical structures and lighthouses, but no permanent residents or industry). It has also been the site of a long-running study of wolf and moose populations.
As a generally isolated system, the island has been an ideal setting for tracking predator-prey dynamics. However, this has led to problems, particularly for the smaller wolf population, with inbreeding and genetic diversity. In particularly cold winters it is possible for animals to cross onto and off of the island over ice bridges, but there is no guarantee that wolves or moose will do so in any given year. An introduced parvovirus wiped out a sizable number of the wolves and the remaining populations went into a precipitous decline. A lone male in the 1990s had brought some genetic diversity back to the island, but the population is now down to two. A closely inbred pair that has had little success with offspring (one recent pup that has since died was visibly deformed).
The decline in predation has led, not surprisingly, to a substantial increase in the moose population on the island. While this is in some ways good, moose on the mainland are struggling under pressure from ticks and brainworm, it can have damaging long-term consequences for the island's ecosystem and the moose population itself, from over-consumption and soil damage. Perhaps the island can provide a temporary refuge for a population, until conditions on the mainland improve (though with climate change driving many of these changes due to warmer winters that is an iffy proposition). Management of wolves and moose on the mainland in Minnesota is an even more complicated and at times controversial issue, that largely pits hunters, property owners, and conservationists against each other, but in a complicated network. For example, hunters want to hunt moose, but they also want to ensure that there are always moose to hunt. Some oppose hunting moratoriums, while others don't. Some want predators removed (like the wolves) while others want more moose brought in. It's complicated and the state Department of Natural Resources has the unenviable job of balancing the interests of all these people while also maintaining both the animal and physical resources of the state for the benefit of all the people using scientific best practices (subject to political decisions...). But I digress.
Back on Isle Royale, there is a controversy about whether wolves should be allowed to go extinct, be repopulated once they die out, or have new members introduced before they do to refresh the gene pool as a "genetic rescue." At this point, with only two remaining wolves, genetic rescue is out of the question. They are aging and too closely related with a poor track record of reproduction. It is almost certain that the wolves will die out soon, possibly even this year. What happens then? It is possible that as wolf populations increase on the mainland they will repopulate the island in search of prey and new territory. This is likely how wolves originally came to Isle Royale in the 1940s. It is also possible that they don't and that the moose population goes through cycles of boom and crash (with associated problems for plants, soils, and other species). The moose could be managed by removal or hunting, or allowed to cycle and starve. Wolves could also be reintroduced from healthy, genetically diverse populations either from the mainland or elsewhere in the country (some areas are viewed as "over populated," at least in terms of minimizing human-wildlife conflict in fringe areas).
What complicates all of these decisions, in addition to uncertainty about what will versus what could happen, is the fact that Isle Royale is a designated Wilderness, where human intervention is meant to be limited. What that means in practice varies (humans occupied and mined the island, have caused climate change, have introduced illness and other species), but generally means that there will be minimal intervention going forward, regardless of what has happened in the past. This can be contrasted with (and in some ways was a response in the 1960s to) the "Disney-fication" of some of the more popular and iconic national parks, that are actively managed to generate certain views and experiences and provide certain amenities (again, this is a side issue, but for a much longer exploration of the issue, read my undergraduate thesis on it here). My take, which appears to be in line with the current NPS position and that of many scientists, is one of "wait and see." While there are potential harms to allowing wolves to disappear and moose numbers to increase, there is also the question of what it means to return the island to a "natural" state. Should the moose also be removed and caribou and lynx reintroduced to restore the fauna of the 1800s? Should all of them be restored? While any decision, including the decision not to act, will have consequences, it seems most in line with the spirit of the island, and island ecosystems generally, to let things play out as they will, though if a moose crisis truly appears, it can be revisited (including hunting, which isn't categorically prohibited in Wilderness, though it is in National Parks).
As a generally isolated system, the island has been an ideal setting for tracking predator-prey dynamics. However, this has led to problems, particularly for the smaller wolf population, with inbreeding and genetic diversity. In particularly cold winters it is possible for animals to cross onto and off of the island over ice bridges, but there is no guarantee that wolves or moose will do so in any given year. An introduced parvovirus wiped out a sizable number of the wolves and the remaining populations went into a precipitous decline. A lone male in the 1990s had brought some genetic diversity back to the island, but the population is now down to two. A closely inbred pair that has had little success with offspring (one recent pup that has since died was visibly deformed).
The decline in predation has led, not surprisingly, to a substantial increase in the moose population on the island. While this is in some ways good, moose on the mainland are struggling under pressure from ticks and brainworm, it can have damaging long-term consequences for the island's ecosystem and the moose population itself, from over-consumption and soil damage. Perhaps the island can provide a temporary refuge for a population, until conditions on the mainland improve (though with climate change driving many of these changes due to warmer winters that is an iffy proposition). Management of wolves and moose on the mainland in Minnesota is an even more complicated and at times controversial issue, that largely pits hunters, property owners, and conservationists against each other, but in a complicated network. For example, hunters want to hunt moose, but they also want to ensure that there are always moose to hunt. Some oppose hunting moratoriums, while others don't. Some want predators removed (like the wolves) while others want more moose brought in. It's complicated and the state Department of Natural Resources has the unenviable job of balancing the interests of all these people while also maintaining both the animal and physical resources of the state for the benefit of all the people using scientific best practices (subject to political decisions...). But I digress.
Back on Isle Royale, there is a controversy about whether wolves should be allowed to go extinct, be repopulated once they die out, or have new members introduced before they do to refresh the gene pool as a "genetic rescue." At this point, with only two remaining wolves, genetic rescue is out of the question. They are aging and too closely related with a poor track record of reproduction. It is almost certain that the wolves will die out soon, possibly even this year. What happens then? It is possible that as wolf populations increase on the mainland they will repopulate the island in search of prey and new territory. This is likely how wolves originally came to Isle Royale in the 1940s. It is also possible that they don't and that the moose population goes through cycles of boom and crash (with associated problems for plants, soils, and other species). The moose could be managed by removal or hunting, or allowed to cycle and starve. Wolves could also be reintroduced from healthy, genetically diverse populations either from the mainland or elsewhere in the country (some areas are viewed as "over populated," at least in terms of minimizing human-wildlife conflict in fringe areas).
What complicates all of these decisions, in addition to uncertainty about what will versus what could happen, is the fact that Isle Royale is a designated Wilderness, where human intervention is meant to be limited. What that means in practice varies (humans occupied and mined the island, have caused climate change, have introduced illness and other species), but generally means that there will be minimal intervention going forward, regardless of what has happened in the past. This can be contrasted with (and in some ways was a response in the 1960s to) the "Disney-fication" of some of the more popular and iconic national parks, that are actively managed to generate certain views and experiences and provide certain amenities (again, this is a side issue, but for a much longer exploration of the issue, read my undergraduate thesis on it here). My take, which appears to be in line with the current NPS position and that of many scientists, is one of "wait and see." While there are potential harms to allowing wolves to disappear and moose numbers to increase, there is also the question of what it means to return the island to a "natural" state. Should the moose also be removed and caribou and lynx reintroduced to restore the fauna of the 1800s? Should all of them be restored? While any decision, including the decision not to act, will have consequences, it seems most in line with the spirit of the island, and island ecosystems generally, to let things play out as they will, though if a moose crisis truly appears, it can be revisited (including hunting, which isn't categorically prohibited in Wilderness, though it is in National Parks).
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Riparian Buffer Analysis
A while ago I wrote about buffer zones, water quality, and agriculture. This is a quick update on that. I've been working on a research project that looked at different types of imagery analysis to determine if there is a good way to identify potential violators for inspection or closer monitoring. The short answer is, not the way I did it but there probably is a way, it just isn't likely worth the extra time and cost. Visual inspection of imagery is relatively easy, fast, and accurate enough (and much cheaper than some of the other program-based alternatives). I've written it up formally, available upon request, but thought I'd post an annotated figure that gives the general idea of the methods and findings.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
EarthEngine
This post isn't really about parks, land use, property, or any particular story or issue. Rather, it's just a short entry about one of my favorite sites/internet toys: EarthEngine. This site is a Google production, with government and academic collaborators (I believe), that has taken lots of satellite imagery (and other data as well that you can explore) from the almost forty year history of the global imaging program and stitched them together (with other data fusion techniques to smooth, blend, and remove errors, clouds, and missing data) to create time lapse videos of change on the Earth's surface. It might not show the exact state of the land at any given time, but it clearly shows general trends, and in some cases (it provides some highlights/lowlights) the differences can be striking, alarming, amazing, and/or depressing.
While most people use it out of curiosity, it does have significant research and policy-informing uses as well. With it, it is possible to see rapid deforestation, the progression of coal mining, rapid urbanization, and changes in river flow. It does have some pre-loaded time lapse examples that are particularly striking, but after viewing them it's almost addictive to go looking for more areas of personal interest. I haven't personally used any of the other data features it has, but I am certainly intrigued and thought it would be worth mentioning here for anyone else interested in the things I write about.
While most people use it out of curiosity, it does have significant research and policy-informing uses as well. With it, it is possible to see rapid deforestation, the progression of coal mining, rapid urbanization, and changes in river flow. It does have some pre-loaded time lapse examples that are particularly striking, but after viewing them it's almost addictive to go looking for more areas of personal interest. I haven't personally used any of the other data features it has, but I am certainly intrigued and thought it would be worth mentioning here for anyone else interested in the things I write about.
Sunday, April 3, 2016
Polymet and Sulfide Mining
Minnesota has a long history of mining. However, most of that has historically been for iron from the state's large Banded Iron Formation deposits in the northeast portion of the state. That industry has been in general decline for a variety of economic and demographic reasons, and there is far less mining in the state than there used to be. Enter Polymet (and a few other entities like Twin Metals). These companies want to come into the state and engage in hard rock mining for copper, nickel, zinc, cobalt, and other precious and semi-precious metals. This is a very different and far more destructive form of mining that has a history of water pollution (due to the reaction of sulfides in the parent rock with air and water when exposed). Given the incredibly sensitive nature of the wetland heavy, hydrologically complex area, this is an incredibly dangerous and ill-advised plan.
Mining is a legally complex industry that also happens to have a number of privileges. First, mineral rights are what is called a "dominant estate." This means that the owner of the mineral rights (in Minnesota this is often, but not always, the state itself) has the right to explore and develop the deposits with reasonable use of the surface. While the law in Minnesota is less developed than in other states, particularly those with large oil and gas industries, the majority rule (most states have adopted) allow the use of any portion of the surface that is appurtenant to the development. This includes access roads, drilling and development pads, the harvesting of timber, the redirection of surface water, and the "reasonable" appropriation of other surface assets. While it does not allow for the outright destruction or eviction of a surface owner or tenant, development actions can sometimes result in a constructive eviction or total occupation. Whether this is allowed or actionable depends on state law and the exact facts of each situation.
Second, mineral rights are almost impossible to develop, economically, without pooling. Isolated or small parcels are generally uneconomical to develop either due to logistics or due to the efficiencies of scale required to support the large capital investment required to open a mine. This means that a mining company will often work with multiple mineral owners to acquire all of the parcels required. This creates a patchwork of interest holders that have all sold or leased their rights to the same company. It also provides an opportunity to prevent development by withholding or blocking transfer of rights held by a major or critically located rights holder. This is what may be happening with Twin Metals, which hopes to open a sulfide mine three miles from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, but was recently opposed by Governor Mark Dayton. While this would only affect state mineral rights, it could be enough to render the project uneconomical and kill it.
So where are we with Polymet? The mine has been in the works for years, and has been steadily losing public support as people learn more about the large potential consequences and small economic benefits. What was recently approved was not the mine itself. Rather it was the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the required land swap that would trade state land to be mined for private land outside the mining area. While not entirely unexpected given Gov. Dayton's recent comments, it is disappointing. It has also been a long process, with an initial review by the EPA outright rejected in 2009 as inadequate (and portions of the current review still awaiting Army Corps of Engineers review). This will almost certainly be subject to litigation as the project moves into its permitting phase (which will also be lengthy and have its own litigation fights). It is also possible that the project dies for lack of funding. Lower copper prices, a money-losing parent company, and a risk-heavy, speculative business model all make the project a financially unstable proposition. It is possible that additional regulatory and litigation costs in both time and dollars could be enough to sink the project. And even if that is not enough, there is still the matter of the mine reclamation bonding...
Mine reclamation bonds, in theory, are money that is put up by a company before construction begins to fund the closure, remediation, and perpetual treatment of a site. They are almost always required in modern mining after a history of companies abandoning mines, closing them without cleaning up, or going bankrupt. There are also well-documented examples of bad actors with poor records claiming a need to resume production in order to fund health, safety, and environmental compliance. These problems have resulted in mines becoming toxic, polluted wastelands, many of which ended up on the federal Superfund National Priorities List, including some of the most (in)famous. The problem with reclamation bonds is that they are very difficult to set. The state has hired an environmental consulting firm to determine the required level of funding required for the cleanup insurance fund. I wish them the best of luck, but their task is almost certainly hopeless. While some costs can be estimated based on past results, practices, and known costs from similar projects, there are many others that are unknowable or have huge uncertainty ranges. The first problem is understanding the hydrology itself. Northern Minnesota is an incredibly complex and interconnected area with lots of braided streams, wetlands, overland flow, and mysterious water courses that apparently disappear. I am incredibly skeptical that it is possible to model such an area with enough confidence to arrive at a good cost estimate for perpetual treatment. And even when the hydrology is modeled correctly, estimates of actual water treatment levels required have been notoriously bad. Following all of the analysis and uncertainty, the setting of actual bond values has also been problematic. This is true whether the mining is for coal (regulated differently) or is hard rock mining (like in the case of Polymet). Around the world, mining bonds have proved inadequate and left local, regional, and national governments responsible for massive, perpetual cleanup costs.
So, there are still many opportunities to stop the Polymet mine. They have only had the state approve their EIS for the land swap. The federal EPA and ACE still need to sign off, the EIS then needs to survive litigation. After that, while they would have the right to extract their mineral rights, they would still be subject to (ideally) strict (and expensive) regulations and permitting requirements. Each of which can be another good stage for opposing the project, litigating, or imposing public and environmental conditions on the company's behavior. The surety bond process will also be a good opportunity to impose costs on the project, and history has shown that it is probably not possible to demand enough money up front, so a strong public push for high numbers could be very helpful. Finally, it is possible that the project collapses under its own weight, with uncertain finances and high costs. The longer the process can be drawn out, the more likely this is to happen. So get involved, write to the Governor and legislature, and provide feedback on the bonding and permitting process. Every little piece helps. Together we can stop this grave threat to a unique and vulnerable place that has so far been preserved for the benefit of all Minnesotans. It would be a shame to sell that out for a handful of dollars a few temporary jobs.
Mining is a legally complex industry that also happens to have a number of privileges. First, mineral rights are what is called a "dominant estate." This means that the owner of the mineral rights (in Minnesota this is often, but not always, the state itself) has the right to explore and develop the deposits with reasonable use of the surface. While the law in Minnesota is less developed than in other states, particularly those with large oil and gas industries, the majority rule (most states have adopted) allow the use of any portion of the surface that is appurtenant to the development. This includes access roads, drilling and development pads, the harvesting of timber, the redirection of surface water, and the "reasonable" appropriation of other surface assets. While it does not allow for the outright destruction or eviction of a surface owner or tenant, development actions can sometimes result in a constructive eviction or total occupation. Whether this is allowed or actionable depends on state law and the exact facts of each situation.
Second, mineral rights are almost impossible to develop, economically, without pooling. Isolated or small parcels are generally uneconomical to develop either due to logistics or due to the efficiencies of scale required to support the large capital investment required to open a mine. This means that a mining company will often work with multiple mineral owners to acquire all of the parcels required. This creates a patchwork of interest holders that have all sold or leased their rights to the same company. It also provides an opportunity to prevent development by withholding or blocking transfer of rights held by a major or critically located rights holder. This is what may be happening with Twin Metals, which hopes to open a sulfide mine three miles from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, but was recently opposed by Governor Mark Dayton. While this would only affect state mineral rights, it could be enough to render the project uneconomical and kill it.
So where are we with Polymet? The mine has been in the works for years, and has been steadily losing public support as people learn more about the large potential consequences and small economic benefits. What was recently approved was not the mine itself. Rather it was the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the required land swap that would trade state land to be mined for private land outside the mining area. While not entirely unexpected given Gov. Dayton's recent comments, it is disappointing. It has also been a long process, with an initial review by the EPA outright rejected in 2009 as inadequate (and portions of the current review still awaiting Army Corps of Engineers review). This will almost certainly be subject to litigation as the project moves into its permitting phase (which will also be lengthy and have its own litigation fights). It is also possible that the project dies for lack of funding. Lower copper prices, a money-losing parent company, and a risk-heavy, speculative business model all make the project a financially unstable proposition. It is possible that additional regulatory and litigation costs in both time and dollars could be enough to sink the project. And even if that is not enough, there is still the matter of the mine reclamation bonding...
Mine reclamation bonds, in theory, are money that is put up by a company before construction begins to fund the closure, remediation, and perpetual treatment of a site. They are almost always required in modern mining after a history of companies abandoning mines, closing them without cleaning up, or going bankrupt. There are also well-documented examples of bad actors with poor records claiming a need to resume production in order to fund health, safety, and environmental compliance. These problems have resulted in mines becoming toxic, polluted wastelands, many of which ended up on the federal Superfund National Priorities List, including some of the most (in)famous. The problem with reclamation bonds is that they are very difficult to set. The state has hired an environmental consulting firm to determine the required level of funding required for the cleanup insurance fund. I wish them the best of luck, but their task is almost certainly hopeless. While some costs can be estimated based on past results, practices, and known costs from similar projects, there are many others that are unknowable or have huge uncertainty ranges. The first problem is understanding the hydrology itself. Northern Minnesota is an incredibly complex and interconnected area with lots of braided streams, wetlands, overland flow, and mysterious water courses that apparently disappear. I am incredibly skeptical that it is possible to model such an area with enough confidence to arrive at a good cost estimate for perpetual treatment. And even when the hydrology is modeled correctly, estimates of actual water treatment levels required have been notoriously bad. Following all of the analysis and uncertainty, the setting of actual bond values has also been problematic. This is true whether the mining is for coal (regulated differently) or is hard rock mining (like in the case of Polymet). Around the world, mining bonds have proved inadequate and left local, regional, and national governments responsible for massive, perpetual cleanup costs.
So, there are still many opportunities to stop the Polymet mine. They have only had the state approve their EIS for the land swap. The federal EPA and ACE still need to sign off, the EIS then needs to survive litigation. After that, while they would have the right to extract their mineral rights, they would still be subject to (ideally) strict (and expensive) regulations and permitting requirements. Each of which can be another good stage for opposing the project, litigating, or imposing public and environmental conditions on the company's behavior. The surety bond process will also be a good opportunity to impose costs on the project, and history has shown that it is probably not possible to demand enough money up front, so a strong public push for high numbers could be very helpful. Finally, it is possible that the project collapses under its own weight, with uncertain finances and high costs. The longer the process can be drawn out, the more likely this is to happen. So get involved, write to the Governor and legislature, and provide feedback on the bonding and permitting process. Every little piece helps. Together we can stop this grave threat to a unique and vulnerable place that has so far been preserved for the benefit of all Minnesotans. It would be a shame to sell that out for a handful of dollars a few temporary jobs.
Monday, March 7, 2016
Bike Lanes and Parking
I live on the East Side of Saint Paul in a neighborhood that is filled with public parks and has extensive winter ski/summer bike trails. However, these trails are not well connected to Downtown Saint Paul or the rest of the Twin Cities bicycle network. This makes bicycle commuting a challenge and also reduces the amount of recreational cyclists who visit the area. This should be changing. The city Public Works Department has announced that it intends to put in bike lanes on Upper Afton Road this summer as part of a resurfacing project. Because of the proposed changes to the parking set up, a community meeting was held this past Thursday and a public comment period is now open before a hearing and vote by the City Council later this spring.
I made a point to attend this meeting because I am both a bike commuter and recreational cyclist and knew that someone needed to speak for the rest of the neighborhood. Upon arriving at the meeting, it was largely as I had expected: most of the attendees were residents of the affected street and almost all of them were vehemently opposed to bike lanes, to loss of parking, or to both. This was not a particularly rational view because, as someone who bikes and drives that street daily, I have come to the same conclusion as the city parking survey, specifically that there is very little street parking utilization in general, so very little will be "lost" by the residents. Their opposition, therefor, struck me as a product of emotion, entitlement, misunderstanding, prejudice, and irrationality.
Some opposed residents were just not good at logic and listening. They continued to bring up unrelated issues, unrelated streets, or issues that the bike lanes would help resolve (like speeding, bike lanes make a road seem narrower which has been demonstrated to lead to lower speeds). Fortunately the city planning people, neighborhood council members, and City Councilwoman were all very patient and repeatedly explained the benefits for these people.
The less rational, more emotional, and occasionally prejudiced residents were far more difficult to deal with. They tended to have stereotypes about bicyclists. They had unfounded beliefs about level of usage (both of parking and bike lanes). And had a number of other unrelated complaints about how it would be paid for (via wheelage fee, not special assessment) and land values/property taxes (if anything, they should go up with a bike friendly neighborhood). There were also some very weird, barely concealed racist elements, especially when an elderly crank started ranting about how he "paid a lot of taxes" and then the city "stole" one of his parking spots to put a bus stop in and now is taking away the others for bike lanes. His digression on the "whiskey bottles" and major transit center that the buses service was an appallingly low level of discourse that marked him pretty clearly as an entitled, racist, obstructionist who likely sincerely felt that he owned the street in front of his home (despite the fact that it belongs to the city and therefor all of its residents). This belief in ownership of parking is understandable, but wrong, and street planning decisions need to be made with the best interest of an entire community in mind. Indeed, that is why Saint Paul has an extensive and detailed bike plan for developing bicycle infrastructure so that it might someday catch up with Minneapolis and its enviable bike culture. While not everyone is happy, usually bike lanes come to be seen as a benefit and the controversy quickly fades away.
So, yes to bike lanes: better commuting infrastructure, safer way for kids to get to school and playground (both of which are on the proposed path, movement toward a more integrated recreation network, safer streets, better property values. No to excess on street parking which has myriad problems and causes many more. And really, the issue isn't the biking (or the buses, or the racism), it's the weird American relationship with cars and the places we put them.
As some of the anger I witnessed at the meeting shows, people have often irrational beliefs and emotional responses to parking issues. They feel entitled to public space in front of their home, to free parking when they shop and run errands, and are often oblivious to the explicit and latent economic and environmental costs of the excess of, often empty, paved space, much of which is mandated by city building and zoning codes.
In addition to the carbon output of cars in commute, there are additional carbon costs just from circling a block looking for a meter or a space, especially in areas where parking is under priced (a subsidy to businesses at the public expense). Furthermore, parking is the largest land use in a city, and allowing it to be free greatly influences the transportation choices people make (with both economic and carbon costs imposed). As mentioned above, much of it is legally required, even if it sits empty on supposedly huge demand days. Some places are starting to rethink what parking lots can be, either by redesigning them or by adding supplementary secondary uses (as solar farms, drainage areas, or tree-lined grids). For much more on parking lots, I highly recommend this entire series from Sightline (much of which has also appeared on Grist).
As for my local parking issues, Saint Paul has finally moved into the world of thirty years ago and decided that it will start charging for parking at night, begin using event rates in certain areas, and expanding meters to previously free areas that are high traffic. While each is a small step, when put together they will make progress toward rationalizing the use of one of the city's largest public properties (its streets) and generate much needed revenue for infrastructure and other public works projects. If it also encourages people to use more environmentally sound transportation methods or to take advantage of the expanding bicycle infrastructure, even better.
I made a point to attend this meeting because I am both a bike commuter and recreational cyclist and knew that someone needed to speak for the rest of the neighborhood. Upon arriving at the meeting, it was largely as I had expected: most of the attendees were residents of the affected street and almost all of them were vehemently opposed to bike lanes, to loss of parking, or to both. This was not a particularly rational view because, as someone who bikes and drives that street daily, I have come to the same conclusion as the city parking survey, specifically that there is very little street parking utilization in general, so very little will be "lost" by the residents. Their opposition, therefor, struck me as a product of emotion, entitlement, misunderstanding, prejudice, and irrationality.
Some opposed residents were just not good at logic and listening. They continued to bring up unrelated issues, unrelated streets, or issues that the bike lanes would help resolve (like speeding, bike lanes make a road seem narrower which has been demonstrated to lead to lower speeds). Fortunately the city planning people, neighborhood council members, and City Councilwoman were all very patient and repeatedly explained the benefits for these people.
The less rational, more emotional, and occasionally prejudiced residents were far more difficult to deal with. They tended to have stereotypes about bicyclists. They had unfounded beliefs about level of usage (both of parking and bike lanes). And had a number of other unrelated complaints about how it would be paid for (via wheelage fee, not special assessment) and land values/property taxes (if anything, they should go up with a bike friendly neighborhood). There were also some very weird, barely concealed racist elements, especially when an elderly crank started ranting about how he "paid a lot of taxes" and then the city "stole" one of his parking spots to put a bus stop in and now is taking away the others for bike lanes. His digression on the "whiskey bottles" and major transit center that the buses service was an appallingly low level of discourse that marked him pretty clearly as an entitled, racist, obstructionist who likely sincerely felt that he owned the street in front of his home (despite the fact that it belongs to the city and therefor all of its residents). This belief in ownership of parking is understandable, but wrong, and street planning decisions need to be made with the best interest of an entire community in mind. Indeed, that is why Saint Paul has an extensive and detailed bike plan for developing bicycle infrastructure so that it might someday catch up with Minneapolis and its enviable bike culture. While not everyone is happy, usually bike lanes come to be seen as a benefit and the controversy quickly fades away.
So, yes to bike lanes: better commuting infrastructure, safer way for kids to get to school and playground (both of which are on the proposed path, movement toward a more integrated recreation network, safer streets, better property values. No to excess on street parking which has myriad problems and causes many more. And really, the issue isn't the biking (or the buses, or the racism), it's the weird American relationship with cars and the places we put them.
As some of the anger I witnessed at the meeting shows, people have often irrational beliefs and emotional responses to parking issues. They feel entitled to public space in front of their home, to free parking when they shop and run errands, and are often oblivious to the explicit and latent economic and environmental costs of the excess of, often empty, paved space, much of which is mandated by city building and zoning codes.
In addition to the carbon output of cars in commute, there are additional carbon costs just from circling a block looking for a meter or a space, especially in areas where parking is under priced (a subsidy to businesses at the public expense). Furthermore, parking is the largest land use in a city, and allowing it to be free greatly influences the transportation choices people make (with both economic and carbon costs imposed). As mentioned above, much of it is legally required, even if it sits empty on supposedly huge demand days. Some places are starting to rethink what parking lots can be, either by redesigning them or by adding supplementary secondary uses (as solar farms, drainage areas, or tree-lined grids). For much more on parking lots, I highly recommend this entire series from Sightline (much of which has also appeared on Grist).
As for my local parking issues, Saint Paul has finally moved into the world of thirty years ago and decided that it will start charging for parking at night, begin using event rates in certain areas, and expanding meters to previously free areas that are high traffic. While each is a small step, when put together they will make progress toward rationalizing the use of one of the city's largest public properties (its streets) and generate much needed revenue for infrastructure and other public works projects. If it also encourages people to use more environmentally sound transportation methods or to take advantage of the expanding bicycle infrastructure, even better.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Sandpiper Pipeline Delayed
A lot of oil moves around this country, and much of it moves through pipelines. Due to the fracking boom in North Dakota and the expansion of tar sands bitumen mining in Alberta, a lot more has been moving around lately, much of it by rail or truck. All of these transport methods are problematic, but for different reasons (I'm not going to go into the horrible environmental effects of tar sands or fracking or the climate and other impacts of oil and natural gas right now, but the links above should provide a good taste, or the documentary Gasland). Trucks are inherently inefficient ways of moving that quantity of oil (or of anything), with greater risk of accidents per mile traveled and greatest carbon output per ton/mile. Rail is better on some but has other problems, including backlogs and delays as well as a history of spills and explosions. Many have said that these problems both support the expansion of pipeline infrastructure for moving an increased volume of oil.
Pipelines, however, are complicated things. They generally run in segments from a wellhead in an oil field to some kind of collection station. There oil (or bitumen, in the case of tar sands), is often blended with solvents and/or heated and sent into a larger pipeline system for transport to major distribution centers. They might cross private lands, public lands, and lands owned by the pipeline company. They also cross rivers, wetlands, roads, and anything else that happens to be in their path. As long as we have an economy driven by fossil fuels, we will have a pipeline problem. We might not need as many as we have, but all the ones we legitimately need do have to go somewhere (both need and location are important fights). Pipelines also are intrusive, requiring a substantial right-of-way, have a propensity to leak, and are not always well monitored.
So pipelines are a necessary evil, but we certainly don't need to build more of them than is economically justified and we definitely should avoid routing them in places that are environmentally sensitive. Which brings me to Sandpiper. It is a pipeline that would run roughly 300 miles across northern Minnesota from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin. It would run relatively directly through the Lakes Country, a wetland heavy and fragile area, but would be most economical for Enbridge Energy, the oil company that wants to build it. It would also follow an existing pipeline right-of-way for about 75% of its length and the company has easement agreements for access/permission to cross private land with about 95% of the affected properties. There have been some supporters of the direct route, with its risks to the environment and cultural resources, but there have also been critics who sued the Public Utilities Commission over the process demanding that an Environmental Impact Assessment be conducted before issuing a certificate of need.
Last summer, the pipeline opponents won in the Court of Appeals, and the PUC was ordered to conduct an assessment before granting a certificate of need. This is an important development because once a certificate of need is granted it becomes much harder to stop a pipeline. It might be possible to change the route a small amount, but the builder would have a large amount of leverage. This is particularly true here, where Enbridge already had 75% of the route in right-of-way and 95% acquisition of needed easements. Acquiring the remaining 5% would have been a simple matter of exercising eminent domain to claim the right-of-way or easement (and unfortunately for the landowners, Minnesota's "Buy the Farm" law doesn't apply to pipelines, only transmission lines, so the residents and farmers would be forced to live with the pipeline and the company's right of access and perpetual maintenance). The newest PUC action has required final submission of the environmental review, which could take years (especially if it ends up in litigation). This has meant a push back in the estimated completion date for the project. It has also provided a number of new opportunities to kill the pipeline outright, kill it by atrophy of support, or re-route it into less sensitive pathways (which might also kill it). The pipeline could be deemed to great a risk to the State's environment and natural resources. It could be forced to move to a less economically favorable route. It might even lose its economic justification if the price of crude oil continues to stay low and North Dakota's oil fields go into what may be a slowdown or a prolonged slump. All of these would be ways that could stop the pipeline in its tracks, and that is a much easier thing to do before it gets its certificate of need. It does take time, effort, and energy, but it can be done if enough people put in the work. It might also buy enough time to build the political pressure to end the threat entirely.
Pipelines, however, are complicated things. They generally run in segments from a wellhead in an oil field to some kind of collection station. There oil (or bitumen, in the case of tar sands), is often blended with solvents and/or heated and sent into a larger pipeline system for transport to major distribution centers. They might cross private lands, public lands, and lands owned by the pipeline company. They also cross rivers, wetlands, roads, and anything else that happens to be in their path. As long as we have an economy driven by fossil fuels, we will have a pipeline problem. We might not need as many as we have, but all the ones we legitimately need do have to go somewhere (both need and location are important fights). Pipelines also are intrusive, requiring a substantial right-of-way, have a propensity to leak, and are not always well monitored.
So pipelines are a necessary evil, but we certainly don't need to build more of them than is economically justified and we definitely should avoid routing them in places that are environmentally sensitive. Which brings me to Sandpiper. It is a pipeline that would run roughly 300 miles across northern Minnesota from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin. It would run relatively directly through the Lakes Country, a wetland heavy and fragile area, but would be most economical for Enbridge Energy, the oil company that wants to build it. It would also follow an existing pipeline right-of-way for about 75% of its length and the company has easement agreements for access/permission to cross private land with about 95% of the affected properties. There have been some supporters of the direct route, with its risks to the environment and cultural resources, but there have also been critics who sued the Public Utilities Commission over the process demanding that an Environmental Impact Assessment be conducted before issuing a certificate of need.
Last summer, the pipeline opponents won in the Court of Appeals, and the PUC was ordered to conduct an assessment before granting a certificate of need. This is an important development because once a certificate of need is granted it becomes much harder to stop a pipeline. It might be possible to change the route a small amount, but the builder would have a large amount of leverage. This is particularly true here, where Enbridge already had 75% of the route in right-of-way and 95% acquisition of needed easements. Acquiring the remaining 5% would have been a simple matter of exercising eminent domain to claim the right-of-way or easement (and unfortunately for the landowners, Minnesota's "Buy the Farm" law doesn't apply to pipelines, only transmission lines, so the residents and farmers would be forced to live with the pipeline and the company's right of access and perpetual maintenance). The newest PUC action has required final submission of the environmental review, which could take years (especially if it ends up in litigation). This has meant a push back in the estimated completion date for the project. It has also provided a number of new opportunities to kill the pipeline outright, kill it by atrophy of support, or re-route it into less sensitive pathways (which might also kill it). The pipeline could be deemed to great a risk to the State's environment and natural resources. It could be forced to move to a less economically favorable route. It might even lose its economic justification if the price of crude oil continues to stay low and North Dakota's oil fields go into what may be a slowdown or a prolonged slump. All of these would be ways that could stop the pipeline in its tracks, and that is a much easier thing to do before it gets its certificate of need. It does take time, effort, and energy, but it can be done if enough people put in the work. It might also buy enough time to build the political pressure to end the threat entirely.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Historic Homes
What makes a home historic? What makes a building historic? What about an entire district of a city? Is it the age of the buildings? A history of constant, consistent use? Some kind of historic event or significance? Did important people do important things there? Maybe there's just a distinctive and well preserved architectural or social record that really can't be matched anywhere else. In many cases its an unclear mix of all these elements, and its never really clear what leads to a grant or denial of designation. The task of sorting all this out in many cities falls to some kind of historical preservation board or heritage preservation committee. Here in the Twin Cities, as in many other areas of the country, we are experiencing a boom in historic property versus redevelopment fights.
I can't say this a job I particularly want or envy. On the one side, you have legitimate neighborhood concerns about developers pushing people out, changing neighborhood characteristics abruptly, gentrification, affordability, and social/racial/economic justice issues. On the other hand, in order to grow cities need to add population and building up is far more environmentally responsible than building out (though many tear downs are actually about building bigger single family homes, which doesn't address that issue, and can cause other problems with setback violations, shading problems, and strange juxtapositions). It's very hard to address housing costs, fight sprawl, preserve historic character, and still provide sufficient options for growing populations, especially as cities strive to attract members of the "creative class." And really, at the end of the day, it comes down to a board of elected or appointed people coming to decisions about what others can or cannot do with their property. It's a challenging thing, that can often lead to anger and defensiveness, with both sides talking past one another. I understand where both are coming from, but from the outside it often appears to be a case of NIMBY versus in the pocket of the developers. What really needs to happen is there needs to be a more collaborative planning process that might be able to address legitimate concerns while still allowing for flexibility.
If properties are worth less than the cost of restoration, they will continue to degrade and eventually require demolition (which can be a big loss for the neighborhood but also for some of the features of these homes, some of which might still be usable and popular on the renovation market). This process also leads to a downward spiral in neighborhood quality, housing stock, and stability. I used to live in a neighborhood like that. It was a once beautiful Arts and Crafts style house with wooden built-ins and wood floors. However, it was located in the Old Rondo neighborhood of St. Paul, which was a thriving African American community with many similar homes, until it was bisected by the construction of I-94, gutting it, driving housing values down, and sending the neighborhood into steep decline. The house itself has a lot of potential, but when we were looking to buy, we didn't even consider it because the amount of work required would have been far greater than justified, especially considering our landlord was already underwater on the mortgage. Many other houses in the area were similar, once beautiful with lots of potential, but steadily degrading. Lots of renters cycled through the neighborhood, and several lots were already empty or condemned. There might be a way to stabilize, or even reverse the decline, but it would be a challenge, especially without more owner-occupied housing.
I have also had the good fortune of living in another historic Twin Cities neighborhood: Milwaukee Avenue. For two years I rented the first house on Milwaukee Avenue, a development originally built in the late 1800s as low income housing. By the 1970s the buildings were mostly in disrepair and were scheduled to be demolished, but the street's historic nature (architectural, social, and character (it's a pedestrian and bike only street)) and the work of a number of activists got it listed on the National Register of Historic Places and registered with the City of Minneapolis. Some money was then available to restore the houses, a developer bought most of them, restored them, and then created a common interest community, the Milwaukee Avenue Homeowners Association, to run and manage them and ensure that they kept a consistent, historic character. They are cute houses with interesting layouts on small lots. You can tell they were built in another time for what were likely large families sharing a small space. Kitchens are off the back, the other rooms are all clustered around a central fireplace and chimney that runs up the center of the house (allowing the upstairs to be warmed as well). I'm glad I lived there. Again, I would never have bought that house, but I would have considered others in the neighborhood (that were in nicer condition and not right off Franklin Avenue).
Not all historic building fights are about things quite as attractive. Some are more mundane and about commercial redevelopment. One recent spat was in the Minneapolis neighborhood of Dinkytown where a house and several businesses were proposed for demolition to build a hotel. I highly recommend looking at the pictures in the article. There really isn't anything distinctive or interesting about the buildings (they look like a standard commercial strip in a city business district), but some of the businesses have been present for a while. It sounds like it is not so much a fight about history as a manifestation of worry over a neighborhood's character, with concern that popular businesses will be displaced by newer, more upscale ones. In this case, it seems like the neighborhood has the stronger argument (and prevailed at the hearings), I suspect because a hotel is a vastly different type of business than either apartments or commercial space. Perhaps an apartment building with commercial space set aside would be more appropriate for the neighborhood.
In contrast to the Dinkytown case, where the buildings are unremarkable, it is interesting to look at the ongoing saga of the David and Gladys Wright House in Phoenix, AZ. It was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and is a beautiful property (view the slideshow in this article) that was to be torn down, was bought, saved, and is now the center of a fight with neighbors that object to a limited number of tours being given. That's a fair concern. Residential neighborhoods are not commercial districts, and even limited visitors on a regular basis can be disruptive (see the long running fight in Philadelphia over the Barnes Museum, since relocated (an additional huge fight) over parking in its quiet suburban neighborhood). But back to the original point, the house itself is a premier work by a leading architect. That it was going to be demolished, and now others want it relocated, seems like madness. If any kind of house should be a prime candidate for historic designation, it would be a house like this. As one of its defenders pointed out, Wright designed with the landscape in mind. The idea of "living with the desert" was key to the design and layout. That people would "never consider asking for Falling Water to be relocated" should be a good reference for how to evaluate a house like this.
When dealing with institutions, it can be much easier to handle historic designation issues. Often, the institution wants the designation, as it can lead to financial benefits or access to restoration or preservation funds. At the very least, it can provide status and bragging rights. It is also much less likely for an institutional land owner to face opposition to a designation because it often will own much of, if not all of, the properties to be designated and, in many cases, the surrounding property as well. They still need to go through the formal process, however, including all the proper paperwork and documentation.
In the United States, we seem to have made a big mess of our historical designation system. Perhaps it's because we have "less" history to preserve, or because we are more litigious and competitive, or because we want it all: cute neighborhoods in walkable cities that are also affordable and don't sprawl out (also unicorns). But, whatever the causes, and whatever the solutions and compromises, it's hard to look at American fights without thinking of Europe, "where the history comes from," and marveling at how they manage to do it there. It seems like there are constant stories of discoveries in unexpected places. It seems like the Europeans have found a way to make development, archaeology, and history work together, I can't imagine what Americans would do with those kinds of problems and discoveries. Perhaps we just need more practice living in less space and we'll become less attached to hoarding every little architectural oddity and neighborhood quirk. I am all in favor of preserving character, but I don't want that to come at the expense of sprawling out across the land eating up open space, increasing commutes, and in general amplifying the environmental impact of our urban lifestyle. Accommodation and adaptation, with redevelopment done in concert with communities. That's the way forward if we're going to try to balance these issues because, while a tear down might be one person's property, the choices made will affect everyone around it, potentially for a very long time.
I can't say this a job I particularly want or envy. On the one side, you have legitimate neighborhood concerns about developers pushing people out, changing neighborhood characteristics abruptly, gentrification, affordability, and social/racial/economic justice issues. On the other hand, in order to grow cities need to add population and building up is far more environmentally responsible than building out (though many tear downs are actually about building bigger single family homes, which doesn't address that issue, and can cause other problems with setback violations, shading problems, and strange juxtapositions). It's very hard to address housing costs, fight sprawl, preserve historic character, and still provide sufficient options for growing populations, especially as cities strive to attract members of the "creative class." And really, at the end of the day, it comes down to a board of elected or appointed people coming to decisions about what others can or cannot do with their property. It's a challenging thing, that can often lead to anger and defensiveness, with both sides talking past one another. I understand where both are coming from, but from the outside it often appears to be a case of NIMBY versus in the pocket of the developers. What really needs to happen is there needs to be a more collaborative planning process that might be able to address legitimate concerns while still allowing for flexibility.
If properties are worth less than the cost of restoration, they will continue to degrade and eventually require demolition (which can be a big loss for the neighborhood but also for some of the features of these homes, some of which might still be usable and popular on the renovation market). This process also leads to a downward spiral in neighborhood quality, housing stock, and stability. I used to live in a neighborhood like that. It was a once beautiful Arts and Crafts style house with wooden built-ins and wood floors. However, it was located in the Old Rondo neighborhood of St. Paul, which was a thriving African American community with many similar homes, until it was bisected by the construction of I-94, gutting it, driving housing values down, and sending the neighborhood into steep decline. The house itself has a lot of potential, but when we were looking to buy, we didn't even consider it because the amount of work required would have been far greater than justified, especially considering our landlord was already underwater on the mortgage. Many other houses in the area were similar, once beautiful with lots of potential, but steadily degrading. Lots of renters cycled through the neighborhood, and several lots were already empty or condemned. There might be a way to stabilize, or even reverse the decline, but it would be a challenge, especially without more owner-occupied housing.
I have also had the good fortune of living in another historic Twin Cities neighborhood: Milwaukee Avenue. For two years I rented the first house on Milwaukee Avenue, a development originally built in the late 1800s as low income housing. By the 1970s the buildings were mostly in disrepair and were scheduled to be demolished, but the street's historic nature (architectural, social, and character (it's a pedestrian and bike only street)) and the work of a number of activists got it listed on the National Register of Historic Places and registered with the City of Minneapolis. Some money was then available to restore the houses, a developer bought most of them, restored them, and then created a common interest community, the Milwaukee Avenue Homeowners Association, to run and manage them and ensure that they kept a consistent, historic character. They are cute houses with interesting layouts on small lots. You can tell they were built in another time for what were likely large families sharing a small space. Kitchens are off the back, the other rooms are all clustered around a central fireplace and chimney that runs up the center of the house (allowing the upstairs to be warmed as well). I'm glad I lived there. Again, I would never have bought that house, but I would have considered others in the neighborhood (that were in nicer condition and not right off Franklin Avenue).
Not all historic building fights are about things quite as attractive. Some are more mundane and about commercial redevelopment. One recent spat was in the Minneapolis neighborhood of Dinkytown where a house and several businesses were proposed for demolition to build a hotel. I highly recommend looking at the pictures in the article. There really isn't anything distinctive or interesting about the buildings (they look like a standard commercial strip in a city business district), but some of the businesses have been present for a while. It sounds like it is not so much a fight about history as a manifestation of worry over a neighborhood's character, with concern that popular businesses will be displaced by newer, more upscale ones. In this case, it seems like the neighborhood has the stronger argument (and prevailed at the hearings), I suspect because a hotel is a vastly different type of business than either apartments or commercial space. Perhaps an apartment building with commercial space set aside would be more appropriate for the neighborhood.
In contrast to the Dinkytown case, where the buildings are unremarkable, it is interesting to look at the ongoing saga of the David and Gladys Wright House in Phoenix, AZ. It was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and is a beautiful property (view the slideshow in this article) that was to be torn down, was bought, saved, and is now the center of a fight with neighbors that object to a limited number of tours being given. That's a fair concern. Residential neighborhoods are not commercial districts, and even limited visitors on a regular basis can be disruptive (see the long running fight in Philadelphia over the Barnes Museum, since relocated (an additional huge fight) over parking in its quiet suburban neighborhood). But back to the original point, the house itself is a premier work by a leading architect. That it was going to be demolished, and now others want it relocated, seems like madness. If any kind of house should be a prime candidate for historic designation, it would be a house like this. As one of its defenders pointed out, Wright designed with the landscape in mind. The idea of "living with the desert" was key to the design and layout. That people would "never consider asking for Falling Water to be relocated" should be a good reference for how to evaluate a house like this.
When dealing with institutions, it can be much easier to handle historic designation issues. Often, the institution wants the designation, as it can lead to financial benefits or access to restoration or preservation funds. At the very least, it can provide status and bragging rights. It is also much less likely for an institutional land owner to face opposition to a designation because it often will own much of, if not all of, the properties to be designated and, in many cases, the surrounding property as well. They still need to go through the formal process, however, including all the proper paperwork and documentation.
In the United States, we seem to have made a big mess of our historical designation system. Perhaps it's because we have "less" history to preserve, or because we are more litigious and competitive, or because we want it all: cute neighborhoods in walkable cities that are also affordable and don't sprawl out (also unicorns). But, whatever the causes, and whatever the solutions and compromises, it's hard to look at American fights without thinking of Europe, "where the history comes from," and marveling at how they manage to do it there. It seems like there are constant stories of discoveries in unexpected places. It seems like the Europeans have found a way to make development, archaeology, and history work together, I can't imagine what Americans would do with those kinds of problems and discoveries. Perhaps we just need more practice living in less space and we'll become less attached to hoarding every little architectural oddity and neighborhood quirk. I am all in favor of preserving character, but I don't want that to come at the expense of sprawling out across the land eating up open space, increasing commutes, and in general amplifying the environmental impact of our urban lifestyle. Accommodation and adaptation, with redevelopment done in concert with communities. That's the way forward if we're going to try to balance these issues because, while a tear down might be one person's property, the choices made will affect everyone around it, potentially for a very long time.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Minneapolis Park Expansions
I'm fortunate to live in the Twin Cities, which by some evaluations have the best public park systems in the country. I certainly appreciate being able to walk across the street to a large dog park surrounded by bike and ski trails. What makes this most impressive is that they not only have a large percentage of city land dedicated to public parks, including waterfront, recreation centers, and playgrounds, but have generally good access to park resources across age and income. There are some limitations to this methodology, it didn't include access to park programming and services, the study defined access as being within a ten minute walk of any designated park property, regardless of condition, amenities, or safety. Things are improving, however, as the Park Board has adopted an explicit racial equity component in some of its planning. It is also true that having designated park land is better than not, and that once it is in the system it can be improved and serve as a gathering point or anchor for the neighborhood. An important piece of this is the ability to add important parcels to the system and obtain enough funding to support effective programming and ongoing maintenance.
In Minneapolis, unlike in many other cities with large or famous park systems, the idea of public parkland was present at the very beginning and an independent park board charged with overseeing and acquiring land for the system was created before the city was even 30 years old. This has led to a much more organized and thoughtful system, much of it planned or engineered (including the lakes and parkways), that is much more evenly distributed throughout the city. Compare it to Boston Common, a green space with roots in colonial custom, or Philadelphia's Fairmount Park, founded to protect the city's drinking water (lots of foresight, but also concentrated along the river, leaving large portions of the city without good access). In Minneapolis, the system was growing from the beginning with, as one writer put it a "get the land and adapt as you go" attitude. After all, as the same writer put it, when tastes and desires and trends change and new uses come into fashion, "people use the land as they want to. There have always been contentions about how parks should be used, but it's nice to fight over land we own."
That it is better to own the land already than need to acquire and repurpose it can be seen in Minneapolis' own history as well as the experience of other cities. Minneapolis has had a steady, planned growth of the system, adding units by purchase, eminent domain, and donation, in a regular and systematic way, including traditional parks, public squares, greenways, community centers, playgrounds, and miles of river and lakefront. This process is continuing to this day with the city set to acquire one of the last remaining parcels of riverfront that is not already part of the system. This would provide an almost uninterrupted stretch of river from one end of the city to the other all under public ownership. It is true that the land will need to be cleared and remediated, it is currently an industrial site, but there should be no problem clearing it eventually and converting it to some kind of appropriate public use. It helps that the Mississippi River is not a working river in Minneapolis. The mills are gone and almost all shipping is done by rail or truck. Barge traffic is present but not necessary (most stops in St. Paul). This allows riverfront property to be given over to desirable public parks (and often closely associated expensive condos), unlike, say Providence, Rhode Island, where the working harbor with alluring waterfront views have created headaches for would-be developers. They have learned that its hard to build a development on land that has current industrial value that supports established industry and a large workforce (this is part of why many parks were initially formed, they were viewed as "wasteland" or had unusuable grades or were otherwise viewed as unsuitable for other uses, but that's a very big digression).
Not all system acquisitions are smooth, or official. While Minneapolis doesn't have a large number of privately owned public spaces (the SkyWay and some indoor plazas might qualify, but I would need to do more research), there is the plaza/park at the new Downtown East development near the new Vikings stadium. Basically, it is a small area that would add some green space to the area, but would also be largely given over to use by the Vikings, NFL, and Stadium Authority. While funded by private funds, those funds are ultimately driven by tax incentives from the city and state as part of the larger redevelopment plan. Time will tell what the ultimate park looks like, with only a few months left before completion it is hard to tell what the final state will be. It does look safe to say that it won't be as good a deal for the city as it could have been though (as is true for almost every aspect of the stadium mess).
Finally, running parks is expensive. They require maintenance and upkeep, land must be acquired, programs must be run, buildings and equipment repaired. They also don't directly generate revenue for the city as they are public, non-taxable, and generate minimal revenues (even program fees often only partially offset the costs). However, they are an amenity that draw people to a city, particularly young professionals and other potential drivers of the tax base and they can also increase property values, another important factor in determining total city revenue. But periodically they must raise additional money, either from a general fund appropriation or from a levy (special or general). This could be related to an acquisition, the need to pay off bonds, or the desire to eliminate a backlog of work. In Minneapolis, the Park Board has sought to place a levy on the ballot for voter approval to raise $300 million dollars. While it seems like a large number, when spread out over the entire population and scaled to property values, it is a relatively small number, less than $28 on a $100,000 house. All to support maintaining the quality of the system. Why not just impose the levy unilaterally? Because the Park Board lacks that authority. Despite being an independent body, it does not control city property taxes and only has one vote on the committee that does. So it is forced to ask the city council for permission to ask the voters for permission. The city council could act without the voters, but it appears that even when it comes to supporting things as popular as parks (the last levy passed easily), the council would prefer to punt the issue to the ballot, unless it can get it to go away completely. I hope it passes. It would be a shame to see the system slip further behind in maintenance and upkeep and potentially endanger the continued expansion and improvement of the system.
In Minneapolis, unlike in many other cities with large or famous park systems, the idea of public parkland was present at the very beginning and an independent park board charged with overseeing and acquiring land for the system was created before the city was even 30 years old. This has led to a much more organized and thoughtful system, much of it planned or engineered (including the lakes and parkways), that is much more evenly distributed throughout the city. Compare it to Boston Common, a green space with roots in colonial custom, or Philadelphia's Fairmount Park, founded to protect the city's drinking water (lots of foresight, but also concentrated along the river, leaving large portions of the city without good access). In Minneapolis, the system was growing from the beginning with, as one writer put it a "get the land and adapt as you go" attitude. After all, as the same writer put it, when tastes and desires and trends change and new uses come into fashion, "people use the land as they want to. There have always been contentions about how parks should be used, but it's nice to fight over land we own."
That it is better to own the land already than need to acquire and repurpose it can be seen in Minneapolis' own history as well as the experience of other cities. Minneapolis has had a steady, planned growth of the system, adding units by purchase, eminent domain, and donation, in a regular and systematic way, including traditional parks, public squares, greenways, community centers, playgrounds, and miles of river and lakefront. This process is continuing to this day with the city set to acquire one of the last remaining parcels of riverfront that is not already part of the system. This would provide an almost uninterrupted stretch of river from one end of the city to the other all under public ownership. It is true that the land will need to be cleared and remediated, it is currently an industrial site, but there should be no problem clearing it eventually and converting it to some kind of appropriate public use. It helps that the Mississippi River is not a working river in Minneapolis. The mills are gone and almost all shipping is done by rail or truck. Barge traffic is present but not necessary (most stops in St. Paul). This allows riverfront property to be given over to desirable public parks (and often closely associated expensive condos), unlike, say Providence, Rhode Island, where the working harbor with alluring waterfront views have created headaches for would-be developers. They have learned that its hard to build a development on land that has current industrial value that supports established industry and a large workforce (this is part of why many parks were initially formed, they were viewed as "wasteland" or had unusuable grades or were otherwise viewed as unsuitable for other uses, but that's a very big digression).
Not all system acquisitions are smooth, or official. While Minneapolis doesn't have a large number of privately owned public spaces (the SkyWay and some indoor plazas might qualify, but I would need to do more research), there is the plaza/park at the new Downtown East development near the new Vikings stadium. Basically, it is a small area that would add some green space to the area, but would also be largely given over to use by the Vikings, NFL, and Stadium Authority. While funded by private funds, those funds are ultimately driven by tax incentives from the city and state as part of the larger redevelopment plan. Time will tell what the ultimate park looks like, with only a few months left before completion it is hard to tell what the final state will be. It does look safe to say that it won't be as good a deal for the city as it could have been though (as is true for almost every aspect of the stadium mess).
Finally, running parks is expensive. They require maintenance and upkeep, land must be acquired, programs must be run, buildings and equipment repaired. They also don't directly generate revenue for the city as they are public, non-taxable, and generate minimal revenues (even program fees often only partially offset the costs). However, they are an amenity that draw people to a city, particularly young professionals and other potential drivers of the tax base and they can also increase property values, another important factor in determining total city revenue. But periodically they must raise additional money, either from a general fund appropriation or from a levy (special or general). This could be related to an acquisition, the need to pay off bonds, or the desire to eliminate a backlog of work. In Minneapolis, the Park Board has sought to place a levy on the ballot for voter approval to raise $300 million dollars. While it seems like a large number, when spread out over the entire population and scaled to property values, it is a relatively small number, less than $28 on a $100,000 house. All to support maintaining the quality of the system. Why not just impose the levy unilaterally? Because the Park Board lacks that authority. Despite being an independent body, it does not control city property taxes and only has one vote on the committee that does. So it is forced to ask the city council for permission to ask the voters for permission. The city council could act without the voters, but it appears that even when it comes to supporting things as popular as parks (the last levy passed easily), the council would prefer to punt the issue to the ballot, unless it can get it to go away completely. I hope it passes. It would be a shame to see the system slip further behind in maintenance and upkeep and potentially endanger the continued expansion and improvement of the system.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
When the city "owns" part of your house...
I'll admit that the title of this post is a little bit misleading, but bear with me. One of my neighbors recently finished doing some work on updating his home to make it more livable and more energy efficient. He and his wife (and two children) were able to take advantage of a city program to rehabilitate and improve property owned by lower income families and individuals for things like energy efficiency, accessibility, and habitability. Using this program they were able to get a 0% interest loan (payable on sale or transfer and forgiven after 30 years of occupancy) to improve their basement into living space and blow insulation into their walls. This is a fantastic program by the city to find a way to improve the housing stock of the city, improve the living conditions of people who probably can't afford to update in even basic and worthwhile ways like this, and create incentives for residents to stay in an area, stabilizing neighborhoods. Those are all positive community outcomes. Who could object to better housing stock, more stable neighborhoods and communities, local reinvestment, and improved quality of life for those with lesser means. To me this sounds like a good piece of public policy for the city: relatively affordable, easy to administer, and with high impact on affected properties.
Enough background. While the city technically has a lien on his house now, as the holder of the secured loan attached to his property, that's not where I was going with this post. That's a standard mortgage/secured transaction issue and not particularly strange or worth commenting on. What was most notable about his improvement process was what he discovered during the permitting process for some of the interior work, especially electrical work, that was required. In Minnesota, there are several kinds of roads, each of which has its own way of being created and required size. The road in question here is a platted town road, specifically McKnight Road. A platted road is a road that has been recorded on a development plat and dedicated to the city or town for public use. It is also given a 66 foot easement (four rods), even though the paved surface of the road may (and likely does) take up far less space. This is to prevent the road from being obstructed, keep view lines clear, facilitate public access, and provide for maintenance strips. These rights of way are usually surveyed precisely based on the Public Land Survey System and recorded with the appropriate state or county office. And here is where the problem came in. Upon first glance, his house looks like almost any other house in the area. It is a similar style, size, and layout. It is situated in a similar place on its lot. But similar is the key.
When the addition that I live in was built in the 1960s, the houses were all variations on a few patterns and the streets were laid out in a similar way. It was all very organized and predictable. Except for my neighbor's house. When they sited his house, they made an error. It isn't noticeable at first, but if you know to look, you can see that it is clearly a few feet closer to McKnight than any other house. Literally all the other houses are set back a few extra feet. This is incredibly important, because those few extra feet put part of his garage, part of two bedrooms, and a tree in the right of way for McKnight. It's still his property, but it is subject to a road easement. This was discovered during the electrical permitting process and was quite a challenge. Few electricians wanted to do any work on a house that was, while privately owned, partially located on a city property interest (an easement is an interest in property, he still owns the land and house, but it is "encumbered" by the rights the city has to maintain the road). It also made it challenging to get a permit, because the city technically had to consent to allowing at least some of the work. Needless to say, it was a bureaucratic nightmare. I don't know how long it took, but they did eventually get a permit, the work was done and inspected, and his house is now much nicer, but it was far more trouble than it should have been. All because someone was a few feet careless fifty years ago.
City easements on private land can also have positive outcomes. The most noticeable of these is seen in the urban forestry departments of most major cities and their planting and maintenance of boulevard trees (those trees, located in the street right of way, in the grassy strip between the sidewalk and the pavement). The land might technically belong to the homeowner (sometimes it doesn't, though there's still a duty to shovel and mow), but the tree is usually city property. Cities are also very particular about what kinds of trees they want to plant, where they would like to plant them, and what size, shape, type, and distribution they are hoping to accomplish. They also concern themselves with creating particular aesthetics in a neighborhood with certain trees, removing trees that are subject to disease, planting trees that thrive in urban environments, and considering things like "messiness" that might accompany fruiting trees or sap shedders. They often come up with comprehensive plans that document strategies, objectives, and schedules that the public can use to understand the system and make requests. All of this to help administer the city's property that might be located on your land.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Farmland and Conservation
In much of the country, including here in Minnesota, farming is a major economic activity. It is also a major source of water pollution in the form of nutrient and sediment runoff as well as pesticide contamination. While farming is necessary to feed a nation, and large scale farming is generally more efficient at producing food than small scale production (as is the case with most industrial enterprises), the way it is often undertaken in this country, and in particular the way that it is practiced in the Midwest, South, and California, is highly problematic from environmental, nutritional, and economic perspectives.
The way one usually thinks about farming might go something like this: a farmer owns (or rents) some land, looks at what it can support and what crops or products (meat, eggs, milk, etc.) are in demand in the local or regional market, and then decides what to plant or grow. However, in this country we, with a few exceptions (see New England dairy farmers for example), have a very different system that is much more similar to industrial factories than to small family farms. Many are owned or operated by large land holders or corporations, and instead of producing a variety of crops, tend to produce one or two cash crops, often the big five (corn, soy, wheat, rice, cotton). Not surprisingly, there are subsidies involved, and they often provide the biggest benefit to the "farmers" that are already the largest and most profitable. It really creates a system of perverse incentives where marginal land is put into "production" just so that it can be counted as acreage for subsidy calculation, even if it is inappropriate for planting for ecological, hydrological, soil quality, or nutrient resources reasons. Needless to say, this is often disastrous for the environment, contributes to overproduction of empty calories in our food system, and reduces biological diversity from both habitat loss and the over-use of pesticides.
There is hope, however, at least at the margins. Some organizations are working to change farming practices voluntarily. The US Department of Agriculture works with land grant universities to develop research on agricultural practices, agrinomics, and other best practices that can be shared with farmers to help them learn better, scientifically backed ways of maintaining or improving farm production. Other organizations work to provide economic support or incentives for farmers to switch from traditional "because that's the way my grandfather did it" agricultural practices, some of which are counterproductive and many of which, such as fall application of fertilizer with no cover crop, are both counterproductive (and expensive/wasteful) and environmentally harmful. Falling crop prices have also caused some farmers to take marginal land that they had pulled from the program out of production and re-enroll it in the Conservation Reserve Program, a federally funded system of payments that compensates farmers on a sliding scale for not planting on land. The more productive the land, the higher the payments from the government. This provides an incentive for farmers to set aside areas for wildlife, grasses, trees, and flowers which improves habitat (including pollinator habitat) and provides the valuable ecosystem service of runoff filtration and sediment capture before it reaches waterways. While it is not a large program, it is very successful and has a long history of inducing farmers to set aside at least some lands for non-agricultural purposes. However, unlike a conservation easement, which becomes permanent once created, the program is voluntary and lands can be removed as grain prices change and farmers see more profit to be gained from planting again.
What else can be done besides imposing conservation easements, permanently buying land, making it harder to opt out of the CRP, or providing education on best practices and hoping farmers follow it? In Minnesota, one answer has been to use the state's police power and duty to regulate/provide clean water to create a statewide standard for agricultural buffer zones around bodies of water. The idea is that within a certain distance (50 feet) of public waterways, it will be illegal to plant crops or have other agricultural surface use that is not perennial cover (hay is acceptable). This program builds on existing state restrictions on agricultural property use, but creates a more uniform and enforceable standard and program that can be administered at either the local or state level (if the county is not doing what it is required to do). While this is a more direct control of private land than the education and incentive based methods discussed above, it is also far more wide-reaching and will likely have a substantial impact on the state's water quality and riparian habitat. Many farmers were already complying with these requirements, either by enforcement or because it was not worthwhile to produce on marginal, often wet (if not wetlands) land. This program will provide a way to ensure that the rest will come up to speed as well. While the actual buffer map has not yet been produced, the theoretical area to be covered will be quite extensive and might result in substantial improvements, especially in the heavily agricultural southwest portion of the state.
There has been one hitch, so far, in the implementation process for the standardized buffer requirement: while the 16 foot requirement for land bordering public ditches is currently under development, the process of assessing equivalent buffers for private ditches has been put on hold after some legislative hostage taking by the GOP in the state legislature. It had supported the initial creation of the program as part of a deal last spring, but is now claiming that this is beyond what was conceived and has threatened various public works projects if it is not stopped. While this is unfortunate, it might be resolved in the future with some deal making or, more likely, with the seating of a new legislature that does not include an obstructionist majority after the next election. At least the argument here is over whether the statute authorizes private ditch buffers and is not focused on the frivolous claim that the state can't regulate behavior on private land that affects public water ways. Under the federal Clean Water Act, Minnesota has a duty to ensure that its waters meet various usability, health, and safety requirements, and under its plenary police power, it has the ability to regulate conduct, including private conduct on private land, to see that its policies are followed and its interests furthered in support of the common good.
I don't know how well, the buffer zone project will work or what the ultimate effect will be (it's possible that it will be minimal if much land was already in compliance, or substantial if not). I suspect that there will be significant regional differences in impact, with heavily agricultural areas seeing the most improvement in water quality, but with some improvements seen throughout the state. I also hope, and am hopeful, that taking some areas out of production will lead to a rebound in birds and pollinator species that are currently struggling. That, however, is a bigger problem that this is only a small piece of. Increased riparian habitat will help, but food access and pesticide use will continue to present challenges. One step at a time, however. And this is a good one.
The way one usually thinks about farming might go something like this: a farmer owns (or rents) some land, looks at what it can support and what crops or products (meat, eggs, milk, etc.) are in demand in the local or regional market, and then decides what to plant or grow. However, in this country we, with a few exceptions (see New England dairy farmers for example), have a very different system that is much more similar to industrial factories than to small family farms. Many are owned or operated by large land holders or corporations, and instead of producing a variety of crops, tend to produce one or two cash crops, often the big five (corn, soy, wheat, rice, cotton). Not surprisingly, there are subsidies involved, and they often provide the biggest benefit to the "farmers" that are already the largest and most profitable. It really creates a system of perverse incentives where marginal land is put into "production" just so that it can be counted as acreage for subsidy calculation, even if it is inappropriate for planting for ecological, hydrological, soil quality, or nutrient resources reasons. Needless to say, this is often disastrous for the environment, contributes to overproduction of empty calories in our food system, and reduces biological diversity from both habitat loss and the over-use of pesticides.
There is hope, however, at least at the margins. Some organizations are working to change farming practices voluntarily. The US Department of Agriculture works with land grant universities to develop research on agricultural practices, agrinomics, and other best practices that can be shared with farmers to help them learn better, scientifically backed ways of maintaining or improving farm production. Other organizations work to provide economic support or incentives for farmers to switch from traditional "because that's the way my grandfather did it" agricultural practices, some of which are counterproductive and many of which, such as fall application of fertilizer with no cover crop, are both counterproductive (and expensive/wasteful) and environmentally harmful. Falling crop prices have also caused some farmers to take marginal land that they had pulled from the program out of production and re-enroll it in the Conservation Reserve Program, a federally funded system of payments that compensates farmers on a sliding scale for not planting on land. The more productive the land, the higher the payments from the government. This provides an incentive for farmers to set aside areas for wildlife, grasses, trees, and flowers which improves habitat (including pollinator habitat) and provides the valuable ecosystem service of runoff filtration and sediment capture before it reaches waterways. While it is not a large program, it is very successful and has a long history of inducing farmers to set aside at least some lands for non-agricultural purposes. However, unlike a conservation easement, which becomes permanent once created, the program is voluntary and lands can be removed as grain prices change and farmers see more profit to be gained from planting again.
What else can be done besides imposing conservation easements, permanently buying land, making it harder to opt out of the CRP, or providing education on best practices and hoping farmers follow it? In Minnesota, one answer has been to use the state's police power and duty to regulate/provide clean water to create a statewide standard for agricultural buffer zones around bodies of water. The idea is that within a certain distance (50 feet) of public waterways, it will be illegal to plant crops or have other agricultural surface use that is not perennial cover (hay is acceptable). This program builds on existing state restrictions on agricultural property use, but creates a more uniform and enforceable standard and program that can be administered at either the local or state level (if the county is not doing what it is required to do). While this is a more direct control of private land than the education and incentive based methods discussed above, it is also far more wide-reaching and will likely have a substantial impact on the state's water quality and riparian habitat. Many farmers were already complying with these requirements, either by enforcement or because it was not worthwhile to produce on marginal, often wet (if not wetlands) land. This program will provide a way to ensure that the rest will come up to speed as well. While the actual buffer map has not yet been produced, the theoretical area to be covered will be quite extensive and might result in substantial improvements, especially in the heavily agricultural southwest portion of the state.
There has been one hitch, so far, in the implementation process for the standardized buffer requirement: while the 16 foot requirement for land bordering public ditches is currently under development, the process of assessing equivalent buffers for private ditches has been put on hold after some legislative hostage taking by the GOP in the state legislature. It had supported the initial creation of the program as part of a deal last spring, but is now claiming that this is beyond what was conceived and has threatened various public works projects if it is not stopped. While this is unfortunate, it might be resolved in the future with some deal making or, more likely, with the seating of a new legislature that does not include an obstructionist majority after the next election. At least the argument here is over whether the statute authorizes private ditch buffers and is not focused on the frivolous claim that the state can't regulate behavior on private land that affects public water ways. Under the federal Clean Water Act, Minnesota has a duty to ensure that its waters meet various usability, health, and safety requirements, and under its plenary police power, it has the ability to regulate conduct, including private conduct on private land, to see that its policies are followed and its interests furthered in support of the common good.
I don't know how well, the buffer zone project will work or what the ultimate effect will be (it's possible that it will be minimal if much land was already in compliance, or substantial if not). I suspect that there will be significant regional differences in impact, with heavily agricultural areas seeing the most improvement in water quality, but with some improvements seen throughout the state. I also hope, and am hopeful, that taking some areas out of production will lead to a rebound in birds and pollinator species that are currently struggling. That, however, is a bigger problem that this is only a small piece of. Increased riparian habitat will help, but food access and pesticide use will continue to present challenges. One step at a time, however. And this is a good one.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Solar Works. Even in the North.
One of my primary interests in renewable energy. I'm particularly interested in solar photovoltaic energy (the kind with the panels), at both the residential and commercial scales. Here in Minnesota, we don't really have the kind of sun exposure required for some of the other forms (like those in the California and Arizona deserts that use mirrors to superheat molten salt), so solar panels are what we have.
There are some challenges that the solar industry faces here. We are very far north. The Twin Cities are at 45 degrees north and has a fairly cloudy outlook for much of the winter. It also gets a fair amount of snow. But that is not as big an obstacle as one might think. Germany has a similar cloud problem and is situated even farther north, yet it has used a combination of feed-in tariffs, incentives, and changes in the way energy is regulated and billed. This has led to a substantial growth in the solar sector. While it still relies on lignite coal (a very dirty fuel), it has shown that the proper economic, regulatory, and social conditions can lead to great success with solar in seemingly unlikely places. If they can do it there, we can do it here too. Panels can be cleared, and much snow melts or slips off due to the mounting angle. Increased panel efficiency has also allowed for more generation even on cloudy days. Besides, we have too good of a resource to pass up.
Fortunately, Minnesota's government has been proactive in pushing solar and other renewable energy development, including a strong statutory requirement for energy utilities with generation benchmarks for renewables and a separate solar-specific generation requirement. That, combined with the extension of the federal renewable energy investment tax credit (and the credit's revision to apply to projects begun, not online, by certain dates) mean Minnesota is on track for a big push into the solar photovoltaic realm. In fact, there are already a number of major projects that are getting quite far along in the development process including plans to partially power/offset electric use by Twin Cities Light Rail system and build a large solar farm to supply Xcel Energy.
The Chisago County solar development project is an exciting project in my opinion because it demonstrates several things: that solar can be produced even in the northeastern part of the state, that it is economically viable for the utility, and that it is economically valuable to the community (property taxes and lease income for solar are much higher than the going rates for agriculture in that marginal growing part of the state). Still, not everyone is happy. Some residents that were surrounded by solar leases had their homes bought out by the developers, but others who merely bordered it, or were boxed in on the sides by different developments, have been complaining. They weren't offered buyouts and are concerned about views. I tend to agree that they won't be much affected, especially with the planting and maintenance of a tree buffer, and the arrays are not noisy, polluting, or disruptive, so physical impairment of the use and enjoyment of their land should be minimal to none. It seems to me that this is another case of NIMBY-ism, though slightly more justified than the irrational windmill haters opposed to the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts. Still, they do have some marginal affect on their property interest (in their community's nature and their potential views, they seem to discount how panels can be interesting to watch, especially tracking ones, and the potential for increased birds and insects in the soon to be non-agriculture plant growth surrounding the panels). It is also not even clear that being near a solar project will harm property values because none of the area houses have yet been offered for sale, let alone sold on open market. This would bear watching in the future as a test, but there are lots of other factors that would need to be examined as well to tease out the possible effects of the solar site.
Other anti-solar movements, posing as neighborhood concern, have appeared in Sherburne County, where residents are trying to push a setback for solar arrays to hundreds of feet, essentially rendering the project uneconomical and killing it. While it is reasonable to have larger zoning setbacks when residential and commercial/industrial uses meet, it is not rational to push it to such an extent that a non-invasive, non-harmful, non-polluting use becomes impossible (i.e. it's not like they are building a loud, noisy, dusty, polluting cement factory). I don't know what direction the county zoning board will go, but I do hope that they opt for a number that still enables development of solar projects of sufficient size to be economical for the developer and meaningful for the state's energy needs.
Finally, there is the issue of residential solar development. Some people can't put panels on their home because they rent, have an apartment, or have an unsuitable roof type or orientation. For them, the solution is to buy a share in a community solar garden. This is a Minnesota specific (so far as I can tell) solution whereby a person or entity buys a share of the power from a third party solar development that can then be applied toward his/her/its energy bill. This expands access to solar greatly, helps create a market for solar energy, and provides financing for additional development. For those who do have the financing, site suitability, and space for hosting their own solar, there are many programs and incentives for financing them including tax rebates, exemptions from property tax for the value of solar panels, and other possible incentives that vary by municipality. Financing can also often be achieved using PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) programs, where the cost of the array is added to the property tax assessment and paid off in installments at low interest over a number of years. And, to ensure that changes in the neighborhood don't impede established solar, Minnesota has created a statutory solar easement (there might be a common law one as well, but I'm not sure about Minnesota, other states definitely do) that guarantees a right to the sun for properly described panels, including the right to restrict the use of neighboring land that might impair that right.
As a fun thought experiment, I also pondered whether such a solar easement (express or implied) would be a property right subject to eminent domain. I believe it is because under a line of Supreme Court cases, while there is no longer a right to the sky infinitely, there is a right to as much of the sky as can reasonably be used by the occupant on the ground. This prevents airplanes (except low flying ones) from being trespassers, but it does create a right to build tall buildings, windmills, geothermal plants, gas flares, and other structures and developments that might require large amounts of overhead clearance. It also almost certainly would include a right to unimpeded access to the sun for an existing solar array (of any form) or solar heating element. If a neighbor built in a way that harmed it, that neighbor would be damaging your interest and you could likely enforce your easement (especially if recorded). If the government built in a similar way, it would have to compensate you, though what that compensation would ultimately consist of I couldn't begin to guess. There are so many things that could be considered (value of panels, value of the energy, value of future production, etc.) that it would be quite an interesting fight, one that would surely make it into textbooks, lecture circuits, and conferences around the country. I don't think it's happened yet, but with the amount of growth we are seeing in the solar industry, it's only a matter of time.
So, solar is a growth industry, and it's even growing here, in the seemingly unlikely northern state of Minnesota. We may not have the non-stop desert sun of Arizona and Southern California, but we do have an excellent resource and are only beginning to tap into its potential.
There are some challenges that the solar industry faces here. We are very far north. The Twin Cities are at 45 degrees north and has a fairly cloudy outlook for much of the winter. It also gets a fair amount of snow. But that is not as big an obstacle as one might think. Germany has a similar cloud problem and is situated even farther north, yet it has used a combination of feed-in tariffs, incentives, and changes in the way energy is regulated and billed. This has led to a substantial growth in the solar sector. While it still relies on lignite coal (a very dirty fuel), it has shown that the proper economic, regulatory, and social conditions can lead to great success with solar in seemingly unlikely places. If they can do it there, we can do it here too. Panels can be cleared, and much snow melts or slips off due to the mounting angle. Increased panel efficiency has also allowed for more generation even on cloudy days. Besides, we have too good of a resource to pass up.
Fortunately, Minnesota's government has been proactive in pushing solar and other renewable energy development, including a strong statutory requirement for energy utilities with generation benchmarks for renewables and a separate solar-specific generation requirement. That, combined with the extension of the federal renewable energy investment tax credit (and the credit's revision to apply to projects begun, not online, by certain dates) mean Minnesota is on track for a big push into the solar photovoltaic realm. In fact, there are already a number of major projects that are getting quite far along in the development process including plans to partially power/offset electric use by Twin Cities Light Rail system and build a large solar farm to supply Xcel Energy.
The Chisago County solar development project is an exciting project in my opinion because it demonstrates several things: that solar can be produced even in the northeastern part of the state, that it is economically viable for the utility, and that it is economically valuable to the community (property taxes and lease income for solar are much higher than the going rates for agriculture in that marginal growing part of the state). Still, not everyone is happy. Some residents that were surrounded by solar leases had their homes bought out by the developers, but others who merely bordered it, or were boxed in on the sides by different developments, have been complaining. They weren't offered buyouts and are concerned about views. I tend to agree that they won't be much affected, especially with the planting and maintenance of a tree buffer, and the arrays are not noisy, polluting, or disruptive, so physical impairment of the use and enjoyment of their land should be minimal to none. It seems to me that this is another case of NIMBY-ism, though slightly more justified than the irrational windmill haters opposed to the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts. Still, they do have some marginal affect on their property interest (in their community's nature and their potential views, they seem to discount how panels can be interesting to watch, especially tracking ones, and the potential for increased birds and insects in the soon to be non-agriculture plant growth surrounding the panels). It is also not even clear that being near a solar project will harm property values because none of the area houses have yet been offered for sale, let alone sold on open market. This would bear watching in the future as a test, but there are lots of other factors that would need to be examined as well to tease out the possible effects of the solar site.
Other anti-solar movements, posing as neighborhood concern, have appeared in Sherburne County, where residents are trying to push a setback for solar arrays to hundreds of feet, essentially rendering the project uneconomical and killing it. While it is reasonable to have larger zoning setbacks when residential and commercial/industrial uses meet, it is not rational to push it to such an extent that a non-invasive, non-harmful, non-polluting use becomes impossible (i.e. it's not like they are building a loud, noisy, dusty, polluting cement factory). I don't know what direction the county zoning board will go, but I do hope that they opt for a number that still enables development of solar projects of sufficient size to be economical for the developer and meaningful for the state's energy needs.
Finally, there is the issue of residential solar development. Some people can't put panels on their home because they rent, have an apartment, or have an unsuitable roof type or orientation. For them, the solution is to buy a share in a community solar garden. This is a Minnesota specific (so far as I can tell) solution whereby a person or entity buys a share of the power from a third party solar development that can then be applied toward his/her/its energy bill. This expands access to solar greatly, helps create a market for solar energy, and provides financing for additional development. For those who do have the financing, site suitability, and space for hosting their own solar, there are many programs and incentives for financing them including tax rebates, exemptions from property tax for the value of solar panels, and other possible incentives that vary by municipality. Financing can also often be achieved using PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) programs, where the cost of the array is added to the property tax assessment and paid off in installments at low interest over a number of years. And, to ensure that changes in the neighborhood don't impede established solar, Minnesota has created a statutory solar easement (there might be a common law one as well, but I'm not sure about Minnesota, other states definitely do) that guarantees a right to the sun for properly described panels, including the right to restrict the use of neighboring land that might impair that right.
As a fun thought experiment, I also pondered whether such a solar easement (express or implied) would be a property right subject to eminent domain. I believe it is because under a line of Supreme Court cases, while there is no longer a right to the sky infinitely, there is a right to as much of the sky as can reasonably be used by the occupant on the ground. This prevents airplanes (except low flying ones) from being trespassers, but it does create a right to build tall buildings, windmills, geothermal plants, gas flares, and other structures and developments that might require large amounts of overhead clearance. It also almost certainly would include a right to unimpeded access to the sun for an existing solar array (of any form) or solar heating element. If a neighbor built in a way that harmed it, that neighbor would be damaging your interest and you could likely enforce your easement (especially if recorded). If the government built in a similar way, it would have to compensate you, though what that compensation would ultimately consist of I couldn't begin to guess. There are so many things that could be considered (value of panels, value of the energy, value of future production, etc.) that it would be quite an interesting fight, one that would surely make it into textbooks, lecture circuits, and conferences around the country. I don't think it's happened yet, but with the amount of growth we are seeing in the solar industry, it's only a matter of time.
So, solar is a growth industry, and it's even growing here, in the seemingly unlikely northern state of Minnesota. We may not have the non-stop desert sun of Arizona and Southern California, but we do have an excellent resource and are only beginning to tap into its potential.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Reboot!
So, it's been a long time since I last published. This is due to a number of personal and professional reasons that I don't really want to get into, but there have been a lot of changes in my life. I got married, bought a house, and returned to school for another graduate degree. This time I am studying GIS (Geographic Information Science) at the University of Minnesota. My goal in this is to develop a strong analytical and technical skill set that I can combine with my legal training and policy knowledge to build a more successful and interesting career in land management/use, natural resources policy, environmental law, consulting, or renewable energy development.
I'm enjoying my return to academia (while also continuing to work). It's good being able to use my brain for things I'm actually interested in and to explore the realm of facts and ideas in a way that isn't just keeping it to myself or a small conversation group. I suppose that's why I initially started this blog, but things happen. I'm back now, though! So that's something.
Picking up on the school theme, that is the primary driver behind my return to active blogging. It hasn't been a lack of interest or ideas, just a combination of time, in person conversations with people substituting for posting on the same topic, and a few other obstacles that are no long relevant. Plus, one of my classes this semester is called Geography and Real Estate and one of the project options for it is to develop a blog about property and land issues in Minnesota. Well, I already have a blog and it is already largely focused on land and environmental issues. Why not discuss property as well? Property issues are really just another type of land use decision and all land use decisions are fundamentally environmental decisions. The built environment is just as much a part of our world and has just as strong an impact on people's health and well-being (possibly more if one never is able to leave the city), so I don't think I need to redirect or rededicate the blog's original purpose. And even if I did, it's my blog, so I can do it if I want to.
So here's a recap/reintroduction/summary of what I hope to accomplish for new users (Hello Professor Squires!), repeat users (Hello Russian Search Engine Redirects, for some reason), and various webcrawling scripts:
I have a background in environmental history and science and have a degree in law with a focus on environmental and natural resources law with a particular interest in land use and resource management policy. This blog is really dedicated to exploring the social, environmental, political, economic, and occasionally philosophical aspects of news items, events, and scientific discoveries/announcements that in some was relate to public lands or the human environment (so, everything). I generally pull post ideas from the national media, though I do sometimes find local stories with a good hook (not hard being based in Minnesota, though they aren't always derived from here) or do research on general themes that I have been pondering for a while and decided to write up. I also like to write up summaries and reviews of parks that I visit, hence the name (there are a few that I've got coming, but I don't think I'll be doing all the ones I've been to since my last posting).
That's enough of an introduction for now. If you want to learn more about my thoughts and interests, please read through my posting history, it's not that long, or wait a few days. I've got more posts coming soon. It's for academic credit, so you know this time the promise has some heft!
I'm enjoying my return to academia (while also continuing to work). It's good being able to use my brain for things I'm actually interested in and to explore the realm of facts and ideas in a way that isn't just keeping it to myself or a small conversation group. I suppose that's why I initially started this blog, but things happen. I'm back now, though! So that's something.
Picking up on the school theme, that is the primary driver behind my return to active blogging. It hasn't been a lack of interest or ideas, just a combination of time, in person conversations with people substituting for posting on the same topic, and a few other obstacles that are no long relevant. Plus, one of my classes this semester is called Geography and Real Estate and one of the project options for it is to develop a blog about property and land issues in Minnesota. Well, I already have a blog and it is already largely focused on land and environmental issues. Why not discuss property as well? Property issues are really just another type of land use decision and all land use decisions are fundamentally environmental decisions. The built environment is just as much a part of our world and has just as strong an impact on people's health and well-being (possibly more if one never is able to leave the city), so I don't think I need to redirect or rededicate the blog's original purpose. And even if I did, it's my blog, so I can do it if I want to.
So here's a recap/reintroduction/summary of what I hope to accomplish for new users (Hello Professor Squires!), repeat users (Hello Russian Search Engine Redirects, for some reason), and various webcrawling scripts:
I have a background in environmental history and science and have a degree in law with a focus on environmental and natural resources law with a particular interest in land use and resource management policy. This blog is really dedicated to exploring the social, environmental, political, economic, and occasionally philosophical aspects of news items, events, and scientific discoveries/announcements that in some was relate to public lands or the human environment (so, everything). I generally pull post ideas from the national media, though I do sometimes find local stories with a good hook (not hard being based in Minnesota, though they aren't always derived from here) or do research on general themes that I have been pondering for a while and decided to write up. I also like to write up summaries and reviews of parks that I visit, hence the name (there are a few that I've got coming, but I don't think I'll be doing all the ones I've been to since my last posting).
That's enough of an introduction for now. If you want to learn more about my thoughts and interests, please read through my posting history, it's not that long, or wait a few days. I've got more posts coming soon. It's for academic credit, so you know this time the promise has some heft!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)