Members' 25-Year Reminiscences

Wolf D. Ascher, AICP

Simi Valley, California

The following are excerpts from My Planning Story.

A traveler came upon three workmen who worked alongside each other laying brick. He asked the first bricklayer, "What are you building?" And he responded, "I am building a wall." He then asked the second the same question, and he replied, "I am building a cathedral." He then turned to the third bricklayer and asked him, "And what are you building?" And the third bricklayer said, "I am building a great city!" (Paraphrased from something I read years ago.)

That sums it up for planning. The type of workman you want to be is up to you. However, if you decide to build a great city, expect a lot of pigeons hovering overhead.

I sometimes fantasize about what I would require for statewide development standards if I were appointed State of California Planning Czar. To begin with, I would, on the first day of sitting on my throne, prohibit al at-grade (ground level) parking. All parking for commercial, industrial, and multi-family projects would require subterranean parking or a separate parking structure. You may argue that would be cost-prohibitive. If all property owners with land to sell know of the prohibition of at-grade parking, the selling price of the land would be adjusted accordingly. If the project did not pencil out with high land costs, the selling price would have to come down or there would be no project. Besides, you can cover a site much more effectively if 60% of the area is not devoted exclusively to parking automobiles. I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and profiteering in gold coins, paintings by Van Gogh, vintage bathtubs, etc. is fair game. Profiteering through vacant land sales is in a different category. I do not know how to preclude it, so the best policy is to set high standards and let them be known by all.

On the second day of my Czardom, I would give all cities 25 years to underground all the low voltage lines, getting rid of those ugly power poles. In my generosity, I would further give cities 50 years to eliminate the high voltage stuff.

On the third day, I would promulgate that all commercial and industrial projects add a minimum of one story above the project suitable for residential use. What a waste of land to have one-story shopping centers with 60% of the land devoted to parking cars, with no one living there.

On the fourth day, I would set maximum standards for commercial signs. No freestanding sign over six feet in height, no on-building signs mounted higher than 15 feet from abutting grade. Lashing with a cat-o'-nine-tails for anyone displaying balloons, banners, pennants, grotesque inflatable advertising in the form of gorillas or sharks or other displays of that sort.

On the fifth day, I would mandate that all newspaper racks be enclosed in decorative enclosures, designed consistent with the theme of any adjacent building. In order not to raise a constitutional question, the city would be required to design, construct, and pay for the enclosures. Shopping centers would have to pay for enclosures, but to compensate them for that expense, the enclosures would be allowed to reflect and advertise the theme of the center.

On the sixth day, I would require all City Council members, Planning Commissioners, City Managers, and Planning Directors to spend three weeks touring Western Europe. They would not be allowed to return and perform their functions until completing an organized tour, where they would lean how Europe solves its land-use problems. Do not get me wrong. Europe is not perfect. The fact, however, is that Europe has had a more than 1,000-year head start on us in building cities and it is stupid not to learn from them. I think it is pride that keeps us from acknowledging that fact. Currently in seminars, we hear the following "new" concepts being discussed under these headings:

1. Smart Growth
2. Sustainable Cities
3. Livable Cities
4. Whole System Thinking
5. Mixed Land Use
6. Neo-Traditional Planning
7. Thinking Outside the Box
8. New Urbanism

All of the above is simply describing, more or less, the European model. Whether we like it or not, we are going in that direction, and we might as well learn the good and the bad stuff so we do not repeat Europe's mistakes, but only incorporate the good.

On the seventh day, which should have been my day of rest, I would be deposed or assassinated. Very sad ending.

Another reason for my despair with planning is that I have come to the realization that property rights, a basic right that we enjoy, may be in conflict with good planning. That is really the bottom line. Look at how the system works:

A Mr. Smith (a fictitious person I made up) buys a piece of property — let's say for $10,000 — that is zoned for low-density residential use that permits only two units to the acre. He applies to his city council to change the general plan to allow high density at 15 units to the acre. As justification for the change to 7.5 times the previous density, he mumbles under his breath that he wants to build senior citizen units equipped with handicapped access. In addition, he wants to build apartments for rent at affordable rates, including housing for unwed mothers, recovering alcoholics, and all those good things.

Mr. Smith is approached by Mr. Brown (another fictitious person) and is offered $100,000 for the property. Mr. Smith takes the money and runs to Hawaii to live happily ever after. Mr. Brown really wants to build those units, and he applies to the city for permits. When he is requested to put clay tiles on the roof, carports with matching roof materials, to include a full-time caretaker facility, large trees, or some other basic amenities, he counters that for the units to rent at less than market rate, he can't afford all that. Of course he cannot afford all that! He paid ten times as much for the land than Mr. Smith did.

That's a questionable system, but it is the way free enterprise works. I believe that land is a different thing than an antique automobile or a painting. For those items, whatever the market bears is fair. Land is different and maybe ought to be excluded from full free-market forces.

I understand that in some European countries, if the need for affordable housing is identified, the land is condemned. It is bought at a fair price for land zoned at two units to the acre or at farmland prices, whatever the case may be. The jurisdiction then puts in the streets, the sewers, and the whole infrastructure, including extending public transportation. It then sells the land at a price to cover its expenses, and with binding specifications that the developer must met when he builds the units. Through that method, the jurisdiction gets exactly what it wants, the developer can still make money, but the windfall profit is removed. Our laws specifically preclude that. It is time to look at that whole issue and maybe realize that land is different from your old refrigerator or stamp collection.

In conclusion, I have to be very careful in all my criticism, for I am foreign born, as you can readily detect by my slight accent as you read this. It is easy to confront someone like me with, "If you don't like it here, why don't you go back where you came from?" But I love this country that has given me so much. So any of the above criticism is in the same spirit as that of a parent chastising his kids. He still loves them but wants them to be perfect.

Ah, if only everyone saw things the way I do. Where are those magic glasses?