Anchorage Daily News-  July 21, 2007

 

Make Anchorage an opportunity city

By Paula Easley

 

ew zoning and design standards are being considered to guide development in Midtown. With that in mind, I wondered if recent findings of well-known demographers and urban studies experts — Wendell Cox, Joel Kotkin, Richard Florida and Randal O'Toole — might apply to this important area.

Their studies analyze housing costs, job and domestic population migration, land uses, zoning, traffic congestion and other community information. From their research, the experts can recommend strategies to help cities reverse population and job losses and accommodate growth.

Outside Alaska, housing affordability has become the key determinant of individual and corporate location decisions. "Superstar" cities (think Los Angeles, San Diego, New York, Miami) are too costly for most of us. Less than 5 percent of Los Angeles households can afford a median-priced home. California cities, with America's strictest land-use rules, have the least affordable housing of any state. Companies unable to find workers or expansion room there continue to move away.

Since 1950, 93 percent of metropolitan population growth has been in the suburbs. If a community can't offer a suburban home, a yard and a short work commute, residents tend to seek jobs elsewhere. To discourage out-migration from Anchorage-Eagle River to the Mat-Su valleys and to prepare for future growth, the city might well consider making more land available for housing, transportation and commerce.

Factors elevating housing costs include land rationing, taxes, zoning and amenity requirements, infrastructure/mitigation fees, lengthy permit processes, and a culture of government control. Sadly, Anchorage has not performed cost/benefit analyses of its land-use policies or the long-term implications of escalating housing costs.

Planning policies can have unintended consequences. High-cost Portland's once-admired "smart growth" restrictions to increase urban density and transit ridership have resulted in a population exodus to Vancouver, Wash., and other Oregon communities. Between 1990 and 2000, Portland grew by 21 percent, but Beaverton and Gresham grew more (30 percent and 40 percent); Vancouver, Wash., grew by 210 percent.

Housing affordability studies confirm that areas with the least regulatory and land supply restrictions have the lowest home prices. Some of these are Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati,Detroit, Dallas-Fort Worth, Kansas City, St. Louis, Houston and Atlanta.

Anchorage is unlikely to become a "superstar" or "creative-class" city in coming decades, but it has other possibilities. Joel Kotkin, author of "Opportunity Urbanism: An Emerging Paradigm for the 21st Century" (available online and worth reading), coined the term "opportunity city" to represent an urban concept that seems a good fit for Anchorage.

An opportunity city works to accelerate the upward social and economic mobility of its inhabitants. It is friendly and open to outsiders of all education levels, skills, races and ethnic groups. It seeks a diverse, entrepreneurial economy, "a commitment to continued infrastructure development (particularly mobility), and a basically positive attitude toward growth," according to Kotkin.

It's ironic that Houston, most reviled for its lack of zoning, qualifies as an opportunity city. It is said to have the highest living standards and lowest living costs of any large metropolitan area. (Someone earning $100,000 in New York can attain the same living standards in Houston on only $42,110.) Houston is unique in its reliance on voluntary deed restrictions to keep most land-use rules focused at the neighborhood level, thus avoiding the oppressive "culture of government control."

Traffic congestion clearly affects a community's livability and opportunity climate. Higher fuel costs and congestion negatively affect operating costs of businesses (and individuals). Wise transportation infrastructure investments can mitigate these costs and greatly improve productivity.

The less people spend for the mortgage, food, transportation, utilities, health care and taxes, the more discretionary income they have. It is discretionary spending that supports the arts, restaurants, entertainment, sports, shops, museums, new businesses, etc.

No community can be perfect, but that shouldn't keep us from trying. The best way to advance opportunity in Midtown is to keep the most options open for its future development.

Paula Easley, an Anchorage public policy consultant, serves on the Resource Development Council's board of directors. E-mail her at paulaeasley@yahoo.com.

* * *