News from Patrick Flynn

Zoning, and enforcement thereof, are amongst the primary functions of local government but the issues stemming therefrom are some of the most complicated faced by residents and local officials alike.  At the heart of most disagreements is the age-old conflict between individual and community rights.  Put another way, “it’s my land and I can do what I want to,” versus, “how can you allow that guy to disrupt our neighborhood?”  And sins of the past, like sub-standard or non-existent planning, only exacerbate present challenges.  A good example in our community are industrial lands that abut residential areas.  The latter tend to be noisy, the former tend to seek peace and quiet, and the lack of a commercial- or park-land buffer results in a plethora of hard feelings.

Unto this breach bravely steps the Assembly’s Title 21 committee (I am not a member).  Title 21 refers to the section of Anchorage Municipal Code that governs land use, defining land as residential, commercial or industrial and sub-dividing those categories further to define the density and intensity of activities that can take place.  Also included are requirements for parking, landscaping, appearance, lot coverage, and so on.  Title 21 is (hopefully) nearing the end of a substantial re-write, aimed at implementing Anchorage’s 2020 Comprehensive Plan.  It’s been a long process providing an interesting look at different viewpoints on development.

Initial drafts of various Title 21 chapters have been promulgated by the MOA’s Planning department.  Those drafts are what the Title 21 committee reviews with representatives from various interest groups present to offer their perspectives.  Development interests, like the Anchorage Home Builders Association and the Building Owners & Managers Association, generally feel the drafts place too many burdens upon development which, from their point of view, risks making development uneconomic (e.g. the cost of building a new home would force pricing too high for most potential buyers).  Community planning advocates, like the Anchorage Citizens Coalition, generally support the drafts or want to see them strengthened to encourage things like attractive neighborhoods, mixed-use development and use of non-motorized & mass transportation.  Based on what I’ve seen when the committee-amended drafts come before the full Assembly for provisional approval, both viewpoints include sincerely-held beliefs as to the best way to continue improvements to our community but there is significant divergence of opinion on how to achieve those goals.  The Assembly gets to referee – sounds like fun, right?

And then it gets all confused.  Concurrent with the Title 21 re-write are the development of a series of district plans that focus on specific areas of town and how they will develop.  One of these, the Midtown District Plan, has generated considerable consternation within the development community.  Thus was the circumstance when BOMA hosted a luncheon on Friday, February 12, with three development-oriented panelists discussing their perspective on the Title 21 re-write.  I wasn’t able to attend but in speaking with one of my colleagues who was present, is intimately familiar with Title 21 efforts and somewhat sympathetic to developers’ concerns, it seems quite a bit of misinformation flowed.  Even one of the panelists later offered a mea culpa in a subsequent e-mail to Assembly members:

Anchorage Assembly Members and Director Weaver,

I want to personally thank all of you for coming to BOMA’s luncheon today.  I appreciate the thankless time and efforts that all of you put forth in steering Anchorage.  I understand that this can be a very tough and challenging affair because you have to look at the big picture in making decisions.

The intent for today’s luncheon was to inform BOMA’s constituents of the ramifications of the new Title 21 Rewrite and what specifically it will mean to them.  As you can imagine this has been a very hot topic within our organization and many really wanted to understand exactly how it would impact them.  In doing so, I tried to give specific examples from the code and reframe (sic) from conjecture.

However, I am afraid that the meeting took on a little bit of a “bash the Title 21 Rewrite” theme.  This was not our intent, and not my intent.  I want to apologize for any actions that I took that contributed to this.  I know that many of you have worked the Title 21 Rewrite for many years and I appreciate your efforts.  On a positive note, at least the luncheon has incited discussion about this very important topic.

Thank you again for attending.  I appreciate your time and efforts in all that you do for Anchorage

Even without the above e-mail I knew things went a little off-kilter when a couple of my neighbors, who own commercial land in Midtown, called to express concerns about “down zoning” (changing future use of property from, for example, commercial to residential, which reduces its value) in the Title 21 re-write.  While down zoning is proposed in some of the district plans it is not part of the Title 21 re-write and, in any event, district plans also receive significant Assembly review prior to approval and implementation.  That said, property owners affected by the Midtown district plan have legitimate concerns so I’d already requested that the administration schedule a work session on the draft Midtown District Plan to provide Assembly members with additional information.

This returns us to my opening point; whether it’s an unruly neighbor or future planning zoning is a primary, and challenging, aspect of local governance.

Regards,

Patrick Flynn

P.S. Shortly after I authored this post articles on similar subjects appeared in the Daily News and the Anchorage Press.  If this topic interests you please follow the hyperlinks to learn more!