Growing 'Carrots and Sticks' and 'Edible Landscaping'

As if I really need to remind you, this discussion is my personal opinion and does not represent the opinion or position of the City of Dallas or any people within it - including the Chief Arborist. These are only my personal thoughts and suggestions as a citizen and should be read as such.

In the early 2000's, the eyes of Dallas-area developers were looking hungrily upon the Southern Sector. Acre after acre of 'raw land' (a term I use begrudgingly) was looked upon for rapid single-family development due to its relatively cheap property value as compared to anything further north of Interstate 30. Large wooded tracts were purchased, and then platted and permitted for growth and housing expansion. Of course, this was much needed housing (?), that was, perhaps, close to being 'affordable.' It's really difficult to say how 'affordable' and for whom since the 'no-money-down' gnomes around the country were throwing rainbows and pots of gold everywhere. If the developments began early enough, many of the them managed to get completed before the big economic drop-off started a couple of years ago. Many of those builder companies that got caught in the downfall are, today, not fairing so well - if at all.

The design of most of the developments followed the usual 'cookie-cutter' approach with little or no attempt to preserve, or conserve, woodland areas. The city's attempts to encourage land conservation through conservation easements (a platting ordinance item that was placed in the 'tree preservation' ordinance in 2003 to encourage land conservation) met with limited success as they were usually the 'left-overs' or scraps that got turned into the easements. The whole concept was foreign to most developers (and, arguably, still is) who would gallantly jump into a land purchase or contract due to the low cost of the property without first finding out the potential tree mitigation costs that would be built in to their costs for building in Dallas. It's an eye-opener when you find out the tree mitigation costs are higher than what you just paid for the land. An engineer would be promptly put to the task of finding the easiest way to put in as many lots as possible, as if on a cutting board, before anyone knew what was even on the property. Slopes? Bah! That's the purpose of retaining walls.

There have been complaints from the housing industry that the city's tree ordinance has chased off many potential builders. Of course, this admonishment from the building sector is a tinge of hope for the 'forest advocates' who believe that the city's tree ordinance has chased off many potential builders. As Obi-Wan Kenobi once said, "...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." I've never understood how you could create an incentive to protect trees any greater than "if you don't remove it, you don't mitigate for it." That concept is a tough one to get across for a dozer-laden development. It's an easy sell for a conservation development.

As usual, I try to see the middle ground. Yes, there is a need for housing, and the necessary regulation can be devastating to the unwary - and even the wary - builder. No, you don't have to wipe out everything on the property to maximize what you perceive to be the best profit potential, although the 'old school' of slash and burn development might say otherwise. The impact of a development does not stop or start at the platted line. Ignorance, or lack of imagination, is not an argument against conservation development (or variations of) where you can often find the higher profitability of woodside lots and large community open spaces - even in 'low-dollar' subdivisions. If you have to clear the site completely, with some exceptions, you haven't tried hard enough to accomodate the community you are serving. Speed building is usually not good building. Planning, and consulting with authorities and designers, is a good thing.

Builders across the country, including here in Dallas, are learning how to address land conservation, the needs of the community, and their own bottom-line without having to make large sacrifices in the process. The effort has to be comprehensive and well-planned out and, of course, you have to find the right market. If you find the right allies, who are readily willing to assist any builder looking to do better, it shouldn't be that hard. Forest advocates must also recognize that new homes are a necessity for a growing population, are not built for free, and are not without a significant amount of investment and risk by the developer who is paying, up front, a hefty amount to just provide the infrastructure for the lots.

As it is with any crisis, the current economy provides everyone the opportunity to size up where we go from here. Assuming there is a recovery, how do we come out the other side? How and where will we build the new homes for the next generation? Will we learn from our mistakes of the past, or will we continue to keep marching to the same old drummer until his arms finally just fall off? But the burden should not be placed solely on the builders. It is imperative that every citizen who is in the market begin to learn and understand that 'the carrot' (the incentive) is nothing if it's dried up and shriveled and not recognizable. WE need to consider our options for continuous sustainable growth in Dallas. If WE are not willing to buy into the incentive, how are they going to use it to attract you to their development?

It's time to start thinking outside the box. There are ways of attracting builders and buyers that may not always be obvious. People are changing. The society is learning that it must make drastic societal changes for the long-term. These are not bad things. Consider that we might push for most new developments to be built on previously developed blocks, or infill. The infrastructure exists already and just needs to be upgraded. These places are within the city's operational centers and transit systems. It builds interest in the community and ties neighborhoods together. We should consider building in rather than out. The new residential subdivisions that have been constructed this decade in the southern sector, and are sitting mostly empty, are waiting for new builders to come in and begin the construction of new homes. The lots are empty, the trees are gone. Build upon what has already been cleared and avoid finding new places to vacate its wildness needlessly. Where there are new opportunities, work with conceptual designs and planners to determine the best way to provide new development with the minimum impact on sensitive land areas.

I mentioned earlier the concept of conservation development. This is nothing new and is a concept spreading quickly across the country. But let's look at another idea for open spaces and conservation design in subdivisions that could include community agriculture. Alec Appelbaum wrote a recent article in the New York Times about using "Organic Farms As Subdivision Amenities." Across the nation, there are at least 200 subdivision projects that include agriculture as a major amenity component, according to Ed McMahon, a senior fellow with the Urban Land Institute.

“....Open space improves the return for a developer,” Mr. McMahon said. “We have 16,000 subdivisions around golf courses, where developers found they could charge a lot premium of 25 to 50 percent over comparable tract subdivision. But most people who live on golf courses do not play golf.”

The latest variation on this is blending in working agriculture, Mr. McMahon said. Living with a farm, he noted, can bring a buyer permanent views, wholesome activities for children, access to walking and riding trails and inclusion in an epicurean club.

Here in South Burlington, David Scheuer, a developer, runs a firm called Retrovest that specializes in pedestrian-friendly subdivisions. He is adapting the Prairie Crossing model with a 220-acre project called South Village, where he eventually hopes to sell 334 homes at prices of $200,000 to nearly $700,000.

A 16-acre segment of the property, which was not previously used for farming, is now producing lettuce, garlic and other crops, which are harvested for sale to homeowners and others from the area who have joined a local community-supported agriculture group. “Agriculture can be the caboose on the train,” Mr. Scheuer said, “and housing can be the engine.” Once he is selling 20 homes a year, he said, he hopes to pay the salary of a full-time farmer.

.... Farm-focused developers must juggle financing a few houses at a time with cultivating crops on a yearly cycle, so many rent farmland to professionals.

Mr. Scheuer hired David Miskell, a veteran Vermont organic farmer with a white beard, to help convert the property’s damaged soil. Working organically, which Mr. Miskell translates to “a lot of manure,” he and two hired farmers replenished the soil with enough nitrogen to grow greens, root crops and sunflowers this year. “Upfront costs are high to build fertility, but I doubt they are any higher than any golf course,” Mr. Miskell said. “Mainly, we are growing healthy organic food for healthy homeowners.”

... But developers stress that their housing units should stand on their own for the idea of the farm-as-amenity to click.

Mr. Scheuer, driving around a competing subdivision with nondescript open space, is convinced that despite the work that goes into a farm, it adds real value to a development. Scoffing at the look of the traditional development, he said, “If I have to do this to make money, I’ll find some other way to spend my time.”

Perhaps our North Texas culture may not be ready for these concepts, but we should at least be ready to explore new ideas as this to try make them work. There are various ways to utilize open space through either the preservation of trees, through open tall grass prairies, or perhaps, in the amenity of open community farmland. If we work at it, we might find other ideas.

We need to look with a broad focus at all ideas for sustainable development and ways to mitigate for the removal of trees. Nature is a complex web of systems and we do not do it any favors by limiting our imaginations or regulatory powers to shallow concepts that are barely understood.

As for land areas that have been developed and still mostly bare of houses, let's look at how we can find incentives by looking 'outside the box.' We might just be able to find ways to get building started again by finding new amenities for the vacant lots. Some ideas may require some changes to zoning codes so nothing will ever be THAT easy. But it all starts with ideas.

Being a Green Dallas means addressing Nature first and energy-efficient buildings second.