Wise land management for the public good

I just got a notice about what sounds like an interesting book,  Conservation Communities: Creating Value with Nature, Open Space, and Agriculture


It's published by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), described as a "nonprofit research and education organization."


According to the website, its members are "leading property owners, advisors, developers, architects, lawyers, lenders, planners, regulators, contractors, engineers, university professors, students and interns."


Now, our Green Tech Skeptic is wary of a development book sponsored by developers and lawyers, but this approach seems to make sense for both people and the environment in which we live. I'll review the book later, but for now, here are some of the basics.


There's good reason for developers to promote the idea. The author, Edward T. McMahon, says that the "conservation development" he promotes, which involves preserving large amounts of land in perpetuity as part of the overall development plan, can temper the backlash against sprawl that has spawned widespread no-growth movements.


Let's face it, unless we want to start policies to limit population growth, housing and land use has to grow as well. Our Green Tech Skeptic thinks we desperately need to limit, even stop, population growth. We're an invasive species, and gross overpopulation of any species damages the environment. We've demonstrated that  more than adequately. But our GTS doesn't know a socially acceptable way to do that.


Conservation development means creating communities that preserve natural landscapes and resources that are worth preserving for their "aesthetic, environmental, cultural, agricultural and/or historic values." It also means more vertical development of housing in order to keep those spaces open.


The idea goes beyond most "planned communities" that includes open space. The open space should be planned to preserve the values described above.

Now, our Green Tech Skeptic likes his little house in San Francisco with his small organic garden with fruit trees, a strawberry patch, tomatoes and pumpkins, plus a little grass for his dog to play on. But smart development should include some community gardens where urban farmers can play and open fields where urban dogs can run. And there must be enough open space to keep buildings from blocking out all the sun.


Of course, getting local planning communities to adopt sensible policies may be harder than forcing transit officials to take public transportation to work. The San Francisco regulators are crazy. But with community backing, perhaps we can come up with rules to allow sensible development, preserve areas that need to be preserved, keep the developers from trying to take every open spot of land around, and keep left-wing environmentalists like GTS from opposing all development.


Well, it's a nice thought, anyway.