Alexander and Associates Inc.

I recently ran across this 2008 column that was published in the Idaho Statesman. The original Statesman page is no longer available, but the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho has kept it up (see Statesman reader comments here). While we clamor for more transit, cities like Boise simply haven’t required the kind of development style that transit needs.

Growth of the past 15 years is not conducive for transit
READER’S VIEW: Public Transportation
Idaho Statesman, January 23, 2008

By Martin Johncox
I’ve been following the discussion of local-option taxation and transit in the editorial pages of The Statesman. While I support local-option taxation and transit, there’s been little discussion if cities have been preparing their built environment to support transit.

From what I can tell, cities have a spotty record on enforcing the kind of development needed to make transit feasible. This lack of transit-oriented development undermines the cities’ otherwise good arguments in favor of local option taxation.

Transit lacks point-to-point flexibility. To make up for that, people must bridge, on foot or bike, the distance between the transit stop and their destination. To get people to do this, you must build a human-scaled environment, where buildings come right to the sidewalk; things are stacked on top of each other to conservedistance; and homes, offices, shopping centers, schools and other destinations are directly connected with sidewalks.

The best examples of this kind of development locally are from a century ago: the historic neighborhoods and the downtowns of Treasure Valley cities, developed when cars were scarce and the locations of tracks and train stops determined what got built and where. Transit friendly is necessarily pedestrian friendly.

But we’ve built just the opposite in the past 50 years. Giant parking lots, absent of sidewalks, encourage people to drive from one parking lot to the next; subdivisions are fenced from each other and neighboring shopping centers; and very long blocks and cul-de-sacs lengthen pedestrian trips.

In such an environment, people will not walk to the nearest transit stop, even if they could find it. If a train dropped off people by the mall, they would be in the middle ofsome of the most pedestrian-hostile development in Idaho. Could we expect a rider to catch a train or bus stopping 100 feet from their home, when it’s in a shopping center on the other side of a fence and the only other way is a half-mile walk out of the subdivision? No amount of local-option taxation flexibility will fix this.

To be fair, it’s been less than 15 years since Boise and other cities awoke to the need to build for transit. Indeed, for most of the past century, transit-friendly Main Street America was illegal to build under zoning codes. Only relatively recently have local governments become receptive to Smart Growth principles.

Yet in those past 15 years there’s been precious little progress toward enforcing transit-friendly development. Boise’s 1997 comprehensive plan was a visionary statement of urban planning that, unfortunately, has not been followed diligently enough to improve opportunities for transit. There are very few examples of shopping centers built in Boise in the past 10 years, for example, that are truly
transit-friendly. Shopping centers still have huge parking lots between the stores and the street. Cul-de-sacs are still common and many subdivisions still have just one or two ways in and out. Pedestrian- and transit-friendly development styles are mandated downtown only.

We’ve made some improvements, like mico-pathways in subdivisions and pedestrian networks inside parking lots. But from a practical, on-the-ground perspective – and compared to the examples people a century ago bequeathed us – transit remains a vestigial part of our built environment. (See “The Next American Metropolis” by Peter Calthorpe to learn how transit oriented developments can work in modern times.)

I fully support the vision for transit in the Treasure Valley and I believe local-option taxation authority should be granted. But we should realize that for more than a decade, we have had the local mandate to require transit-friendly development and have made little apparent progress.

Martin Johncox is a former Statesman reporter who covered local government and
urban planning. He is currently a public relations consultant at Alexander and Associates, focusing on land use and public policy.

Men’s Health Magazine has put up a ranking of the 100 top cities for social networking and Boise ranks 20th, beating out San Diego, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Chicago and New York. Also remarkable: Salt Lake City was 10th. Washington, DC was first. Boise is the smallest city in the top 20.

Interesting figures, but what’s behind the ranking?  Here’s my take as someone who has lived in Boise more than 20 years as a newpaper reporter, public relations professional and social media consultant:

1. Ingrained tech savviness. Micron Technology, the second-largest computer chip manufacturer in the world, started here.  In the early 1970s, Hewlett Packard began a major campus in Boise which developed the laser printer.

2. Suburbanization. Boise and the surrounding areas are built to automotive standards, leaving few public gathering areas; those that exist are usually in the traditional downtown areas. Yet people still crave connection, even if their environment promotes separation, and social media provide that connection.

3. Political activism. Yes, there’s a lot of that in Idaho, both from the left and the right. The Idaho Legislature is a non-stop source of, ahem, ideas that are far ahead of the times, or far beyond them, and people are bound to object to them or promote them.

4. Racial diversity. Another suprise.  Idaho is still pretty white, but quickly becoming less so, and minorities tend to use social media at higher rates than whites. According to the Pew Internet & American Life project, “Among internet users, seven in ten blacks and English-speaking Latinos use social networking sites—significantly higher than the six in ten whites who do so.” According to the US Census Bureau, the Hispanic population in Idaho increased by more than 43 percent from 2000 to 2007.

Of course, there are cities that are more political active, more racially diverse, more suburbanized and that have a more influential tradition of technology. However, the Boise area ranks relatively high in all of these and taken as a whole, I think that’s what explains Boise’s surprisingly high ranking among socially networked cities.

The Boise City Design Review Committee’s treatment of the Simplot family and its proposed 7-acre downtown project is appalling. Besides showing the city’s over-regulation of a good proposal, the delays also highlight the city’s complete ignorance of the 95 percent of Boise that is not downtown.

The JUMP project (for Jack’s Urban Meeting Place), announced in May 2008, is a $100 dvelopment to include a foundation building and new headquarters for Simplot Co. between Front/Myrtle streets and 9th/11th streets. It is intended to be an arts center, meeting space and tribute to J.R. Simplot. In my opinion, it is an inclusive, sensitively designed project that would bring jobs and vitality to downtown Boise. As a public relations consultant for nearly a decade in Boise, and a newspaper reporter for 12 years before that, I saw cases where local governments were helpful and on-the-ball regarding development proposals, as well as obstructionist. This case appears to fall into the latter category.

But what do I know? According to the Idaho Statesman, delays by the city of Boise have reached a point where the Simplots are considering pulling their project, and I can’t say I blame them. After a meeting with Mayor David Beiter (one of over 100 meetings the Simplots have had with city officials), the Simplots completely redesigned the project. After that, the commission came back with a list of 60 changes, all but two of which the Simplots have adopted.

Meanwhile, in the 95 percent of Boise that is not downtown, the city’s lack of interest in redevelopment and good urban design is astounding. The city routinely allows developers to build parking lots between buildings and the street – perhaps the biggest no-no in urban design – and huge tracts of abandoned school sites grow weeds and become eyesores. Thousands of low-income residents remain at risk of eviction from rickety trailer parks, yet the city has studiously ignored them while it obstructs the Simplot project. The Bench’s few remaining historical buildings are routinely razed while Boise City and its historic preservation department show little interest outside of downtown.  The Design Review Commission does a good job at the minutiae of sapling caliper sizes but is utterly unable to see the vital relationships between buildings, streets, affordable housing and people.

The abandoned school sites are good examples of Boise not getting it. Supposedly, the school district was supposed to work with the city to find uses for these properties that would add value to the neighborhoods. At this point, they’re going to become mostly parking lots, with some strip development at the rear. Besides its toothless comprehensive plan, the city shows no interest or vision on the Bench and is overconcerned about Downtown.Children routinely walk to school without sidewalks, yet the city is far, far behind the curve in getting sidewalks in these neighborhoods.

My advice: Defer to the Simplots much more (it really is a good design) and roll up your sleeves and focus on the pressing needs for safe routes to school, urban decay, historical preservation and low-income housing in the rest of the city. This won’t be nearly as much fun as sticking your fingers in a $100 million mega-project, but it will mean so much more to Boiseans.

For some reason, local governments in Boise can’t put much value on historic preservation south of the Boise River. In the latest news, the Boise School District has announced it will tear down the Franklin and Cole elementary schools. These schools became obsolete after a 2006 bond election, which built new schools and consolidated the populations of old schools. Cole Elementary, at Cole Road Fairview Ave., was first built in 1888 and is Boise’s oldest-standing school building. Franklin Elementary, at Franklin Road and Orchard Street, was built in 1905.

I’ve lived in Boise since 1990 and over that time, it seems as though neighborhoods south of the Boise river consistently get shortchanged, especially in the areas of historic preservation and urban design. Bench developers are allowed to build new strip malls with little regard to preserving traditional neighborhood values. Zoning rules concern themselves with the caliper diameter of trees, not if the development comes to the street. Meanwhile, decrepit strip malls continue to decay while the city frets over light rail in the largely-completed downtown areas. The remaining Bench historic sites – all the more precious because of their fewness – are cast aside and prepared for the wrecking ball and a new life as a parking lot.

“Cole is the last bastion of early Boise history in a wasteland of nothingness,” Dan Everhardt, president of Preservation Idaho, told The Idaho Statesman. “There is no sense of place to those strip malls.”

To its credit, the city has been getting better about putting public art in Bench neighborhoods and has done well in establishing branch libraries in strip malls. These are the easy targets, however. The Bench really needs reinvestment and urban renewal, similar to what has successfully been undertaken downtown. Failing that, we should at least hold on to the good things we have.

The City of Boise had little interest in preserving the 126-year-old  Trolley, a small neighborhood pub made from a converted trolley car on Morris Hill Street. After a fire destroyed the Trolley,the city sent the owner a letter telling them to move their junk. No, the Historic Preservation Office wasn’t going to help, nor was the city going to use some stimulus money to preserve the Trolley. Just: Move your junk. Now. Likewise, the Boise School District demolished South Junior High School while the city did nothing to preserve it.

I served on a citizens’ committee in 2006 to help the school district pass the bond issue. At the time, school district leaders spoke of the need to improve the “doughnut” of original suburbs around Boise, which were losing middle-class families to the newer suburbs. Dilapidated schools, a lack of sidewalks and few public amenities were making these 1950s-1970s neighborhoods less desirable. The school district’s goal at the time was to not only replace aging schools with new ones, but to improve the neighborhoods and make them more attractive to middle-class families with children.

It was a visionary plan – I plan a suspect no one even remembers anymore. After these historic buildings are demolished, likely parking lots with strip malls will be built in their place; that is hardly the kind of development that endears a neighborhood to people. I hope the city of Boise and the school district can exercise some vision and think of something better.

Here is my suggestion, with a hefty dose of sarcasm: Move the Cole and Franklin schools to some place north of the Boise River. I suspect that suddenly, eyes will light up at City Hall and officials will show the leadership and vision we need now. They will search for federal stimulus money, marshal their historic preservation resources, and pull out all the stops to keep these important parts of our history.

A healthy city is full of places worth caring about.  The city’s and school district’s lack of interest in preserving cultural treasures on the Bench is unfortunate.

(Notes from Boise School District meetings with Borah Neighborhood Association members, May 10, 2006 and  May 17, 2006.)

Trains have strong romantic appeal, but from a functional perspective, they are hopelessly unable of meeting the needs of a modern sprawling city and its residents’ demand for point-to-point flexibility.

That’s starting to sink in, after decades of local planners and wonks hoping for a commuter train system. A story in today’s Idaho Statesman quotes national experts who spoke in Boise, saying a train system faces enormous obstacles here because of track quality, too many crossings, insufficient right-of-way and high cost. However, the experts (at least in the story) didn’t discuss the inherent shortcomings of rail as a transportation technology and how we have done an exceptionally poor job of requiring rail-friendly land use.

The only reason rail technology evolved is because the first machines that could convert matter into motion (steam engines) weighed tens of thousands of pounds. There were no roads to accommodate steam engines, but rails could be built to sustain the massive weight and allow them to move people and goods faster than they had ever moved before. To make up for the lack of point-to-point flexibility, people had to unload the trains and put themselves and goods on smaller, light-rail trains or electric trolleys.

Urban theorists like Kevin Lynch hold the dominant transportation technology determines the built form of a city: ancient cities relied on humans and animals, port cities relied on ships, Industrial Revolution cities relied on the rail and modern cities rely on the automobile. Not surprisingly, entire cities and small towns were designed around the limitations of the train. For a hundred years and more, the system worked.

By the time the automobile began to eclipse the train some 80 years ago, trains had nearly a century of capital and investment behind them, so they remain common to this day. Trains still work well for some things, like moving large volumes of heavy cargo, where train cars can be lifted and moved onto ships and intermodal inconvenience is kept to a minimum.

But trains are hopelessly outmoded in a modern city. True, a rail car would be able to zip quickly past Interstate 84 traffic jams, but could it take people to where they needed to go (downtown, Micron, West Boise office parks, etc.)? People being dropped off near the Boise Towne Square mall, for example, would be left at what is agruably the most pedestrian-hostile environment in Idaho. If only something could take them a little closer to their office park, the system would be much more useful!

For their part, Idaho cities have done virtually nothing to require the kind of urban design necessary for trains: buildings that come to the street, residential and commercial sharing the same property and a nice public realm – you know, the built form of classic Main Street America.

It’s not a question of population. Around a century ago, a commuter rail system operated profitably, albeit briefly, in the Boise Valley, when our population was much smaller. It’s a question of the built form of the city. With the exception of the original downtowns and neighborhoods, Treasure Valley cities are built to automotive scale, with large parking lots, huge streets and a serious lack of sidewalks.

The humble bus, however, bridges these needs nicely. In fact, with a little imagination, we could combine the advantages of trains (route priority) with the advantages of rubber-wheeled vehicles (flexibility). The concept is the Curb Guided Busway, used to good advantage in Adelaide, Australia and Nagoya, Japan:

..the O-Bahn runs on specially-built track, combining elements of both bus and rail systems … Interchanges allow buses to enter and exit the busway and to continue on suburban routes, avoiding the need for passengers to change. Buses travel at a maximum speed of 100 km/h (62 mph), and the busway is capable of carrying 18,000 passengers an hour from the City of Adelaide

The busway is a low concrete trough and the busses are fitted with “guide wheels”

The guide-wheel, which protrudes from the front sides and aligns with the track, is the most important part of the bus when travelling on the O-Bahn. Connected directly to the steering mechanism, it ‘steers’ the bus while on the track and prevents the main tyres from rubbing against the sides of the track.

So, a busway system wouldn’t require an expensive refurbishment of rails or highly specialized vehicles. We could also take advantage of our existing rail rights-of-way, so when a bus crosses over an arterial street, the crossing arms could swing down, allowing the bus to pass, just as they already do with a train. Or, the bus could leave the busway and move about on city streets, something a train could never do. As an added benefit, emergency vehicles could use the busway system.

This still wouldn’t be cheap. We’d have to pave the rail corridors, design new interchanges and educate drivers on a new transportation mode. However, given the obstacles to developing rail and the limited return we’d get for it, a Curb Guided Busway seems like the best bet.

Good work by the Greater Boise Auditorium District and the state for putting in a request for federal stimulus money to finally build a larger downtown Boise convention center.  I did some PR consulting work for GBAD in 2002 and I applaud their persistence in trying to get this important part of our economy in place.

The Idaho Division of Financial  Management has submitted a list of agency and private sector requests for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It’s asking for $30 million for a new convention center in downtown Boise, called the Idaho State Convention Center. The convention center will be on a parcel of land GBAD  owns between 11th and 13th streets on the east and west, and by Front and Myrtle streets on the north and south.

Agencies and companies all over Idaho have submitted $4.75 billion in requests. Smaller projects include $5,200 for doors at Blackfoot schools, while larger proposals include $48.2 million for a new Canyon County Jail, $33 million for wastewater system improvements at the City of Meridian and $210 million by Idaho Wind Energy LLC for a wind farm (hopefully environmentalists won’t oppose it too much).

GBAD has put funding the convention center to voters twice before, where it got a majority of votes but missed the 2/3 supermajority. A deal with a private developer also fell through, although GBAD Chairman Stephenson Youngerman said Oppenheimer Development may unveil blueprints for the new convention center in March. Given all the design that’s been done, this should be a shovel-ready project.

In the interest of public openness – and their own success – I encourage GBAD to announce the request formally, with a news release but not much other fanfare. This would give them a chance to talk about how many people they’d put to work on construction and the obvious economic benefits of having an expanded convention center. The stimulus money is exactly for projects such as this.

I do support the stimulus spending, as long as it’s for capital projects. If future generations are going to pay off a share of the stimulus, we should at least leave them some working infrastructure they will need to sustain their economy. That includes safe schools, good roads and bridges, airports, sewer plants, energy generation and, yes, convention centers

There’s been a lot of emotion but not enough light on the issue of a transit center in downtown Boise.

Hoping to get the project shovel-ready to take advantage of a federal grant that expires this year, officials from the Ada County Highway District, City of Boise and the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho are putting the proposal on a fast track. It would bring pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and busses together in downtown Boise, and a rail system could someday hook up to it. More than just a bus stop, the idea is that people could switch between different transportation modes at the center.

I think it’s a great idea and should move forward.  But, as The Boise Guardian says, “…it looks to us like a recipe for disaster jamming passenger cars, buses, and pedestrians into a narrow side street.” Yes, possibly – or it could be a recipe for success, assuming that moving more people in and out of downtown is a good thing. It all depends on how it’s done.

As a public relations consultant, I have to say the agencies could be doing a better job at making their case, especially in the media. So far, print and broadcast media coverage has been your basic journalistic tale of people fighting some proposal with which they are unfamiliar.

My unsolicited  advice: local government PR people should be presenting examples of where these kinds of transit hubs have been successful, why they have been successful, and how they could be successfully adapted to downtown Boise. This is a great opportunity to invite the media into explanatory stories and show under what conditions transit hubs benefit the public and merchants in other cities.

Here are some good examples the folks at COMPASS have refererred me to:

• The Bellevue Transit Center seems close to what is contemplated for Boise, maybe a bit longer, but it looks nice.
• The Courthouse Square transit center in Salem, Oregon, is part of a larger project, including a 150,000 square-foot office complex, but it’s a good example of a transit center in an urban setting.
• The Plaza is the hub for downtown Spokane’s transit system and is designed to host many arts, entertainment and holiday events.
• Denver has proposed the Union Station, which would involve rehabbing an old transit station for the modern “multimodal center.”
• Eugene, Oregon, has a very attractive transit center.

Some of these plans are much more than what we are propsing. But I include them to show that other similar cities have successfully pulled off ambitious and successful transit center plans.

Of course, questions about the public process will remain. Also, historical preservation needs will have to be accommodated. But for the time being, local governments could make their job easier, and improve public understanding, job giving their transit hub proposal some grounding and context.

We own a home on Randolph Drive, on the Boise Bench overlooking Bishop Kelly High School. My family lived in the home from July 2001 until July 2007, when we moved to Hidden Springs. Over the years, we volunteered in various ways in the Borah Neighborhood Association (Barbara is modest but she did start the annual Chili Festival in 2002) and McKinley Elementary.

It’s a large home, 3,300 square feet, and difficult to rent in the current market. At the same time, about a year ago, I started doing public relations work for New Hope Community Health. During that time, I became very familiar with New Hope’s mission and model and came to support them personally. After a while, I came to realize that a house of our size could be put to use helping people. I approached New Hope with the idea of using our home for their transitional housing program and we agreed to a one-year lease.

When we had everything finalized, I sent out this news release announcing our open house; it pretty much sums up everything I have to say at this point. So far, no one has expressed much upset at the development but the day is still young. Needless to say, the Feb. 20 open house will be an interesting meeting for all involved.

New Hope Community Health opens home in Borah Neighborhood
Open house Feb. 20 will allow neighbors to meet new residents of home

For more information
Martin Johncox 658-9100
Dennis Mansfield, 353-3252 & 672-9200

New Hope Community Health, a for-profit business dedicated to providing
housing, treatment and social services to recovering substance abusers, is
opening a staffed recovery home at 6904 Randolph Drive and will hold an open
house there on Friday, Feb. 20, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Martin and Barbara Johncox of Boise own the home and used to live there.
Martin will attend the open house, as well as residents and representatives
from the city of Boise and New Hope .

“We are trusting New Hope with our home and we have faith in their ability
to be a good neighbor,” Johncox said. “I will keep a close watch on the home
and I want neighbors to call me with any thoughts or concerns. We hope they
will attend this open house and get to meet these people.”

New Hope operates 10 homes in the Treasure Valley, assisting over 100 men
and women, and there is a backlog of over 100 potential residents.
Initially, seven men will live at the Randolph home but the number could
rise to the allowable federal limit of 12. Admission to the program is
competitive and ex-addicts can stay in the program for up to a year and a
half.

Most – but not all – of the residents have been released from incarceration.
As a condition of living in the home, residents must attend treatment; work
or be looking for work or be in job training; attend religious instruction;
obey all laws and restrictions; and share in household expenses, chores and
upkeep.

Residents who fail to abide by the rules will be dismissed from the program
and face possible return to prison or they must attempt to make it on their
own. People convicted of violent crimes, sex crimes, arson and similar
crimes are not allowed in the program.

“The people we help are being released into the community one way or the
other – they are your friends, neighbors and family,” said New Hope
Executive Director Dennis Mansfield. “We give them guidance, Bible study,
treatment and employment help. With this kind of supervision, our clients
have a better shot at becoming productive members of society again.”

The Federal Fair Housing Act protects recovering addicts from
housing discrimination
(http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/housing_coverage.php). Among other things, the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race,
religion, sex, national origin, familial status or disability.

Elliot Werk, president of the Borah Neighborhood Association, sent this email to some association members. I agree with the sentiments in Elliot’s letter, although I would point out that there’s more than just federal law protecting the housing rights of recovering addicts.  In some neighborhoods, people  have been “unwelcome” for a variety of reasons, including their race, ethnicity, religious beliefs and disabilities. Housing is a human rights issue, because in a free society, free people must have the opportunity live anywhere.

In any case, I look forward to making this home a good neighbor, and its residents contributing members of the neighborhood.

From: bna@mindspring.com
To: bna@mindspring.com
Subject: New Hope Transitional Home at 6904 Randolph Drive
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:07:49 -0700

Hello!

Today in the Idaho Statesman there was an announcement that New Hope Community Health is planning to open a transitional home for former inmates at 6904 Randolph Drive. You can see the announcement at http://www.idahostatesman.com/boise/story/663001.html.

I know that transitional homes have been a hot topic since Dennis Mansfield and company began business last year. The purpose of this message is to let you know that the Borah Neighborhood Association is engaging with New Hope in an effort to help ensure that this home is run with consideration for the neighborhood and with the necessary oversight to ensure peace and safety.

It is important to know that for over a decade our neighborhood had a transitional home called Hayes House located in the area to the west of Cole Road. This home housed wayward youth and teens. When it first opened there were a great many issues in the neighborhood. As a result the neighbors worked with the Idaho Youth Ranch (the owners) to create a committee that actively worked with Hayes management to ensure proper operation. With the help of this committee the Hayes Home operated virtually trouble-free for over a decade. We also had a transitional home on Holiday drive for about five years. This home also operated without incident.

I am meeting with New Hope in the next few days to discuss their plans for the home and to try and develop a positive relationship with them. I am hopeful that with vigilance and engagement we can help New Hope to operate a model transitional home that will blend in with our neighborhood.

It is important to note that we cannot stop New Hope from opening this home – they are protected by federal law. What we can do is help them to make this home into a model of efficient operation so that our neighborhood is not disrupted or negatively impacted.

If you have any comments, suggestions, or wish to serve on an advisory council for this home please contact me. To take a look at New Hope’s website to gain an understanding of what this home will be please go to http://www.newhopecommunityhealth.com/.

Thank you for remaining calm and for helping your neighborhood association to positively engage with New Hope. Everyone deserves the opportunity to a fresh start and I am hopeful that we can work well with New Hope to provide that opportunity for these men.

Thanks
Elliot Werk, President
Borah Neighborhood Association.
PS. Just so you know, I live three houses east of the transitional house location.

While I risk upsetting people in the building industry,  I support recent legislation by Rep. John “Bert” Stevenson, R-Rupert, intended to charge new homes and businesses a fee for electrical system expansion.

The development industry will likely oppose this measure, but it would be shortsighted of them to do so. Idaho Power is in a near-continuous state of asking the PUC for rate increases, in part to extend power lines and build more power plants.  This isn’t fair to existing customers and it reduces opportunities for new businesses that want to set up here. Idaho Power can’t raise its rates enough to effectively deliver power, so our region has to turn away prospective industries because we can’t supply them with electricity. Existing residents are asked to pay for newcomers. The system doesn’t serve anyone very well.

A better system (what I understand Stevenson is proposing) would be  similar to how cities charge for sewer hookups. Your monthly sewer bill is strictly for maintenance and operation – none of it goes for capacity expansion. When a new home hooks up to Boise City’s sewer system, though, the developer must pay $3,150, which goes into a fund for future treatment plant expansions and new lines. That keeps the city from charging existing customers for growth, yet growth can happen because the city can fund it.

Imagine if, in the Fall of 2007, two major employers could have relocated here, because Idaho Power had a chest of money collected from impact fees and specifically set aside for new growth. Idaho Power would have been in a much better position to step forward with a plan to accommodate the new industries. The same building industry that might oppose these fees would profit greatly from the new homes and businesses that would result.

The Public Utilities Commission said Stevenson’s measure could help utilities recover costs of some growth-related capital expansion, though existing customers should bear some of the increases when facilities are expanded. That’s fair enough. The Ada County Highway District’s impact fees, first levied in 1992, aren’t intended to cover the complete costs of growth.

Once again, local option taxation is an issue in the Idaho Legislature. As i years past, the goal is to fund transit programs, which is a worthy cause. But urban planners, including the city’s own, recognize the importance of having a built environment that can actually make use of transit.

This is an opinion from the Idaho Statesman published during last year’s local option taxation struggle and it bears repeating.

I’ve been following the discussion of local-option taxation and transit in the editorial pages of The Statesman. While I support local-option taxation and transit, there’s been little discussion if cities have been preparing their built environment to support transit.

From what I can tell, cities have a spotty record on enforcing the kind of development needed to make transit feasible. This lack of transit-oriented development undermines the cities’ otherwise good arguments in favor of localoption taxation.

Transit lacks point-to-point flexibility. To make up for that, people must bridge, on foot or bike, the distance between the transit stop and their destination. To get people to do this, you must build a human-scaled environment, where buildings come right to the sidewalk; things are stacked on top of each other to conserve distance; and homes, offices, shopping centers, schools and other destinations are directly connected with sidewalks.

The best examples of this kind of development locally are from a  century ago: the historic neighborhoods and the downtowns of Treasure Valley cities, developed when cars were scarce and the locations of tracks and train stops determined what got built and where. Transit friendly is necessarily pedestrian friendly.

But we’ve built just the opposite in the past 50 years. Giant parking lots, absent of sidewalks, encourage people to drive from one parking lot to the next; subdivisions are fenced from each other and neighboring shopping centers; and very long blocks and cul-de-sacs lengthen pedestrian trips.

In such an environment, people will not walk to the nearest transit stop, even if they could find it. If a train dropped off people by the mall, they would be in the middle of some of the most pedestrian-hostile development in Idaho. Could we expect a riderto catch a train or bus stopping 100 feet from their home, when it’s in a shopping center on the other side of a fence and the only other way is a half-mile walk out of the subdivision? No amount of local-option taxation flexibility will fix this.

To be fair, it’s been less than 15 years since Boise and other cities awoke to the need to build for transit. Indeed, for most of the past century, transit-friendly Main Street America was illegal to build under zoning codes. Only relatively recently have local governments become receptive to Smart Growth principles.

Yet in those past 15 years there’s been precious little progress toward enforcing transit-friendly development. Boise’s 1997 comprehensive plan was a visionary statement of urban planning that, unfortunately, has not been followed diligently enough to improve opportunities for transit. There are very few examples of shopping centers built in Boise in the past 10 years, for example, that are truly transit-friendly.

Shopping centers still have huge parking lots between the stores and the street. Cul-de-sacs are still common and many subdivisions still have just one or two ways in and out. Pedestrian- and transit-friendly development styles are mandated downtown only.

We’ve made some improvements, like mico-pathways in subdivisions and pedestrian networks inside parking lots. But from a practical, on-the-ground perspective – and compared to the examples people a century ago bequeathed us – transit remains a vestigial part of our built environment. (See “The Next American Metropolis” by Pete Calthorpe to learn how transit oriented developments can work in modern times.)

I fully support the vision for transit in the Treasure Valley and I believe local-option taxation authority should be granted. But we should realize that for more than a decade, we have had the local mandate to require transit-friendly development and have made little apparent progress.

Martin Johncox is a former Statesman reporter who covered local government and urban planning. He is currently a public relations consultant at Alexander and Associates, focusing on land use and public policy.