Sunday September 25, 2005
Learning the lessons of “no growth”
Everybody knows Banff. Pretty little town, tucked between picturesque Mount Rundle and craggy Cascade Mountain in the Canadian Rockies. Home of hotsprings, a world-famous hotel, and wild elk that graze on residents\’ lawns.
People come from around the world to savor Banff\’s scenic delights.
You probably did not know, however, that people around the world are starting to look at Banff as an experiment in sustainable planning.
Most planning, you see, presumes unlimited growth. Metropolitan areas expand outward, like London. Or upward, like Manhattan. Or inward, with greater densities and revitalized downtowns, like Toronto. Richard Bishop, a Toronto city planner, called it “the sky\’s-the-limit mentality.”
But very few places have seriously faced the prospect of no growth. Yet.
Banff has had to, for a variety of reasons.
First, geography. The town sits in a valley, surrounded by peaks too steep to build on.
Second, public pressure. Tourists visit Banff to see the mountains, the forests, the wild animals. Banff would lose most of its appeal if its mountains were covered with housing subdivisions, or hidden behind high-rise towers.
Mostly, though, because of external authority. Banff sits totally inside a national park. The federal government has set limits on Banff\’s expansion.
Pioneers in uncharted territory
So the town council and administration in Banff now have to work with realities that others are only beginning to consider.
Toronto, for one example, has no vacant land left. “We can only re-develop,” said planner Joe D\’Abramo. His department has just initiated a study of “sustainable development” policies in a dozen other cities.
B.C.\’s Gulf Islands, for another. Islands impose natural limits. The Islands Trust recognizes that building on all the available land would destroy the quality of life that originally brought people to the islands.
The Islands Trust developed a simulation of what some of their islands would look like, if everyone merely developed property as they were already entitled to do. People were horrified.
Ultimately, the issues now being faced in Banff and the Gulf Islands will apply to this finite planet. It cannot be expanded either. We cannot, by our ingenuity, create more water, more ore bodies, more petroleum, than already exists.
Therefore populations must also have limits. We don\’t know yet what those limits are. Pessimists like me think we may have already exceeded those limits; optimists believe the planet can survive up to twice as many of us. But not even the most optimistic argue that we can increase populations indefinitely, until we are stacked ten-deep from pole to pole.
Constitutional challenge
Many of Banff\’s current restrictions would be unimaginable in other contexts.
As the supply of building lots dwindles to zero, for example, you cannot build a house unless you replace an existing dwelling.
No matter how business is booming, a hotel cannot add rooms — unless it can transfer an unused commercial allotment from some other business property.
At about 8,400 people, Banff has not yet reached its 10,000 population limit. But eventually, the arrival of a new baby will have to be balanced by someone else\’s exit.
“There\’s always some migration in and out,” explained Ann Kjerulf, senior planner on Banff\’s staff. “We would have to restrict the inflow.”
Which would inevitably invite a constitutional challenge. Because the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees all Canadians freedom of movement, to live where they choose.
William Rees, of the School of Regional and Community Planning at the University of British Columbia, admits that Banff might succeed – if only because the federal government has effectively handcuffed the town\’s freedom. But he doubts Banff\’s experience can be exported to other settings.
“There\’s constant pressure for exemptions,” he says. “Look at the Okanagan Valley, which has become a pathetic disaster.
“In North America, we have elevated private rights over the common good.”
Cities like London and Ottawa attempted to control growth by establishing greenbelts around their perimeter. “The developers simply leapfrogged the greenbelts,” says Rees. “And then governments used those greenbelts as transportation corridors.”
Private rights, public good
Other times, citizens themselves frustrate sustainable planning.
Portland, Oregon, had what Rees calls “probably the most progressive policies in the U.S.” To some extent those policies succeeded in reducing urban sprawl. Over 20 years, Portland expanded by about 40 square miles. Had it urbanized at the same rate as Charlotte, North Carolina, according to one study, Portland would have gobbled up 280 more square miles.
But then Oregon approved a law that requires governments to compensate property owners for the development values they might have lost through restrictions on the sale or development of their land.
“That penalizes governments for acting in the public interest,” Rees snorts. “It provides a direct disincentive for governments to act for the good of the whole community.”
Rees believes that sustainable planning cannot succeed as long as North America puts individual rights ahead of social rights.
“The corporate profit mentality has taken over,” he says. “And that will not change, because the people in power – the legislators, the managers, the investors – are insulated from the consequences of their decisions.”
Hard way to learn To receive this column regularly via e-mail, send a request to jimt@quixotic.ca. E-mail subscribers also get excerpts from correspondence about these columns. Please forward a copy of this column to anyone who might be interested in subscribing.
If you want to order my books, you can call 1-800-663-2775 in Canada, 1-800-328-0200 in the U.S., or order them on-line at the Wood Lake Books website.
For a lighter look at ethics, faith, and life, I recommend Ralph Milton\’s weekly e-newsletter Rumors. You can subscribe to it at the Wood Lake Books home page in Ralph Milton\’s Site, or by sending a note directly to ralphmilton@woodlake.com.
It\’s also worth pursuing Richard Fairchild\’s United Online site. Another site worth visiting is David Keating\’s \”SeemslikeGod\” page.
I wondered how the world might learn any lessons about sustainability from Banff.
“By disasters,” Rees barked. “There are many examples of civilizations that have paid no heed to their own experience. Rather than disturb the status quo, we simply continue to do stupid things.”
Toronto planner Richard Bishop admits that many in his profession still see their jobs simply as setting up enforceable regulations and building codes. But he thinks “there\’s a growing trend to a broader perspective. Ideally, we look at what it takes for a community to function, to be healthy, and to be happy.”
His colleague Joe D\’Abramo says planners are learning to consider “the intangible stuff” that affects quality of life.
And Banff\’s Kjerulf notes that when she attends planners\’ conferences and Banff\’s situation comes up in conversation, “you can sometimes see people\’s eyes light up.”
There\’s at least a glimmer of hope.
=====================================
Copyright © 2002 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups permitted; all other rights reserved.
=====================================
PROMOTION PLUGS
