Racism, Gwinnett, and MARTA: A Never-ending Tale

What a welcoming sign into Gwinnett County from DeKalb! 

This blog post is going to be a very local one. (Sorry to all my non-Atlantan readers, but some of what you read may resonate with you too!) It covers the relationship between MARTA and Gwinnett county. I am going to split up the post into three sections: 1) some facts, 2) some sobering history, and 3) the current situation. If you find my opinions to be scathing or hard, then hopefully your eyes will have been opened to how bad the current situation is.

First some facts:

• 56% of Gwinnettians are willing to pay more for public transportation
• Half of likely voters in Gwinnett support a 1% tax increase to join MARTA
• Gwinnett is the second most populous county in Georgia
• Within the next fifteen years, the population will top one million residents
• The county is under-served by its transit system: Gwinnett County Transit
• The county has a minority-majority populace but its commissioners are all white, all Republican
• CAR OWNERSHIP IS A PRIVILEGE
• ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS A HUMAN RIGHT

County Commissioner seats... I wonder how the gerrymandering works here to ensure Republicans maintain control of all seats, not even allowing Democrats to have a seat at the table!

Now, I will recount a long (and  racist) history between MARTA and Gwinnett County:

• In 1971, Gwinnett voters rejected joining MARTA. At the time, MARTA was being created to bring mass transit service across the Atlanta area. Voters in DeKalb and Fulton Counties voted to join the authority while Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett voters voted against the expanding authority. There were multiple reasons for this split: large costs, low densities, small populations, a tax increase, and a rural setting. Decidedly though, the large black populations of Fulton and DeKalb Counties deterred white voters of these bedroom communities into voting against the MARTA system.
• In 1990, there was a referendum in Gwinnett about joining MARTA. Again, the vote failed. This decision though was more pure. By 1990, Gwinnett was growing rapidly. It was becoming more urban and less rural. People were told to expect a massive population boom in the coming decade according to growth models. So why the denial of public transit despite the stronger need for it? Racism. White Gwinnettians didn't want black people in Atlanta to have access to their community.  
• In 2001, 2002, express and then local bus service began by Gwinnett County Transit (GCT). A little too late though, as the county had already become the fastest growing county in the country at this time. Notably, local bus service primarily services middle or low-income communities, not the wealthy neighborhoods to the north and east.  



Sorry to curse, but what the actual fuck is this kind of service? How does this adequately serve Gwinnett? Someone ask Charlotte Nash for me because I'd love to know!

• Since then: the recession has cut local bus service (essential to those who can't afford a car) while express service has been expanded to serve the Atlanta commuters. The county has continued to grow resulting in worse traffic. Bad traffic creates unhealthy smog that hurts asthmatics during the year. In addition, the county has diversified. People hold different backgrounds and different opinions than those of 1990 or 1971. It has become distinctly urban with the only remaining agricultural uses at the fringes of the county away from the major highways. Additionally, surveys and polls show Gwinnettians support expanded public transit and/or MARTA expansion. 

The current situation:

• Charlotte Nash, county commissioner and chairwoman, on MARTA expansion: "It's an uphill battle... Its about feeling like they don't have control of the county's transit system." 
• Translation: 'Uphill battle' = her political career, she's unwillingly to jeopardize her political future by allowing a referendum, literally a decision made by the public, to go forward. 'Don't  have control of the county's transit system' = don't have control of preventing poor people from moving northward. Currently, GCT is limited to local bus service in certain disadvantaged areas in the west and center of the county. Joining MARTA would mean robust local bus service for the whole county since MARTA has the funds available for this. The only problem in that is she and her cronies would no longer have a say in preventing bus service to her affluent areas. Apparently providing public transit to her constituents isn't critical as long as the rich don't have to encounter a bloody bus allowing people to get to work. 
• John Heard, county commissioner: "I believe that if we put it on the ballet, a local transit SPLOST will pass -- for Gwinnett County only. Nobody wants to send our money down to the City of Atlanta."  
• Translation: 'for Gwinnett County only' = he's only interested in helping the affluent Atlanta commuter, not the average Gwinnettian (or Atlantan for that matter) without a car. 'Nobody wants to send our money down to the City of Atlanta' = Democrats/black people aren't taking our money. This might sound like a harsh translation, but it's not. He is being explicitly racist in what he is saying here. If Gwinnett joined MARTA, all taxes raised would go toward the expansion of MARTA in Gwinnett. He is lying to his constituents or he is being naive. He for sure is being racist in showing his distaste towards allowing a transit service use funds to provide robust transit that will directly allow better mobility for people of color.  

So here is what is actually going on. Our county commissioners are misleading the public by already throwing out incorrect facts about MARTA. MARTA, by no means, is a perfect transit system, but if Gwinnett joins it, we aren't losing control of where are money goes, how it is used, and how we are serviced. Ask Clayton County. They recently joined MARTA, now have robust bus service across the whole county, and will soon be discussing how to provide a commuter train to its communities. Gwinnett, on the other hand, recently lost NCR and its 3,000+ jobs because of a lack of transit access. Gwinnett has no plans moving forward on how to deal with its traffic problem. In fact, all Gwinnett is doing is sitting in traffic wasting time and money behind the wheel. Charlotte Nash and her Republican controlled commission are unfairly using their power to prevent democracy. They are preventing the county from moving forward by not allowing a referendum on MARTA. They are clinging onto power in a time when Gwinnett needs strong leadership and real change. Business as usual is failing. Growth and the economy is moving elsewhere but for some reason, everyone is sitting in traffic in denial about this.

Dacula, on the right, in relation to the rest of the county

What should you do? Demand your referendum! Charlotte Nash doesn't live along the 85 corridor; she lives all the way out in Dacula. She doesn't have to sit through an hour of traffic a day to get to a well-paying job that happens to be outside of the county. She doesn't grasp how bad it is. She and her fellow commissioners also don't grasp what it means to be apart of a region. Gwinnett is great, success does live here, but it is great because it relies on the greater Atlanta region. Gwinnett needs to be a part of its transportation system if it hopes to stay competitive in the future. Ask your neighbor what they would think of getting MARTA service. Chances are they wouldn't mind it! 

Remember these water towers? A moto we need to continue to live by! 

Our leaders are playing politics. It doesn't take much to read between the lines of their statements and see where their true opinions lie. Luckily, that doesn't mean we can't sway them. If enough of us raise a racket, we will get our referendum and the congestion relief and public transit that WE DESPERATELY NEED. 

*A lot of this article references David Wickert's reporting from the AJC. I encourage you to read his reports of the state of transportation in the AJC. http://commuting.blog.ajc.com/2017/10/27/will-gwinnett-county-join-marta-not-likely-officials-say/        

Urban Infill and Suburban Infill Is Coming

Sorry that I haven't posted in awhile! While I certainly will try to update my blog on at least a monthly basis from now on, I am not going to make any promises (like I said two posts ago)! But what's been on my mind lately is related to infill in both urban and suburban places. This has been a big trend lately in the development community within city centers and regional edge cities. Instead of our continual march outward, most American cities have acknowledged that sprawling fifty miles plus from downtown is no longer economically viable for growing a city. 

Calhoun Street in Cincinnati, OH - ten years ago

Calhoun Street, as of this year

Instead, developers are looking at infilling the free spaces we have. In downtowns and city centers, developers are converting abandoned lots and old surface parking lots into new apartment buildings, mixed used towers, or other suitable uses. In the suburbs, developers are snapping up any vacant land, big or small, and building their new developments on these vacant parcels rather than more greenfield development on the urban fringe. Both types of infill have their pro's and con's, and in this post, I am going to parse through this new trend.

Starting with urban infill, most planners agree that infilling our city centers and bringing life back into our downtowns' stagnant streets is wonderful. I, too, find this movement very positive. Its hard to complain about removing a parking lot and replacing it with a place to live, work, and play. Urban infill is bringing new residents, businesses, and activities to our downtowns that for too long haven't seen any growth. These new developments bring in a new tax base that allows cities to do more for their citizens. New taxes allows cities to reinvest in themselves, providing much need infrastructure upgrades or new social services for its people.

Many argument against urban infill as they fear it will displace residents and gentrify low-income neighborhoods

For this reason, I find urban infill necessary for American cities. While urban infill can result in gentrification, I struggle to understand the argument that its better to just leave our streets empty and stagnant. Whether we gentrify our city centers or not, the United States still faces a major housing crisis where people can no longer afford to stay in their homes. It's a multi-faceted issue that won't be solved by stopping all urban infill. In fact, it would probably exasperate the problem because as of right now, our cities cannot afford to solve this issue with depleted taxes revenues. We need innovative solutions to solve homelessness and preventing a renewal of our cities centers won't solve anything. I challenge those on the extreme left who are opposed to any urban infill projects to explain to me why these projects are bad for our cities and bad for our labor force.

Urban infill brings back people, jobs, and money to our city centers. It allows cities to put forth new investments in their infrastructure system that suit the needs of the city and its greater region. It allows cities to create mixed-income, diverse neighborhoods that better the local schools and parks. In addition, urban infill is a more sustainable and greener way to develop new homes and businesses. People are free from cars, allowed more options of mobility, and can live healthier lifestyles. It creates density and lowers the crime rate. Infill comes with the threat of gentrification and soaring property taxes, but compared to other options, urban infill is a smarter way to develop in our 21st century anthropocentric world.

Rendering of a future apartment community in Duluth, GA

Now focusing outward on our suburbs, suburban infill comes in many different ways and fashions. The general trend follows crowding in our edge cities and highway corridors with as much development as possible. Recently, I saw a Facebook post complaining about overcrowding in the greater Atlanta county of Gwinnett. Recent development trends have been to develop density-intense apartments in communities that have only ever seen single family homes.

And it makes sense why people would complain in Gwinnett when county government can barely manage the growth as it is. The number of high schools have increased (practically exponentially) from eleven in 2003 to nineteen (going on twenty) high schools today. The interstate can no longer expand the number of lanes it has because the federal government told the county that it has maxed out on interstate expansion (currently seven lanes). Its jails are overcrowded with court backlogs that go back for months. And on top of that, the county will join the ranks of Orange County, California in the next ten years for suburban counties with over a million people as the county's population continues to grow.

So while I understand people's complaints about the ongoing "suburban infill" trend in Gwinnett and other American suburbs, I also wholeheartedly disagree with the prevention of new development. Instead of complaining about "being full," this infill trend is a call to arms for suburban communities to develop sustainable forms of mass transportation. This trend is indicative that it is not too late to correct the mistakes of sprawl, and to instead develop new places that encourage community, walkability, and sustainability. Suburban infill is happening, so instead of letting market forces carry it out (as most conservative suburbs would let), suburbanites need to take charge of the growth going on around them and shape the infill to fit the needs of their community and region. (Go to planning commission meetings people!!)

Suburban trends of racial profiling developments can no longer continue

What can't (and physically won't due to growth pressure, I predict) happen is for suburban moms and dads to prevent density from infilling their communities because this infill brings in the "wrong crowd." In this century, business-as-usual won't cut it anymore. We live in a world with growing pressures and new environmental needs; this means everyone will have to make sacrifices. Change will have to happen, so instead of being apart of the backlash against change, I challenge members of the suburbs to embrace change and shape it in a way that fits their growing needs and challenges.

In conclusion, this post acknowledges that infill of our cities must happen if we are to continue grow in a sustainable and productive way. What this post also does is challenge the nay-sayers to rethink the way they see the change (the infill) going on around them and to shape it into the goodwill for all.

Why I Hate Free Parking

From Atlanta Magazine, a poignant graphic showing free parking taking over the built environment

I know what you're thinking, "How could you hate free parking, how could you hate free anything, even?" But, when it comes to city living, I struggle to appreciate free parking. Not that I don't mind the saved dollars, but when looking at the collective health of the city- what is best for everyone- free parking may not be the answer. In this blog, I will look into the impact of parking, and how much of an impact it really has on our built environment.

The city of Atlanta has parking requirements that each new development must meet. For instance, a new apartment complex has to meet a required minimum of spaces for its residences. And the grocery store built next to it has to meet a required minimum for its customers. And next to the grocery store, the office center has a required minimum of parking for its workers. And then next to the office, a chic restaurant complex has a parking deck for its customers, too.

From the ATL Urbanists- amount of space dedicated to parking in Downtown Atlanta

To our ear, where parking is plentiful in suburban America, nothing is wrong with this picture. Each development in our mind should be required to provide parking for its users. But set in an urban landscape, this parking is a big waste of space. Because the apartment complex's parking deck is only full from 9pm-8am, the grocery store parking lot only full from 5pm-7pm, the office parking deck is full from 9am-5pm, and the restaurants from 6pm-9pm. All of these separate places with different uses could share one parking structure because their uses keep them full at separate times. With less space devoted to parking, the built environment can be rebuilt to be more dense and walkable which results in better public health for the city. And with less parking provided and more options of getting around, less people will drive in the first place which alternatively eliminates the need for so much parking.

And now let's focus in on the money because honestly, you don't deserve free parking at the grocery store. Why? Because one typical surface parking lot spot costs $2,000-$4,000 to make. $2,000 is a lot of money to spend on a piece of land that may only be occupied 25% of the time (25% being very generous occupation rate for a surface lot). And a parking deck? One spot in a parking deck costs the developer at least $20,000. Most parking decks are typically around $30,000-$40,000 to build per spot while if it is an underground parking deck, the cost skyrockets to $70,000 (or more) per spot. Can you imagine spending $20,000 on one spot that is maybe occupied by an un-moving car for 15% of the time? That is literally crazy but is basically mandatory if you want to built a large development in any urban location now-a-days.

Another photo from ATL Urbanist- shows distinctly the waste of parking in an urban neighborhood

Why is it a requirement? Because in order to compete with suburban counterparts, central cities began changing zoning policy to have parking requirements for all new developments in the 1960's. Of course, we know that now our downtowns' can often be parking wastelands that are unfriendly to the pedestrian's eye while the effort to maintain development downtown still lost to the suburban exodus (think Edge City!).

So, I hate free parking because one) parking is never free. The actual parking spot has a cost to make while there are other costs too like costs on our physical health, on our built environment, and on our downtown's viability to retract and retain new development. The second reason I hate parking is because so often it is unnecessary. Combining different developments need for parking into one central, local place would reduce so much of our waste on building superfluous parking. Also, this central place would require a fee to enter, and when we create a "stick" such as a parking fee, people often consider other ways of getting around such as walking, biking, or taking transit.

Create spaces like this y'all! Not parking!

The argument I created here is certainly controversial because most Americans wouldn't want to give up a free service. Americans would never purposely want to tax their personal freedoms and create limits to parking while also inconveniencing their own lives. It almost unthinkable to us. But the reality is that parking is not a free service, in fact driving is a privilege that we take granted for everyday. If we really want to become more green and change the way we live our lives, then it is necessary to tax parking (like it is to tax driving). To achieve our goals in creating a more livable, environmentally conscious city, it is necessary that we constrain some our freedoms in pursuit of a stronger collective body.

A Realistic View of Live, Work, Play

Suwanee, Georgia- poster child of a live, work, play community

Many major cities and large suburban cities are beginning to promote a mixed use lifestyle of live, work, play. The idea being that you can live your entire life within one town. One can supposedly live within this town, go to work at the office park in this town, and then go to its town center for lunch or dinner completing the triad with "play." And its not a bad lifestyle to try to emulate. Before the highway era, most American towns were live, work, play environments because the lack of the automobile restricted growth and provided dense, mixed-use towns to live in. Towns like Suwanee, Georgia whose slogan is in fact "Live, Work, Play" are moving in the right direction by focusing on new job growth, an expanded town center and historic district, new urbanists' walkable developments, and bike and walking trails to promote multi-modal life.

These efforts should and must be applauded because the alternative (sprawl) is no productive way to live. Of course, there are faults with this plan, and Suwanee is still almost entirely a car-only town with their new approach, but it is a movement in the right direction to correcting our original mistakes of suburban sprawl.

Yet having grown up just outside Suwanee and knowing people who live within, I only know of one family who really could fulfill the live, work, play scenario after ten years of this approach. Suwanee is still a commuter town with I-85 filling up to the brim everyday right through Suwanee. Most people's lives do not levitate around one place, its encompasses the entire region now. People live in a place like Suwanee, commute an hour down the road to work at the Perimeter Center (Sandy Springs/Dunwoody), and take their family or spouse out for a special night in Midtown or Buckhead. We are no longer people of one community, but people of one region. 

Yet, we are only able to vote for representatives in one community. A resident of Suwanee can only have a say in the city of Suwanee government and Gwinnett County government even if they spend more than eight hours a day outside of the county. This doesn't really make sense. If the majority of your day is spent in another place, you should have a say in what goes on there.

Atlanta's Metropolitan Statistical Area- encompasses almost all of North Georgia now

Is there a possible solution to this region-wide issue? (Of course there is!) It is to create more government! Libertarians don't fret though. I am not proposing bigger government, just one coordinated regional government. A similar system already is in place for Atlanta's MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) called the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). The ARC is technically not elected by the people; they are chosen representatives by their fellow politicians. For instance, all of the mayors of Gwinnett select one mayor to represent them at the commission. In addition, the ARC has little real power in creating change throughout the region. As of right now, they are more of a tool that municipalities and counties rely on for planning research, additional funding, or other various needs.

So what if instead of the ARC being a commission it became an ARG. An Atlanta Regional Government would be elected by the people of the region and would have more leniency to create change in the region. The region would be set up into sub-sects, and each sub-sect could vote on a representative to represent them at the regional level. This government would then have the power to take all of the transportation agencies under its wing and create one coordinated system, have the power to accept or deny large developments, coordinate zoning between municipalities and counties, create smart corridors of equitable growth, organize an urban growth boundary, control regional land use decisions, and even have the ability to tax.

While I certainly see an argument against this regional government being an abuse of power by the government over the people, the irony in that argument is that most people have no choice, no voice even, as to what happens around the majority of their lives right now. If you disagree with Dunwoody building massive office towers right along the interstate due to traffic concerns but live in Cobb County then you have no ability to stop these developments. If Atlanta had a regional government, suddenly you would have a way to make sure your concerns are voiced.

Portland, Oregon's Regional Government: Metro

Only one American region has successfully implemented a regionally elected government. Portland, Oregon has the Metro government. Metro government includes all the towns and communities surrounding the city of Portland, and its main responsibilities are running the region's transportation agency Tri-Met, controlling land-use decisions, and solving disputes over its urban growth boundary. People elect representatives to this collective body, and from there, the regional government makes decisions affecting the entire region. Metro has had significant success with Portland, Oregon being one of the most livable and walkable regions in the country. The region of Portland works, and the reason it "works" is because it has a regional government that makes collective decisions that benefit all.

It is my opinion that all American regions should have a democratically elected government that makes decisions for the collective whole because our lives do not live, work, and play in just one place anymore. Instead, our lives span across multiple cities and counties on a day-to-day basis. So if our lives span across over multiple places, why don't we have a government that represents us across these places? The sooner we recognize that transportation, land use, and growth are collective issues, the sooner our region will become a better place to live for the collective self. 

A New Start

I know it has been a while since I have last posted on my planning blog (over a year in fact), but lately, I have been feeling an urge to rekindle my love for policy, innovation, and writing on this public platform. I've have made a few changes of course: this blog will cover a broader range of subjects in the field of planning (beyond just Atlanta developments), so the name has changed and you may find a different direction in my approach to the new posts. Looking back over my old posts, I find it interesting what posts have become true and what posts have been left for the shelves. I encourage you to look over them too, for the change Atlanta has seen in just this small amount of time is remarkable.

Boulder, Colorado and its distinct growth boundary seen along its periphery

In regards to this blog post, I will be focusing on a piece of policy that I find particularly interesting: urban growth boundaries. Urban growth boundaries (referred to as UGBs) are instituted by usually city (but sometimes state) government where the city draws a line around how far they're willing to develop the land. These boundaries usually stem from an environmentalist movement to protect the surrounding environment outside the city. What these boundaries do is much more than protect the environment, though. Urban growth boundaries sets a defined piece of land where the government will provide services such as electricity, plumbing, and safety. Beyond that line, the boundary signifies that the city will no longer provide for development. It is a wonderful resource to curb sprawl and help protect the environment. In addition, it forces development in on top of itself. Instead of creating more sprawling housing estates, the government has indicated they want more orderly, defined, and organized housing estates that reduce sprawl and increase walkability. It takes focus off the road and toward alternative ways of getting around such as walking, biking, or taking mass transit. It reutilizes spaces previously thought useless inside the boundary because people are forced to make the most (and the best) use of their land. Cities such as Boulder, Colorado have successfully instilled urban growth boundaries, and the improved quality of life certainly sings praise to this policy's effectiveness.

Portland, Oregon- and its regional growth

One state that requires all of its municipalities to have an urban growth boundary is Oregon. Back in the 1970's, the state acted upon its maverick culture and produced a law that would require every municipality to make a precise boundary, and viewing the state today, it is clear that gamble has paid off. Where in most of rural America, small towns are dying out, farming communities failing due to a lack of investment, main street being moved to the Wal-Mart that opened up on the highway, in Oregon, its small towns still seem to have remained vibrant centers of commerce. The same has occurred to its larger cities. Instead of sprawling over the valley it is based off of, Portland and its suburbs are instead a dense, connected, organized region of growth. The urban growth boundary has really impacted all parts of life in Oregon. The rural parts remain agriculturally-bounded due to strict zoning, and the general authentic nature of the state is preserved. In its suburbs, while the car does dominate mobility, but they are still what their name indicates: extension of the urban ring. Portland suburbs are connected to downtown by different forms of mass transit, and when people need to go shopping, instead of driving to the local mall, they take the local train to the downtown's shopping district. The old urban neighborhoods are thriving in Oregon, too. Instead of being forgotten by newer and newer neighborhoods on the fringes of the region, these neighborhoods have been redeveloped and new infill has made them vibrant, exciting neighborhoods to live in. And maybe the best centerpiece to the urban growth boundary are that Oregon's cities have thriving downtowns. Downtown Portland is 150 blocks of life. Its walkable streets exude life on every corner because the urban growth boundary has preserved just that: life in downtown.

So, if urban growth boundaries had such a profound effect on Oregon and its major city, I wondered what it could do for Georgia and its major city. Ryan Gravel, who originally thought of the Atlanta Beltline and author of Where We Want to Live, argues that Atlanta needs an urban growth boundary immediately, if any essence of order is to be preserved in Atlanta. Yet, I wonder if the state of Georgia government put forth a UGB would it even make a difference for the sprawling behemoth or is it too late for Atlanta? (Comment below what you think! I'd love to hear your thoughts.)  

Savannah, GA- perfect place to implement UGB

Personally, I find there is need for UGB law in Georgia, but its necessity isn't for Atlanta, yet its second-tier cities such as  Augusta, Savannah, Macon, and Columbus. These cities and their regions could really benefit from a UGB. They're still small enough in size that restricting and channeling growth to certain areas could really benefit and dramatically improve the quality of life for these small cities. One reason I believe UGB was so successful in Portland's region is because the size of the region was around 1 million people, a still very manageable number. All of Georgia's second-tier cities are less than 1 million people, so I find this good news. In addition, they all have either strong rural industries or natural beauty that desire protection from regional encroachment. Putting forth boundaries could really alter and rehabilitate some of Georgia's smaller cities.

Atlanta's current MPO includes 18 counties

I also think Atlanta (or its region I should say) needs an urban growth boundary. Specifically, one line that encircles the entire region and is an end to all new sprawling development. Within this line, I propose the sprawl and sporadic development that has accompanied Atlanta's growth can still happen, but outside of it, there needs to be an immediate stop. If we don't draw a boundary, if we don't say enough is enough, then what we recognize as "Atlanta" will literally become one long suburb from Alabama to South Carolina and from Macon to Tennessee. I do think its too late in that urban growth boundaries won't produce the same effects as it had for Portland, but it will curtail and change the way we grow and live very gradually.  

One argument against UGB is that it prevents businesses and developers from expanding and developing. But this is not true. In Portland, even after 30+ years with UGB, there are still lots of developable land within the region. So UGB isn't anti-business, but it is anti- letting businesses do whatever they wish anymore. Allowing corporations like Pulte to buy massive tracts of land and convert them into gigantic housing estates needs to be stopped because it hurts our region. But, it nevertheless won't be stopped because doing that makes the biggest bang for your buck with these corporations, and their main focus isn't design and livability but money. We shouldn't prevent a better Georgia because business says otherwise, we should make a better Georgia and show the businesses who really owns this land.    

I am a proponent of urban growth boundaries. They're an excellent way to reshape, redefine, and recreate a city and its region. I believe putting them into law in Georgia could provide the state with what this post is: a new start.