What can we do about sprawl?

Gil: It depends on who "we" is, of course. For a company, it can depend on where you site your facilities, how -- and how often -- you expect your people to commute or telecommute (as well as, of course, and what sorts of products and services you provide). For a person or family, it depends on where you choose to live - and who you choose to work for. For a public agency, it will be a function of the policies you create, which in turn provide a context for the individual and corporate choices.

One California agency has decided that privatization may be the answer.

Sprawl has been fueled by low commute costs and lower land rents, as well as a pastoral dream that modern population densities may no longer permit. So one way to control it is to shift that cost incentive back in the other direction. While some would call this a "taking" of property rights by government, others would call it an attempt to more fairly allocate costs to the generator of those costs, rather than to the commons.

All of which is a long introduction to a policy innovation coming out of California's Central Valley. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District "looking for ways to battle deteriorating air quality in the fast-growing region, voted unanimously" according to the Dec. 16 2005 San Francisco Chronicle, "...to place an air pollution fee on new large-scale residential and commercial development -- the first action of its kind in the country."

The district calculates the air quality impact of proposed projects, based on the pollution they induce, and then invites developers to modify their designs to reduce pollution -- for example, with energy-efficient appliances, sidewalks and bike paths, electrical vehicle charging stations, speed bumps and locations near retail shops or job centers.

Builders who don't meet expectations will pay -- up $780 per house and $18,000 for a 2,000-square-foot commercial structure (with exemptions for smaller developments and projects). The district will invest the anticipated proceeds -- an expected $100 million over three years -- in air quality programs.

As we've seen with industrial eco-efficiency and other environmental regulation, the initial reaction is often a knee-jerk "this is unreasonable, unrealistic, we can't afford it, it will destroy our industry, drive us out of town, cost jobs, etc." And, as we've seen before, those who invest their energy and creativity in design innovation, rather than oppositional lobbying, will often find ways to meet and exceed regulatory requirements at lower cost, grow their profit margins and expand their market share -- at the expense of the whiners and complainers.

* * * * *

Got A Question?
Send your questions about environmental management issues to Experts@GreenBiz.com
We can't guarantee that we'll answer every question, but we'll try.


------
Gil Friend, systems ecologist and business strategist, is president and CEO of Natural Logic, Inc. -- offering advisory services and tools that help companies and communities prosper by embedding the laws of nature at the heart of enterprise. Sign up online to receive his monthly column via email. Read Gil's blog here.