Frugal Apartheid?

The Tea Party Right Wing Press rails against “Green”building and infill development as tools for the Rich to conspire to oppress the Poor. Their mistake is not that Green building is more economical to own and operate than conventional construction, but the assumption that there is a upper-class bias and conspiracy to hurt the poor and working families in Albuquerque by "gentrification" under the guise of "green construction." Developers build in a regulated market and serve those who buy. Global climate change threatens the rich and poor alike in the desert Southwest. We need to change the rules of the market, empower the poor and work together to reduce our “ecological footprint” to create a greener, more frugal and more sustainable city. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we can hang together or we can hang alone.

The self-proclaimed defenders of the poor point out the systemic failures of conventional land development for working families in Albuquerque – they drive “jalopies” to their affordable houses on the suburban fringe of the city, far from their jobs across town or they live in old decaying houses in old decaying neighborhoods that are "ripe for redevelopment.". And the poor have to shop at cheap warehouse stores to live. “Drive‘till you qualify” is the formula today. But it costs a lot to drive every day to a low-wage job and to shop the cheap big boxes, and the price is rising. These are not problems caused by any “urbanism”new or old, but by the conventional suburban sprawl of Albuquerque and other post-War cities. If we talked about the total cost of housing and driving in the same breath, we could create a new city of opportunity. The Center for Neighborhood Technology in Chicago, www.cnt.org has developed such a formula.

In every American city today, there is a range of housing from 5-acre ranchitos to 1/10-acre townhouses and apartments. Even with that range across Albuquerque, we need to add more housing opportunities for ourselves, our children and our parents. No one can afford every house on the market. Along with McMansions and subsidized, 3-bedroom apartments for poor families, we need more small accessory apartments (for our mothers-in-law and children), new townhouses, new flats (aka condos) and new casitas for more households to enjoy the opportunity of convenience and even home ownership in a growing city with rising land values and growing wealth.

We shouldn’t sneer at the success of yuppies and empty-nesters and others who can afford to live Downtown or in EDo or Nob Hill and ride their bikes to buy a latte. Not everyone wants to live there with limited parking and too manytouristas. Some buyers want a 1-acre estate in Los Ranchos or Corrales. But most people would love to afford that Starbucks’ latte.

We need to keep working families in our sights as we re-build Albuquerque in the 21st Century. They are the key to maintain the social complexity and richness that sustains our city. The rich can afford to buy anything. Social and economic diversity is essential to a great city. All the complaints from Libertarians and Tea Baggers about “oppressive”government regulations don’t change this fact. We need to build equity in the city as we grow.

We cannot expect that gated enclaves for the rich and “Section 8 Housing” for the poor someplace else will build a city. We need all household types, classes and income levelsin relative proximity to enable great civic places. We need assisted-housing policies and techniquesof many kinds for the poor, our children and our elders. We need non-profit developers, land trusts, cooperatives, and the state, city and county to get involved. In simple terms, we need to regulate a city where secretaries and teachers can live next to the children they teach and their employers.

We need to cut through the bureaucracy, to eliminate senseless regulatory barriers, and promote innovation wherever possible. We need a land-value tax policy that rewards investment and new housing inside Albuquerque today. But we run into the constant challenge that there are two things people hate - sprawl and density.

One critic decries a conventional townhouse development on a former landscape nursery next to a city reservoir and across the street from garden apartments. The fact is, the site is miles away from the jobs the future residents will work. The problem is not that the new townhouses will cost a lot of money to build and buy, but that they will cost a lot to own and operate. The price of gasoline is over $3 per gallon today. What will home buyers up there do when gasoline costs $5 per gallon and the bus on Montgomery runs less than 3 times per hour during workdays? Why can’t we build new housing near new jobs or new jobs nearer housing? These are policy questions that can be answered by the city council IF the neighborhood associations want to participate.

We need to take a longer view of all of Albuquerque. What will the city look like when gasoline costs $5 per gallon or more? That time is coming. How will we get to our minimum-wage jobs in our jalopies that the Tea Baggers worry about? How will we afford to shop at Wal-Mart when the nearest self-proclaimed “SuperCenter” is 5 miles from home and Wal-Mart has to import their stuff from China at the same price per gallon? The neighborhood market with local produce and the bus and bike look better and better, but will they exist in that brave new corporate future where five Walton heirs own more than 30 million Americans?

The world is flattening, but it is also rising, and not all of us can rise with it, no matter how much education CNM offers.

It’s not that there are“eco-elitists” out there discriminating against the poor in a latter-day “apartheid.” The world as we have built it is driving down wages and rewarding the rich and the low-wage Chinese workers. How can we reduce the cost of our American lifestyle fast enough to compete against India and China? They’ve got the high-tech jobs today. We don’t. They are teaching enough of their high school children the math skills they need to succeed in today's working world. We aren't.

The city and county will never ask developers to provide housing in every development for all classes, from the homeless to the executives of PNM or UNM athletics. We need to find more middle grounds, a range of housing for each neighborhood that is comfortable for buyers. Former Albuquerque Mayor David Rusk offered a strategy that he found in Montgomery County, Maryland since 1976 –require 10% affordable housing in every subdivision. Add effective transit, and it will work in Albuquerque, too. Montgomery County trades a density bonus for those affordable units, one for one. Courts have found that to be a fair deal for both the county and the developers. The key question here is whether the neighbors will ever accept such heresy. What benefits does the city need to offer them in trade?

Montgomery Blvd. offers that opportunity, as do Lomas, San Mateo, Coors, Menaul, Lomas, Eubank, Central and 4thStreet to select a few key arterials. But this means that we will allow more housing, higher densities and more opportunities for residents today along those corridors, not more restrictions.

But these new homes must be less expensive to own and operate, and that means they must be “green.” So the key for “green building” to serve the needs of the working poor is for us to create incentives to balance the upfront costs of better construction and higher density housing near jobs with economic returns for the builders and developers. It may take tax credits or cash rebates or discounts from the state, city or county and location-efficient mortgages for the buyers to make this happen, but it can be done as a matter of public policy. We need to reduce the tax cost of improving land, but tax the value of land itself (as real estate brokers say, the value in land is “location, location, location!”) We must kick-start very energy efficient construction through stricter codes and appealing tax incentives. The very steps the Republican City Council chose to vote against.

Public officials have a kit of tools they can use to allow developers to create a market for new housing and jobs. We need to expand that kit as far as we can afford to and not simply remind everyone that the market discriminates against the poor. The role of government is to find the best balance between taxes, services, subsidies and support for the rich and poor.

We shouldn’t claim that “green building” is the new apartheid in Albuquerque when green building saves everyone money (and the environment) over time. We must create the public policies that fulfill this equitable and sustainable vision for Albuquerque and New Mexico before our time runs out.

A version of this essay was published in The Albuquerque Tribune in 2007.