Posts about Regionalism

The Region Forward report identifies goals in several categories with specific targets relating to accessibility, sustainability, prosperity, and livability. The goals range from minimizing economic disparities and achieving balanced growth throughout the region to maximizing connectivity and walkability.

The report's land use goal sums up the overarching theme very succinctly: "We seek transit-oriented and mixed-use communities emerging in Regional Activity Centers that will capture new employment and household growth."

The purpose of the RFC is to oversee the implementation steps recommended in the Region Forward report, and to advise the COG Board on future regional planning activities. The RFC consists of 80 members representing area jurisdictions, planning committees, and advocacy groups. Prince George's County Council Vice Chair Eric Olson serves as the RFC chair, and Arlington County Board Member Mary Hynes and District of Columbia Planning Director Harriet Tregoning serve as vice chairs.

Our kickoff meeting offered excellent opportunities for RFC members to engage with each other on a variety of topics, including the question of what's included in the concept of "complete communities." What surprised me the most was the fact that there was a great deal of agreement among participants about the essential elements. These included a variety of transit options to integrate activity centers into the region, a mix of land uses to enhance walkability and livability within the community, and the presence of a variety of economic and social opportunities nearby.

I was also impressed by the initial focus on transit-oriented affordable housing. Too often, large scale planning exercises like this pay only lip services to things like public safety, education, and affordable housing. I look forward to a process that ensures these priorities are factored into planning in a meaningful way.

The next step will be to organize working subcommittees that will consider the definition and identification of "regional activity centers," taking baseline measurements of those centers, and developing future planning approaches to help them grow according to the goals identified by the Region Forward plan.

As with any diverse coalition, the goals and needs of members will not always align, but everyone involved is committed to the vision in the Region Forward report. I am excited to be serving with so many outstanding public servants and representatives from such diverse communities, but I am even more excited about strengthening the dialogue between these groups and the GGW community.

It was obvious from the kick off meeting that there is great potential for GGW to have an impact on regional planning through the course of the RFC's work. In the future, we envision live chats, guest posts and other forums to ensure that your voices are heard as we continue planning the future of the greater Washington region.

The destination city would be better off if the local governments could agree not to compete for the new arrival, and to adopt some sort of transfer payment to share the gains from the relocation — the "winning" jurisdiction could pay a higher share toward multi-jurisdictional infrastructure investments, for instance. The failure to prevent this competition means that economic gain which would accrue to the metropolitan population, broadly speaking, is instead retained by the relocating firm.

Right now, each jurisdiction essentially 'bids' for how much of a break and what other incentives it can offer. What if the jurisdictions agreed to bid in an internal marketplace instead, with the winning bidder getting the exclusive right to negotiate with the company? In exchange, the winning bidder could agree to split any difference between their bid and the final incentive package with the others proportional to their (losing) bids.

For example, say DC is willing to offer $6 million in incentives, Montgomery and Fairfax $5 million, Prince George's $3 million, and Arlington $1 million. DC wins but wins the deal away from Los Angeles for only $4 million. That $2 million could then share among the others, with DC keeping $600K in addition to the benefits they get, Montgomery and Fairfax getting $500K, Prince George's $300K, and Arlington $100K. Then DC is sharing $1.4 million of the $2 million they "saved" through this compact with the others.

The savings could go to general small business tax breaks that benefit the other businesses not large enough to otherwise win special treatment from local governments. Or, as Ryan suggested, DC could just agree to pay the $1.4 million in extra capital contributions to, say, WMATA, from which all jurisdictions benefit.

Ryan is also skeptical about whether the District itself really benefits from these breaks:

Property tax breaks are particularly costly for the [District], given the many restrictions on land uses it faces (from public land ownership to the height limit). And there is no way for the District to ensure that employment will go to [DC residents], rather than suburbanites who will pay their income taxes elsewhere. Lucky Virginia might end up with much of the income tax gain without having to shell out incentives.

The city would be better off spending the money on investments that improve quality of life in the District — among them, measures to make it easier to open small businesses, including retail and service firms people want but which are often constrained by foolish government policies (limits on uses, high property tax rates, and so on).

People are currently moving into the city by the thousands. Why is that? It certainly isn't because the city has been using incentives to attract prestige headquarters.

The suggestion earlier to limit tax breaks outside downtown makes a lot of sense, since it's the other parts of the District that have empty commercial buildings, and where some office investment now could support growing mixed-use districts in the long run.

Economic development calculations ought to assume that as soon as the tax break ends, the business leaves for somewhere else with a larger tax break. If that happens, will the city be better off or not? If having a company in, say, Fort Totten for ten years helped turn that into a more thriving area and attracted other businesses, it could be great even if we never make a dime off the incentivized business.

The extra requirements to create jobs for DC residents are nice, but why not spread it around to anyone who adds jobs for DC residents? Why shouldn't a new bakery that employs 4 DC residents not get at least 4% of the tax break that CoStar will get for 100?