What sort of planning is HRG in favor of?

>>We are not for promoting one type of policy over another (sprawl or urban density) but for consumer choice through the market place.

Do you all favor eliminating the gas tax and all public road, highway construction, and parking and setback requirements in Houston? If so then at least your beliefs are consistent.

>>Finally, using terms like “cabal” for groups that do not agree with all your positions is the equivalent of grade school playground name calling.

OK, then as a private citizen who just wants to know these things, what foundations support HRG? The other organization, Houston Tomorrow, clearly has this list of important contributors and foundations visible on their website (just click on About -> then go to the bottom and click on Supporters). I could not find this information on your website, so for all I know you are completely financed by a very narrow constituency that does not have my interests as a private citizen in mind.

Thank you for providing this information.

-Mike

Blogs are fine for sharing opinions David, but no one should be allowed to misrepresent the positions of others. For example, you state that we are “fighting urban corridors.” In fact this is totally false. We are working positively to help formulate a solution that encourages development within the corridor. In fact, HRG favors removing all barriers to development within the corridors so that all types can be tested by the market. If what you say is correct and people want to live in a dense urban environment along the transit corridors, then they should be allowed to do so freely. If there is a market demand for TOD, then past history of Houston and our market shows that is will succeed on its own merits and shouldn’t have to be mandated. We want people to have more options so that they can CHOOSE which lifestyle is appropriate for them to adopt. That’s the key, free choice.

In the future, if you are confused or unsure as to what HRG’s stances on policy are, why don’t you do the research first or simply ask us. Better yet, perhaps stick to representing your own positions and let others speak for themselves.

In mischaracterizing our “religious” fight to promote sprawl policies, once again you have totally misrepresented HRG. We are not for promoting one type of policy over another (sprawl or urban density) but for consumer choice through the market place. The reason sprawl even exists is because some people actually choose to live in affordable single family suburban homes instead of dense urban structures. It is not because that option has been forced on them by the development community.

Let me also add that HRG is for planning. There is a major distinction between prudent planning for public infrastructure and transportation improvements (HRG) and public planning to restrict a private property owner’s use of his own land (Houston Tomorrow). Public Policy decisions have fiscal impacts and consequences that need to be carefully examined before being rushed into practice. HRG brings that reality and facts to the table to try and find solutions that benefit all Houstonians, not just an elite class.

Finally, using terms like “cabal” for groups that do not agree with all your positions is the equivalent of grade school playground name calling. It is a tactic not worthy of serious policy discussion or of serious people. It demeans the name-caller, not the target. For the record, Houstonians for Responsible Growth represents a broad spectrum of the development community, neighborhood groups, and civic and business leaders from Houston. We are a 501c4 research institute that acts a public policy advocate for Houston’s proven model of regulating development through market forces and consumer choice.

HRG is happy to engage in serious policy discussion at any time. Next time though, please extend the courtesy to ask us to participate instead of misrepresenting our views and try and refrain from sophomoric histrionics. Thank you

Joshua Sanders
Executive Director, HRG
josh@houstongrowth.org
713-366-7970

I hope the Urban Corridors initiative serves as a catalyst eventually leading to a smart-code + transect (or something similar) for Houston.

Obviously Houston has prospered because of oil and gas, and not solely because of their existence. The fact that early Houston oil merchants got it that adding value (by building refineries) would be a much better scheme than just selling the natural resource means the economy has been tremendous as long as people have wanted oil and gas products.

Hard to imagine how somebody can say Houston escaped the housing problem, unless they simply mean the high prices. Certainly, according to reports from the Greater Houston Partnership, the residential construction business has been grim recently and not expected to get much better soon. Every time I attend a report on land forecasting or real estate, that’s what I hear. They all agree it will get better in a year or more, but right now it’s not great.

There has been some research that suggests Houston has suffered from over-regulation (http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/2/) and other work that suggests Houston has nearly as much regulation as non-zoned cities (Teddy M. Kapur, “Land Use Regulation in Houston Contradicts the City’s Free Market Reputation,” 34 Envtl. L. Rep. 10045 (2004)). In any event, we have plenty of regulation. The system we’ve used for decades is called form-based code. Our problem is that the form we’ve chosen (entirely sub-urban, except, as you note, in the Central Business District) makes urban development basically illegal. The Urban Corridors recommendation that the Houstonians for Responsible Growth (HRG) cabal is fighting is simply intended to legalize and promote urbanity around the existing and future rail stations.

So all we’re trying to do is rework our form-based code for that purpose. Since the cabal is largely supportive of the sprawl policies of the past, the last thing they want to see is urban choices for Houstonians who want to live in urban circumstances, because each person who does that isn’t forced to go buy a house out on the prairie somewhere. It’s stupefying, though, to see that they’ve raised it to a religious cause and that they’re saying people who support fairness and kindness to neighbors are immoral. But that’s what happens when you believe there is an invisible hand guiding developers that doesn’t also guide other citizens.