Michael Lewyn

<p> Last week, voters in San Francisco voted against a measure to compel the city to set aside $30 million for affordable housing. Opponents of the proposal argued that &quot;the city already has spent more than $200 million on affordable housing in the past several years, and is building more units - some affordable, some not - than anytime in recent history.&quot; (1) San Francisco is not alone; government at all levels seeks to provide housing assistance for the poor.  </p> <p> But at the same time, government zones and rezones property to protect &quot;property values&quot; (2) - in other words, to cause home prices to increase over time rather than decrease. So government makes housing expensive with one arm while trying to provide affordable housing with the other. </p>

<p> <br /> A few days ago, someone asked a question on one of my listservs about the likely impact of America’s economic crises upon urbanism.<br /> <br /> The best answer is: it depends.<br />

A PLANNER’S PRAYER<br /> <br /> Next week, Jews around the world (including myself) will spend the day in synagogue for Yom Kippur, the Jewish day of atonement.  On that day, we will pray for forgiveness for our sins.  One Yom Kippur prayer, the Al Chet (Hebrew for “for the sin”) lists a variety of sins, requesting Divine forgiveness for each. (One English translation can be found at www.chabad.org/holidays/JewishNewYear/template_cdo/aid/6577/jewish/Text-of-Al-Chet.htm )<br />

<br /> <p class="MsoNormal"> Last Friday, I was in two different suburban environments in Atlanta.<span> </span>Both are sprawl by any normal definition of the term - car-oriented environments where residential streets are separated from commerce, sidewalks are rare, and densities are low.<span> </span>But the two places are as different as sprawl and new urbanism. </p>

<p> The battle for the White House has reached my inbox, as even listservs about urbanism crackle with endorsements and denunciations of Obama, McCain, Palin, etc. <br /> <br /> But all of this frenzied activity assumes that what a President says or thinks is particularly relevant to urban issues.  But this need not be so.  The policy areas most relevant to sprawl and urbanism, land use and transportation, are not likely to be directly affected by the results of the presidential election.  <br /> <br /> In particular, zoning and similar land use issues are generally addressed by state and local governments.  Even the most pro-urban president is unlikely to take on anti-infill NIMBYism (1), make strip malls more walkable. or make streets narrower.  <br />