Sustainable Cities of Tomorrow: A Land Use Response to Climate Change

• Author: Stephen R. Miller
• Pages: 175-198

175

Chapter 10:

Sustainable Cities of

Tomorrow: A Land Use

Response to Climate Change

Stephen R. Miller

I. Overview

is chapter makes the case that building sustainable cities is a foundational

component for addressing climate change in the 21st century. To support

this thesis, the chapter rst reviews four major factors in cities that drive

climate change both in the United States a nd around the world: population

growth; rapid urbanization; population migration; and declining urban den-

sity. Based on these factors, the chapter then considers t he viability of using

land use regu lation as a tool to respond to climate change in U.S. cities. Six

responses are reviewed: compact cities a s a climate change mitigation strat-

egy; compact cities as a climate cha nge adaptation strategy; compact cities

as a means of facilitating more ecient infrastructure and buildings; green-

ing population migration; social resiliency; and engaging creative governance

and nancing structures. A brief summary of ava ilable legal tools follows

each response.

II. The City’s Role in Climate Change

ere is a hesitancy to investing too much in land use as a means to address

climate cha nge. is hesitancy arises from severa l fronts. First, land use1 is

almost universally controlled by local governments in t he United States,

an often-balkanized smorgasbord of overlapping efdoms f rom municipal

governments to school districts and special districts controlling access to

resources as diverse as water, mosquito abatement, and even as mundane as

1. is chapter discusses land use policies of urban areas with the recognition that rural land use policies

present a dierent set of climate change-related decisions.

176 Rethinking Sustainability

which businesses get ower pots in front of their stores.2 Second, this frag-

mentation of local government makes eorts at coordinated regiona l land

use governance dicult in most metropolitan areas, much less an eort to

coordinate nationally, or e ven global ly, on land use decisions.3 ird, la nd

use takes time to work any noticeable eect in reducing GHG emissions,

which makes other, technology-based solutions—like energy and transit

eciency or fuel standards—that promise quicker xes more appealing.4

Fourth, in many conservative jurisdictions, there is backlash against sustain-

ability eorts launched by erroneous but inuential dis-information, such

as Glenn Beck’s a nti-Agenda 21 rhetoric,5 which make it dicult to have

a coherent conversation, much less take action, on aect ing climate change

through land use.6 Fifth, U.S. Supreme Court decisions of the past few years,

such as Stop the Beach7 and Koontz,8 make many local governments reluctant

to impose regulatory controls t hat mig ht address climate changes impacts.

Finally, there is a view, seldom explicitly stated, that but for a few enlight-

ened jurisdictions, local government decisionma kers—typically part-time

volunteers with other jobs in all but the largest cities—are ill-equipped to

perform the job of addressing global climate change.9 While these are legiti-

mate limitations of land use regulation, this section presents data illustrating

that urban land use decisions globally play a substantia l role in creating, and

solving, the climate change puzzle. Despite the limitations land use suers,

2. See, e.g., U.S. C B, L G  T  S: 2012 (2012), available at

http://www2.census.gov/govs/cog/2012/formatted_prelim_counts_23jul2012_2.pdf (listing 38,917

general purpose districts, such as cities and counties, and 50,087 special districts, such as school or

water districts, in the United States.).

3. See, e.g., Laurie Reynolds, Local Governments and Regional Governance, 39 U. L. 483 (2007);

see also F B  D C, T Q R  L U C 1–4

(1971), (noting rise of regional governance structures to address land use).

4. See C. A R. B., C C S P: A F  C 49–50 (2008)

(citing U.C. B T. S R C., A Review of the International Modeling

Literature: Transit, Land Use, and Auto Pricing Strategies to Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Greenhouse

Gas Emissions (2008)). An update to the 2008 AB 32 Scoping Plan is slated for 2013 and is being

formalized as of this writing. e subsequent 2013 Scoping Plan may contain additional data on

modeling improvements that could better assist understanding the importance of linking land use

and transportation to reduce GHG emissions.

5. See G B  H P, A 21 (2012) (dystopian novel portraying sustainability as

double-speak for totalitarian agenda to overthrow democracies).

6. Leslie Kaufman & Kate Zernike, Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot, N.Y. T, Feb. 3,

2012.

7. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 130 S. Ct. 2592, 2594 (2010)

(giving new credence to judicial takings claims).

8. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 133 S. Ct. 2586, 2603 (2013) (extending Nollan/Dolan

requirements to monetary exactions).

9. Several larger states have created substantial training program to try to raise the level of decisionmaking

by its local planning ocials. See, e.g., N.Y. State Dep’t. of State, Local Government Training, http://

www.dos.ny.gov/lg/lut/ (providing numerous online courses in land use and zoning basics).