Should greenfield development have to pay for itself? Nah*
*not completely.
There is a lot of chat going on in urban development policy circles about pursuing a principle of ‘user pays’, or sometimes ‘beneficiary pays’. Apparently, this principle should be the foundation upon which we1 make all of our decisions or whatever.
I don’t disagree with this assertion per se, but I do think this principle is often applied inconsistently. This is probably obvious to many, but users and beneficiaries are not the same thing and we shouldn't use these words interchangeably. For example: a user of public transport is someone who rides around on public transport. But a beneficiary of public transport? Well, depending where you draw the line, that could be anyone and everyone. People who drive to work benefit from all the people who take the train instead, because the roads are less congested and drivers will get to work faster. Everyone benefits from more people using public transport because that reduces net carbon emissions. This is why there is such a strong case to subsidise public transport.
What I am trying to say is: I very very much agree with the principle of beneficiary pays. I just don’t think everyone agrees on who actually benefits from certain planning decisions or infrastructure investments.
How does this relate to greenfield development? Well, the new National government wants to replace the Medium Density Residential Standards (allowing three homes of up to three storeys on any lot) with a performance-based system whereby councils have to demonstrate that they have enabled enough development capacity to cope with 30 years of growth. Apparently National does not mind whether this target is met via brownfield development (intensification) or greenfield development (sprawl?), with an important caveat: if developers want to build more housing at the city fringe, they should have to pay for the infrastructure. Greenfield development should have to pay for itself.
Leaving aside whether that is even feasible given the current context of impossible developer economics etc.2, or even whether more greenfield growth is a good idea in itself, should greenfield development have to pay for itself?
Well, applying a beneficiary pays principle, I would argue nah. Greenfield development should not have to pay for itself. I would argue that all the low-density-enjoying-NIMBYs who already own homes are also beneficiaries of greenfield development at the city fringe. These people don’t want to absorb the local costs of new development in their suburbs (villa-belt dwellers, I’m looking at you), so they say no to intensification, and no to up-zoning. In my humble opinion, when existing residents successfully force new development into greenfield expansions, they benefit, because it means that the (non-optional) new homes are not going into the suburbs where they live. Therefore, I think it’s fair enough that these existing residents should have to subsidise greenfield growth via rates. At least a bit.
The only scenario where it is maybe fair to make greenfield growth pay for itself is if zoning is liberal across all existing urban areas and developers aren't being forced to choose greenfield growth for lack of better options. If the Medium Density Residential Standards are gone, and developers face impractically high costs to build at the city fringe, we’re going to end up with less brownfield and less greenfield construction at a time when we desperately need to be building more homes.
I definitely think there should be benefits awarded to people who say an emphatic yes in my backyard. But I also think there should be a cost for people who say no: subsidising greenfield growth.
Photo: Blake Wheeler via Unsplash
Not me specifically, I’m unemployed.
I personally err on the side of believing that it is not feasible but please don't ask me for my numbers. Malcolm has some good ones.