credit: penmachine
credit: penmachine

This is part two of the series “How Government Regulation Forces Americans Into Their Cars”, where I publish a recent paper by a local professor Michael Lewyn. You can read part one here.

Jacksonville: Zoned for Sprawl

Zoning, narrowly defined, is the regulation of land use and population density. [FN3] Historically, American zoning law has sought to segregate housing from shopping and employment and to reduce population density [FN4]–and Jacksonville is no exception. And as will be shown below, low-density and segregated land use tends to discourage walking and public transit use.

1. Segregation of Land Uses in Jacksonville

Jacksonville’s Code divides the city into over thirty zones, [FN5] including seventeen residential zones and seven commercial zones. [FN6] The city has nine separate “residential low-density” districts (including one district designated as “rural” and eight low-density districts), all of which are devoted primarily to single-family homes. [FN7] In none of these districts are shops or offices listed as a permitted land use. [FN8]

Similarly, the city prohibits housing in some of its commercial zones. For example, the city has created a “Neighborhood Commercial” zone for businesses that “serve the daily needs of contiguous residential neighborhoods.” [FN9] Even though his zone exists primarily to serve people who live nearby, neither houses nor apartments are allowed in the “Neighborhood Commercial” zone. [FN10]

The city also has two “Community/General Commercial” zones, where a wider range of activities may occur [FN11]–but again, housing is not among the permitted activities. [FN12] Finally, the city has a separate zone for office parks–and here too housing is not allowed. [FN13] In sum, many of Jacksonville’s residents live in areas where housing is the only possible land use.

If you live in one of those zones and are not particularly close to a commercial zone, you are not going to be able to walk to a store even for the simplest purchase. [FN14] Thus, Jacksonville’s zoning district regulations make Jacksonville residents more automobile-dependent.

Footnotes

[FN3]. For example, the Standard Zoning Enabling Act, a model state statute that has been almost universally adopted, specifically authorizes municipalities to regulate “the density of population, and the location and use of buildings.” ADVISORY COMM. ON ZONING, U.S. DEP’T OF COMMERCE, A STANDARD STATE ZONING ENABLING ACT: UNDER WHICH MUNICIPALITIES MAY ADOPT ZONING REGULATIONS § 1 (rev. ed. 1926) (footnotes omitted), available at http://www.planning.org/growingsmart/pdf/SZEnablingAct1926.pdf. See also Chad Lamer, Why Government Policies Encourage Urban Sprawl and the Alternatives Offered by New Urbanism, 13 KAN. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 391, 394 (2004) (explaining that all fifty states adopted the Enabling Act in some form) (citing Eric Damian Kelly, Zoning, in THE PRACTICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING 251, 252 (Frank S. So & Judith Getzels eds., 2d ed. 1988)).

[FN4]. See Briffault, supra note 1, at 253 (”[H]allmarks of American land use law [include] reducing population density and dispersing residents over wider areas [as well as] the separation of different land uses from each other.”); Jerry Frug, The Geography of Community, 48 STAN. L. REV. 1047, 1091 (1996) (”[V]irtually all [current zoning laws] mandate the separation of different areas by function ….”).

[FN5]. JACKSONVILLE, FLA., ORDINANCE CODE § 656.301 (1990), available at http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=12174&sid=9.

[FN6]. Id.

[FN7]. JACKSONVILLE, FLA., ORDINANCE CODE § 656.301. See also id. §§ 656.304 (stating that “single-family dwellings and mobile homes will be the predominant land uses” in “Rural Residential” district); 656.305 (stating that “single-family wellings will be the predominant land use” in the city’s “Low Density Residential” districts). In none of these districts are apartments typically allowed. Id. §§ 656.304(A)(I)(a)-(c) (listing permissible uses in “Rural Residential” district and not listing apartments among permitted uses); 656.305(A)(II)(a)-(c) (listing permissible uses in “Low Density Residential” districts and not listing apartments among permitted uses).

[FN8]. Id. §§ 656.304(A)(I)(a)-(c) (listing permissible uses in “Rural Residential” district and not listing offices or retail among permitted uses); 656.305(A)(II)(a)-(c) (listing permissible uses in “Low Density Residential” districts and not listing offices or retail among permitted uses).

[FN9]. Id. § 656.312.

[FN10]. Id. § 656.312(A)(II)(a)-(c) (listing permissible uses and not mentioning single-family or multi-family dwellings among permitted uses).

[FN11]. Id. § 656.313 (stating that these zones should contain “a wide range of retail sales and services” and usually are developed at highway intersections).

[FN12]. Id. § 656.313(A)(III)(a)-(c), (IV)(a)-(c).

[FN13]. Id. § 656.321(A)(I)(a)-(c), (II)(a)-(c) (listing permissible uses in “Business Park” districts).

[FN14]. See, e.g., Terry J. Tondro, Sprawl and Its Enemies: An Introductory Discussion of Two Cities’ Efforts to Control Sprawl: Ninth Gallivan Conference on Real Property Law April 24, 2001, 34 CONN. L. REV. 511, 517 (2001) (finding that in single-use zones, very few people “can simply walk to the local grocer …. Even if you are going to purchase a single item and the store is very close by, it is normally a car trip away”).

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 21st, 2007 at 6:58 am and is filed under Activism, Suburbs, Transit. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.