By TIM FAULKNER/ecoRI News staff
 |
| Photo by Will Collette |
PROVIDENCE
— The Rhode Island Builders Association (RIBA) has made it clear that it
doesn’t want to build in wetlands or in the protective buffers that surround
them.
But the business group that represents the home building industry is
intent on having those unbuildable zones around streams and ponds included in
the calculation that determines how many houses or apartments can be built on a
piece of land.
It
seems like a simple enough proposition. But opponents of a Senate bill that would create a statewide
allowance for wetland buffers in density calculations worry that a new law
undermines protective zoning rules in cities and towns that want to protect
open space and slow development.
RIBA’s
argument, however, is that it's the prerogative of the land owner — who is
often a real-estate developer — to get the most number of homes or apartments
on a piece of land.
During
an April 27 Senate hearing Bradley gave examples of three lots where the
wetlands buffer reduced the number of buildable homes and apartments. In one
example, a 67-acre site in Warwick had plans for 513 apartments dropped to 396
because of a 100-foot buffer around two ponds and a freshwater swamp.
“Having
that taken out of the potential density becomes a burden for the land owner,”
Bradley said.
Robert
Baldwin, a third-generation real-estate developer and co-chairman of RIBA’s
legislative committee, said increasing density will bring down high real-estate
prices.
Allowing more construction, he said, creates middle-income housing and
slows the brain drain of college graduates leaving Rhode Island for cheaper
housing markets.
“It’s
an issue of affordability. (Recent graduates) don’t want to leave (Rhode
Island),” Baldwin said.
Baldwin
cited a 2014 piece by New York Times columnist Paul
Krugman that calls for more affordable housing in dense, high-wage metropolitan
areas.
Baldwin noted that Krugman said young people are moving to the Sun Belt,
where new, affordable single-family homes are being built and the cost of an
acre of land is about a fifth of what it is in places like Rhode Island.
Providence
has one of the worst college graduate retention rates — about 32 percent of
city graduates stay to work, according to a recent report.
College graduates, however, still seem to be flocking to expensive real-estate
cities such as Boston, New York and San Francisco. The recent report suggests
that it’s not the cost of housing that’s causing college graduates to leave
Rhode Island but rather a lack of jobs.
The
Senate legislation is the latest in a decades-long tug of war between
environmentalists and advocacy groups such as Save The Bay and developers. In
1971, Rhode Island became the second state to pass statewide wetland standards.
The Rhode Island Freshwater Act established wetlands buffers of 50 feet around
a marsh, swamp, bog, pond, stream, flood plain and storm outflow. A 200-foot
area was established for a river wider than 10 feet. A 100-feet zone was
created around rivers less than 10-feet wide.
The
act was revised after Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management-led
reports in 1995 and 2007.
A report released in December 2014 noted that a
failure to strengthen wetlands regulations prompted many communities to enact
their own.
Today, 25 cities and towns have wetland standards that are stricter
than state regulations. According to RIBA,
about half of Rhode Island’s municipalities exclude wetland buffers in
determining buildable density.
Last
year marked a breakthrough in the tug of war, with the passage of new statewide
standards for wetland buffers. The guidelines were also expanded to include
vernal pools. The legislation was praised by both environmentalists and
developers.
The final numbers, however, are still being crunched by DEM. In a
separate bill, the state agency
is seeking a six-month extension for setting new buffer regulations.
Environmentalists
are therefore miffed that builders want to institute new wetland standards
before the forthcoming statewide ones are even in place.
“I
think it’s important after all that work that nothing in this bill impacts what
was passed last year,” said Topher Hamblett, Save The Bay's director of
advocacy and policy.
Meg
Kerr, director of policy for the Audubon Society of Rhode Island, noted that
increasing building density near wetlands could harm wetland buffers and
pollute waterways.
The Rhode Island League of Cities and
Towns also questioned
the legislation. Other opponents say an increase in density would disrupt
groundwater recharge areas and increase wetland flooding, as the change would
allow for more runoff from imperious surfaces such as parking lots.
Sen.
Stephen Archambault, D-Smithfield, said the idea of increasing density would
create a public perception that skyscrapers will be popping up across the
state.
“Maybe
some towns don’t want that,” he said.
Sen.
Susan Sosnowski, D-Kingston, said rural-focused towns such as South Kingstown
may simply increase their density regulations in order to nullify a new density
law. She also raised the issue of taxes. Property taxes, she said, may increase
if land that is currently left out of a density calculation is suddenly
included in it.
“Let’s face it,
it’s going to increase the value of the property,” Sosnowski said.
She
seemed to doubt RIBA's claim that increasing density would lower home prices.
“I
understand where you are going with this, but I don’t think it’s going to make
housing any more affordable,” she told Baldwin.
The
bill was held of further study. A companion House bill has also had a hearing and remains in
committee.