So the Yokel, apparently back from a vacation in the Boston area (or perhaps just using The Google), has a piece from the Reading, Mass., newspaper on how that community is trying to implement it’s own version of “smart growth”:

“The idea of a Smart Growth District in downtown is born out of the community’s interest and economic revitalization of downtown,” Kowalski said, adding that participants at February’s World Café discussion, held at Reading Memorial High School, said they want Reading to have a dynamic downtown with more retail and housing opportunities. “You need a critical mass of people to have the kind of retail mix that we’re looking for in downtown.”

And it leads the Yokel to conclude that this is the way to approach “smart growth,” as opposed to Lancaster County’s way:

Notice some of the elements of this version of “smart growth.” An “effort to create a dynamic downtown” with “retail and housing opportunities.” A state law providing incentives to “’smart growth’ developments in areas already served by public utilities and transportation networks.” [emphasis added]

As compared to Lancaster’s version of “smart growth,” which can be described as “plunking high-density developments into the middle of farmland and suburbs with no attention to transportation or other infrastructure needs.”

The problem, though, is that the goal of “smart growth” in the two communities seems vastly different.

Reading’s goal, stated in the article, is urban renewal (to use a discarded term); the “economic revitalization of downtown.” Lancaster County uses “smart growth” (and can’t we discard this term too, please?) in an attempt to preserve farmland.

So in a community where the goal is urban revitalization, of course we’re going to center the new type of development in town where, among other things, utilities and other infrastructure already exists. As we see from a glance at the Reading, Mass., governmental site on “smart growth districts,” higher densities are also allowed in these district, by right.

One of these days perhaps - hopefully - we’ll get to the point where there’s sufficient interest in the city of Lancaster, or the boroughs in this county, where this type of development can be considered. But I don’t see how we don’t fight over these provisions; I don’t see how higher densities than otherwise allowed aren’t attacked as a bad idea. This would put more kids in already overcrowded classrooms - right? And I certainly don’t see this community ceding developers the right to build these things. East Hempfield just had its own little battle over this very thing, and no, we weren’t talking thousands of homes.

Aside from all this, as I’ve said many times before, I don’t see how the gentrification produced by successful “smart growth” within our urban areas isn’t the battle of the century around here.

But as to the county’s current “smarth growth” goal of saving farmland - we can dismiss this as “plunking high-density developments into the middle of farmland and suburbs with no attention to transportation or other infrastructure needs” as we like. That’s a bit of a misnomer, though - Independence was designed along/around the rail line, wasn’t it? And State Road, where it would have emptied out, is to be widened pretty significantly.

Nevertheless, when the objective is to develop this tract so that these other tracts aren’t developed, I have yet to see any other viable suggestion for achieving that come from any corner. Indeed, the only “suggestion” we’ve seen is don’t develop at higher densities; develop instead at current densities. Fine - but what of those other tracts? Or are we not to worry about that now, because we don’t at this moment have any blueprints submitted for them? Do they, too, get developed, albeit at these lower densities?

The biggest problem with Lancaster County’s “smart growth” plans is not the densities involved, but the fact there’s no ironclad rules preventing the development of those other tracts anyway. I’m not sure whether there could be anything prohibiting that, legally; and if that’s the case, if developers would ultimately get to those tracts too, even with the 3,000 homes we permitted on this tract, then no - our “smart growth” isn’t so smart at all.

But in each case, in each community, some of the tenets of “smart growth” are going to be controversial, seen as counter-intuitive, even damaging. All depends on what you’re trying to do with them - and whether they’re actually going to solve your unique “problem,” or not.