Today I sent out an email to the Brazos Progressives email list encouraging folks to support the citizen candidates. Derek Dictson took exception to this especially to being characterized as supporting aggressive sprawl development. He wrote the following in response. Posted here at his request.
_____________________________
My philosophy about effective public policy is a result of my background in public administration and economics, so I tend to look for ways to solve issues through market-based methods and comprehensive planning rather than regulation and control.

The Traffic Study issue that recently came before P&Z and City Council is an excellent example to illustrate how my thought process works on these issues. My concern with the ordinance as it was presented was that we can’t consider these types of policy changes in a vacuum and expect them to work like we expect, with no side effects. The way I look at it, we already have a large difference between the financial costs and regulatory burdens of development inside the City limits versus the ETJ (City development is much more expensive and far more regulated), and that is why we are seeing more and more sprawl beyond our City limits. I have run the numbers on several projects both inside the City and in the ETJ, and it is clearly evident that there is greater profit potential and less regulatory uncertainty to development outside of our City limits. Whether we like it or not, investment dollars will flow toward profit and away from risk, and that path currently leads to the ETJ (or even the City of Bryan) over College Station. By state law we have very little power to influence the pattern, density or quality of development outside our City limits, so we are left with is what some refer to as “aggressive or uncontrolled sprawl.”

If the Traffic Study ordinance had passed, it would have added yet another layer of red tape and cost onto City development, further skewing the economic imbalance, and leading to even greater incentives for sprawl. Since I would like to avoid “aggressive sprawl”, I opposed the ordinance.

I also opposed the proposal of halting all development outside our City limits with a “20-acre minimum” ordinance because of my belief that market-based solutions would be much more effective and sustainable than punitive regulatory controls. In short, I want to see more carrot and less stick, or at lease a healthy balance between the two.

The policy that I do support is what we actually saw happen at City Council when the Traffic Study and Growth Management ordinances were recently considered, and that is for all of these various proposals to be considered as a part of the comprehensive planning process that is currently taking place so that all stakeholders can have input and we can balance a package of incentives and regulations in a way that promotes smart growth within our city limits and keeps our ETJ rural in nature. I don’t think we can or should attempt to solve this large, complex issue with piecemeal regulatory patches. I want to see a comprehensive plan developed and enacted as a package so that we have a better chance of not disrupting the market and getting the results that we desire.