The Growth Management Reporter 

May, 1996: Vol. 3 No. 2

Douglas R. Porter, Managing Editor

From the Editor... Support for Urban Sprawl?

Has anyone noticed that many of the rationales for compact development vs. urban sprawl are being eroded by new information and policy changes? Planners fighting sprawl have learned to use four principal arguments for compact development: reducing air pollution, infrastructure costs, and land consumption, and safeguarding water quality. Now the certainties of these postulates are increasingly questioned.

Air Quality: Compact development reduces travel needs and therefore automobile tailpipe emissions, goes the rationale. A subset of the compact development hypothesis is the opportunity given by concentrations of development to bring housing closer to jobs. The Southern California Association of Governments' regional strategy to improve air quality included a land use strategy to better align jobs and housing. Now the scientists are saying that changes in land use are too long-term in nature to afford much relief in the here and now. Instead, they're putting their money on more technical fixes like gasoline refinements and electric cars. (See, for example, Harry Richardson's paper in Metropolitan America in Transition: Implications for Land Use and Transportation Planning, Number 10 in the Policy Discussion Series published by the Federal Highway Administration, June, 1994.) There goes one reason planners love to cite to promote compact development!

Infrastructure Costs: The "costs of sprawl" argument is a mainstay for planners, cited over and over. It maintains that infrastructure costs are higher for sprawl than for compact development. Now Bob Burchell and Paul Tischler, two of the nation's best-known experts on fiscal impact studies, are saying that the fiscal impacts of sprawl are a good deal less impressive than we might like. Sprawl increases only some infrastructure costs, and by small amounts at that. Speaking at the April national conference of the American Planning Association and then at an April workshop sponsored by the U.S. 301 Transportation Study in Maryland, they pointed out that studies generally show that sprawl costs are about 25 percent higher for local roads, 5 percent for schools, and 15 percent for utilities than for compact development costs. Local road costs, however, are generally paid by developers and utility costs by raising water and sewer rates. Other capital costs are about even. Furthermore, revenues from some types of development more than compensate for these differences. Projecting costs over the long run and accounting for operation and maintenance costs produces bigger differences, but would require relatively modest increases in annual taxes payments. In short, the cost of sprawl is not so simple as some would think -- and another rationale at least muddied if not dashed!

Land Consumption: Lots of studies show that sprawl eats up lots more land than compact development -- multiples of three, four, and five are often cited. The fact of land consumption is indisputable; its significance is less certain. Converting farmland sounds bad, but what if farming is barely borderline or even uneconomic, as it is in many areas today? Invading forests (as in Seattle) and deserts (as in Phoenix) also causes heartburn but in most places there seems to be lots of land. (Burchell's New Jersey study showed that the trend alternative didn't come close to using all the land available for development by 2020.) If we're talking open space, which I believe most of the fuss is about, then perhaps we ought to admit it and plan to pay for it. The potential effects on environmentally sensitive lands are another story -- see below.

Water Quality: In my recent consulting for Calvert County, MD, we were dealing with antiquated subdivisions that had been platted mostly in quarter- and half-acre lots and were served by septic tanks and wells. Standards had been upgraded to require double backup septic systems, but many of the lots lie within a few hundred feet of Chesapeake Bay. Did the county or state health department see a problem? No, because few septic systems had been reported to fail. Yet its my hunch that thousands of septic tanks at that density of development inevitably spells trouble in the long run. The trickle-down theory would seem operable here -- leaching septic fields running into local streams and thence to the Bay. But how to prove it? Septic systems all over the nation help sprawl happen but normally we don't have a very good handle on long-term environmental damage that they might do.

Perhaps these problems in making the case for compact development are overstated, under-studied, or simply wrong. Your comments and reactions would be welcome -- and guaranteed a viewing in the next newsletter.

That's Not All About Sprawl...

The recent broadside against urban sprawl in California sponsored by the Bank of America, the Greenbelt Alliance, the California Resources Agency, and the Low Income Housing Fund is a bestseller among planners, although the bank took a lot of heat from some of its developer clients (see Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of Growth to Fit the New California, available from any of the organizations -- call 916/653-5656 for the California Resources Agency). Some other recent studies demonstrate the prevalence of sprawl around American cities and some of its effects. A little off the beaten track, so perhaps of interest:

• Two studies commissioned by the Ohio Urban University Program of the General Assembly and the Ohio Board of Regents shows how homebuyers are voting with their feet for outlying, low-density residence. Moving Up and Out: Governt Policy and the Future of Ohio's Metropolitan Areas, prepared by the Ohio Housing Research Network in 1994, documents how homesellers in seven metropolitan areas move outward to higher-priced homes (paying at least 50 percent more for a house). It makes the point that continued outward movement of higher-income homebuyers will deepen urban decline and recommends public policies to increase incentives for developing higher-priced housing in cities and reducing sprawl in suburban areas.

• The IRS Homeseller Capital Gain Provision: Contributor to Urban Decline, also published by the Network in 1994, lays part of the blame for outward movements of homebuyers to Section 1034 of the IRS Code. The provision encourages homeowners to buy a new house priced at least equal to the price of the older house in order to shelter their capital gain, thus creating incentives for outward movement to higher-priced homes. The study tracked homeowner sales and purchases to identify the effect of the capital gain provision on housing location decisions. The report urges revisions to remove the tax penalty against sellers who move down in price.

• The Maryland Office of Planning issued an issue paper, The Potential for New Residential Development in Maryland, that compares residential zoning patterns to projected development needs in Maryland's local jurisdictions. The major finding: "zoning in Maryland could accommodate more than five times the residential growth projected by 2020." The report, which analyzes each of the 23 counties and Baltimore city, shows that over half of residential development allowed by zoning is in areas not planned for sewer service, which by necessity requires low-density development. Potential residential development allowed in some primarily rural counties ranges from 15 to 100 times expected development. The report also indicates, however, that eleven counties have adopted zoning that restricts rural development. (For more information, call the Maryland Office of Planning, 410/225-4562.)

... And Meanwhile, Compact Areas Continue Declining

Population estimates for 1994 issued by the Bureau of the Census in February document the continuing loss of residents in older city centers. Several large cities are losing one percent or more annually to suburban jurisdictions. Since 1970, populations in ten of the largest cities in the east and midwest have dropped by up to 41 percent. The figures below.

New York's population increase is interesting in light of the fact that almost 33 percent of its residents are foreign born.

... Plus Washington State's Density Drops

A new report from Washington state presents another angle on the sprawl issue. It looks at trends in land use patterns that can support the use of travel modes other than single-occupant vehicles. In Land Use Trends Affecting Auto Dependence in Washington's Metropolitan Areas, 1970-1990, (Washington State Department of Transportation, July, 1995), Gary Pivo, Paul Hess, and Abhay Thatte analyze jobs/housing balance, retail/housing balance, population densities, and employment densities in the 12 counties of Washington's metropolitan areas. During the 20-year period from 1970 to 1990, they found that the proportion of population living in communities with balanced jobs/housing and retail/housing had increased and that housing densities had increased as well. Meanwhile, however, population and employment densities had declined due to reductions in household size, spreading suburbanization, and increases in very low density development in urban fringe areas.

Looking at population densities in places over 2500 population throughout the state, the analysts determined that the median density increased by about eight persons per square kilometer during the 1970s and about 52 persons per square kilometer during the 1980s (compared to base density levels of around 800 persons per square kilometer). However, the addition of new low-density places in each decade offset density increases in previously existing places. Pivo, et al. found that most of the new places were unincorporated areas on the fringe of metropolitan development. Frequently their densities averaged less than 400 persons per square kilometer, far below the level needed to support transit. Similar results were found for housing and employment densities. The typical worker in 1990 was employed at lower densities in 1990 than in 1980.

The study also found that, while the percentage of people living in areas with reasonable jobs/housing balance (just above or below one worker per resident), most people were living in unbalanced areas in 1990. Eight percent of Puget Sound region residents lived in areas with between 0.8 and 1.2 workers per resident in 1970. The percentage increased to 14 percent in 1980 and declined slightly to 13 percent in 1990. Pivo, et al. ascribe the drop in the 1980s to the increase in population in exurban bedroom communities.

The study concludes by recommending strategies to increase the density and balance of urban areas, first by promoting such increases statewide, second by targeting declining areas, and third by focusing on places that should be denser or more balanced given their regional location.

(The report, # WA-RD 380.1, can be obtained from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22616.)

Sioux Falls: Managing Growth to Prevent Sprawl

by Mike Cooper, Assistant Director of Planning

Sioux Falls, South Dakota

The city of Sioux Falls is located in southeastern South Dakota at the intersection of Interstates 90 and 29. It is the largest city in the state with a population estimate of 114,000 and a two-county MSA population of more than 150.000. Major employment is centered around medical, retail, finance, and light manufacturing operations. The annual population growth rate is about 2 percent, and new building construction permits over the last five years averaged almost $175 million per year.

In 1979, the city of Sioux Falls adopted a comprehensive growth management plan designed to guide urban development over the next 20 years. As part of the plan, growth area boundaries in which development would be permitted were established, based on environmental constraints and the cost and availability of services such as utilities and streets. At the same time, both counties within the MSA were encouraged to adopt stricter zoning ordinances to further manage surrounding rural residential development. In addition, an annexation policy limits services outside corporate limits by annexing areas prior to development approval.

Those growth area boundaries established more than 15 years ago have been effectively enforced through phasing of public services and updated land use controls. Existing subdivisions housing more than 5,000 persons were annexed from areas at the edge of the city limits. A five-year capital improvement programming process was enacted and three major neighborhood improvement programs were developed. The two adjoining counties have now adopted density zoning to limit scattered rural residential development and subdivisions in agricultural areas.

In 1993, a process called Sioux Falls Tomorrow was initiated as a community-based planning effort designed to outline a future direction for the city. Its recommendations included addressing growth management were balancing economic development and environmental quality, building a strong community identity with neighborhood-based services, and maintaining orderly growth concurrently with financially sound public facilities.

The citizen involvement and action plans established through Sioux Falls Tomorrow helped initiate a Year 2015 Comprehensive Plan process. A citizens task force assisted in prioritizing future growth area boundaries based on an analysis of environmental constraints, water and sewer costs, and transportation capacities. With that plan update, the city is now tackling major issues such as expanding transportation systems and future water supply, capital improvements financing, and maintaining intergovernmental cooperation.

As many cities have experienced, the adoption of a comprehensive development plan does not, in itself, ensure that the recommendations of that plan will be implemented. Without a firm commitment by both public and private interests, there is very little possibility of achieving the orderly, efficient development of a community over the ensuing decades. If growth management plans are to be successful, they must be interesting and meaningful to the people who are expected to implement them. In addition, planning administrators need a good understanding of the political process in order to work closely with various groups aimed at implementation of the program.

Based on the Sioux Falls experience, growth management can be effective if it is strongly supported by elected officials, the business community, and the general public. Their support requires continuing efforts on the part of local planners to keep citizens involved in the planning process.

Sustainability in Print

Two high-powered groups organized to examine the sustainability of our current behavior in reconciling development with conservation have issued their findings. The President's Council on Sustainable Development, after more than two years of effort, delivered its report to the President early in the year. Entitled Sustainable America, it contains broad goals, indicators by which to measure progress toward the goals, and policy themes, such as the need to shift some decisionmaking to local levels. The report is available from the Government Printing Office by calling 202/512-1800.

The second book, Land Use in America, results from an effort to update and reflect upon one of the most influential books on land use ever published, The Use of Land: A Citizen's Policy Guide to Urban Growth, published in 1973 by the Conservation Foundation. The new volume reviews progress (or the lack of it) in communities' capabilities for using land wisely. The principal authors, Henry L. Diamond, a senior partner in a Washington law firm, and Patrick F. Noonan, chairman of The Conservation Fund, enlisted a variety of other writers to examine why land use planning lags behind the significant progress made in environmental protection since 1973. The book lays out a ten-part agenda toward that objective, including better state guidance of local planning efforts and use of infill and redevelopment to reduce needs for expansion at the urban fringe. The book is available from Island Press (800/828-1302) for $26.95, paperback.