SLOW GROWTH and URBAN SPRAWL Support for a New Regional Agenda?

Gainsborough / SLOW GROWTHURBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW / May 2002 RESEARCH NOTE

SLOW GROWTH AND URBAN SPRAWL Support for a New Regional Agenda?

JULIET F. GAINSBOROUGH University of Miami

Proponents of more regional cooperation in U.S. metropolitan areas have suggested that increasing concern about the effects of unregulated growth creates the possibility of building a regional coalition around combating sprawl. Analysis of public opinion data from New York and Los Angeles suggest a more complicated picture. Suburbanites who are experiencing “city-like” problems in their communities seem increasingly receptive to slow-growth policies. However, residents of the central city in these areas are much less supportive of controls on growth—a problem for the goal of regional coalition building. Furthermore, even among suburbanites, support is not uniform: African-Americans, lower income residents, and those with stronger ties to the city are all less supportive of slow-growth measures.

For those interested in the future of American cities, popular opposition to urban sprawl is increasingly seen as a key issue in the attempt to build a regional coalition in support of policies that will strengthen center cities. Many have seen the increasing attention paid to “smart growth” in state and local elections and to “livability issues” in the presidential campaign as evidence of increasing supportfor a regional approach tourban problems. Fur - thermore, the recent spate of antisprawl and growth control initiatives appearing on state and local ballots around the country has been seen as a demonstration of the power of this new political issue to unite regions around

AUTHOR’S NOTE: An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. I would like to thank Andrew Schrank for his comments on an earlier draft of the article and also acknowledge the helpful comments of the anony- mous reviewers. URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW, Vol. 37, No. 5, May 2002 728-744 © 2002 Sage Publications

728 Gainsborough / SLOW GROWTH 729 common concerns (Downs 1998; Katz 1998; Katz and Bernstein 1998; Myers 1999; Rusk 1998). Combating sprawl is an important goal for those interested in the fate of center cities because it is the sprawling pattern of land development in the United States that is seen as being at the root of urban decay and disinvest- mentin cities(Bradbury, Downs, and Small 1982; Jackson 1985; Nivola 1998). As commercial and residential development spreads relentlessly out into the hinterlands of metropolitan areas, buildings and people remaining in the core are left with few resources to contend with concentrated urban problems. Furthermore, not only does this pattern of development draw people and investment away from the center, it also absorbs regional resources in the form of infrastructure development for the newly expanding areas. Rather than reinvesting in existing infrastructure, the American metropolis has favored “starting over” as each successive wave of suburbanization moves population farther from the center. Consequently, advocates of antisprawl measures see restrictions on development as a way to counteract these trends and encourage higher density development and reinvestment in urban centers. As sprawl has continued unabated, suburbanites are now also increasingly experiencing the costs associated with this kind of development—massive traffic congestion, lengthening commutes, poor air quality, and loss of open spaces. It is the fact that the costs of sprawl are no longer being born solely by cities, which opens up the possibility of regional and state coalitions in support of growth control and land management measures. Myron Orfield (1997) argues that residents of center cities and declining suburbs who “are being directly harmed by an inefficient, wasteful, unfair system” represent “a clear majority of the...population” in every region of the country. Conse- quently, once aware of their common interests, these areas can form a politically formidable coalitionin supportof policies thatbenefittheregion, not just outlying suburban areas. In the view of one proponent of regionalism, opposition to sprawl is exactly the kind of “cross-cutting” issue that is required to form a successful “cross-jurisdictional” coalition (Katz 2000, 4). However, doubts about the potential for antisprawl feeling to unite regions are found in two different sets of arguments about regionalism. First, much of the research that points to the common experience of urban ills as creating the potential for regional cooperation also suggests that the development of this regional perspective will be neither easy nor automatic (Downs 1994; Fulton 1997, 63; Gerston and Haas 1993; Orfield 1997). Second, existing research on regional cooperation focuses on the nature of the issue area as the important determinant of regional cooperation (Baldassare and Hassol 1996; Julnes and Pindur 1994; Kanarek and Baldassare 1996). Regions are much less likely to cooperate around preservation of lifestyle values than around 730 URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW / May 2002

“system maintenance” functions (Williams 1967). Consequently, despite the optimism of many analysts, it remains unclear whether increased attention to urban sprawl and growth management represents potential for increased support for regional solutions to metropolitan-wide problems or a continuation of patterns of suburban dominance in the distribution of costs and benefits across metropolitan areas and regions. This article attempts to assess the pos- sibilities for coalition building around growth-related concerns by exploring variation in support for slowing growth in the New York and Los Angeles metropolitan areas.1

PUBLIC OPINION AND SLOW GROWTH

This article analyzes data from two metropolitan-wide surveys that sample large numbers of both city and suburban dwellers (all adults aged 18 and older) and ask questions about support for growth control measures. The first is a WCBS-TV News/New York Times (1991) telephone poll conducted 2-12 November 1991. Survey respondents were drawn from New York City and from the surrounding suburbs in New York,New Jersey, and Connecticut.2 In addition, a more rural belt surrounding the suburban counties also was sam- pled (referred to here as “exurban”). The second is a Los Angeles Times (“Los Angeles Times Poll #429” 1999) telephone poll conducted 10-16 July 1999. The sample was drawn from the city of Los Angeles, including the San Fernando Valley, and the surrounding areas of the San Gabriel Valley (a suburban area within Los Angeles County), Orange County, and Ventura County. Both surveys used random digit dialing to select respondents, and both surveys were explicitly designed to provide a sample of city and suburban residents to allow comparisons of attitudes across the metropolitan region. Results were initially published in a series of newspaper articles (Kolbert1991; Newman 1991; Kelley 1999; Pinkus 1999). In bothnewspa - pers, these articles focused on the increasing disconnect between city and suburban residents in terms of attitude and contact. In the Los Angeles Times, articles also focused on the increasing urbanization of the suburbs. Los Angeles and New York are interesting regions to compare in terms of public support for slowing growth for a number of reasons. Both regions are among the largest urban concentrations in the country, but they also differ in significant ways. New York is an older, eastern city with a clearly defined core and suburban areas that spread across state lines. Los Angeles, on the other hand, is a younger western city without a clearly defined core and with suburbs that cross mountain ranges and deserts. In addition, within the city of Los Angeles is the San Fernando Valley, which although politically part of Gainsborough / SLOW GROWTH 731 the central city, has long been characterized as suburban in mindset. The San Fernando Valley is currently engaged in an aggressive secession campaign that would allow it to be politically as well as geographically separate from Los Angeles (Marcal and Svorny 2000). In both regions, concern about the impact of growth has fueled discussion, and in some instances passage, of slow-growth measures—in New Jersey, for example, and in Ventura County (Bustillo 1998; Peterson 1998; Purdum 2000; “Victories in the Space Race” 1998).3 Of course, public opinion polls are only one way to assess support for a smart growth agenda. Coalition building involves convincing people that they have interests in common, even if this is not initially apparent. Conse- quently, analysis of public opinion represents a starting point, rather than an end point, in terms of understanding growth-related concerns and their potential to unite regions. Although they do not provide the final answer to whether growth is the crosscutting issue for which regionalists have been searching, they are important because they suggest the level of difficulty faced by those who want to build this particular regional coalition.

NEW YORK

In the New York Times survey, respondents were asked whether they favored encouraging growth (with the possibility of accompanying job and tax revenue growth) or whether they favored slowing growth to relieve congestion and other associated problems.4 Unfortunately, this question only was asked of suburban residents, but the detailed socioeconomic and geo- graphic information can be used to assess the ways in which support for slowing growth varies across different segments of the suburban population. Model: To observe the way in which support for slowing growth varies when a number of characteristics are controlled for simultaneously, logit analysis is used to determine the ways in which the probability of supporting slow-growth changes when characteristics of the New York suburbanites change (for discussion of logitmodels, see Agresti1996). The dependent variable is a dichotomous variable with support for slowing growth coded as one. Socioeconomic variables included in the model as independent variables are age, race (black or Latino), education, income, and gender. Gender is included to see whether growth is an issue on which a gender gap exists and because it seems to tie into claims about the concerns of suburban women, as described by politicians and journalists. In addition, the model also includes information about whether the respondent is a parent and whether the respondent is a homeowner or a renter. These characteristics were expected to change the stake individuals have in their community and, therefore, their 732 URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW / May 2002

TABLE 1: Support for Slowing Growth Among New York Suburbanites

Variable Coefficient Standard Error

African-American –.67** .20 Latino –.20 .24 Education .09 .06 Age .008* .004 Homeowner .12 .12 Income .01 .06 Parent.14 .10 Woman –.05 .10 Ideology .05 .06 New Jersey .30* .12 Connecticut –.26* .12 Distance to midtown Manhattan More than 1 hour .01 .12 Less than 30 minutes –.63** .19 Exurb –.34** .13 Citylike suburb .30** .10 Work in New York .06 .14 Go to New York –.06** .02 Constant –.92 .35

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of WCBS-TV News/New York Times New YorkCity and Suburban Poll, November 1991. NOTE: Logitanalysis. N = 1,877. Positive numbers representincreased supportfor slowing growth. *p < .05. **p < .01. views on growth. In addition to these socioeconomic variables, the model also includes an ideology variable and variables for location: living in the more rural band around the suburbs of New York(the exurbs), living in suburban areas outside New YorkState (in New Jersey or Connecticut), living in an area that respondents believe has become more like a big city, and the time that it takes respondents to reach midtown Manhattan from their homes. Finally, two variables are included that are designed to capture the ties of the suburban respondent to New York City: whether the respondent works in New YorkCity, and how often the respondent goes to New YorkCity for a day or an evening for reasons other than work. The hypothesis is that those suburban residents with stronger ties to New York City may have distinctive views about the city that impact their views on growth and the region. This fits with arguments that the lack of contact between suburban residents and the city accounts for their differing political interests (Abbott 1987; Downs 1994). Results: The results of the analysis appear in Table 1. Among the socioeconomic variables, African-American respondents have a lower probability Gainsborough / SLOW GROWTH 733

TABLE 2: Expected Probability of Support for Slowing Growth Among New York Suburbanites

Minutes to Race Citylike State Exurb Visit New York City New York City Probability

White No NY No Every few months < 30 .24 Black No NY No Every few months < 30 .14 White Yes NY No Every few months < 30 .30 Black Yes NY No Every few months < 30 .18 White No NJ No Every few months > 30 and < 60 .45 White No NJ Yes Every few months > 60 .36 White No CT No Every few months > 30 and < 60 .31 White No CT Yes Every few months > 60 .25 White No NY No Every few months > 30 and < 60 .37 White No NY Yes Every few months > 60 .30 White No NY No No > 30 and < 60 .41 White No NY No Every week > 30 and < 60 .32 Black No NY No No > 30 and < 60 .27 Black No NY No Every week > 30 and < 60 .19 White No NY No Every few months > 60 .37 Black No NY No Every few months > 60 .23

SOURCE: Author’s calculations, based on Table 1. NOTE: Other variables held constant (40 years old, woman, high school graduate, family income between $15,000 and $30,000, not a homeowner, not a parent, political moderate). of supporting slow-growth measures, all else held constant. In contrast, being Latino did not impact support for slowing growth, once other characteristics were controlled for. The only other socioeconomic variable that was significant was age. Increasing age was positively associated with an increasing likelihood of supportfor slowing growth—perhapsbecause older respon - dents value different community characteristics or have different priorities than younger respondents. (For examples of these relationships, see Table 2.) In contrast to the socioeconomic variables, a number of the variables describing location are significantly related to support for slowing growth. Not surprisingly, living in an area that they think has become more like a big city increases the probability that respondents support slowing growth. This is probably in partbecause feeling thatyourcommunityis becoming more like a big city is positively correlated with perceived population growth. In addition, this suggests that a desire to escape encroaching urban ills is at the base of suburban support for slowing growth. Living in the farthest reaches of the suburban area, exurbia, is associated with a decline in the probability that the respondent supports slowing growth. Living in Connecticut also is associated with a decline in the probability of supporting slowing growth. On the 734 URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW / May 2002 other hand, New York suburbanites living in New Jersey are more likely, all else held constant, to support slowing growth. Several variables that were included in the model to tap into the degree of connection between the subur- banite and the city of New York are significantly related to support for slowing growth. Whereas working in New York does not seem to impact attitudes toward growth, the frequency with which the respondent visits New York for nonwork reasons was associated with a declining probability of support for slowing growth.

LOS ANGELES

The New Yorkdata allow us to compare support for restrictions on growth among suburbanites in a particular metropolitan area and to observe how this support varies among different subsets of suburbanites. However, important to understand given the claims that are being made about the potential for a regional antisprawl coalition is the way in which support varies across not only the suburban parts of a metropolitan area but also between the suburban areas and the central city. Data from the Los Angeles region allow such a comparison. In the Los Angeles survey, the question about slowing growth is framed as an explicit trade-off between growth and quality of life. Respondents were asked whether they favor slowing growth, even if that may mean hurting business and losing jobs, or support growth, even if that may have a negative effect on living conditions in the community.5 The Los Angeles survey provides another question that gets at the potential for slow-growth/antisprawl coalition building. Respondents were asked to identify the “most important problem” facing their community and were allowed to provide up to two responses. I group together the responses that touch on the concerns that are often described as forming the basis for an antisprawl campaign—too much growth, air and water pollution, traffic congestion, inadequate public trans- portation, and breakdown of infrastructure—and compare variation in identi- fication of these problems as important. For the sample as a whole, concern about too much growth is identified as the number one problem for their community by more people than any other problem except crime and gangs. If those who identify congestion as the most important problem are grouped with those who cite too much growth as most important, then these become the most commonly cited community problems. Model: Supportfor slowing growthand concern aboutgrowthare regressed on a number of independent variables to observe how they impact the likelihood of support or concern, once other characteristics of respondents are controlled for. The independent socioeconomic variables included Gainsborough / SLOW GROWTH 735 in the model parallel those used with the New Yorkdata: age, education level, income, gender, and race. In addition, the model includes variables for being a homeowner and for ideology. As with the New York data, a control for being a parentis also included, because being a parentis expectedtoaffect views on whatsocial problems are importantandwhatsolutionsare desirable. In addition to these demographic variables, the model also includes variables that measure the attachment of the respondent to the central city. With the New York data, it was possible to consider such things as whether the respondent worked in New YorkCity or went regularly into the city for enter- tainment purposes. Unfortunately, the Los Angeles data do not contain this same information so I use other questions to capture a similar relationship. Consequently, the model includes a variable for whether the respondent par- ticipates in any community activities. I expect that individuals who are involved in community activities are identified more closely with their local community than with other parts of the region. I also include a measure of time spent commuting each day. Although this does not indicate whether the commute is suburb to city or suburb to suburb, it does at least suggest whether a respondent’s work obligations regularly take them out of their own community and into some other section of the metropolitan area. Furthermore, those with a long commute might blame too much growth for the length of time they spend in the car each day. In addition, I also include a variable measuring agreement with the following description of the respondents’ reason for choosing their current residence: “to get away from the many societal problems associated with living in big cities or urban areas.” It is expected that those who are most motivated by a desire to avoid urban settings will be the mostlikely tosupportslowing growth.Finally, I also include measures of location, including the city of Los Angeles and the surrounding suburban counties. Results: The results of the analysis appear in Table 3. As with the New York data, African-Americans, all else held constant, are less likely than either Latino or white respondents to support slowing growth and development. Being Latino, however, is not significantly related to support for slowing growth. Two other socioeconomic variables that are important are education and income. The probability that a respondent supports slowing growth increases with higher education levels and higher family incomes. In addition, being a woman also is associated with increased support for slowing growth, all else held constant. This gender difference is interesting in terms of thinking about the political strategies of the Democrats and Republicans and their concern with the need to stress issues that appeal to suburban women voters. (For examples of these relationships, see Table 4.) 736 URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW / May 2002

TABLE 3: Support for Slowing Growth in the Los Angeles Region

Variable Model 1 Model 2

African-American –.98** (.20) –.88** (.21) Education .09** (.03) .09** (.03) Age .002 (.003) .002 (.003) Homeowner .03 (.11) .03 (.11) Income .09** (.03) .09** (.03) Latino –.02 (.13) .03 (.13) Parent.01 (.10) .01 (.10) Woman .30** (.10) .29** (.10) Los Angeles city resident –.25** (.10) San Fernando Valley –.11 (.14) South and central –.40* (.19) Westside .03 (.30) Ventura .30* (.16) San Gabriel Valley –.02 (.15) Liberal .18 (.11) .19 (.12) Conservative .12 (.12) .12 (.12) Commute Less than 30 minutes .28** (.11) .26* (.11) More than 90 minutes .42* (.18) .44* (.18) Participate-local community .25** (.10) .24* (.10) Escape urban ills .13** (.04) .10* (.04) Constant –1.28 –1.28

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of Los Angeles Times Poll #429: Suburban Living, July 1999. NOTE: Logitanalysis. N = 2,061. Positive numbers representincreased supportfor slowing growth. Standard errors in parentheses. *p < .05. **p < .01.

TABLE 4: Expected Probability of Support for Slowing Growth in the Los An- geles Region

Community Los Angeles Length of Race Gender Participant Escape City City Resident Commute Probability

White Man No Disagree No > 30 and < 90 .40 Black Man No Disagree No > 30 and < 90 .20 White Woman No Disagree No > 30 and < 90 .47 White Man Yes Disagree No > 30 and < 90 .46 White Man No Agree strongly No > 30 and < 90 .49 White Man No No Yes > 30 and < 90 .34 White Man No No No < 30 .47 White Man No No No > 90 .50

SOURCE: Author’s calculations, based on Table 3. NOTE: Other variables held constant (50 years old, high school graduate, family income between $20,000 and $29,000, not a homeowner, not a parent, political moderate). Gainsborough / SLOW GROWTH 737

Several of the community/city attachment variables are significantly related to support for slowing growth in expected ways. Those who participate in one or more community activities have a higher probability of supporting slow growth, all else held constant, than those who are not involved in any community activities. Similarly, an increase in the extent to which a desire to escape urban problems motivates the current residential choice of the respondent (responses range from disagree strongly to agree strongly) is associated with a higher probability of support for slowing growth. On the other hand, living in the city of Los Angeles, rather than in the surrounding suburban areas is associated with a decline in the probability of supporting slow growth. These findings conform to the hypotheses that support for slowing growth is stronger among those residents most rooted in their present community, those who most desire less urban environments, and those living outside the city of Los Angeles. This same relationshipseems toexplain atleastin partthefindings for length of commute. Both those with the shortest commutes each day (30 minutes or less) and those with the longest commutes each day (90 minutes or more) are more likely to support slowing growth than their counterparts with more moderate commutes. Because the sprawling Los Angeles area is famous for its long commutes on crowded freeways, it makes sense that the strongest support for curbing growth and sprawl would be found among those with the longest commutes. The positive and significant relationship between shortcommutesand supportfor curbing growthis more surprising butfits with the earlier argument that those with the strongest ties to their local community rather than the region are more likely to support slowing growth. Pre- sumably, those with the shortest commutes are working in the same community in which they live, or at least in a nearby community, and therefore have less contact with the farther reaches of the region than those with longer commutes. In addition, to the city and suburb comparison, the Los Angeles data make it possible to further distinguish between different suburban areas and different parts of the city. Given the size and scale of both the city and the metropolitan area, this is important. Consequently, the same model is used with more differentiated location variables included (Orange County serves as the benchmark). What this reveals is that among city residents, the lowest level of support for slowing growth is associated with living in south Los Angeles and central Los Angeles (rather than with living in the wealthier west side or the San Fernando Valley). Among suburban residents, the highest level of support for slowing growth is associated with living in Ventura County. Again, this makes sense given the recent success of the slow-growth movement in that county (Purdum 2000). 738 URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW / May 2002

TABLE 5: Growth and Congestion as Important Problems

Variable Model 1 Model 2

African-American –.56* (.25) –.38 (.28) Education .14** (.03) .14** (.04) Age .005 (.004) .005 (.004) Homeowner .005 (.12) .005 (.12) Income .10** (.03) .09** (.03) Latino .02 (.14) .12 (.15) Parent–.50** (.12) –.50** (.12) Woman .02 (.10) .0007 (.10) Los Angeles city resident .25* (.10) San Fernando Valley .32* (.15) South and central –.09 (.24) Westside .91** (.29) Ventura .33* (.17) San Gabriel Valley –.24 (.18) Liberal .34** (.12) .34** (.12) Conservative .09 (.13) .10 (.13) Commute Less than 30 minutes –.05 (.11) –.08 (.12) More than 90 minutes –.02 (.19) .004 (.20) Participate-local community .35** (.11) .34** (.11) Escape urban ills .17** (.05) .14** (.05) Constant –3.21 –3.15

SOURCE: Author’s analysis of Los Angeles Times Poll #429: Suburban Living, July 1999. NOTE: Logitanalysis. N = 2,077. Positive numbers represent increased likelihood of identifying growth and congestion as among the most important problems facing the community. Standard errors in parentheses. *p < .05. **p < .01.

The results for most important problem, reported in Table 5, are similar to those for supporting slower growth, but with a few interesting differences. In contrast to support for slowing growth, time spent on the daily commute is not significantly related to likelihood of identifying growth and congestion as important problems. This is surprising because it suggests that although those with the shortest and longest commutes may express support for slowing growth, when asked directly about such a policy, the problems of growth and congestion are not more likely to rank among their top concerns than they are for those with moderate commutes. Also in contrast to the findings for support for slowing growth, being a parent significantly reduces the likelihood of identifying growth and congestion as important problems. Apparently, parents of school-age children, all else held constant, are less likely than those without young children to Gainsborough / SLOW GROWTH 739 consider it among the most pressing issues for their communities. This makes sense given that parents may have different priorities than others in their communities—education, for example, or concern about drugs and gangs. Differences also emerge for gender as well. Although being a woman is associated with increasing support for slowing growth, it is not significantly associated with an increased likelihood of considering growth and congestion among the most important problems facing the community. Again, whereas women may be more supportive of slow-growth measures in general, they do not appear more likely than men to place it at the top of their community agenda. The other way in which the findings for most important problem differ is that political ideology is significantly related to likelihood of identifying growth and congestion as important problems, once these other characteristics are taken into account. Being a political liberal is associated with an increase in the probability of identifying growth and congestion as among the most important problems facing the community. Interestingly, the location of respondents has a different relationship to likelihood of identifying growth and congestion as an important problem than to likelihood of supporting slow growth. Living in the city of Los Angeles is associated with an increased likelihood of viewing growth and congestion as important problems. A lower likelihood of supporting slow- growth measures is accompanied by an increased likelihood of seeing growth and congestionas importantproblems.This may in partrepresenta rejection of a particular solution to an agreed problem. The question about slowing growth in the Los Angeles survey clearly suggests that slowing growth and developmentmay “hurtbusiness and resultin theloss of some jobs.” This explicit trade-off may be unacceptable to city residents, despite their concern with the impact of growth on quality of life. In addition, a look at the model that includes the more differentiated location variables provides more ideas about how to interpret this finding. This increased likelihood of viewing growth and congestion as important problems is true of the west side of the city and of the San Fernando Valley but not of the south and central portions of Los Angeles (where support for slow growth was weakest). A positive relationship between living in the San Fernando Valley and identifying growth and congestion as important problems facing the community makes sense because much of the dissatisfaction that is fueling the secession movement is the feeling that an area that was formerly a suburban escape from the city center now has begun to experience urban woes of its own. This fits with the hypothesis that suburban support for slow growth is fueled by a desire to preserve existing community characteristics rather than a desire for a regional sharing of infrastructure, housing, and social welfare burdens. 740 URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW / May 2002

Among the suburban areas of the Los Angeles metropolitan area, living in Ventura County is associated with an increase in the probability of identifying growth and congestion as important problems. Presumably it is this strong feeling, the strongest in the region, that explains the strength of the slow-growth movement in that county.

DISCUSSION

What does this analysis of public opinion data suggest for the likelihood of using growth concerns to form regional coalitions? Growth and congestion are clearly importantconcernsamong a significantsegmentof thepopula - tion. In addition, in both New Yorkand Los Angeles, support for slow growth seems to be connected to a desire to escape the ills associated with urban living—as shown by the stronger likelihood of supporting slow growth among those in the Los Angeles area who cite a desire to escape urban ills as one of the most important reasons for living where they currently live and the stronger likelihood of supporting slow growth among those in New Yorkwho believe that their community is becoming increasingly citylike. On one hand, this supports the hypothesis that, as suburban areas increasingly experience city-like problems, they will support curbs on growth. However, it also suggests that the current levels of support for slowing growth are rooted in a desire to preserve nonurban living environments, a desire that may clash with the notion that through slow-growth, antisprawl measures it will be possible to provide for regional needs in a more balanced way. Furthermore, part of the idea behind antisprawl measures is that preventing growth from moving inex- orably outward in the metropolitan area will force more in-fill development, potentially creating more density rather than less. To the extent that density is seen as urban and dislike of urban is behind suburban supportfor slow- growth measures, this is a problem for regional coalition building. This same concern is raised by the New York finding that exurban residents are less likely to support slowing growth. It is these exurban areas that are often pointed to as the reason why unrestrained metropolitan growth increasingly draws resources away from the center and out into the ever-expanding outer rings of suburban development. In addition, this concern with growth is not distributed evenly across all population groups or all locations. Suburbanites in the Los Angeles region were more likely to support slowing growth than were center city residents. This is not a good beginning for an issue that is supposed to unite city and suburban interests. Within the city of Los Angeles, respondents did appear more likely than residents of some suburban areas to view growth and congestion Gainsborough / SLOW GROWTH 741 as among the most important problems facing their communities. However, upon closer examination, this concern with growth was strongest in the wealthier west side section of the city and in the increasingly secessionist- minded San Fernando Valley, not in south and central Los Angeles—where the strongest likelihood of not supporting slow growth is found. Furthermore, even within the suburban areas of the New York and Los Angeles regions, concern aboutgrowthand supportfor slowing growthwere weaker among African-Americans and lower income individuals. Although support for slowing growth and ending sprawl has been her- alded for its potential to unite regions around a common agenda, the survey data analyzed here suggest that currently, the strongest support for slowing growth and the greatest level of concern with the negative effects of growth are found among those with the weakest links to the central city in the region. This finding that those with the strongest links to the city and larger region have similar views about growth, views that differ significantly from those whose strongest ties are to their local community, fits with Downs’s (1994, 204) argument that a clear view of the “vital remaining links” between city and suburbs is essential for coalition building. However, at the moment, these links appear to be working in the opposite direction to that predicted by much analysis of the politics of sprawl. According to the survey data analyzed here, those suburbanites with the strongest connections to the city and the region are less, notmore, likely tosupportslow-growthmeasures. The analysis here suggests other limits on the power of concern about growth to unite regions. For example, those who are more likely to name growth and congestion as important problems facing their community are not necessarily more likely to support slowing growth. Given the way in which support for slowing growth is framed in the Los Angeles survey as an explicit trade-off between quality of life and living conditions on one hand and harm to business and loss of jobs on the other, the reluctance to embrace this particular solution to an accepted problem is not surprising. Again, this suggests that even fairly widespread recognition of the problems of unrestrained growth may not be enough to sustain a regional slow-growth coalition once the policies are perceived in terms of costs as well as benefits. Furthermore, although agreeing in general with the idea that growth is a problem, different individuals in different parts of the region may have very different ideas about what trade-offs should be made when controlling growth conflicts with other values. Again, this issue is particularly important if support for slow growth is being conceived of as a way to unite regions around an agenda that will bene- fit previously neglected inner cities. In addition, some who generally support slowing growthdo notview itas among themostimportantproblemsfacing 742 URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW / May 2002 their community. Again, this may impact their willingness to endure certain costs in return for solving problems associated with sprawl. Finally, the relationship between political ideology and concerns about growth also provide an interesting twist for assessments about the potential for coalition building. Political liberals in the Los Angeles region were more likely than moderates or conservatives to consider growth an important problem. This may reflectgreaterconcern aboutenvironmentalissues among wealthier white liberals who see concern about the pace of growth as part of an environmental agenda, rather than a regional equity agenda. However, it places political liberals and blacks on opposing sides of this issue and creates an unusual alignment of groups suspicious of growth controls: conservatives, African-Americans, and the poor. In part, this may underscore the relative ease for development interests of defeating antisprawl initiatives if they can tap into the existing unease among groups with whom they are not tradition- ally aligned.

NOTES

1. Concern about sprawl is being equated here with support for slow growth. One of the criti- cisms of the concept of sprawl is that everyone thinks they know it when they see it but no consistent definition or usage exists (Wolman, Galster, and Hanson 2000). Although this is a valid criti- cism, this article is concerned more with the politics of sprawl and the use of the issue to build political coalitions rather than with understanding the nature of sprawl to develop an effective policy response. Clearly, in popular usage, concern with sprawl often is equated with slowing growth and developing regional controls on growth. Consequently, the survey questions analyzed here tap into an important component of the politics surrounding sprawl and the receptive- ness of the public to policies with the stated aim of reducing sprawl. 2. In New York: Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, and Rockland counties. In Connecticut: Fairfield County. In New Jersey: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth Morris, Passaic, Somerset, and Union counties. 3. The eight-year gap between the New York survey and the Los Angeles survey raise the possibility that any differences between the results may have more to do with the passage of time than with differences between the regions. However, despite the gap, the results are remarkably consistent across the two surveys. This is apparent from the analysis here and also from the initial discussion of survey findings printed in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. 4. “In many ways, town officials have to choose whether to encourage more growth to pro- duce jobs and tax revenues or whether to slow growth because of the congestion and other problems it causes. If you had to make the choice for your community, which would you choose—to encourage growth or to slow it down?” 5. “Are you in favor of slowing down growth and limiting development, even if that may hurt business and result in the loss of some jobs in your community—or are you in favor of growth and economic development, even if that may have an undesirable effect on living conditions and the quality of life in your community?” Gainsborough / SLOW GROWTH 743

REFERENCES

Abbott, C. 1987. The new urban America: Growth and politics in sunbelt cities. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press. Agresti, A. 1996. An introduction to categorical data analysis. New York: John Wiley. Baldassare, M., and J. Hassol. 1996. Possible planning roles for regional government: A survey of city planning directors in California. Journal of the American Planning Association 62 (1): 17-29. Bradbury, K. L., A. Downs, and K. A. Small. 1982. Urban decline and the future of American cities. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Bustillo, M. 1998. SOAR battle could change political landscape. Los Angeles Times, 4 October, B1. Downs, A. 1994. New visions for metropolitan America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institu- tion; Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. . 1998. The big picture: How America’s cities are growing. The Brookings Review 16 (4): 8-11. Fulton, W. 1997. The reluctant metropolis: The politics of urban growth in Los Angeles. Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books. Gerston, L. N., and P. J. Haas. 1993. Political support for regional government in the 1990s: Growing in the suburbs? Urban Affairs Quarterly 29 (1): 154-63. Jackson, K. T. 1985. Crabgrass frontier: The suburbanization of American politics. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Julnes, G., and W. Pindur. 1994. Determinants of local governmental support for alternative forms of regional coordination. American Review of Public Administration 24 (4): 411-28. Kanarek, A., and M. Baldassare. 1996. Preferences for state and regional planning efforts among California mayors and city planning directors. Journal of Planning Education and Research 16:93-102. Katz, B. J. 1998. Reviving cities: Think metropolitan. Policy brief #33. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. . 2000. Reflections on regionalism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Katz, B. J., and S. Bernstein. 1998. The new metropolitan agenda: Connecting cities and suburbs. The Brookings Review 16 (4): 4-8. Kelley, D. 1999. As suburbs change, they still satisfy. Los Angeles Times, 19 October, A1. Kolbert, E. 1991. Region around New York sees ties to Ccity faltering. New York Times, 1 Decem- ber, 1:1. Los Angeles Times poll #429: Suburban living. 1999. Los Angeles Times, 10-16 July; distributor: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Marcal, L., and S. Svorny. 2000. Supportfor municipal detachment:Evidence from a recentsur - vey of Los Angeles voters. Urban Affairs Review 36 (1): 93-103. Myers, P. 1999. Livability at the ballot box: State and local referenda on parks, conservation, and smarter growth, Election Day 1998 [online]. Discussion paper prepared for the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Available: http://www. Brook.edu/urban/publications Newman, M. 1991. Anger against governors reflected in 3-state poll. New York Times,22 November, A1. Nivola, P. S. 1998. Fat city: Understanding American urban form from a transatlantic perspective. The Brookings Review 16 (4): 17-19. 744 URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW / May 2002

Orfield, M. 1997. Metropolitics: A regional agenda for community and stability. Washington, DC: Brookings and the Lincoln Land Institute. Peterson, I. 1998. My open space or yours? It’s time to duel for dollars. New York Times,15 November, 14NJ:2. Pinkus, S. 1999. Poll analysis: Life in the “Burbs” in Southern California. Los Angeles Times [online]. Available: http://www.latimes.com/news/timespoll/local Purdum, T. S. 2000. Los Angeles tests its limits in quest to grow. New York Times, 13 February, 1:1. Rusk, D. 1998. The exploding metropolis. The Brookings Review 16 (4): 13-16. Victories in the space race; Voters are willing to raise taxes to save land. 1998. The Record,8 November, O2. WCBS-TV News/New York Times. 1991. New YorkCity and suburban poll [computer file]. New York: WCBS-TV News [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Politi- cal and Social Research [distributor]. Williams, O. P. 1967. Life-style values and political decentralization in metropolitan areas. In Urban politics: Past, present & future, edited by H. Hahn and C. Levine. New York: Longman. Wolman, H., G. Galster, and R. Hanson. 2000. Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Urban Affairs Association, Los Angeles, 3-6 May.

Juliet F. Gainsborough is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Miami. She received her Ph.D. from Harvard University. Her research interests include the impact of place on political behavior, the politics of regional coalition building, and the effect of welfare reform on cities. She is the author of the book Fenced Off: The Suburbanization of American Politics (Georgetown University Press, 2001).