Sprawl Vs. Smart Growth

By Spr Elizabeth Humstone Vermont Forum on Sprawl Smart Growth: 2 These necessities typically i housing, clothing, furniture, a vary in generosity from state to Hampshire allows a $50,000 while in Texas, the entire home less of value. ow governments choose to invest public might inadvertently be supporting sprawl in the resources can play a key role in economic develop- Green Mountain State. To help inform policy ment and growth patterns. Decisions on road con- makers, VSGC comprehensively analyzed the Hstruction, sewer extensions, school siting, and the state’s investments, policies, and programs, identi- like can make all the difference in creating healthy, fying those that supported smart growth and those sustainable communities. Unfortunately, economic that encouraged sprawl. VSGC’s findings are development policy is often crafted or carried out instructive for states that want to formulate policy in ways that unwittingly support sprawl—low den- that minimizes costs and promotes economic sity, disconnected, auto-dependent development— development, affordable housing, transportation, which can impose sizable costs on communities and downtown revitalization. and states. The Vermont Smart Growth Collaborative Sprawl vs. Smart Growth: (VSGC), a coalition of ten nonprofit organiza- Costs and Benefits tions, was concerned that state and local policies While there are varying definitions of sprawl 10 Summer 2004 awlvs. The Power of the Public Purse include an allowance of and personal items, but state. For example, New homestead exemption, estead is exempt, regard- and smart growth (see sidebar on page 15), there and reducing the ability to walk to schools, are several generally accepted features that distin- libraries, stores, and jobs. guish the two. Sprawl development is most often In contrast, according to the definition of characterized as low density, spread-out develop- Anthony Downs, a senior fellow in economics at ment that is disconnected or isolated from existing the Brookings Institution, smart growth is develop- development. This type of development often uses ment that: open space inefficiently and its spread-out nature • limits outward expansion. increases the cost of delivering services. It tends to • promotes higher density land use. direct resources away from older areas, potentially • encourages mixed-use zoning. contributing to the decay of downtowns and exist- • reduces travel by private vehicles. ing development. Sprawl development typically • revitalizes older areas. produces uniform housing types with little price • preserves open space. variety, and new developments usually have limit- ed transportation options, requiring access by car Research has shown that these smart growth Communities&Banking 11 The Cost of Sprawl vs. Smart Growth Sprawl Smart Growth Savings Acres of Land Converted 2.7 million 2.2 million 0.5 million Miles of New Local Roads 429,929 406,011 23,919 Number of New Water and Sewer Laterals 6.3 million 5.7 million 0.6 million Fiscal Impact per Household $ 1,778 $ 1,618 $ 160 Average Housing Cost $258,168 $245,168 $13,000 Miles Traveled by the Individual 172 million 166 million 6 million Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. principles can save money and pro- (see table). In addition, smart growth other designated growth areas. Under mote economic growth. A recent development would significantly this program, funding for new school report by the Brookings Institution’s reduce the miles of new roads and the construction in remote areas was redi- Center on Urban and Metropolitan number of sewer and water laterals rected towards existing neighborhood Policy found three significant ways in needed. Overall, the total cost savings schools. Transportation dollars were which smart growth development can of employing a smart growth pattern spent primarily on maintaining existing enhance the local and regional econo- of development would be almost $9 roads and improving public transit in my. First, by concentrating develop- billion for local governments and $3 PFAs, rather than on highway bypass ment around existing infrastructure, billion for state governments. construction in the outlying areas of the costs of public services can be Smart growth is not a new con- the state. By 2000, the state’s efforts greatly reduced. Fewer roads and sew- cept. Planners have long been aware had preserved nearly 50,000 acres of ers will be needed, school bus trips that low density, spread-out develop- open space and brought new develop- and police patrol routes will be short- ment is associated with higher costs ment to Maryland’s city centers. er, and so on. Second, denser labor for municipal services. They have seen In other states, some municipali- markets, healthier downtowns, less that rapid growth in outlying areas ties have established growth bound- congestion, and higher concentrations can contribute to a decline in center aries which confine public services to of community benefits were found to cities. They also know that in order to certain areas and contain development. contribute to better worker productiv- achieve smart growth development, Others have adopted ordinances that ity and higher average personal state and local governments must require adequate public services to be income in a region over time. Lastly, make public spending decisions that in place before development can occur. they found that when a city’s econom- support this pattern of growth. In general, states are paying greater ic picture improves and its poverty The power of the public purse is attention to the fiscal capacity of com- rates decline, the surrounding suburbs strong. State and local governments munities when choosing where to also experience a rise in incomes, spent roughly $260 million in FY expand development. And local gov- house prices, and population. 2001 on public infrastructure. The ernments have begun to revamp zon- The Lincoln Institute of Land allocation of these public dollars can ing ordinances to foster greater hous- Policy also examined the relative costs greatly impact how and where devel- ing options, higher density, and more of sprawl and smart growth in its opment occurs. mixed-use neighborhoods. study of the fiscal impacts of alterna- Increasingly, states and local gov- But not all state and local deci- tive development patterns in New ernments are making public invest- sions support smart growth. In Maine, England and the Mid Atlantic. The ment decisions that encompass the a study by the State Planning Office study found that, given the same principles of smart growth. For exam- showed that between 1970 and 1995, increase in the number of households ple, Maryland established a statewide the state’s population of school age in a 25-year period, a smart growth smart growth program in the late children fell by more than 27,000. development pattern focusing on city 1990s under Governor Parris However, the state committed $338 centers, smaller lots, mixed uses, and Glendening. This program requires million to build new schools in outly- higher densities would preserve over state investments to be focused in ing towns and suburbs and increased half a million acres of land compared Priority Funding Areas (PFAs), its school busing expenditures from $9 with a sprawl pattern of development defined as existing urban centers and million to $54 million to accommo- 12 Summer 2004 date students living farther away from schools. Examples of such Vermont Laws Support Smart Growth public investment decisions that contribute to sprawl and increase Vermont has a long history of promoting smart growth. In the past three decades, the state costs prompted VSGC to has adopted several important laws and executive orders that protect its vision for the managed undertake an examination of state growth of compact settlements separated by rural countryside. and local spending decisions in Vermont. 1970 — Act 250, State Land Use and Development Control Law This law established a statewide review process for projects of a certain size and impact. These Vermont: A Case Study developments were required to show that they would not create environmental harm or excess Vermont has been recog- burdens on municipal services. nized as a national leader of smart growth development, and it has a 1973 — State Land Capability and Development Plan long history of creating policy This law modified Act 250 to require project reviews to also asses the impact of a project on and legislation that support the prime agricultural and forestry soils, aesthetics, historic resources, land use, public investments, state’s vision of compact settle- energy conservation, and the fiscal health of the region. ments separated by rural countryside. However, it was not clear 1987 — The Housing and Conservation Trust Fund that the state’s agencies were con- This executive order created a trust fund for affordable housing, land conservation, and historic sistent and cooperative in their preservation in accordance with the state’s land use vision. support of this smart growth vision for the state. For this rea- 1988 — Act 200, the State Growth Management Act son, in 2002, the Vermont Smart This law required regional planning commissions and state agencies to adopt land use plans that Growth Collaborative (VSGC) conducted a survey of the recent were in alignment with Vermont’s stated growth goals and policies. Additionally, it required any policies, regulations, and public local municipal plans to also meet the state standards, and it offered municipalities

Load more