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 limited 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 that adopted investment decisions that affected plans eligibility for planning grants and the right to levy local impact fees. growth patterns within the state. VSGC examined the prac- 1998 — Vermont Downtown Program tices of the major government This executive order, renewed in 2002, provided financial incentives, technical assistance, and per- entities that directly impact land mit relief for development in downtowns, villages, and designated town centers. development in Vermont.1 Together, these agencies govern 2000 — Development Cabinet Law the transportation, water, sewer, This law established a Development Cabinet within the Office of the Governor to enforce Act housing, and other public works 200 at the state level. The cabinet would ensure that state investments and policies adhered to decisions for the state. VSGC the state’s land use priorities, including directing investment to downtowns and protecting the rural first reviewed the laws and regu- working landscape. Recently, the Cabinet was reconfigured as the Jobs and Development Cabinet, lations that govern these agencies. and today it is more focused on economic development issues than on planning. They then assessed whether these agencies generally promoted sprawl or smart growth by cate- gorizing each agency’s capital expendi- state subsidy given to a business that would not capture the complex set of tures from the past four to five years as was located outside a community cen- factors that determine the allocation of either one or the other. For example, a ter or away from existing development funds. For instance, though VSGC and infrastructure was considered a would consider a sewer line extension 1 Ten agencies were examined in the study: sprawl investment. On the other to a mobile home park located in a Vermont Agency of Administration; Vermont hand, a housing subsidy for the reha- remote part of town sprawl, the invest- Economic Development Authority; Vermont bilitation of a downtown building for ment addressed the important safety Economic Progress Council; Vermont Department of Education; Vermont affordable rental units was considered and sanitation needs of the park’s resi- Environmental Board; Vermont Agency of smart growth. Some expenditures, dents. Thus, VSGC’s goal was not to Natural Resources; Vermont Agency of such as ski lift facilities, did not fit into evaluate every spending decision, but Transportation; Vermont Housing and either category, and these were exclud- to observe the trends in public spend- Conservation Board; Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization; U.S. ed from the analysis. ing that contribute to smart growth Small Business Administration. VSGC recognized that its analysis or sprawl.

Communities&Banking 13 spectrum, nearly three-quarters of the Investments Promoting Smart Growth vs. Sprawl investments of the Vermont Economic by Vermont Government Agencies Progress Council were found to have promoted sprawl. For example, of the

Promotes Smart Growth 4.8% 5.8% $64.3 million in tax credits the Promotes Sprawl Council allocated to businesses 30.6% between 1998 and 2002, 72 percent 95.2% 94.2% 69.4% went to sprawl projects, many of which were located in commercial and indus-

VT Housing State School Aid Capital Construction trial parks away from town centers. Conservation Board 2. Unity of purpose is not matched by unity 26.0% of action. 59.3%40.7% 40.2%59.8% 35.1% 64.9% 74.0% VSGC also found that no formal coordination exists among state agencies or their investments. There is no State Sewer Funding Chittenden County VT Economic VT Economic Development Authority Progress Council governing body that ensures that state plans are up-to-date and that they Source: Vermont Smart Growth Collaborative. conform to state land use policies. No one coordinates agency investments to The analysis produced several agencies, the Vermont Housing and ensure that they complement each general conclusions about the relation- Conservation Board was the most suc- other or, at least, do not conflict with ship between public spending and cessful in investing in projects that state interests. This lack of a formal smart growth in Vermont: promoted smart growth and limited body to orchestrate smart growth poli- sprawl. Between 1998 and 2002, of the cy often leads to confusion and con- 1. Existing smart growth laws are not $30.8 million the Board invested in flicting policies. For example, VSGC always followed. affordable housing projects, $23.2 mil- found that neither the Vermont Many of Vermont’s laws explicitly lion, or 75 percent, was directed to Economic Development Authority require state agencies to employ smart downtowns and existing growth cen- nor the Vermont Economic Progress growth principles when making deci- ters. Additionally, the Board spent $32 Council realized that they were subject sions. However, VSGC found that million on farmland preservation, open to state planning requirements and these provisions are not consistently space projects, and historic preserva- smart growth objectives. VSGC followed (see chart). Of all of the tion programs. On the other end of the believes that Vermont would benefit from establishing a state planning office that could coordinate planning among agencies and ensure compliance with state laws.

3. State investments could be more pru- dent. As the Brookings Institution report points out, it is fiscally prefer- able to reinvest in existing infrastructure before subsidizing new development. However, VSGC found that this principle was not consistently followed by Vermont state agencies. For example, Vermont currently faces a gap of $110 million in funding for maintenance of existing highways. Funding that could be used for this reinvestment had been allocated to several new highway construction projects, including a new highway around Burlington.

14 Summer 2004 A Broader Definition of Smart Growth

The concept of smart growth development has been embraced by a wide array of groups, ranging from planners, architects, and devel- opers to environmental groups, affordable housing organizations, and businesses. Many nonprofit coalitions have formed to represent these diverse interests and to promote smart growth development at the local, state, and national levels. Nationally, the Growth Management Leadership Alliance and Smart Growth America are two of the largest, and both have created extensive networks connecting local groups who are working on this issue. The presence of these diverse parties and viewpoints in the smart growth discussion has, in many cases, broadened the scope of its meaning. The Vermont Smart Growth Collaborative’s definition of smart growth, for example, emphasizes the role of smart growth in promoting community development. In addition to Anthony Down’s elements (see page 11), VSGC believes smart growth is development that reinvests in existing community assets, provides options for affordable housing, and creates walkable communities. It considers smart growth a way to spur economic development in older communities and provide citizens with ready access to education, jobs, and open space.

However, construction on this highway was designed to meet state standards, References: was recently halted by a U.S. District it sailed through the permitting “Maryland Smart Growth Laws Having an Court decision, in part because of its process in just a few months. Impact.” 2000. New Urban News (December). potential contribution to sprawl devel- Available at: www.newurbannews.com/maryland.html. opment. The decision may free up A Lesson for All States funds to address some of the state’s Inadvertent or not, states can sub- “The Cost of Sprawl.” 1997. Maine State immediate road maintenance needs. sidize sprawl. They can direct public Planning Office (May). investment in ways that promote new Burchell, Robert, et al. 1998. The Costs of Sprawl 4. Better planning could improve the per- construction over reinvestment. They Revisited. Transportation Research Board of the mitting process, expediting economic can encourage land development out- National Academy of Sciences, Washington, development in the state. side of center cities. They may not con- DC. The current permitting process is sistently adhere to a coordinated state complicated by overlapping jurisdic- Burchell, Robert, et al. 2003. “Smart Growth vision of planning and development. and State Resources: Conserving Resources by tions, required duplicate local and state However, states can also support Altering Growth Patterns.” Research presented reviews, and poorly designed local reg- smart growth. And, by promoting at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (October 22). ulations. While these problems are these smart growth objectives, states not easily resolved, VSGC found that can experience significant public dollar Downs, Anthony. 2003. “Growth Management, initially planning a project around savings and increased economic health. Smart Growth, and Affordable Housing.” state land use policies can substantially As state and local governments strug- Speech given at a Brookings Institution Symposium on the relationship between afford- smooth and quicken the permitting gle with how to contain government process. For instance, before under- able housing and growth management (May spending and how to revitalize their 29). Available at: http://www.brookings.edu/ taking a substantial sewer project, one city centers, they should assess how views/speeches/downs/20030529_downs.htm Vermont town worked closely with the well their state policies support smart Muro, Mark, and Robert Puentes. 2004. Agency of Natural Resources to better growth ideals. By recognizing the ways understand the state’s requirement that “Investing in a Better Future: A Review of the in which sprawl is being subsidized, Fiscal and Competitive Advantages of Smarter such investments be focused within states can adjust their investment prac- Growth Development Patterns.” Discussion growth centers. Equipped with a clear tices to achieve greater public savings Paper, Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy (March). knowledge of the rule’s requirements, and more efficient land use through the town designed its sewer expansion smart growth. to limit growth to three village centers and to prevent hook-ups along the Elizabeth Humstone is Executive Director of the Vermont Forum on connecting lines. Because the project Sprawl. She is also a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston’s Community Development Advisory Council.

Communities&Banking 15