The Costs of Sprawl in Pennsylvania
Executive Summary J a n u a ry 2000
Executive Summary of the Study on the Costs of Sprawl in Pennsylvania Conducted by Clarion Associates, Inc. Prepared for 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania and Sponsoring Organizations 21 Communities Studied in the Costs of Sprawl in Pennsylvania
• Lehigh Valley Area (Includes Allentown, S. Whitehall, N. Whitehall)
• Meadville Area (includes Meadville, W. Meade, Vernon)
• Pittsburgh Area (includes Pittsburgh, Monroeville, Hempfield)
•Williamsport Area (includes Williamsport, S. Williamsport, Loyalsock)
•York Area (Includes York, Spring Garden, Springettsbury) C O N T E N T S
6 Sprawl Increases the Costs of Roads, Housing, Schools, and Utilities
7 Sprawl Increases the Costs of Transportation
8 Sprawl Consumes Agricultural Lands, Natural Areas, and Open Spaces
9 Sprawl Concentrates Poverty and Accelerates Socio–Economic Decline in Cities, Towns, and Older Suburbs
11 Sprawl Increases Pollution and Stress
13 Acknowledgements What are the hidden costs of sprawl in Pennsylvania,
h o w b ig a re they,
and who pays for them? 3
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Americans are good at making choices - and pride t h e m s e lves on their ability to make them w e l l . Our thriving market economy provides us with a staggering variety of goods and serv i c e s f ro m which to choose. In fac t, most Americans have developed skills to wade t h rough the da i ly ocean of information and come to a relat i v e ly quick decision as to “ w h at I want to buy.” Th e question then becomes “ w h at does it cost?”
In many cases, the answer is easy – it’s the price writ- It has become increa s i n g l y clear that decisions about ten on the price tag. In other cases, it is not so easy. wh e r e to buy a house or locate a business are being A car or a refrigerator has costs, beyond the initial made without a true understanding of the full costs price, that are ongoing, but those costs can be quan- involved. As the rate of sprawl has increased during tified with relative ease. the 1980s and 1990s, Pennsylvanians’ concern s about the impacts of sprawl have also increased. U n f o rt u n a t e l y, it is much harder to quantify the tru e costs of our public policy and investment decisions The Costs of Sprawl in Pennsylvania study was with re g a rd to land use. Ever since World War II, u n d e rtaken in the belief that Pennsylvanians want Pennsylvania, along with most states, has been mak- and have the right to know what those costs are , ing or tolerating public investment decisions and how big they are, and how they may be re q u i red to land use policies that have contributed to “sprawl” pay those costs. They know that investment deci- development patterns. In recent years, analysts’ sions do change when true costs are known, and that w a rnings that sprawl carries hidden costs that are the economy will adjust to provide what people want not being priced in the marketplace have begun to to buy when they know what it really costs. ring true in many people’s experience. Citizens and T h e re is no denying that some aspects of sprawl taxpayers who move to more rural suburbs for open development create benefits that are valued by many space and inexpensive living find traffic congestion, Pennsylvanians. In fact, the benefits of larger private d e c reasing open space, and increasing taxes to pay open spaces and the freedom of individual automo- for new schools and services. Citizens and taxpayers bile travel appear to be valued in every society where in Pennsylvania’s many cities, towns (boroughs), and they are made available without reflecting the costs suburbs experience decaying infrastru c t u re, loss of of use. But, it is important to realize that those ben- p ro p e rty values, and declining quality of life. All tax- efits have costs associated with them that are bo rn e payers, re g a rdless of where they live, by the general public, as well as individuals. often end up paying for these costs in duplicate as new The Costs of Sprawl in Pennsylvania attempts to i n f r a s t ru c t u re, schools, and answer the basic question: s e rvices create new tax bur- What are the hidden costs of sprawl in Pennsylvania, dens in addition to those how big are they, and who pays for them? that already exist. 4
What is Sprawl and How Do The ‘costs’ of sprawl are: As shown on the map on the inside We Measure its Impact? co v e r , a wide range of areas from 1. Costs to the individual, to the ac r oss the state was chosen for Although most Pennsylvanians community, and to society; Sprawl the study to compare the impacts pr obably “know it when they see 2. Physical, monetary, temporal, of sprawl development among it,” sprawl is difficult to define. and social/psychological; and a geographically and economically The study defines “sprawl” accord- diverse group of communities. ing to the latest nationwide study 3. The resources expended Sp e c i f i c a l l y , the study examined evaluating the costs of sprawl.* relative to a type, density, and th r ee diffe r ent community sizes location of development. Sprawl is a regional pattern of (small, medium, and large) in six real estate development that is Using this definition, the study di ff e r ent sample areas (Meadville, characterized by: documented as many costs as Wil l i a m s p o r t, Lehigh Val l e y , Yor k , were capable of being quantified Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh). The • Low density; with available data. It identified communities were characterized as • Unlimited and non-contiguous not one, but many different price a Core City, Inner Suburb, or Outer ou t w a r d expansion; tags for sprawl. Suburb as follows.
• Spatial segregation of diffe r ent land uses; Methodology • Consumption of outer suburban The study documented the costs of agricultural lands and sprawl through: a summary of en v i r onmentally sensitive lands; national literature; a summary of 1 • Travel dominance by motor Pe n n s y l v a n i a ’ s literature and ve h i c l e ; specific studies on aspects of 2 sprawl; seven case studies about • Small developers operating 3 the costs of sprawl in 21 independently of each other; and Pennsylvania communities; and • Lack of integrated land use a final rep o r t on the costs of planning (due to a fragmented sprawl in Pennsylvania that synthe- 1. Core City represents the system of local governments with sizes key information from the first historical center city of the area; va r ying fiscal capacities). th r ee phases (supplemented by 2. Inner Suburb is a jurisdiction local government statistics, U.S. All of the metropolitan reg i o n s representative of the first ring of Census data, and other studies) analyzed in the study are post-WWII expansion outward and draws conclusions about experiencing sprawl according from the Core City; and sprawl in Pennsylvania. to this definition. 3. Outer Suburb is a fringe area, further away from the Core City, which is still feeling the effects of active land development and grow t h . The study also examined data from th r ee diffe r ent suburban townships in southeastern Pennsylvania (Upper Darby, Tred y f frin, Uwchlan) to provide more detailed data on the impacts of sprawl on older, ma t u r e, and expanding suburbs.
* B u rchell, et al. The Costs of Sprawl-Revisited: Tr a n s p o rtation Research Board , National Research Council (1998) 5
Clarion Associates, Inc., the firm Major Findings Sprawl imposes five that conducted the study, is a The study found that sprawl national real estate and land-use imposes five important types of i m p o rtant types of costs, consulting firm with offices in costs, those costs are substantial, Chicago, IL, Denver, CO, and and most Pennsylvanians pay for Wayne, PA. With over 70 years those costs are those costs in one way or another. of combined experience, Clarion’s Sprawl development patterns crea t e principals have worked for a hidden costs that are borne by substantial, and most variety of clients, including finan - the people in the regions where the cial institutions, developers, sprawl occurs, and in some cases, Pennsylvanians pay corporations, law firms, arch i t e c t s , by all of the people of Pennsylvania. no t - f o r- p r ofits, and governm e n t Some of the costs are paid throu g h agencies. Some of Clarion’s clients for those costs in one taxes and charges that are higher include: Allegheny County, PA; than they would be if sprawl did City and County of Denver, CO; not occur. In other cases, they are way or another. City of Anchorage, AK; Montex “paid” through losses in the Pro p e r ty Management; Rockford quality of life in the region where In t e r national Airport, Rockford, the sprawl occurred. The five ty p e s IL; U.S. Agency for Interna t i o n a l of costs that sprawl imposes are: Development; Equitable Real Estate Investment Management; • In c r eases in the costs of roads, Federal Reserve Bank; and General housing, schools, and utilities; Land Development Corporation. • In c r eases in the costs of Clarion is particularly known tr a n s p o rt a t i o n ; for its expertise in: market studies; • Consumption of agricultural lands, fiscal impact analysis; zoning and natural areas, and open spaces; development codes; tourism-rel a t e d development and community • Concentration of poverty and character; perfo r mance standards acceleration of socio-economic and innovative growth management decline in cities, towns, and older tools; and airport- a r ea development. suburbs; and
• In c r eases in pollution and stres s . 6
Sprawl Increases the Costs of Roads, Housing, Schools, and Utilities
Each year, Pennsylvania’s Sprawl results in: • Applying the above percentage savings to Pennsylvania would • Higher costs to build infrastruc t u r e reduce costs borne by the citizens local governments and schools; of the state at the local level. • Higher costs to operate Applying the 25% savings in road spend up to $120 million in f r a s t ru c t u r e and schools; construction costs to just the $210 million that the state’s local • Higher combined construction and m o re than they would governments spent on road operating costs (life-cycle costs); and construction in 1995 would have spend if more compact • Higher land costs for housing. saved approximately $52 million in 1995 alone. Applying a blended Fi n d i n g s : savings rate of 10% (lower than f o rms of development the documented savings rates for • Th r ee major res e a r ch investigations roads and utilities, but higher than Housing,by Burchell (see Phase I:School Summary s w e re built. the documented savings rates for of National Literature Review) schools and “other” facilities) to have concluded that planned the $1.2 billion that Pennsylvania’s gr owth scenarios that avoid sprawl local governments spent on all development can lower construc - capital construction in 1995 tion costs for roads, utilities, and would have saved $120 million schools up to 25%. in 1995 alone.
• In the Philadelphia area between 1989 and 1998, sprawl led to the need to construct 21 new schools in the Outer Suburbs (to accommo- date enrollment growth of 14%), while the number of schools in the Co r e City and Inner Suburbs declined by one (and still accom- modated enrollment growth of 9%). Class size accounted for some of the diffe r ence between the Core City and other jurisdictions, but none of the diffe r ence between Inner and Outer Suburbs.
• National studies have found that at a statewide level of analysis, sprawl will raise private housing costs between 2% and 8% above what they would be under a planned gr owth scenario (provided that the total supply of housing is high enough to meet the demand). 7
Annual Transportation Costs for the Pittsburgh Region (1990)
S o u rce: Southwest Pennsylvania Corporation s, Utilities and Clarion Associates, Inc. Sprawl Increases the Costs of Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n
The study found a strong correl a - • Sprawl diverts public sector Pennsylvania Tra n s p o rt a t i o n tion between sprawl patterns of spending on transportation infra- Au t h o r i t y ’ s (SEPTA) annual operat- development and increased trans- st ru c t u r e to areas where more roa d ing deficit is attributable to only po r tation and travel costs, including: miles are necessary to serve fewer 13.6% of the total number people. Between 1986 and 1995 of transit trips, which are longer • In c r eased vehicle miles traveled the City of Philadelphia rec e i v e d suburban-city commutes. (V M T ) ; the lowest level of state funding for • In d i r ect environmental and social • Lower use of transit, bikes, highway construction and costs (including air and water pol- and walking; maintenance in the Philadelphia lution, waste, noise, and costs of case study area (far lower than its • Higher costs from automobile parking and accidents not paid by sh a r e of highway usage). Even after accidents; and the transportation user) constitute di s p ro p o r tionately high spending about 16% of the cost per passen- • Less cost-efficient and effe c t i v e for mass transit is taken into ger mile for single-occupant vehi- public transit. account, Philadelphia rec e i v e d cles (SOV), but are less than 7% of 50% fewer transportation the total costs for transit use and a Following are some of the dollars per capita than suburban negligible share of the costs for conclusions from the study: ar eas with similar trip use and walking and biking. origin patterns . • Th r oughout Pennsylvania, daily • Sprawl increases reverse VMT per capita in the suburbs • In the Pittsburgh area between commuting (commuting outward is about 50% higher than in urban 1970 and 1990, VMT per person fr om Core Cities to Suburbs in ar eas, while VMT per capita in in c r eased by over 90%, average or der to find jobs). In the Delaware rural areas is about 150% higher trip length increased from about Val l e y , reverse commuting on than in the urban locations. seven miles per trip to 10 miles public transit is subsidized at the Because of diffe r ences in VMT, the per trip, and VMT per household rate of $3.47 per trip, while average suburban household spent in c r eased by over 60%. intra-Philadelphia commuting is about $1,500 more per year on • The low-density characteristic of subsidized at the rate of only au t o m o b i l e - r elated costs, and the sprawl makes the use of public $0.81 per trip. The net rise in average rural household spent transit as an alternative transporta - reverse commuting between about $4,600 more per year, when tion mode less cost-efficient and 1970 and 1990 increased public co m p a r ed to a similar household ef fective. In the Philadelphia area , transit subsidy costs by about in an urban location. 40% of the Southeastern $6 million per year. 8
Sprawl Consumes Agricultural Lands, Natural Areas, and Open Spaces
Sprawl has the following impacts: • In just three short decades, almost 30% of York County’s farml a n d • Higher consumption of land was lost to suburban sprawl. The per household; York County Planning Commission • Loss of agricultural and environ - fo r ecasts that if current trends mentally sensitive lands; and continue the total percentage of fa r mland in York County may • In c r eased costs to maintain be less than 20% in approx i m a t e l y agricultural lands and open spaces. 20 years. which Pennsylvania lost farml a n d was 0.9%. From 1982 to 1992, Hi g h l i g h t s : • In Chester County, every 100 the average annual rate at which ac r es of single-family residential • Pennsylvania lost over 1 million Pennsylvania lost farmland was development is supported by an ac r es of cropland, forest, and open 1. 4 % — t h a t ’ s a 50% increase in the additional 38 acres of roads and space in just five years (1992-1997), rate of loss, compared to the 18 acres of utilities. Because of the ranking number two in the nation 23-year average. need for land to support the roa d s (after Texas) in conversion of total and utilities that support new • Pennsylvania loses between one and ac r es of land to development. homes, every one acre of single- six acres of agricultural land for • While Pennsylvania has lost much fa m i l y , residential development each new household created. The agricultural land over the last results in the loss of an average fi g u r e is approximately one acre per 25 years, urban areas, such as of 1.56 acres of agricultural, wood- household in larger communities, Allentown, Philadelphia, ed, and vacant land. and increases to five or six acres per Pi t t s b u r gh, Harri s b u r g, and household in smaller communities. • As shown in the graph below, Reading, have lost the most. Pennsylvania lost agricultural land • Fr om 1980 to 1990, the popula- These are also the areas prod u c i n g fr om 1969 to 1992 at a rate of tion of the Reading metrop o l i t a n Pe n n s y l v a n i a ’ s highest value for 0.9% per year, with a total loss of ar ea grew by 16% and the number fa r m products: 66% of the 1997 20.9% over 23 years. of households increased by about market value of PA agricultural 21%, but the urbanized land area pr oducts sold were from farms • The rate of agricultural land loss gr ew by 81%. located in Pennsylvania’s large s t has accelerated during recent years, me t r opolitan reg i o n s . co m p a r ed to historical rates of loss • Over the past decade, some dating back to 1969. From 1969 to Pennsylvania counties have 1992, the average annual rate at in c u r red average costs of between $22 and $89 per household per Loss of Pennsylvania’s Agricultural Land 1969 -1992 year to pres e r ve open space and fa r mland in the face of sprawl 40 development pres s u re s .
35 • Based on national studies, 30 Pennsylvania could see red u c t i o n s in the loss of fragile lands (which 25 include wetlands, flood plains, crit- ical habitat, aquifer rec h a r ge area s , 20 st r eam corridors, and steep slopes) 15 of between 17% and 27% under compact growth scenarios. 10
5 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.6 1.1 0 So u r ce: Center for Rural Pennsylvania; Setting the Agricultural Agenda: Issues and Directions for Cr a w f o r d County Agriculture, Crawford County Total Planning Commission, 1996; Lycoming County Annual Co m p r ehensive Plan, Amended December 18, 1997; and Clarion Associates, Inc. 9
Sprawl Concentrates Poverty and Accelerates Socio–Economic Decline in Cities, Towns, and Older Suburbs
Sprawl diminishes many • Sprawl, and the relatively more • Sprawl has led to an over-c o n c e n - Pennsylvanians’ quality of life by: expensive housing it tends to foster, tration of tax-exempt prop e r ties reduce affo r dable housing in Core Cities. If the value of • In c r easing the concentration of op p o r tunities and reduce the ability tax-exempt prop e r ties in each po o r er citizens in urban area s ; of the labor pool to locate closer to Co r e City were prop o r tionate to its • Cr eating a lack of affo r dable ou t e r -ring suburban employment sh a r e of the regional population, suburban housing where job op p o r tunities, exacerbating the the real estate tax burden on gr owth is grea t e s t ; spatial mismatch between some taxable real prop e r ty in the Core working populations and jobs. City could be reduced between • In c r easing tax burdens and fiscal Th e r e were only two incidents (out 15% and 25%. di s t r ess for urban res i d e n t s ; of 12) in the case studies conducted • The fragmented system of local • Ov e r -concentrating tax-exempt in Pennsylvania where residents go v e r nments associated with pro p e r ties in urban area s ; of a Core City could affo r d to buy sprawl development patterns a median-priced home (ranging • Ov e r -concentrating regional results in Core Cities prov i d i n g between $53,000 and $245,050) financial obligations in urban nu m e r ous expensive services that in an Inner or Outer Suburb. ar eas; and ar e consumed by the region as a • The Delaware Valley Regional whole, but for which the citizens • In c r easing pres s u r es on historic Planning Commission found that of the Core City have to pay. pro p e rt i e s . in 1990 a household earning the In Philadelphia, the total cost of regional median income (ranging un - r eimbursed regional services Highlights: between $23,392 and $33,271) is over $460 million per year. If it • Sprawl has concentrated poverty could not affo r d to purchase the we r e able to be reimbursed for in both large and small urban area s median-priced housing unit in 81% those expenses, Philadelphia’s wage ac r oss the state. In York, the of the Delaware Valley reg i o n ’ s tax could be reduced by almost 40%. pe r centage of children under 18 in mu n i c i p a l i t i e s . po v e r ty in 1990 was 31%; while in • Sprawl is not limited to the Inner and Outer Suburbs, the Between 1985 and 1995, Pe n n s y l v a n i a ’ s major metrop o l i t a n pe r centage was 6%. In Wil l i a m s p o rt , ar eas. In Crawford County, most the urban core had 30% of chil- of the growth in the last 20 years the provision of povert y – dr en under 18 in poverty , while the has occurred in rural areas, even suburbs had approximately 10%. beyond the outer ring suburbs. related services cost The city of Meadville lost over 9% of its population between 1980 Philadelphia over and 1996.
• Sprawl development generally $134 million per year. results in residents of Core Cities having significantly higher rea l estate tax bills than residents of their Inner and Outer Suburbs. S u b u r b s 10
• Sprawl is partly responsible for • Disinvestment and demolition of • Conversion of historic landscapes disinvestment and demolition historic struc t u r es in older to residential development crea t e s of older prop e r ties. Some of these downtowns undermine the grow - fiscal losses for the local govern- costs are borne by municipalities ing and lucrative heritage tourism ments where the land is located. as they try to avoid the mainte- in d u s t r y. Heritage tourism A 1992 study of Straban Tow n s h i p nance costs and liability risks of accounts for 25% of tourism in Adams County found that the vacant tax prop e r ties. Since 1970, spending in the state. Each lost costs of services provided per dol- Philadelphia alone has demolished heritage tourism visit costs the lar of tax revenue was only $0.12 close to 29,000 residential state approximately $335. for open land versus $1.10 for land buildings. The City of Erie has developed for residential uses. demolished 423 historic buildings, while the City of New Castle has demolished 174 historic buildings. 11 P O L L U T I O N
Sprawl Increases Pollution and Stre s s
Sprawl leads to: A study by the Chesapeake Bay • Two studies suggest that grea t e r Commission in 1997 found that st r ess is associated with a lifestyle • In c r eased air and water air quality could be significantly that includes automobile commut- pollution; and im p r oved by a 10% per year ing, which is, in turn, associated • In c r eased stres s . reduction in the growth rate of with sprawl. Nationally, between VM T . This could result in a 1983 and 1995, the average Fi n d i n g s : reduction of 19.2 tons/day for commute time increased by 14% ozone and oxides of nitrogen as and commute lengths rose by 37% • Studies by the North American Fo re s t r y Association estimate that, well as a 287 tons/day decrease (f r om 8.6 to 11.6 miles). (Benfield on an annual basis, a 50-year-o l d in carbon monoxide by the 1999) According to a 1990 tr ee provides soil erosion and year 2020. Novaco study, travel congestion was found to have statistically st o r m water control benefits valued • Sprawl patterns of development significant effects on job dissatis- at $75, wildlife shelter benefits val- appear to be linked with an faction, work absences due to ued at $75, air cooling services val- in c r ease in water pollution in the illness, and overall incidence of ued at $73, and air pollution con- Chesapeake Bay watershed and colds or flu. This study also found tr ol benefits valued at $50. If the other areas. A study in the that stress effects are strongly value of these benefits were capital- Chesapeake Bay area found that associated with freeway travel and ized at a conservative rate of 5%, moving from a sprawl pattern of road rage, both of which increa s e the market would value each tree development to a more concentrat- with the low densities and at over $55,000. ed pa t t e r n of development could dispersed development patterns de c r ease sedimentation by 2.3 • The current growth rates of vehicle of sprawl. miles traveled (VMT) and the million pounds, nitrous oxides in c r ease in the number of auto by 1.5 million pounds, and water trips that are associated with consumption by 38.1 billion sprawl are significant contributors gallons by the year 2020. to ozone and other air pollutants.
Key Impacts of Alternative Development Patterns on the Chesapeake Bay & Watershed (1990-2020)
Dispersed/Sprawl Pattern Concentrated Pattern
I n c rease in Sedimentation 5.7 million tons 3.4 million tons
I n c rease in Nitrous Oxides 1.6 million pounds .08 million pounds
I n c rease in Water Consumption 108.8 billion gallons 70.7 billion gallons
Bu r chell, et al., for the Governo r ’s Commission on Growth in the Chesapeake Bay Region (1991) 12
C O N C L U S I O N
Unlike many areas of the country, in Pennsylvania sprawl and its associated costs do not result from population growth pres s u r e, but fr om changing demographics and patterns of development. In fact, Pe n n s y l v a n i a ’ s population growth rate is not only low but actually d e c reasing. According to U.S. Census data, from 1970-80, Pe n n s y l v a n i a ’ s population grew by 0.54%. From 1980-90, the gr owth rate decreased to 0.34%. In regions such as Atlanta, Denver, and Phoenix, sprawl is exacerbated by a high rate of population gr owth. When population growth is considered, Pennsylvania is consuming more land per person than any other state.
Pennsylvania needs and wants economic development and stron g communities. The question is: Where do we want growth, how do we pay for it, and how can growth be accomplished in ways that keep our diverse urban, suburban, and rural communities healthy? The Costs of Sprawl in Pennsylvania, which is the most detailed and comprehensive study undertaken to date in Pennsylvania, begins to address this question. The findings from the study prov i d e data to inform Pennsylvanians’ public and private investment and policy choices so as to foster economic development that sustains our communities, protects our farmland and natural res o u r ces, and enhances our quality of life.
To obtain copies of the study, contact 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania via email (in f o @ 1 0 0 0 0 f r i e n d s . o r g), fax (215-563- 2204), or phone (877-568-2225). Copies of the study will also be made available on 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania’s website at www.10000friends.org.
HOW TO USE THIS REPORT
This report should be used by individuals and firms to make location and development decisions, by local government of ficials to understand the impacts of development patterns and land use decisions in their area, and by state go v e r nment officials to inform spending and policy decisions. 13
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
The rep o r t on the Costs of Sprawl in Costs of Sprawl Advisory Committee Pennsylvania would not have been possible Br enda Barrett, Pennsylvania Historical without generous contributions of time and and Museum Commission money from many organizations and individuals. The sponsors of the study would like to extend Constance Beaumont, National Trust for pa r ticular thanks to the organizations that Historic Pres e rv a t i o n pr ovided the financial support, to those individu- Ca r oline Boyce, National Trust for als who served on the Advisory Committee, Historic Pres e rv a t i o n and to all of the local government officials who volunteered their time during the course Anna Breinich, AICP, Pennsylvania of the case study process. The study was En v i r onmental Council pre p a r ed by Michael Samuels and Donald L. Rick Carlson, Department of Conservation Elliott of Clarion Associates, Inc. with and Natural Resource s pr oject coordination by Joanne Denworth, Esq. of 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania. Ca r ol Collier, Delaware River Basin Commission Ba r ry Denk, Center for Rural Pennsylvania This report was funded as part of a larger research study to examine the economic impacts Joanne Denworth, Esq., 10,000 Friends of outdoor tourism, heritage tourism, and of Pennsylvania low–density development in Pennsylvania. This research was coordinated by Preservation Ri c h a r d Fox, Joint Conservation Commission Pennsylvania and 10,000 Friends of Ir ving Hand, AICP, Delta Development Pennsylvania with funding Gr oup, Inc. assistance or inkind contributions from the following organizations: Me r edith Hill, Department of En v i r onmental Prot e c t i o n 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania Michel Lefevre, Pennsylvania Historical Preservation Pennsylvania and Museum Commission Pennsylvania Environmental Council Michael Schneider, Department of Richard King Mellon Foundation Co n s e r vation and Natural Resource s U.S. Forest Service Susan Shearer , Pres e r vation Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and La r ry Williamson, Department of Natural Resources Co n s e r vation and Natural Resource s Ro b e r t Yod e r , Susquehanna Development The information presented in this report does not necessarily represent the views nor imply endorsement by the participating governmental agencies. Joanne R. Denworth, Esq., President Janet Lussenhop, Program Director Ann Marie Walker, Administrative Director Wendy H. Foster, Communications Consultant
117 South 17th Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-5022
Phone 877 568 2225 Fax 215 563 2204 [email protected] www.10000friends.org
United to Save Our Cities, Towns, and Countryside