Connecticut October-December 2000 PlanningNewsletter of the Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association SPRAWL: What Can We Do About It In Connecticut? by Christopher J. Smith, Esquire prawl. Most of us have an idea of runaway effects. I suggest that education what sprawl means. However, defin- is the primary weapon required to con- ing sprawl in two sentences or less front sprawl successfully. Educating soci- often leaves one feeling that one has ety about the significant adverse effects of Smore to say. Perhaps the best way to de- sprawl on our human environment, the scribe sprawl, to paraphrase a United urgency for action, and the tools available States Supreme Court Justice when defin- to address sprawl, is the critical first step. ing pornography, is: “Sprawl…It’s diffi- Once one understands the problem and cult to define, but I know it when I see possible solutions, one is more open- it.” Everyone recognizes that sprawl is a minded and tolerant of required change, Register today for the problem. However, until society appreci- and more willing to contribute to the so- Regional Conference ates the indirect costs associated with lution. sprawl, efforts to effectuate policy and The article first addresses the problem in New Haven on legislative shifts may be challenged, or, at of sprawl, and then discusses how best to October 19-20! minimum, require great perseverance. educate communities about effectuating There have been numerous seminars, meaningful changes and implementing t is not too late to sign conferences, articles and entire books on possible solutions. Iup for the 2000 NEW sprawl. What is ENGLAND PLANNING perceived by Education: CONFERENCE, October some as the so- the Critical 19 and 20 in New Haven. lution to the First Step Two full days of sessions, problem of Once again, mobile workshops, and a sprawl — smart we know it big party are waiting for growth, or the when we see it more efficient — and we see it you at the Omni Hotel in growth manage- everywhere. New Haven. Topics cover ment of our hu- But, let’s go to all of the hot button issues man environ- the next level we deal with daily. See the ment — has — what are green brochure you re- risen to the top causes and ef- ceived in the mail a few of many agen- fects of sprawl weeks ago for more infor- das. Indeed, one that adversely mation. Or call Sally can’t go to a planning conference (or pick impact our day-to-day human environ- Pickett at (860) 236-1013, up a planning newsletter such as this) ment? Dan Tuba at (203) 452- without being exposed to a workshop or The first comment generally heard 5424, or any of the offic- article on these topics. from “experts” on sprawl is that sprawl ers listed in this newsletter. This article is one small “call to arms” results in a loss of sense of community See you in New Haven! to attack (yes, it’s a war) sprawl and its (continued on page 8) Sprawl costs everyone Sprawl (cont’d from p.1) costs (i.e., schools, municipal services such as police, fire and refuse disposal, roads money — big money. and quality of life. This is certainly the and sewers). The suburban towns cry for case. However, this “loss” is extremely state funding, and often receive it at the Indeed, it’s one of subjective, means different things to dif- expense of our urban centers. This acceler- society’s largest single ferent people, and as a result, is difficult to ates the loss of property values and tax re- assess for the purpose of encouraging in- source revenue for the urban areas which, cost items. Worse, it’s centives to reform current patterns of de- in turn, increases suburban flight — and a cost that does not velopment. the cycle continues generating huge costs An adverse result of sprawl that is for everyone. provide any meaning- more objective and compelling is money. The objective monetary costs associ- Sprawl costs everyone money — big ated with sprawl, as well as the subjective ful offset in return. money. Indeed, it’s one of society’s largest loss of quality of life, are self-evident to single cost items. Worse, it’s a cost that most. Unfortunately, hard-cost numbers does not provide any meaningful offset in aren’t readily available, and how these return. numbers relate to the specific effects of It is almost universally accepted that sprawl are often difficult, at best, to un- urban decay and suburban sprawl are in- derstand and appreciate. tertwined — one simply feeds off the In the recently completed Rhode other. A main contributor to urban decay Island study entitled Grow Smart Rhode is suburban flight. Suburban flight results Island, real numbers were attributed to in a loss of human and financial resources the aforementioned results of sprawl. The for our urban centers and first ring sub- Report concluded, in part, that urban de- urbs. This flight of resources causes a loss cay and suburban sprawl will cost Rhode in property values, with attendant loss of Island taxpayers almost $1.5 billion over tax revenue, for the urban centers. As the next twenty years. A substantial por- property values and tax revenue decrease, tion of this figure is attributed to the loss there is greater flight from our urban cen- of tax revenue associated with the decline ters. This problem is exacerbated by a lack of urban property values, and the costs of government assistance for the mainte- for new infrastructure to support subur- nance of existing, or construction of new, ban build-out. (For example, the Report urban infrastructure, or promotion of ur- found that Rhode Island’s core urban ban infill and redevelopment (critical for centers experienced a 24% decline in any municipal, regional, state or national property values (more than $3.3 billion) economy). over the ten-year period from 1988 to As a result of suburban flight, we have 1998.) suburban build-out. Often this build-out Educating ourselves about the actual requires new suburban infrastructure — monetary costs associated with sprawl is a the concept of “concurrency” has not first step to effectuating critical policy and been established as a prerequisite to build- legislative action addressing the causes of out in most suburban communities or re- sprawl (e.g., encouraging urban infill and gions. The build-out generates significant redevelopment measures, and requiring Page 2 better growth management for suburban economy when we should be directing One key to curbing areas). Money talks. surplus resources to smart growth mea- How do we in Connecticut generate sures such as brownfield redevelopment sprawl is to reverse numbers? Perhaps a legislative “task force” and urban infill. or “blue ribbon commission” to study the Brownfield redevelopment and urban urban decay. Society’s issue is appropriate (similar to Connecti- infill must be encouraged. Brownfield re- current “throw away cut’s recent Blue Ribbon Commission on development can be further promoted Affordable Housing). The media coverage with legislation that effectuates Brownfield the old urban center” alone generated by such “commissions” is redevelopment in an expedited manner, mentality is perverse. substantial. In addition, organizations such with financial incentives and greater liabil- as the Connecticut Conference of Munici- ity protection, without compromising the palities, the Connecticut Homebuilders environment. Urban infill may be encour- Association, Inc., Connecticut Chapter of aged by the effective utilization of munici- the American Planning Association, and pal blight ordinances to clear unused ur- any of the numerous universities in our ban areas for redevelopment. Tax credits State, can combine resources in such an for infill and historic preservation may be effort. Several regional planning agencies provided. Funds to preserve, maintain and have addressed these issues in updating rebuild existing urban infrastructures are regional plans of development. Certain also essential (e.g., schools, roads, utilities, non-profit organizations are promoting sewers, and public transit). These funds studies (e.g., Connecticut Fund for the would be in addition to revenue generated Environment, Inc. recently completed a by property taxes. paper/report on sprawl in Connecticut). The high degree to which Connecticut Studies emanating from smart growth ini- municipalities rely upon the property tax tiative states such as Rhode Island, New to fund local services also works against Jersey and Maryland may provide assis- smart growth. Each town and city fights tance on these issues. to retain a piece of the commercial and With concrete fiscal numbers in hand, industrial pie in order to generate local tax we can campaign to generate a public con- revenue. High property taxes in urban ar- stituency for smart growth initiatives. eas, when compared to the suburbs, dis- courage both businesses and individuals What Policy or Legislative Action from locating in cities. In Connecticut, Options Are Available? — Macro or recent State legislation authorizing inter- “Big Picture” Solutions municipal tax sharing represents a first As found in the Rhode Island study, a step in addressing this issue. An Act Con- key to curbing sprawl is to reverse urban cerning Voluntary Municipal Revenue decay. Society’s current “throw away the Sharing, adopted by the General Assembly old urban center” mentality (similar to the in the 2000 Session, allows two or more case of an old television set where it’s municipalities to enter into an agreement “cheaper to buy a new one than fix the to share revenues received for payment existing set”) is perverse. This attitude of real and personal property taxes. The feeds sprawl even in the current healthy (continued next page) Page 3 Though this may smell Sprawl (cont’d from p.9) thority to promulgate such regulatory re- quirements in Connecticut is unclear like the first scent of effective utilization of this law by munici- without explicit enabling legislation.