
Wiley Swain
Project Management
- Smart Growth Policies
- Economic Development
- Impact Fees & Revenue Sharing
Urban sprawl has also led to a massive drain on resources as the development of these far-flung, low-density communities has increasingly stressed the existing infrastructure. At the same time, the exclusive nature of these communities has caused a disparity in wealth because there is no mechanism for the distribution of revenue across political lines. Without this redistribution of revenue, poorer central cities are often faced with carrying a disproportionate amount of the costs. In essences, these wealthy enclaves are subsidized by the poorer central cities.
Smart Growth
Studies seem to suggest the savings in resources could be substantial if smart growth policies are implemented and maintained. Urban areas can see substantial savings in development costs, land consumption, and infrastructure construction. Over a twenty-five year period, the cost savings could reach the hundreds of billions of dollars (Burchell, Listokin & Galley 2000). In conjunction with these policy changes, upgrades to the educational system and housing stock are also affected through policy revisions.
In the mid-1970s, the state of Oregon implemented growth policies intended to slow sprawl and provide equitable housing for all. The city of Portland, Oregon and surrounding incorporated cities passed a series of laws that established growth rings around the cities. These growth rings governed development in unincorporated and undeveloped areas as well as incorporated cities (Cox & Utt 2001).
It gradually became apparent, however, that these policies were having some unintended consequences on the community. The smart growth restrictions implemented in order to provide affordable housing for the community slowly raised housing costs and priced low-and moderate-income homeowners out of the market. As a matter-of-fact, Portland became one of the most expensive places in the country to buy a house by the year 2000. Comparatively, Atlanta, which had not implemented any comprehensive growth control initiatives, saw a marked increase in its affordable housing stock during the same period (Cox & Utt 2001).
Revenue Sharing
Revenue sharing entails communities in a region pooling funds to somewhat balance out some of the inequities between community wealth. Revenue sharing policies are intended to reduce both differences in wealth as well as reduce competition among communities for industrial and commercial development. This is done by providing a pool of money for the regional communities to draw from thus relieving pressures for communities to annex land while at the same time fostering a regional perspective among the cooperating municipalities. The pool of money is generated through tapping some tax base (i.e.: property tax or commercial/industrial taxes) and dispersing it by some formulaic distribution process (Squires 2002).
Revenue-sharing has seen some marginal success, Minneapolis-St. Paul for example, but getting the program started has its own challenges. Often the state or county government has to provide some kind of seed money to get the ball rolling. But even with this, a regional revenue-sharing program can be a hot-button political issue taking years to implement (Squires 2002).
Forming Partnerships
Along with Development Corporations, tax credits for job creation are often used to stimulate the local economy. By giving tax credits to businesses willing to locate in inner city or deteriorating areas, these credits can increase the rate of urban infill. These credits help to mitigate the benefits a business might receive by locating in a sprawl area thus leveling the playing field to a degree (Squires 2002).
Both Development Corporations and tax credits have proven to be useful tools in sprawl control. Cities such as Boston, Cleveland, Oakland, and Chicago have used Development Corporations to various degrees of success (Krumholtz 1999). Job tax credits can not only level the playing field they can also provide a seed in the community for future growth by bringing businesses to an area. Both methods, however, are susceptible to corruption and are very depended on the motivation and character of those involved in order to succeed.
The policies of growth control are varied and many. Growth policies go beyond simply trying to make urban areas efficient through resource management. Growth policies cross the lines into political and cultural areas. Because of this balance that such policies must attempt to attain, these policies often produce unintended consequences such as those seen with the implementation of growth policies in Portland. The success of a policy is dependent upon the skill and motivation of those involved in its implementation rather than the policy in and of itself. Complex issues such as the ones addressed with growth control policies require constant planning and adjustment.
Each part must be analyzed individually which leads to the eventual creation of a comprehensive plan. A policy has to be implemented incrementally so that it can be reviewed and adjusted on a real-time continual bases. By developing a system of successive comparison the policy can be kept on track of its overall goals. At the same time, any unforeseen consequences can be identified and addressed in a timely manner (Lindblom 1959).
Although urban sprawl is a nationwide phenomenon, it has to be viewed from a local or regional perspective. There is no one-size-fits-all policy for growth control. Each region must take a basic framework of policies and then adjust them for their particular circumstances. It is only through the efforts of those who understand the unique set of factors influencing a region or area that effective and sustainable growth policy will be achieved.
In conclusion...
A policy has to be implemented incrementally so that it can be reviewed and adjusted on a real-time continual bases. By developing a system of successive comparison the policy can be kept on track of its overall goals. At the same time, any unforeseen consequences can be identified and addressed in a timely manner (Lindblom 1959).
Although urban sprawl is a nationwide phenomenon, it has to be viewed from a local or regional perspective. There is no one-size-fits-all policy for growth control. Each region must take a basic framework of policies and then adjust them for their particular circumstances. It is only through the efforts of those who understand the unique set of factors influencing a region or area that effective and sustainable growth policy will be achieved.
Krumholz, N. (1999). Equitable Approaches to Local Economic Development. In Susan Fainstein & Scott Campbell, Readings in Urban Theory, Second Edition (pp. 224-236). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of “Muddling Through”. In Susan Fainstein & Scott Campbell, Readings in Urban Theory, Second Edition (pp. 196-209). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Squires, G. (2002). Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences & Policy Response. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
Cox, W., & Utt, R. D. (2006 April). Smart Growth, Housing Costs, and Homeownership. [Electronic version]. The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder-Executive Summary, 1426, 1-24.
Burchell, R. W., Listokin, D., & Galley, C. C. (2000). Smarth Growth: More Than a Ghost of Urban Policy Past, Less Than a Bold New Horizon. Housing Policy Debate, 11 (4), 1-59.