1 / 15

Growth Management Policies

Growth Management Policies. Garrett Chrostek ECON 539 3-9-08. The Problem. Urban Sprawl- increases in size of urban area outpace population growth Occurs when converting new lands to urban uses is cheaper/more profitable than efficient uses or refurbishing existing urban areas

palmer-castro
Download Presentation

Growth Management Policies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Growth Management Policies Garrett Chrostek ECON 539 3-9-08

  2. The Problem • Urban Sprawl- increases in size of urban area outpace population growth • Occurs when converting new lands to urban uses is cheaper/more profitable than efficient uses or refurbishing existing urban areas • Associated with -Declines in downtowns -Increased costs of community services -Environmental Problems

  3. History of Sprawl • Development of American Cities • Depression • Federal Housing Administration • National Transportation Commission • Federal Housing Projects

  4. Declines in Downtowns • Sprawl pushes people further away • Increases demand for suburban strip malls/big box stores • Increased leakages • Losses in town identity

  5. Cost of Community Services • Budgets are typically dependent on number of people not the size of the service area • Requires more resources to serve same number of people • Subsidies imbedded in building permit requirements leads to suburban development withdrawing more money than they contribute in property taxes • Counties with growth management policies can expect to save approximately 10% on cost of community services compared to counties without (Burchell and Mukherji, 2003)

  6. Environmental Problems • Impervious surfaces • Decline in ecosystem services • Interferences with wildlife life processes • Resource use-construction & maintenance • Commuting

  7. Benefits of Open Space and Compact Communities • Recreation and amenity values • Ecosystem services • Increased efficiency in providing community services • Support public transit

  8. Growth Management Policies • Big 3 • Zoning • Permitting Processes • Urban Growth Boundaries

  9. Zoning • Zoning schemes designate particular parcels for particular land uses and specific regulations for those land uses • Started in 1920’s, standard practice today • Combats sprawl through regulations for particular land uses-minimum densities • Susceptible to political pressures

  10. Permitting Processes • Traditionally- regulate number and type of building permits • Modern- attach conditions on builder to remove imbedded subsidies • Reduce sprawl by controlling rate of growth and removing building practices conducive to sprawl • Not politically popular, subject to lawsuits

  11. Urban Growth Boundaries • Drawing lines around urban areas and applying rules that make properties within the boundary more conducive to development than properties outside • Provides incentives to use land efficiently, infill, refurbish • Requires regional coordination

  12. Optimal Solution • As no single growth management tool can adequately address the problem of urban sprawl, best used in combination under a regional or state system • Oregon model • Has led to increased concentration of population and preservation of agricultural lands (Nelson, 1994 and Kline and Alig, 1999) • Equity in property prices(Jun, 2006 and Jaeger and Plantinga, 2007)

  13. Opposition to Growth Management Policies • Comes from pro-growth interests and low income housing advocates • Stifles economic growth, property appreciation, and increases the price of housing • Oregon ranked 10th in economic growth 1993-2003 (Harrah, 2005), 5th in housing appreciation since 1980 (OFHEO, 2008) • Low income housing consumers not priced out as long supply meets demand (Nelson, Pendall, Dawkins, and Knaap, 2002)

  14. Conclusions • Population will increase, resources will become more scarce • Growth management policies are proven to reduce sprawl w/o negative impacts on economy or housing markets • Should be implemented by more states, counties, and municipalities

  15. References • Black, J. T., & Hoben, J. 1985. Land price inflation and affordable housing: Causes and impacts. Urban Geography, 6{1) p. 27—49 • Blair, John and Premus, Robert. 1987. Major factors in industrial location: A review. Economic Development Quarterly. 1(1) p.72-85 • Burchell, R.W.,Lowenstein, G., Dolphin, W.R., Galley, C.C., Downs, A.,Seskin, S.,Still, K.G., and Moore, T. 2000. Costs of Sprawl. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press • Burchell, Robert W. and Mukherji, Sahan. 2003. Conventional Development Versus Managed Growth: The Costs of Sprawl. American Journal of Public Health. 93(9), p. 1534-1540. • CivicEconomics. 2007. The San Francisco Retail Diversity Study. Report conducted for the San Francisco Locally Owned Merchant’s Alliance. http://www.civiceconomics.com/SF/SFRDS_May07.pdf • Gottlieb, Paul. 1994. Amenities as an economic development tool: Is there enough evidence? Economic Development Quarterly. 8(3) p. 270-85 • Halstead, John and Deller, Steven. 1997. Public infrastructure in economic development and growth: Evidence from rural manufacturers. Journal of the Community Development Society. 28(2) p. 149-69. • Harrah, Janet. 2005. Measuring economic performance of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Report prepared by the Center for Economic Development and Business Research, W. Frank Barton School of Business, Wichita State University. http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/cedbr/econperformanceforweb.pdf • Jun, Myung-Jin. 2004. The Effects of Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary on Urban Development Patterns and Commuting. Urban Studies. 41(7) p.1333-1348. • Jun, Myung-Jin. 2006. The Effects of Portland's Urban Growth Boundary on Housing Prices.Journal of the American Planning Association. 72(2) p.239-243 • Kline JD, Alig RJ. 1999. Does land use planning slow the conversion of forest and farm land? Growth & Change. Vol. 30 p. 3–22. • Nelson, A. C. 1994. Oregon's urban growth boundary policy as a landmark planning tool. In C. Abbott, D. Howe, & S. Adler (Eds.), Planning the Oregon way: A twenty-year evaluation (pp, 25-47). Corvallis, OR: OSU Press. • Nelson, A. C, Pendall, R., Dawkins, C. J., & Knaap, G. J. 2002. The link between growth management and housing affordability: The academic evidence. Washington DC: Brookings Institute Center • Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. 2008. Widespread house price declines in fourth quarter. Press release, February 26th. http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/4q07hpi.pdf • Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. 2006 Oregon Cougar Management Plan. Adopted 13 April 2006. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/cougar/2006%20Oregon%20Cougar%20Mgt%20Plan,%20Final%20Draft%20Filed,%2030%20May%2006.pdf • O’Toole. 2000. The Vanishing Automobile: And other urban myths. Oregon: Thoreau Institute: • Peek. James. 2005. Plenty of Deer. Natural History, 114(10)

More Related