Tag: smart growth

IS IT SPRAWL? OR URBAN ABANDONMENT? (Part II)

  • Urban sprawl doesn't just alter the land in the suburbs. Central cities are affected by the loss of investment when people leave the cities and tax dollars are instead invested in building roads and sewers in the surrounding areas. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Concern about urban sprawl is often limited to the loss of farmland, traffic congestion, and unattractive development. But urban sprawl has other impacts. Building the roads and sewers to serve new subdivisions uses state and federal tax money, often at the expense of the large cities that are losing population to the suburbs. In the second of a two-part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham looks at the divide between city and suburb:

Transcript

Concern about urban sprawl is often limited to the loss of farmland, traffic
congestion, and unattractive development. But urban sprawl has other impacts.
Building the roads and sewers to serve new subdivisions uses state and federal tax
money, often at the expense of the large cities that are losing population to the
suburbs. In the second of a two-part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
looks at the divide between city and suburb:


What some people call urban sprawl got started as the federal government’s answer to
a severe housing shortage. There wasn’t a lot of building going
on during the Great Depression. At the end of World War II, returning GIs needed
houses.


Reynolds Farley is a research professor at the University of Michigan’s Population
Studies Center. Farley says the federal government offered veterans low-interest
loans and developers started building modest homes on green lawns on the edge of
cities. But because of discrimination, the loans didn’t as often make it into the
hands of African-American veterans. Instead of segregated neighborhoods in the
city, segregation lines were newly drawn between city and
suburb.


“Very low-cost mortgages accelerated the movement of whites from the central city
out to the suburbs… built upon the long racial animosity that characterized cities
beginning at the time of the first World War and continuing, perhaps up to the
present.”


With segregation, there was a shift of wealth. Farley says jobs and purchasing
power were exported to the suburbs with the help of the interstate highway system.
And big new shopping centers displaced retail in downtowns.


People with low-incomes, often people of color, were left behind in cities of
abandoned houses and vacant storefronts that often didn’t have enough tax base to
maintain roads and services.


John Powell is a professor at Ohio State University. He’s written extensively on
urban sprawl and its effects on urban centers.


“So, we move jobs away, we move tax base away, we move good schools away and then
the city becomes really desperate and they’re trying to fix the problems, but all
the resources have been moved away.”


With no way found to fix the cities, whites have been moving out of cities to the
suburbs for decades. And now, middle-class blacks are moving out too. For some
metropolitan areas, leaving the city has become a
matter of income… although Powell says even then African-Americans have a more
difficult time finding a way out.


“Race never drops out of the equation. In reality, even middle-class blacks don’t
have the same mobility to move to opportunity that even working-class whites do
because of the way race works in our society.”


So, segregation continues. But now the line is drawn between middle-class blacks in
the older, inner-ring suburbs, whites in the outer-ring suburbs… and for the most
part in cities such as Detroit, poorer blacks left behind in the central city.


Smarth Growth advocates say part of the answer to urban sprawl is finding a way to
get more money back into the central-cities to make them more attractive to
everyone. That’s worked in cities such as Portland, Oregon and Minneapolis-St.
Paul. But those cities and their suburbs are predominantly white. For Northern
cities with greater racial divides, cities such as Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St.
Louis and Detroit it’s different. A lot of white suburbanites don’t want tax
dollars going to blacks in the city. And African-Americans in the city don’t see
urban sprawl as their issue, so ideas such as tax revenue sharing for a metropolitan
region are not a priority. The issue of regional tax equity that
works in predominantly white regions… becomes muddied by racial animosity in
segregated regions.


“Buzz’ Thomas is state senator in Michigan who has taken on the issue of urban
sprawl and its counterpart, the deterioration of city centers. Senator Thomas says
if state legislatures can’t find an answer to help cities, sprawl in the suburbs
will continue, paving over green space and farmland.


“You know, poverty and jobs and access to health care and access to quality
education are very realistic issues for cities like Detroit. But, a reality is they
go hand-in-hand with sprawl. As your black middle-class moves out of the inner city
because they’re not satisfied with those resolution to those issues. You know, it
links sprawl.”


Senator Thomas says legislators from rural areas and from urban areas are beginning
to realize they have a common issue. But before they can get to discussions of
regional tax equity, they first have to talk about the more difficult issue of
race…


“And have a discussion that might make me uncomfortable, that might make those
that I discuss it with uncomfortable. Only then, I think, can we really adequately
figure out how long it’s going to take us to resolve that issue.”


In the meantime, many cities are still losing population and revenue. Suburbs
continue to sprawl. And farms are becoming subdivisions, retail strip malls and
fast food restaurants.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Sprawl Tough on New Farmers

  • J. and Kelly Williams farm 700 acres of corn and soybeans. They also both work full-time jobs off the farm. Supplemental income is necessary for many beginner farmers trying to break into the business. (Photo by Corbin Sullivan)

In a recent survey, young farmers said their biggest challenge is finding available land to farm. That’s because there’s so much competition for the land these days. Farmers compete with developers who have deep pockets to buy land for new subdivisions or retail centers. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner has the story of one young farm couple trying to get started:

Transcript

In a recent survey, young farmers said their biggest challenge is finding available land to farm. That’s because there’s so much competition for the land these days. Farmers compete with developers who have deep pockets to buy land for new subdivisions or retail centers. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner has the story of one young farm couple trying to get started:


J. Williams and his wife Kelly grow corn and soybeans. Their farm is relatively small, 700 acres in southern Michigan. They do all the work themselves – they plant, treat, harvest and market their own crops. It’s a lot of work for two people, especially since both J. and Kelly also have full-time jobs off the farm. He works at a bank and she works as a farm credit analyst.


They hope to one day be able to quit those jobs, and live off the farm income, but that might take awhile. The Williams had to take out big loans to buy land and equipment. They’re deep in debt, but they say farming is the life they want.


“Part of it’s entrepreneurial, it’s being your own boss, it’s making your own decisions and not being responsible to anyone but yourself for successes and failures. Part of it’s just natural attachment to nature and being outside and enjoying that, and part of it’s just simply independence.”


To achieve complete independence, J. says he needs to buy more farmland, but when he tries, he has to compete with a dozen or so other bidders, and they’re not all farmers. Some are developers looking for places to build homes or stores. The developers can afford to spend a lot more for the land because they’ll make a quick and substantial profit once the land is turned into neighborhoods or strip malls.


It’s a common scenario. In the last two decades, the United States has lost close to 50 million acres of farmland, most of it mid-size farms – which are typically family-owned. They’ve been chopped up and sold to developers or to sometimes gobbled up by factory farm owners.


Scott Everett is the Great Lakes regional director for America’s Farmland Trust. His group lobbies to preserve farmland. He says even when crop prices are at their highest, a sweet development deal is usually too good for some farmers to pass up.


“This generation, farmers today that own farmland today, have something much different than their fathers had. They’ve got this land that is worth so much more for development than it is for agriculture.”


Everett says farmland is often sold to developers at triple what it would be worth as agricultural land. That makes land prices high… and that means young farmers have a tough time getting loans.


Bruce Weir is with the U.S. Farm Service Agency. The agency offers loans to many beginner farmers who haven’t been able to get financing anywhere else.


“Right now it is tough for a young farmer, without a lot of collateral or capital to start with to start. It’s almost impossible. We don’t like to say that, but it is tough for them.”


A lot of beginning farmers know the odds are against them, but like J. Williams, the banker who wants to become a full-time farmer; they’re still hoping to expand their farms. Williams says he’d like to know that available land won’t simply go to the highest bidder. He wants farmland to remain farmland. He’s working with a group of local farmers to persuade government leaders to develop long-term land use plans.


“There are some areas in our county that are better suited for industrial use, some better for residential, some better for agricultural, and we believe at least that there should be a targeted approach, and a common-sense approach, to planning out our community so that we can maintain a proper balance.”


J. Williams says farming is going well for him and his wife so far. He says… just like the old saying goes, his corn was knee high before the Fourth of July, and the Williams’ fledgling farm is already turning a profit, but they still have to keep their day jobs. J. says it might be that way for some time, if government doesn’t protect farmland from the high price of development, and preserve it for agriculture.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Erin Toner.

Related Links

School Choice Complicates Land-Use Choice

  • School districts are building huge, palatial schools far outside suburban cities to attract school choice students. Okemos High School in Michigan is an example, with its turrets and sprawling athletic fields. The school is actually facing a dearth of students in coming years. (Photo by Corbin Sullivan)

Parents want to send their kids to the best schools, but those schools aren’t always in their neighborhood. Lawmakers in most states say school choice is the answer. Giving students a choice is supposed to make all schools better, but an unintended consequence of school choice is bad choices for land use. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Corbin Sullivan reports:

Transcript

Parents want to send their kids to the best schools, but those schools aren’t always in the neighborhood. Lawmakers in most states say school choice is the answer. Giving students a choice is supposed to make all schools better. But an unintended consequence of school choice is bad choices for land use. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Corbin Sullivan reports:


Ken Brock lives in the heart of Michigan’s capital city, and he works just a mile away. He and his family live in a quaint neighborhood of homes built in the 1920s and 30s, with interesting neighbors and light traffic, but when Brock started looking at the Lansing schools, he didn’t find what he wanted for his then fourth grade daughter, and neither did she.


“We actually took her to the urban school. And it was an eye opening experience for her. She said to my wife at one point during the visit, ‘Mom, these kids don’t know how to behave.'”


After shopping around, Brock and his daughter decided on a suburban school a few miles outside the city. The school is 20 minutes from the Brock’s home, and no bus runs from downtown Lansing to the school. Brock’s daughter is going into ninth grade and she’ll be behind the wheel soon. But for now, Brock and his wife are willing to make the 40-minute round trip drive, sometimes three times a day, to make sure their daughter’s getting what they feel is a better education.


“I don’t think we’re unique that the number one priority in our life is our daughter, and we’re going to do what it takes to make sure she has the best education and the greatest opportunities available to her.”


Forty-one states have school choice laws. They’re supposed to make schools compete for students and the government money that’s tied to them. The idea is that competition will force schools to up the ante on education, and in the end, all the choices will be better, but suburban school districts are trying to lure students in other ways.


“Those communities often respond by building very large, wonderful schools. But they feel pressure to build these schools farther and farther outside the city.”


Mac McClelland is with the Michigan Land Use Institute. The institute is a non-profit that promotes smart growth. He says instead of just spending the school choice dollars only to improve education, suburban school districts are building huge, palace-like schools to attract students. These schools are too big to be built near city centers. Instead they’re popping up in the middle of cornfields. McLelland says that’s bad land use.


“Folks are putting pressure on land use and opening up new areas by these new schools, extending sewer lines, extending roads and opening up new areas to development.”


McLelland says the goal of school choice legislation was better education. But instead they’ve ended up with a lot of giant, shiny new schools, and once they’re built, the communities gravitate toward them, following the new roads and sewers. McLelland says it’s a gamble — spending money on a new school to get more students and therefore more money. The gamble doesn’t always pay off, so McLelland says schools should worry more about spending money on their teachers and classes – and try to save money on the actual building.


“In every situation that we looked at, it was cheaper to remodel than it was to build new. Even though there might be some sacrifices, some other changes that may not be necessarily, might not be ideal for all people in the school system, that it was less expensive, provided more value, and also decreased the additional cost to that community in terms of extending sewer, water and roads out to that particular area.”


McLelland says putting the emphasis solely on education would give urban schools a more level playing field with schools in the suburbs. He says there’s no need to keep expanding out, because there’s still space for more kids in urban schools.


Ken Brock took his daughter out of the city schools, but he says he’ s not adding to the urban sprawl that often follows the new schools. He says if it weren’t for school choice, his family would have moved to the suburbs to support his daughter’s educational needs. He thinks school choice might be keeping families like his in cities.


“What I want to say and be very specific is I think middle and upper class families would be a smaller percentage of the city population if there weren’t educational options available.”


Brock is arguing that school choice might actually slow sprawl because families can live where they want and still send their kids to the school they want. But not everyone can manage the 40-minute commute two and three times a day to take their kids from the city out to the school in the suburbs, so many families end up moving closer and new subdivisions pop up in the fields around the big, new schools.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Corbin Sullivan.

Related Links

Transportation or Trees? A Highway Runs Through It

If you compare a ten-year-old map of any urban city in North America with a recent one, you’ll notice that almost all of our major cities are getting bigger. That means more suburbs, more cars, and according to traditional ways of thinking, the need for more roads. But is road building the solution? Or is it part of the problem? The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Victoria Fenner takes us to a place where the debate has been going on for half a century. As she reports, not everybody agrees that the debate is settled:

Transcript

If you compare a ten year old map of any urban city in North America with a recent one,
you’ll notice that almost all of our major cities are getting bigger. That means more
suburbs, more cars, and according to traditional ways of thinking, the need for more roads.
But is road building the solution? Or is it part of the problem? Victoria Fenner takes us to
a place where the debate has been going on for half a century. As she reports, not everybody
agrees that the debate is settled:


On this sunny morning, a hawk sits in watch high atop a power line in the Red Hill Valley in
Hamilton. It gazes down over the valley – 1600 acres in the middle of this gritty industrial
steel town on the western tip of Lake Ontario. And soon, if the current city council has its
way, the hawk will be looking down on an expressway.


This is a story that happens over and over again in communities throughout North America.
This expressway plan in Hamilton has been on and off again for fifty years. It has polarized
the community, and with a municipal election happening soon, decision day for the valley is
looming. If a pro-expressway council is elected, it will go ahead.


Don McLean is with the Friends of Red Hill Valley, an organization that has been mobilizing
opposition to the freeway plan since 1991. He explains why he doesn’t want the expressway.


“The Red Hill Valley is potentially the largest urban park in Canada, and the expressway proposal
comes right down the middle of it, takes down twenty five percent of its forest and so on. There is
a large creek running through it that drains half the urban area of Hamilton. It has twenty four
species of fish that have been recorded since 1995. It’s quite an interesting place because it’s
completely surrounded, really, by urban area.”


But other people say there are also good arguments why the freeway should be built. Larry
Dianni is running for mayor and is building his whole campaign around this single issue. He
says he sees no other options, especially since parts of the freeway have already been built.


“This has been a project that has been fifty plus years in the making, and of course people have
now turned it around to say this is a fifty year old solution to current problems. Wrong. This is an
overdue solution to problems that manifested themselves fifty-four years ago, and by virtue of
ignoring them, the problems have gotten worse.”


The problems Larry Dianni is referring to are all about economic growth. His arguments for
the expressway are not a lot different from other cities across North America. He says as
more people and businesses move into the area, the road is necessary to accommodate
increasing traffic.


But Don McLean says this is outmoded thinking.


“There are good studies now in the U.S., and this has been understood in Europe for a long time,
that building more roads mainly results in generating more traffic. It does not address congestion
issues, it actually increases them because it encourages more driving and it encourages people to
move further and further away from their destinations.”


Don McLean’s position is one shared by the Sierra Club of Canada. The Sierra Club
recently published a major report called “Sprawl Hurts Us All.” Janet Pelley, the report’s
author, has heard the full range of the debate on both sides of the border. She is an
environmental journalist who recently moved to Canada from the U.S.


“The fact that you see on both sides of the border that there are these battles over freeways that
have been going on for fifty years just shows it’s an outmoded way of thinking, that the
government hasn’t caught up with the new smart growth initiatives and the new ways people are
looking at cities.”


The bottom line, Janet Pelley says, is we’re too dependent on motorized traffic. She says we
have to find ways of reducing our dependency on our cars.


“If you’re assuming people have to have cars, then you’re going to be sucked into that whole “car
junkie” habit of “we have to have more freeways to get people to move around. It’s really key
how you build your city. If you build your city for pedestrians and for public transit then you don’t
have to worry about the car traffic.”


It’s a story that is repeated over and over again as communities such as Hamilton try to
balance economic growth with environmental responsibility. In Hamilton, it’s still not a
foregone conclusion whether or not the freeway will proceed. November’s municipal
election is shaping up to be a single issue campaign, with pro-expressway and anti-
expressway candidates staking their political future on the issue. Whether or not this will
settle the matter is another question. With many sides to this story, this is an issue that
many communities will be wrestling with for a long time to come.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Victoria Fenner.

Related Links

Council Looks for Land Use Consensus

Governors and legislatures across the nation have been trying to figure out the best way to manage land-use in areas where urban sprawl is gobbling up open space and leaving behind deteriorating city centers. But finding a way to manage land-use is controversial. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on one state’s attempt to tackle the problem:

Transcript

Governors and legislatures across the nation have been trying to figure out the best way to
manage land use in areas where urban sprawl is gobbling up open space and leaving behind
deteriorating city centers. But finding a way to manage land use is controversial. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on one state’s attempt to tackle the problem:


The Governor of Michigan made it clear while she was a candidate that she wanted to tackle the problem of urban sprawl. Shortly after her inauguration, Governor Jennifer Granholm established what she calls a Michigan Land Use Leadership Council. It’s made up of home-builders, developers, farmers, environmentalists and others. The council’s job is to find a consensus on the best ways to make the best use of land in Michigan so that the state doesn’t lose any more farmland and open space than necessary.


Hans Voss was appointed to the council. He’s with the Michigan Land Use Institute, a group
advocating the principles of Smart Growth… getting government to take a more active role in
preserving open space and redeveloping blighted urban areas. He says he expects the council to come up with recommendations that everyone can live with… and still adhere to Smart Growth principles…


“And it’s not a regulatory approach. But, if you put real, substantive
financial incentive on the table by reallocating our existing state dollars,
we will then put together the local coalition to
actually implement the recommendations. It’s all about incentives.”


Voss says local governments too often encourage urban sprawl by putting the
wrong incentives in place for builders and developers. He’s optimistic that the
various interests represented on the
governor’s new council will find common ground and solve some of the problems.


Keith Charters is also a member of the council. He currently serves as chair of
the state’s Natural Resource Commission. He agrees the council will
find consensus and make good recommendations to the Michigan legislature.
But he’s concerned that much of the agreement
will be lost in the legislative process.


“The recommendations are not going to get through the sausage grinder of
the legislature overnight. It’s not a 30-day process and some of the
recommendations may take two or three
years. That’s a lot of time for the special interests to reconsider
some of the consensus they may
have already approved at the council level, to rethink it and come back
with a different attack on it.”


Further complicating the matter is a political consideration. Rick Johnson
is the Speaker of the
Michigan House of Representatives. He says term limits will hurt the chances
of getting more
complicated land use legislation through the process.


“You know, you’re only around for six years in the House. It’s real hard
to – you know, an issue of land use isn’t going to get done in a year, two
years’ time. It’s a more lengthy discussion.”


On top of that, Johnson says legislators have a hard time keeping the best
interests of the state as
a whole in mind when so many local constituents are pressuring legislators to
think local first.


“When you have a bunch of townships, city, county people saying
‘We don’t want that,’ you know. Or ‘What’s good for Detroit, I don’t care.’
Or, what’s good for Marquette, the legislator
from Detroit don’t care.”


Beyond parochial biases, there are philosophical biases. Senator Liz Brater
also sits on the governor’s land use council. She says the political reality
is that the council’s recommendations
won’t carry that much weight with some legislators unless they fit within
their existing philosophy.


“There’s a certain group of legislators that just embrace the whole Smart Growth
principles and would go forward with it. There are others that are concerned that we’re taking away property rights and the rights of homebuilders and developers to have economic benefit from land that they control. So, there’s a whole gamut and what we need is to identify the common ground.”


But… even if the legislators see some common interests within the Michigan Land Use
Leadership Council’s recommendations… many of the public comments indicate there are a lot of people who are skeptical about land use management. It’s even been called un-American. Senator Brater says if more people knew the issue better… there wouldn’t be so much concern and opposition…


“But, I think we have a lot to overcome in terms of this perception
that we’re trying to do some
kind of centralized, top-down state planning, which I don’t think anybody
really is talking about,
but that is a fear out there that we have to address.”


The Michigan Land Use Leadership Council will make its recommendations for managing land
use in just a few weeks… but whether anything like Smart Growth principles
become part of Michigan law or policy will depend on finding some common ground
between the different interests
and overcoming political biases of the state’s people and their elected representatives.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.


EDITOR’S NOTE: Audio for the piece was gathered at a People and Land conference.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium receives funding from People and Land.

COUNCIL LOOKS FOR LAND USE CONSENSUS (Short Version)

States are concerned about the loss of farmland and open space to sprawling cities and suburbs… but it’s hard for legislatures to find practical political solutions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

States are concerned about the loss of farmland and open space to sprawling cities and suburbs…
but it’s hard for legislatures to find practical political solutions. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Land use management is not simple. In some areas it means preserving farmland… in other areas
it means urban renewal… and in others it means building higher density housing instead of big
houses on big lots.


In Michigan, for example, the Speaker of the House, Rick Johnson predicts conflict between
legislators from urban, suburban and rural areas. He says getting legislators up to speed on land
use management and in agreement will be more complicated than many of the other issues
legislators face.


“Land use is going to be extremely harder because the focus is so immense and different
from different areas.”


A council appointed by the Michigan governor is working to send land use
recommendations to the legislature. Meanwhile, even during these poor economic times… rapid
growth at the edges of metropolitan areas on what was once open land continues with little
restraint.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

The Right to Sprawl

Governments are trying to figure out the best way to deal with urban sprawl. Legislators and planners are considering all kinds of approaches to manage the growth of cities, but some say government really has no business trying to stop the market forces that are driving the rapid growth. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on the deeper debate between property rights and land use protection:

Transcript

Governments are trying to figure out the best way to deal with urban sprawl. Legislators and
planners are considering all kinds of approaches to manage the growth of cities. But, some say
government really has no business trying to stop the market forces that are driving the rapid
growth. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on the deeper debate
between property rights and land use protection:


Through the public process, states that are grappling with urban sprawl end up hearing from everyone involved. While the media and environmental groups tend to look at the
problems of congestion and loss of green space and farmland due to the rapid growth at the edges
of cities, others see the growth as driven by what people want – it’s natural growth, even organic. In
fact, many property owners, builders and developers, see government interference as “un-
American,” as testimony from this public hearing in Michigan shows.


“As an American, I strongly believe in our citizens’ rights to pursue life, liberty and property.”
“Centralized planning did not work in Russia, Cuba, North Korea or anywhere else they’ve
attempted it.” “Are we gonna mandate where they’re going to live? Is this gonna be America?”
“The land should be controlled by the individual who has paid for the land and pays the taxes on the land and should be able to do with that property what he wants to do.” “Our Constitution tells
us about the preservation of private property rights.”


There’s something deeply rooted in the American cultural ethic that bonds people to the land – or
more precisely – to their land. It might be leftovers of the concept of Manifest Destiny where,
in the words of one essayist, land ownership was associated with wealth and tied to self-
sufficiency, political power, and independent “self-rule.” This seems to be especially true of
people who live in rural areas, or are only a generation or two removed from the farm.


Amy Liu is with the think-tank, the ‘Brookings Institution.’ She says when states start looking at
growth management techniques, commonly called “Smart Growth,” landowners and builders
become suspicious.


“There is a belief that the government needs to get out of the way of the market. And so the idea
of having government intervene in the real estate market and consumer choice is considered un-
American.”


And property rights advocates quickly become dogmatic about their beliefs and resist any kind of
restrictions on use of land.


In the same way, some environmentalists consider sprawl to merely be a matter of greedy
developers and builders wanting to make money no matter what the cost to the environment,
green space, or farmland. They sometimes ignore the fact that consumer demand for larger lots
and larger houses, as well as convenient shopping, is much of the driving force behind urban
sprawl.


Liu says many on each side of the urban sprawl debate are inflexible.


“You know, I think that there are definitely reasons why the environmentalists can be extreme
and why the property rights advocates can be extreme.”


And generally, the two sides are talking right past each other.


Ann Woiwode is with the environmental group, the Sierra Club. She says the opponents of
“Smart Growth” say they don’t want government interference, but she says they don’t talk that
way when they’re in need of roads, fire protection, good schools, and other government services.
Woiwode says “Smart Growth” doesn’t mean unreasonable restrictions.


“I’m not trying to take anybody’s rights away and I don’t think that’s the appropriate approach.
What in any society part of being a society is that we collectively decide how we’re going to
make decisions that affect the entirety of the community.”


And while Woiwode and other environmentalists are in favor of making sure green space is
preserved, most of them acknowledge that growth is inevitable. They say they just want to make
sure it’s the right kind of growth.


Amy Liu at the Brookings Institution says not every growth management plan makes sense.
Some of them only look at benefiting the environment and ignore market forces, the desire that
many people have for a bit of land and a home to call their own.


“There are certainly growth management policies that don’t work, that strictly limit development-
growth boundaries and are therefore anti-growth. I think the growth management policies, the
Smart Growth policies that do work are those that really do try to anticipate and accommodate
growth in a metropolitan area in a way that is going to promote economic development, that is
fiscally sustainable, that is environmentally sustainable, and that actually allows low-income
working families and middle-class and upper-income families to enjoy that growth.”


And finding that balance in a world where politics and competing interests sometimes muddy the
best intentions will be the real trick, as states try to define what “Smart Growth” will mean for
people pursuing the American dream of owning their own home.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Small Towns Invite Sprawl

  • Eleven million acres of prime farmland were lost to urban sprawl in a 15 year period. Some small cities are embracing the growth and helping developers circumvent so-called Smart Growth restrictions on sprawl.

Researchers have found that small towns hungry for new tax dollars are making it possible for developers to get around Smart Growth plans. Often the result is urban sprawl that paves over farmland and natural areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has the story:

Transcript

Researchers have found that small towns hungry for new tax dollars are making it possible for developers to get around Smart Growth Plans. Often the result is urban sprawl that paves over farmland and natural areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


Despite the best efforts of some politicians to slow down the pace of turning farmland into suburbia, the 2000 Census shows population growth is exploding at the edges of Metropolitan areas, and all those people need somewhere to live and shop. So, in the Midwest, often housing developments and shopping malls are built where corn or soybeans grew just the year before.


For example, Kane County, Illinois, as recently as the 1970’s was predominately farmland. Now with more and more people moving there, only about half the county is left for farming.


Randall Road cuts through the heart of the county, although housing developments and retail stores are starting to infringe on the country setting, on one side of the road you can still see rows of crops and pasture, and on the other side of Randall Road, it’s nearly solid shopping malls and subdivisions. But in the middle of all that development, there’s still one dairy farm. Mike Kenyon and his family still grow hay and corn, and milk cows here. But their fields are surrounded by three sprawling towns. Kenyon says Randall Road used to be the line where planners said urban sprawl would stop. They were so confident that they even said so in their planning document for the year 2020.


“And they drew a line in the county and they said ‘we want the growth to occur here and we want to maintain this as rural, as farms. Well, how did developers get around that? Well they go to a little village and they say ‘Well, we’ll put a big housing development over here. Please, annex us and this’ll be more revenue and they’ll even have a sewer system when we get done.’ So, that’s what happens; they kind of bribe the villages so they get around the 2020 plan.”


And that, Kenyon says, is what’s now happening on the other side of Randall Road where Kane County was supposed to remain rural. Kane County officials are trying to implement all kinds of programs to save the remaining farmland from urban sprawl, or at least keep urbanization to certain areas of the county. But at the town and village level, many local politicians see growth as nothing but good and are willing to expand their city limits to include developments. That’s because those developments help increase their tax revenue.


The story is not unique to the Chicago region. It’s being repeated throughout the Midwest and the Great Lakes, as well as across the United States.
So much so that millions, yes millions of acres of prime farmland in the U.S. have been lost in a little more than a decade. Rich Green is a geographer at Northern Illinois University. He’s been tracking the fringes of the ever-growing Chicago Metropolitan area. He’s been adding up just how much former cropland has been turned into suburban lawns and parking lots.


“What we found is this: the nation between 1982 and 1997, that’s a 15 year time period, lost about eleven million acres of prime farmland, cropland, to urban development.”


Green also found, perhaps coincidentally, that an identical amount of land, eleven million acres of rangeland was plowed up and put into crop production during the same period.


“What we’ve been looking at is losing the nation’s best farmland in places like Chicago and other metropolitan areas in the Midwest, and replacing it with marginal lands in the arid West which requires more inputs, particularly water, irrigation.”


Green says shifting farming to less productive and more environmentally damaging land might not be the intent of the small towns that want to grow, but that’s the apparent result.


Just off campus at Northern Illinois’ Social Sciences Research Institute, Director Harvey Smith says Midwest states such as Illinois should take the time to better learn and weigh the costs of continued urban sprawl.


“Economically, Illinois relies very, very heavily on its agriculture. And, it is also the case that a lot of the very rich farmland is in the northern tier of the state which is closest to the moving fringe of the suburbs.”


Many times government at a more regional level, such as at the county level, is struggling with balancing development and farmland preservation. Even though it’s something of a contradiction, Smith says the people who move to the suburbs’ fringes causing further urban sprawl, actually want to preserve some of the farmland.


“The fact is that many of the people who move into the suburbs, while they like the sort of scenic quality of a farm or two over the hill, aren’t in a position to stop the disappearance of the farms themselves. It requires cooperation between local and regional governmental agencies to make a real effort to protect these qualities that are likely to disappear if they don’t.”


For some towns, it’s too late to recover the rural character and small town charm they lost to development, but for those at the fringes of the sprawling large metro areas with adherence to Smart Growth planning, some planners believe there’s still the opportunity to preserve a little of the setting of the suburbs that drew so many people there in the first place.

Region Grades Poorly on Sprawl

A nationwide report on how well states and communities plan
for growth finds the Great Lakes region not planning much at all. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more: