Smart Growth and Sustainable Economic Development

By Greg P. Harris

Urban sprawl is not only hazardous to the environment, but it also hinders economic growth.

Six years ago, Bob and his wife thought they had retired to their slice of paradise, a condominium complex in Green Township that had been thoughtfully integrated into its lovely surroundings. But greedy developers quickly transformed this paradise into paradise lost.

The densely wooded hillsides that once surrounded the Shilling's home have been reduced to a vast construction pit expanding from the Rybolt Road exit off I-74 all the way to Bob's backyard. As aerial photos graphically depict, this destruction is beginning to spread throughout Green Township.

Unfortunately, such out-of-control land development also threatens the entire region. The Greater Cincinnati region is currently developing land at a rate five times faster than its population is growing. To fund this sprawling development, local municipalities often end up competing with one another for new commerce and scarce public resources in order to pay for rapid infrastructure expansion, fast growing school districts, etc. For that reason, urban sprawl is not only hazardous to the environment, but it also hinders economic growth.

While economic competition can be healthy, this sort of inter-municipal competition is self-defeating for a region. In a global economy, Cincinnati projects itself as a region comprised of fragmented governments and dueling municipalities. With 222 political jurisdictions, most of which have home rule powers, the very structure of the Greater Cincinnati region lends itself to economic stagnation (Hamilton County alone has 49 political jurisdictions). Cincinnati cannot compete in the 21st Century with 19th Century forms of government. Rather than luring new economic development, we simply displace existing developments within the region. As a result, sprawling development leaves in its wake declining housing stock in older communities, abandoned strip malls, blighted neighborhood business districts, and office parks with high vacancy rates.

Over forty years ago, President John Kennedy showed incredible foresight when he crafted legislation for Metropolitan Planning Organizations that would allow regions to work across political jurisdictions in order to coordinate transportation, economic development, and land use policy. Those metro regions that implemented such models of governance--from Charlotte to Indianapolis, Minneapolis to Portland--are thriving as a result. Their example shows us that you cannot have a healthy region without a healthy urban core. In comparison to these successful metro-regions, Cincinnati suffers far higher rates of economic and racial segregation as well as pockets of concentrated poverty. It is both difficult to maintain, and virtually impossible to attract, a workforce suitable for the knowledge-based economy when an urban center is perceived as unsafe because of racial tension, poverty, failing schools, and dilapidated neighborhoods.

Unlike model metropolitan regions, Greater Cincinnati currently practices trend development by allocating substantial tax dollars to rapid highway expansion and new infrastructure development. This is very costly to taxpayers, and comes at the expense of the far more cost-effective alternative of maintaining existing infrastructure, investing in urban revitalization, and funding alternative forms of transportation such as expanded metro services and light rail. Mass transit in and of itself would not only ease the severe congestion that now makes travel on I-75, for example, increasingly unsafe, but also would provide our urban workforce better access to new suburban employment centers, while allowing suburbanites easier access to urban amenities (arts, culture) and to downtown business.

The Federal Government's Role in Combating Urban Sprawl A common mistake is to regard urban sprawl issues as strictly local in nature, a matter relevant to zoning boards and planning commissions but not to the federal government. But if that were true, the development industries (Construction, Real estate, and General Contractors) would not have contributed almost $40 million to the political campaigns of candidates for federal offices since 1990. Although local agencies determine specific policies regarding growth issues, the federal government is responsible for general legislation regulating these issues. It is these larger issues of regulation that developers try to influence with campaign contributions.

For example, lobbyists for the building trades worked hard to influence legislation that would have allowed land developers to overrule local authorities and sue in federal court if their projects were denied permits (H.R. 2372, which passed the House March 16, 2000, by a 226-182 vote). This bill died in the Senate. But if lobbyists and the Representatives who agreed with them had gotten their way, developers who don't live in these communities, and who have no long term investment in these communities, could nevertheless override the will of the people who DO live here.

Some members of Congress and the building industries that have contributed so generously to their campaigns call this free enterprise. Well, it may be free for them, but it's not free to the taxpayers who are forced to subsidize sprawling development to the tune of millions of dollars each year. Numerous studies have shown that municipal growth, especially land-intensive city-edge growth, consistently costs more in public services than it pays in taxes. Established residents must dig deep to finance the additional schools and services required by new subdivisions. Although commercial and industrial developments sometimes pay more in taxes than they demand in services, the traffic and pollution they generate reduces nearby property value. To avoid living near the plant or strip, new employees build houses and raise taxes in the next town. Large, well-organized companies such as sports teams and Wal-Mart bully city governments to widen roads, provide free water or sewage lines, offer property tax breaks-even build the stadium. But runaway growth is not inevitable, and the federal government can help regulate it. Sustainable economic prosperity in Greater Cincinnati will come only by way of facilitating regional collaboration at the local, state, and federal levels on matters of economic development, transportation, and housing.

How can the federal government help enable such collaboration? One way would be to redefine how we allocate funding for housing, transportation, and economic development. For example, the allocation of funding for housing can serve as an economic development tool. If we are to successfully de-concentrate poverty, we must create incentives for mixed income housing development, and continue supporting programs like HUD's Hope VI project, which integrates subsidized housing, working class housing, and market rate housing, and which is designed to promote home ownership.

Another example is the appropriately titled Community Character Act (H.R. 1433/S. 975), a piece of legislation that exists today in the House and Senate. The Community Character Act responds to widespread citizen interest in smart growth by giving incentives for balancing development with the conservation of historic, scenic, and natural resources. It was authored by a Republican Senator, and it enjoys broad bi-partisan support.

The hardworking people of our region may not have six figure lobbyists working for them like the developers do. And they certainly aren't able to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to political campaigns. But what they do have is the power to vote. Elected politicians play a key role in land-use decision making and in other environmental policy issues. By electing smart growth candidates to public office, citizens can send the message that they're tired of seeing paradise paved over and their quality of life undermined by greedy developers.

Unregulated development, like unrestrained greed, is bad for our environment, our health, our economy, and our quality of life. But runaway growth is not inevitable. Across America, increasing numbers of urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods are choosing to manage sprawl with smart growth solutions. Remember, smart growth is not the same thing as anti-growth. Throughout my campaign, I will show how smart growth=smart economics. As your smart growth representative in Congress, I will work to reverse government programs and tax policies that help create sprawl in order to replace them with policies that encourage thoughtful, well-planned managed growth.

What is Smart Growth? · Enacting growth boundaries, parks and open space protections-like those in Oregon, Tennessee and Colorado-which allow growth without creating sprawl; · Planning pedestrian-friendly development where people have transportation choices, such as commuter trains and bus service; · Directing new highway transportation dollars to existing communities to improve safety for walkers, bicyclists and drivers, and to promote public transportation choices; · Reversing government programs and tax policies that help create sprawl. The U.S. EPA practiced smart growth by denying permits for the proposed Legacy Highway near Salt Lake City-a highway that would destroy wetlands, increase air pollution, and promote sprawl; · Saving taxpayers money by having developers pay impact fees to cover the costs of new roads, schools, water and sewer lines, and requiring property tax impact studies on new developments; · Advocating for revitalization of already developed areas through measures such as attracting new businesses, reducing crime, and improving schools; · Preventing new development in floodplains, coastal areas, and other disaster- prone areas.

(Source: Sierra Club, http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/factsheet.asp#Solutions)

For more information on urban sprawl, visit the following web sites : Sierra Club: http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/ Sprawl Guide: http://www.plannersweb.com/sprawl/home.html