Writers: Mark A. Edelman, Jon Roe, and David B. Patton

Editor: Ilse Tebbetts

Copy Editor: Betty Frecker

Design: Long’s Graphic Design Inc.

Production: George Cavanaugh

Publisher: Kettering Foundation

__________________________________

Copyright ©1999, Farm Foundation

When

and

Clash

When

and

Clash

Land Use Conflict:

A Project of the National Public Policy Education Committee inCooperation with the Farm Foundation

Contents

Land Use Conflict: When City and Country Clashby Mark A. Edelman, Jon Roe, and David B. Patton

◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆

Introduction

The growing spread of urban development into rural areas has created many conflicts over land use. Citizens need to get involved in the discussion of policy choices to shape the solutions. 4

Option 1: Reestablish the Free Market

The free market and private enterprise should determine the use of the land. Private property owners ought to have the right to determine the use of their land without government interference. 13

Option 2: Protect Farmland and Open Space

Prime farmland and open space areas should be protected from uncontrolled urban development. The government and the private sector should step in to save these resources for future generations. 19

Option 3: Redevelop Central Cities

Blighted core areas of central cities (and rural main streets) should be rejuvenated. This would slow migration to the suburbs and lessen the urbandevelopment pressure on farmland and open spaces. 25

Option 4: Manage Growth on the Rural-Urban Fringe

Incentives and subdivision design standards should be established to encouragedevelopers to increase population density in new developments, protect prime farmland and open space, and utilize public resources more efficiently. 31

Conclusion: Starting the Deliberation Process

As concerns about urban sprawl grow, so will the need for solutions and the number of participants required for resolving the issue. 37

Summary: Comparing the Options 39

Identifying Your Preferences 41

More Information and Acknowledgments 43

◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆

◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆

◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆

◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆

◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆

4

rban sprawl is not a new phenom-enon. Metropolitan areas havebeen growing and expanding forthe past century, pushing develop-ment into rural areas. History has

shown that rural-urban conflicts areoften the result.

Theodore Roosevelt formed thiscentury’s first presidential inquiry intorural problems in 1908. His “CountryLife Commission” was charged withstemming rural residents’ rush into thecities. During the second half of thetwentieth century, the migration to thecentral city has been reversed, as peoplepour out of cities and into the suburbs.Today, increasingly complex rural-urbanland use issues have continued to gener-ate controversy.

Not all places face the same prob-lems. According to the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture (USDA), one-quarter of

the nation’s 3,066 counties are still los-ing population during the 1990s. Mostof these are rural counties located pri-marily in the Midwest and Great Plains.At the other end of the spectrum, aboutone-quarter of the nation’s counties aremetropolitan counties that are experi-encing population growth averagingabout 10 percent per decade. The mid-dle 50 percent are primarily rural coun-ties with populations of less than50,000. But on average, these ruralcounties are growing at about the samerate as metro counties.

The Brookings Institution notes thatsuburban sprawl has been the dominantform of growth in the United States forthe past 50 years. However, the averagepopulation growth rates for metropolitancounties often mask the shifts that go oninside these counties. Many centralcities have experienced decline as the

U

Introduction

Land Use Conflict: When City and Country Clash

Fastest-Growing U.S. CountiesPercent change 1990–98

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140Douglas County, CO

Forsyth County, GA

Elbert County, CO

Park County, CO

Custer County, CO

Henry County, GA

Paulding County, GA

Summit County, UT

Archuleta County, CO

Washington County, UT

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, 1999.

133.4

95.4

92.8

86.8

78.2

76.7

79.1

72.4

70.5

69.1

Introduction

5

One of the fastest-growing suburbanareas in the country is in and aroundAtlanta, Georgia. This southern city andits suburbs have grown from a span of65 miles from north to south to a 110-mile span since 1990. Atlantans drivean average 36.5 miles per day round-trip to work — the longest commute inthe nation. Growth around this metro-politan area converts 500 acres perweek from farmland and open space tourban uses. Air pollution is in violationof clean-air standards. Similarly, manyother suburban areas from coast to coastare experiencing unprecedented rates ofgrowth.

“Visualize a strip of land a half-milewide stretching from New York to Cali-fornia,” reads a study done for theCouncil on Environmental Quality andUSDA. “That is one million acres — theamount of farmland converted to otheruses from agriculture every year in theUnited States.”

suburbs have grown rapidly. As peopleand wealth leave the central city, itsproperty values decline, tax ratesincrease, services decline, and socialproblems and crime often increase. Thisoften creates a downward spiral in eco-nomic vitality.

Except for the magnitude of impact,many consequences of population lossin central cities are similar to impactsexperienced by rural communities locat-ed in counties with population loss. Forthese urban and rural places, the keyland use policy question is: How shouldthe land resources and infrastructureimprovements thereon be utilized in theface of economic and populationdecline?

In contrast, when areas of rapidgrowth are visited, a very different pic-ture often emerges. There, the overarch-ing land use policy question is: Howshould the land resources be utilizedand development occur in the face ofpopulation growth and expansion?

It’s happening in every part of thecountry, and every state in the Union,according to the American FarmlandTrust, which reports that some of thenation’s best farmland — from the SanJoaquin Valley to the Mid-AtlanticCoastal Plain, from the Puget Sound Valley to the Florida Everglades — isbeing destroyed by scattershot urbandevelopment at the rate of 50 acres per hour.

The Nature and Cost ofUrban Sprawl

In most counties, sprawl comes inthe form of “low density” residentialdevelopment such as one- to five-acrehome sites and ten-acre farmettes thatspring up in rural and undeveloped openspace areas. In other counties, sprawlincludes strip malls and new factories. Instill other cases, concentrated agricultur-al enterprises in rural-urban fringe areascreate controversy.

“Sprawl,” as described by Robert W.Burchell and Naveed A. Shad in a 1998Farm Foundation report, “has been apopular means of development becauseit (1) dilutes central city congestion whileaccommodating unlimited use of theautomobile; (2) distances new develop-ment from the fiscal and social problemsof older core areas; (3) provides a het-erogeneous economic mix for vitality; (4)fosters neighborhoods in which housingvalues will appreciate; (5) fosters neigh-borhoods perceived to provide a higherquality of socialization for youths and ahigher quality of education; and (6)requires lower property taxes to pay forlocal government and school districtoperating expenses than locations closerin.”

Sounds pretty good, right? But,Burchell and Shad point out that sprawlcomes with hidden costs as well. Theinfrastructure required to support suchdevelopment becomes more and moreexpensive the farther out it stretches. Forexample, “in South Carolina, if sprawl

continues unchecked, statewide infra-structure costs for the period 1995 to2015 are projected to be more than $56billion, or $750 per citizen every yearfor the next 20 years.”

Several planning studies concludethat local taxes generated from residen-tial developments often do not fully payfor the local services desired by newresidents. That’s why many suburbancommunities strive for more balancedgrowth in which residential develop-ments are complemented with commer-cial and industrial development. How-ever, in any community — large orsmall — if the infrastructure hasn’t beenkept up, large tax increases are oftenrequired to catch up for decades ofallowing streets, drinking water, andsewer systems to deteriorate.

“The folks who come to these sub-urbs and nearby small towns bringexpectations for services. What youstruggle with is the tax base keeping upwith those demands,” says Tim Shields,director of the Institute for Public Affairsat the University of Iowa. Greater levelsof organization and service are oftenrequired as communities grow. Forexample, volunteer fire departments areeventually replaced with paid profes-sionals as community size increases.This kind of thing happens for almostevery local service. The resulting localtaxes may still be lower than in the central city, but they are often higherthan what longtime residents haveexperienced.

Taxpayer costs are just one of theimpacts to be considered as peoplestruggle with the results of the urban-rural collision. Other impacts come inthe form of changes in property values,changes in community structure, trafficcongestion and commuting times, envi-ronmental impacts, and changes in theperceived quality of life that can beattained now and in the future.

“We have all this experience overthe last 20 years from Los Angeles to

6

Introduction

Introduction

7

Atlanta to Phoenix, that shows thatbuilding and widening freeways doesnot solve our traffic problems,” saysKeith Bartholomew of the University ofUtah in the New York Times, “and yethere we are saying somehow this time ithas to work.” Thus, there is growingdebate over how federal, state, andlocal transportation dollars should bespent. While preferences can bechanged, surveys show that most Ameri-cans still prefer the automobile overmass transit systems by a wide margin.

The patterns of commuting maychange with the advent of the informa-

tion highway. In 1998, Internet trafficsurpassed voice traffic on the nation’sphone lines and it represents a newvenue for commerce as well as commu-nication. Since 1994, electronic com-merce has grown to over $10 billionwith nearly 40 percent of U.S. business-es doing some business on the Net.As described by University of Missouriresearchers Tom Johnson and Jim Scott,“many rural communities are experienc-ing a significant influx of new residents,primarily of older adults who expect toretire, and of telecommuters or businesspeople who are no longer tied to specif-ic locations. Increasingly, people are

1945

1954

1964

1974

1982

1992

2,000

1,000

0

1,500

500

TOTAL LAND: 48 STATES*MILLION ACRES

1945

1954

1964

1974

1982

1992

1,000

500

0

700

300

GRASSLAND AND PASTUREMILLION ACRES

1945

1954

1964

1974

1982

1992

1,000

500

0

750

250

FOREST LANDMILLION ACRES

1945

1954

1964

1974

1982

1992

500

300

100

400

200

TOTAL CROPLANDMILLION ACRES

0

1945

1954

1964

1974

1982

1992

60

40

20

50

30

0

10

URBAN LANDMILLION ACRES

TRANSPORTATIONMILLION ACRES

1992

1964

1945

1954

1974

1982

40

20

30

0

10

RECREATION AND WILDLIFE AREASMILLION ACRES

1992

1964

1945

1954

1974

1982

100

50

75

0

25

1992

1964

1945

1954

1974

1982

20

10

15

0

5

FARMSTEAD, FARM ROAD,OTHER FARM USESMILLION ACRES

MISC. OTHER LAND USES(marshes, swamps)MILLION ACRES

1992

1964

1945

1954

1974

100

50

75

0

25

1982

HOW U.S. LAND IS USEDContiguous 48 States, 1945–1992

*Totals differ over time due to remeasurement of U.S. land areas.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,based on Krupa and Daugherty, 1995.

Introduction

8

Is Less Farmland a Concern?As people build new homes in sub-

urban communities, the region theyinhabit also comes to have less farmlandand open space — in some cases, a lotless. Until now, the U.S. food produc-tion system seems to produce more thanan adequate supply of food on less andless farmland. Agricultural productionhas more than doubled during the past50 years, even though there is less totalfarmland today. While the amount oftotal land in farms and open space maybe down, the amount of land used forcrops is about the same or higher thanat the end of World War II, according toLuther Tweeten, noted agricultural econ-omist from The Ohio State University.Meanwhile, research and technologyhave been the foundation for agricultur-al productivity gains averaging 1.8 per-cent per year for the past 50 years.

In fact, agriculture has become soproductive that we depend on overseasmarkets for a quarter of our productionand the government has set aside morethan 30 million acres (about 8 percentof U.S. cropland) in a national conserva-tion reserve program. Even with theseacres held out of production, farmprices for some commodities in the late1990s hit 30-year record lows suggest-ing that our nation’s food supply is notunder an immediate threat due to theloss of farmland.

According to the U.S. CensusBureau, the number of U.S. farmspeaked in 1935 at 6.8 million farms anddeclined to below 2.2 million farms in1998. At the beginning of the twentiethcentury, it took 17 percent of the largestfarms to produce half of the U.S. agri-cultural output. Concentration hasincreased, meaning that, increasingly, asmaller number of larger farms are pro-ducing the bulk of our nation’s foodsupply. Today, a majority of our food isproduced by less than 100,000 farmers.

fleeing the congestion, crime, and highcost of urban life for quiet, safe, andaffordable surroundings in a rural settingand the Internet highway increasinglyallows them to do so.”

“Leapfrog development can wreakhavoc on the environment,” says JeffLogsdon, Dallas County, Iowa’s conser-vation director commenting in the DesMoines Register on the rapid growth ofDes Moines westward into Dallas Coun-ty. “Developers sometimes don’t takeadequate measures to prevent erosionfrom runoff or pollution from septic sys-tems. More importantly, they’re fre-quently attracted to wooded areas alongstream corridors where their work candisrupt plant and animal life.”

Dave Sharpe of Montana State Uni-versity says, “The problem we face inthe Rocky Mountains, and I supposeother ‘high amenity’ areas is they’rebeing ‘loved to death.’ Newcomers areattracted by the scenery, way of life, orrecreational opportunities. By adding tothe sprawl they degrade the very attrac-tiveness that lured them in the firstplace.”

“As people build new homes in

suburban communities, the region

they inhabit also comes to have less

farmland and open space.”

Introduction

9

At the same time, conversion offarmland and open space on the rural-urban fringe has been growing fasterthan population growth in the suburbanareas. There is little question that if pres-ent rates of conversion continue, entireregions in some parts of the East, South,and far West will be empty of the farmsand agricultural industries once locatedthere.

Two Cornell University professorsrecently released a study in Washington,D.C., warning that, “California’s $24-bil-lion yearly food production industry isat risk if the state’s farmland continuesto be gobbled up by homes, roads, andbusinesses.” According to David andMarcia Pimentel, the state loses 3 per-cent of its agricultural acreage everyyear.

Agriculture is not the only potentialvictim of unrestricted sprawl. Some peo-ple are concerned over other long-termrisks. According to the Sierra Club, nat-ural resources with unique ecosystemsand environmental benefits will be lostif commercial strip malls, highways, andresidential property continue to spreadover farms, wetlands, mountains, forests,and prairies.

Incompatible UsesIn some cases, urban sprawl is not

the only land use concern on the rural-urban fringe. In many states, large ani-mal confinements have become a divi-sive issue, particularly when they arelocated in rural-urban fringe areas inclose proximity to rural subdivisions andneighboring residences. For example, aJackson, Mississippi, rancher namedJack Kinard recently told the AssociatedPress that he joined a statewide marchof citizens on the Capitol because hebelieves corporate hog farms “will ruinthe ambiance of his lifelong home.”Said Kinard, “We’re trying to get someregulations to at least slow them down,to save our water and air.”

Interspersing certain agriculturalland uses with residential land uses cancreate a variety of spillovers for ruralresidents on the rural-urban fringe.Depending on the agricultural enter-prise, neighboring rural residents canexperience various noxious odors, spraydrift, noise at night, dust, loose animals,slow-moving farm implement traffic,and other unwanted agriculturalspillovers.

At the same time, locating rural sub-divisions and residential property nextto operating farms can create a varietyof headaches for farmers. These mightinclude trash; liability for trespassingchildren; complaints and potential nui-sance suits for odor, noise, and spraydrift; safety hazards from increased traf-fic and people, and crop or livestocklosses due to trespassing neighbors andtheir pets.

The longer-term impacts of sitingincompatible land uses next to oneanother can be more substantial foragriculture on the rural-urban interfacethan for agriculture in the hinterland. As the demand for urban developmentland rises on the fringe, some farmersbecome land speculators who sell out tothe highest bidder. Their newly acquiredfortunes can be used to retire early or toestablish farming operations at a new,more distant location.

“In many states, large animal

confinements have become

a divisive issue.”

10

In the process, traditional marketsfor the agricultural supply and market-ing industries become less profitableand competitive on the fringe. Theremaining farmers are likely to faceincreasing financial squeezes betweenoutput prices and input costs. Farmerslocated in the path of development areless likely to make large investments toexpand operations. These farmers arealso less likely to replace existing farmstructures and equipment as they wearout. Some studies show areas of under-utilized and idled land developed nearand between larger urban areas, due tothe impermanence of agriculture on therural-urban fringe.

At the same time, not all agri-cultural activity is incompatible withurban development. New opportunitiesand new markets can be generated for horticultural products, orchards, and farmer markets for fresh produce.However, supplying these marketsrequires a subtle shift in the farmer’sfocus. In contrast to traditional farmcommodity marketing systems, value-added techniques and direct marketingskills become more important as farmers begin to serve an increasinglysophisticated customer base.

A Growing ControversySprawl is due, in part, to the

strength and vitality of the U.S. econo-my. The nation has experienced nearly adecade of economic growth withoutrecession. As people experience growthin their personal incomes and wealth,they want to buy new homes andimprove their quality of life. Such pres-sures help to create sprawl.

At present, people appear to bemore concerned and more at odds witheach other over land use issues than inthe past. Americans are divided overwho is victim and who is aggressor. Incommunity after community, the debatehas turned rural people against urbandwellers; developers against environ-mentalists; farmers against farmers; localnatives against newcomers, in battlesthat produce few if any clear-cut win-ners. More often than not, the commu-nity ends up divided for years to come.

More and more commonly, a landuse issue can be found simmeringbeneath the surface in local conversa-tions. In recent months, it boiled over innormally peaceful Salina, Kansas. Atroubled Dwight N. Miller wrote a letterto the Salina Journal protesting Bob Hol-gerson’s request for rezoning of theHappy Corner School area from agricul-tural to residential. Miller wrote that itisn’t new residences he fears. There arealready 13 homes on the land. He fearsthat proposed “improvements” willcome with plans to add 24 more homesto the area and “new roads that will bebuilt and paid for by increased taxes.Those of us who have lived in and lovedthis area for all these years,” he wrote,“are strongly opposed to anything thatwould degrade its value or the quality ofour lives.”

Although the problems may sound alittle different from area to area, debatesbetween citizens often bubble up fromskepticism, distrust, and feeling that theyare powerless to affect local events. Ani-mosity may come from rural citizens

”The infrastructure required to

support [sprawl] becomes more

and more expensive the farther

out it stretches.”

Introduction

11

who fear invading city dwellers or fromnew homeowners who resent the noiseand odors emanating from neighboringfarms. Some people express skepticismregarding government’s ability to solveproblems, or they are distrustful of cor-porations and developers.

A Community Perspective?If development is overregulated,

will community growth eventuallybecome strangled? If we allow farmlandand open space to be developed at will, will we eventually wipe out animportant natural resource?

We know there are trade-offs. Arethe trade-offs as black and white, nowor never, all or nothing, as they areoften portrayed? Facts often conflict witheach other. So it is important to knowthe source.

Citizens of a community would liketo feel as though they have an impacton what’s happening. Is there a meansfor getting past the stalemate to examineor create solutions that diverse interestsin the community can live with?

It has been done. Arriving at solu-tions to land use concerns and imple-menting land use policy requires thecreation of consensus among broadcoalitions of interests that normallycompete with each other. The imple-mentation of policies in several statesand communities are proof that citizensand their interests have had an impactwhen the issue has been approachedwith patience, diligence, and processesthat work.

More Informed Choicesfrom Deliberation

You are about to set out on aprocess of deliberation that has workedfor many issues in local discussionsacross the country. You’re not embarkingon a debate in which one side wins and

one loses. You are setting out on a jour-ney that emphasizes listening, dialogue,and deliberation to explore the areas ofagreement and disagreement amongdiverse interests. Recognizing that allinterests and citizens have opinionsdeserving of some measure of respect,you’re setting out to find the solutionsthat are in the best interest of your com-munity and its citizens. Once peopleunderstand why some groups hold dif-fering views, they often become morecreative in seeking new solutions thateveryone can live with.

Sounds simple enough. Here’s howit works and how you can get started:First, read and examine the resourcematerials in this book. Then, gather withyour neighbors to discuss the nature ofthe local concerns and how they affectthose things that are considered to be ofvalue in the community. You’ll need tolisten to what others say, and be sureyou understand what they value andwhy they hold the views they do. Onceyou understand where others are com-ing from, working with them oftenbecomes much easier.

Second, identify the various ideasand alternative approaches for solvingthe problems. Each alternative has probable consequences and trade-offs. It is important that all participants discuss how each choice affects theattributes that are collectively valued inthe community. It is important to identi-fy the features of each alternative thatparticipants can live with and those theycannot live with. Your deliberations canwork toward win-win solutions andinnovative proposals.

Third, identify the common groundyou and your neighbors have discov-ered. Stake it out and talk through theimplementation of the range of solutionsthat meet your common interests. Thecommon ground may be one of the following four options, a combination of options, or a completely new alternative.

Introduction

12

This issue book is designed to helpyou examine your beliefs about propertyrights, community interests, and stew-ardship of resources. Initially, you mayconclude that some of the ideas dis-cussed are simply bad ideas. Otherideas may, at first reading, seem to offerthe best course of action. But not sofast. Each solution has costs that may beunacceptable. Those who understandthe various perspectives will be betterprepared to generate new solutions and

participate more effectively in makingpersonal and collective decisions abouttheir community’s future. If your journeyof deliberation proceeds with an openmind and a commitment to a betterfuture for the community as a whole, itwill eventually lead to more informedchoices — not just for this problem, butfor others that arise in the future.

Have a good trip.

Option 1: Reestablish the Free Market. Private property

buyers and owners determine the use of the land inaccord with their own beliefs and objectives. Gov-ernment intervention is minimal.

Option 2: Protect Farmland and Open Space. Prime

farmland and open space is protected from devel-opment using various government and private sec-tor approaches.

Option 3:Redevelop Central Cities. Blighted core areas

of central cities (and rural main streets) are rehabil-itated to lessen the development pressure forexpanding urban uses on the rural-urban fringe.

Option 4:Manage Growth on the Fringe. Incentives and

development standards are designed to encouragedevelopers to more efficiently utilize publicresources, increase density, improve quality, andreduce farmland and open space conversion.

13

n a free market, private propertyowners determine the use of theland in accord with their own beliefsand objectives. Government inter-vention is minimal. Those who

wish to alter the use of the land, musteither purchase the rights to do so, orconvince the owners that it is in theirinterest to alter or maintain the desireduse. In a free market, land is only soldwhen the owner and buyer agree to the terms.

America has long been known as anation where private homes and back-yards are beautiful. In contrast, manypublic parks and streets managed by thegovernment are in disrepair and are notkept up to public expectations. Forsome, the solution is to raise taxes anduser fees to provide more support for“underfunded” public services. For

others, the answer lies in more stringentregulations that set standards andrequire private entities to conform. Forstill others, the favored approach wouldbe to discover what makes privatehomes and backyards beautiful andapply these “lessons from the privatesector.”

“Rather than ‘bureaucratize theenvironment,’ we should privatize ourefforts to protect the environment . . .behind every tree should stand a privatesteward, a private owner, willing andlegally enabled to protect that resource,”said the Competitive Enterprise Institutein 1996.

In his classic 1980 book, Free toChoose, Milton Friedman states, “Theprice system works so well, so efficient-ly, that we are not aware of it most of

Option 1:

Reestablish the Free Market

I

14

Option 1the time. We never realize how well itfunctions until it is prevented from func-tioning, and even then we seldom rec-ognize the source of the trouble.”

The history of the United States, sayproponents of the free market option, isone of expansion and development,supply and demand, and freedom tochoose. In answering the questionabout what made this country great,Friedman says, “. . . millions of immi-grants from all over the world were freeto work for themselves, as independentfarmers or businessmen, or to work forothers at terms mutually agreed. Theywere free to experiment with new tech-niques — at their risk if the experiment

failed and to theirprofit if it suc-ceeded. They gotlittle assistancefrom government.Even moreimportant, theyencountered littleinterference fromgovernment.”

Free mar-keters say thatgovernmentshould free themarket fromexisting regula-tions, not restrictit. If people wantmore homeswithout sidewalkson larger lots —and if they havethe ability to payfor them, thensomeone in thefree market willhave an incentiveto build morehomes where andhow the peoplewant them. Ifpeople want topreserve farmland

and open space, and if they have theability to pay for it, then let them buy itand preserve it as they want — the mar-ket allows for that too.

Why not let the market determinethe mix of residential and other uses?proponents ask. Land will trade handsvoluntarily and eventually the land willshift to its “highest and best” legal useas determined by the market. Develop-ers have simply been building homes ofthe type and nature desired by the mar-ket. The market has simply been tellingagriculture that urban uses are of highervalue to society for each parcel convert-ed. If a shortage of farmland develops inthe future, land from other uses will beconverted back to agriculture when theprice is high enough.

Free marketers argue governmentprograms for saving land or endangeredspecies block the private sector’s abilityto develop land in synchrony with thenatural flow of the market, or as ownersof private property see fit. In Trashingthe Economy, Ron Arnold and Alan Got-tlieb argue that environmentalists are“actively destroying private propertyrights on a massive scale.” They arguethat “the right to liberty is dependentupon the right to own property —together these rights form our basic civilrights.”

Neither the “war on property rights”nor the government’s attempts to man-age land use have solved the problem,proponents say. Why not give privateenterprise and the free market system achance?

In Support of Option 11. Private property rights ought to

be protected. The Constitution assuresour rights to liberty, ownership of prop-erty, and the pursuit of happiness. Citi-zens have worked hard to acquire andown their property. So, if they want touse their land for a development or tocontinue farming their century-old farm,

What Can Be Done?◆ Review the purposes of enterprise

zones, economic development districts,and agricultural preservation districtsthat constrain the operation of free andopen markets, and develop recommen-dations for politicians to consider.

◆ Enhance protections for private propertyrights by making public actions such as condemnation, annexation, and “takings” more difficult. Enhance protections from nuisance suits andincrease the property owner’s ability to opt out of government zoning andspecial district designations that prescribe or limit future land use.

◆ Limit government’s ability to regulateland use by reducing funding andauthority for planning and zoning functions, initiating special districts, setting design standards, issuing building permits, and conductinginspections.

◆ Eliminate differential property tax incentives, transportation and housingdevelopment subsidies, and impact feesfor urban development and farmlandand open space protection.

15

Option 1

3. Enacting a market-oriented policy sends a clear message that ournation is probusiness, prodevelopment,and progrowth. Free market advocatesclaim that passing a probusiness, prode-velopment, and progrowth policy willresult in a variety of desirable economicbenefits to the community. Proponentsof this view say that government regula-tion is detrimental to business andindustry. They often claim that govern-ment regulation attacks from all sides— with increased costs, red tape,bureaucratic harassment. So, it’s onlynatural and just that states and commu-nities with fewer regulations attractmore businesses.

Advocates claim that businesses aremoving from states, communities, andlocations where it is difficult and morecostly to do business, to other locationsthat make things easier for them. Propo-nents of this view say we need to getback on the free market path if we wantto sustain a growing economy.

4. Free markets mean competitiveprices that ultimately make it easier forconsumers to afford the homes theywant. In a free market, property changeshands from willing sellers to willing and

no one — particularly governmentbureaucrats paid by taxpayers — shouldbe able to keep them from using it forthat purpose. If somebody wants to usehis or her land for a different purpose,then that person should pay the ownerthe asking price, or go somewhere else.If owners do not want to sell their landfor any reason, they shouldn’t have to.Property rights are sacred, and no gov-ernment or corporation should be ableto take them away.

2. Free markets and private enter-prise are what made this country great.From the beginning, we tamed theprairie with minimal governmentinvolvement. Doing what is best for theprivate sector results in the most publicgood. “The government that governsleast, governs best” is a motto for freemarket advocates.

No industry better represents thefree market system, proponents claim,than the residential building industry.Typically, they say, developers receiveno price supports, no tax breaks, and no subsidies directly from government.They take the risks and should beallowed to reap the benefits.

“The history of the United States …

is one of expansion and

development, supply and demand,

and freedom to choose.”

16

Option 1

able buyers. In the long run, those whoare most efficient in serving the marketsurvive. Land moves to its highest andbest legal use. Those who do not pro-duce what the market wants, eventuallygo out of business. The private sector ismuch better in meeting the demands ofthe market than is the government.

In every part of America, marketindicators suggest that home buyerswant country living with city amenities.In places where government regulationsstifle developers, gaps in the marketdevelop, the supply is inadequate, andhigher prices frustrate many Americansin their attempts to achieve theirdreams. The solution to this govern-ment-induced problem, proponents say,is to remove the regulations and free upsupply and demand to allow the freemarket to work.

What Critics SayCritics of Option 1 say that pure

free markets are the cause of the prob-lem of sprawl, not a solution. In thewords of Louis Horowitz who wroteEnvironmental Quality and SocialResponsibility in 1972: “The historicanimosity for planning in America, the

irrational linkage of any attempts at reg-ulation to a communist conspiracy, or atthe very least, an affront on the freeenterprise system has resulted in thespecial American problem of overdevel-opment.” Real freedom and liberty mustbe conditional on the premise that oth-ers are not harmed by those who exer-cise their own rights, in this view.

The direction and rate of communi-ty growth affects the well-being of allcitizens in the community. Therefore,government ought to be involved inplanning and zoning to protect theinterests of all the citizens — not justthose who own development property.Furthermore, opponents say, the claimthat developers receive no governmentsubsidies is misleading because devel-opers are one of the prime beneficiariesof the home mortgage interest deduction— one of the largest tax breaks in ourincome tax system.

Sprawl and “low-density” develop-ment are a direct consequence of freemarkets in operation. When propertyowners next to existing infrastructurebecome too greedy or are unwilling tosell their land at any price, developersmust leapfrog farther out of town toowners of cheaper land who are willing

“In every part of America,

market indicators suggest that

home buyers want country living

with city amenities.”

17

Option 1Studies in Florida, New Jersey, and

Michigan by Rutgers Professor RobertBurchell show that planned growth isabout 2 to 4 percent less costly in termsof annual fiscal expenditure impacts forcities and schools. This was due primari-ly to less maintenance costs for publicinfrastructure under compact growthscenarios compared to sprawl undermarket-oriented development policies.

2. Why cripple agriculture, whenmore prime farmland will be needed inthe future? Opponents of the free mar-ket approach point out that we aren’tmaking any more farmland or openspace and that the cost of returning landback to agriculture or open spaces usesis not practical. The common societalbenefits of open land that are underval-ued by the free market include ground-water recharge, water purification, floodcontrol, erosion control, air cleansing,and scenery.

Our natural resources are finite andnot renewable. In the English Tragedy ofthe Commons, citizens overfished a lakeheld in common as a shared resource.Eventually, everyone suffered from star-vation as the fish population declined.

to sell. This increases the cost of roadand infrastructure extensions andincreases the development costs paid byhome buyers and taxpayers.

Free market forces also result inroadside development patterns andedge cities as developers build alonginfrastructure that already exists. Eventu-ally, islands of undeveloped landbecome surrounded by roadside devel-opment patterns, limiting access andfurther development. Critics of uncon-trolled growth also cite these objections:

1. Free market development is tooexpensive in the long run. New resi-dents may escape taxes initially, butthose taxes will catch up to them in ahurry. As Joanne Denworth, president ofthe Pennsylvania Environment Councilexplains, “the schools and municipali-ties that grow up in these new develop-ments, depend almost exclusively onthe property tax for income. They areforced to raise taxes on residents eachyear and to gobble up surrounding openland that is in the path of developmentin hope of meeting the revenuedemands that more and more residentswill bring.”

0 10 20 30

24.2%

22.3%

Las Vegas, NV-AZ

Orlando, FL

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA

Sarasota-Bradenton, FL

Sacramento, CA

West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL

Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ

Austin, San Marcos, TX

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC

20.4%

20.1%

18.7%

17.3%

16.6%

16.6%

16.2%

16.1%

Fastest-Growing Metro AreasProjected Growth: 2000-2010

Percent Change

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, 1999

18

Opponents argue that free market incen-tives reward people for being first andencourage them to consume more thanthey need. Farmland and open spaceare similar nonrenewable resources andthe result of free markets on land usewill be overconsumption of open space.

3. Government has a role in plan-ning and protecting the rights of exist-ing property owners. Local governmentshave long used planning and zoningprocesses to gather public input from allcitizen interests. This input is used toidentify the prime areas for various kinds of development andappropriate areas for various kinds ofland uses. The whole purpose of plan-ning and zoning is to prevent problemsbefore they develop. By designatingappropriate areas for each kind of devel-opment — agricultural, industrial, com-mercial, residential, or recreational —everyone knows from the start whateach parcel covered by the plan can belegally used for.

The courts have long held that prop-erty owners have the right to use andenjoy their property — free of nuisancescreated by neighbors. It is the govern-ment’s role to ensure that the conse-quences of free markets and privateenterprise don’t damage other citizensor compromise their rights.

4. We don’t have the right todestroy our environment. Ensuringfuture biodiversity should be importantto all of us, critics of Option 1 say. Notonly should we want to protect rarespecies of plants and animals and theirhabitats for aesthetic reasons, but theirgenetic makeup may be importantsomeday as biotechnology develops.Every year, we find substances in rareplants and animals that offer new waysto save lives or otherwise enhance ourquality of life.

Experience shows that strong pro-tection of the environment attracts busi-ness rather than scaring it away. “Ore-gon rated tops for luring business,”announced a Portland Oregonian head-line in 1988, and the state continues tolure business more than a decade later.How can that be, when Oregon has thenation’s toughest land use and environ-mental laws? It is because executiveswant to live in areas with open spacesand outdoor activities, critics say. SoCEOs headquarter their companies inOregon and other states that protect andsustain that environment.

Many executives also say that states with strict environmental protec-tion policies are often easier and lessexpensive to do business in, becauserules are clear, land is available, anddevelopment regulatory processes areefficient.

Using government to protect primefarmlands and environmentally fragileareas forms the basis of Option 2.

Option 1

“Farmland and open space are

…nonrenewable resources and the result

of free markets on land use will be over-

consumption of open space.”

19

ur rural heritage is under attackby big money, according to sup-porters of Option 2. We mustcome to its defense before it’s too late.

The first step is to establish aprocess for identifying and prioritizingthe areas of prime farmland and fragileopen space areas that need protection.The second is to determine which of thevarious government and private sectorapproaches are the most feasible andeffective, given the objectives and thecircumstances. One plan of attack is touse big money to fight big money. Manyparcels of farmland and open space areprotected by private sector foundations,

organizations, or individual benefactorswho simply purchase the property, or itsdevelopment rights, and provide fortheir perpetual care.

Ducks Unlimited is an organizationthat raises funds to protect wildlife habi-tats and to ensure plentiful supplies ofmigratory birds for hunters. The NatureConservancy purchases lands to protecttheir unique ecosystems and their her-itage. In most cases, these nonprofitorganizations accept tax deductibledonations.

If a benefactor organization cannotbe found, proponents of farmland andopen space protection encourage theformation of new chapters or new

Option 2:

Protect Farmland and Open Space

O

20

Option 2groups. In this view, more programs areneeded and more efforts should befocused on protecting the priority areasthat are endangered by suburbansprawl.

In many cases, private organizationsand foundations do not have enoughresources to protect all the farmland andenvironmentally sensitive areas thatadvocates believe should be protected.So they say that the government oughtto play a bigger role.

As Laurance Rockefeller told Con-gress in 1968, “We have seen a changein the basic approach from the daywhen government was a referee amongcompeting resource users to a day whengovernment must be a trustee of theenvironment for all the people.”

Such protection by governmentdoes not stop development. It simplystops it from destroying the most impor-

tant rural lands and environmentalresources. Some states and communities— and even federal agencies — use tax-payer funds to purchase land outright.More common, however, is the use oftax money to purchase developmentrights or conservation easements on pri-vately owned farmland and open spaceland in environmentally fragile areas.This approach retains private ownership,but limits the owner of the property touses that are consistent with environ-mental protection or conservation offarmland resources.

Yet another approach is to requiredevelopers, wishing to develop someland in a county, to purchase develop-ment rights. The funds generated frompurchasing development rights are thenused to protect the most important farm-land and open space areas from devel-opment in other parts of the county.

Several states prevent urban devel-opment, not by purchasing developmentrights, but by exclusive zoning designa-tions that only allow specific uses forthe properties included in the designat-ed zones. In most cases, the formationof these districts is voluntary. For exam-ple, a group of farmland owners wishingto prevent urban encroachment may asklocal officials to designate their propertyas an agricultural zone or district. Thisdesignation prevents or discouragesrural housing development and subdivi-sions from locating in the agriculturaldistrict.

Finally, all states provide some taxincentives for protecting farmland andopen space. Many states provide prefer-ential use-value assessment so farmlandowners pay lower property taxes thanwould otherwise be paid under full mar-ket value assessment. In some cases,however, preferential property taxeshave actually increased the rate of landconversion to urban uses. This canoccur if developers are allowed to buyfarmland and pay lower (agricultural)taxes while they hold the property for

What Can Be Done?◆Private sector foundations, organiza-

tions, or individual benefactors canpurchase property or developmentrights, and provide perpetual carefor designated farmland and openspace areas.

◆Government can use tax revenues topurchase development rights orrequire developers to buy and trans-fer development rights to protectother prime lands.

◆Government can use exclusive zon-ing designations and create preser-vation districts to prevent urbanencroachment into designated farm-land and open space areas.

◆Government can provide tax incen-tives to encourage landowners tokeep selected land in farmland andopen space uses.

21

Option 2future development. Property tax incen-tives are more effective in protectingfarmland and open space if they includerollbacks and penalties for conversion toother uses, or other contractual restric-tions that prevent development,although this approach often forcesfarmers to decide whether they want tobe land speculators or farmers.

In Support of Option 21. Protecting nature, wildlife, and

the environment for future generationsis simply the right thing to do. We arecustodians of the land and our naturalresources, and we are responsible formore than short-run profits and losses,proponents of this argument say. If wesquander our environment, scenic vis-tas, natural resources, and biodiversity,the loss we face is one from which wecannot recover.

2. Farmland must be protectedbecause agriculture cannot competewith subsidies for urban development.According to Arthur Nelson, professor ofPlanning at Georgia Institute of Technol-ogy, “Urban development is patentlysubsidized by federal, state, and localpolicies. Mortgage interest and propertytax deductions from federal and statetaxable incomes are only two of manyurban development subsidies.” In addi-tion, some developers receive tax incre-ment financing subsidies, abatements,affordable housing subsidies, and othertax incentives. Another type of sprawlsubsidy includes utility pricing breaks;the result is that users do not pay the fullcosts of serving low-density develop-ments. A final form of development sub-sidy includes the underpricing of trans-portation. Nelson believes the commod-ity subsidies given to farmers are lessthan 10 percent of the value of subsidiesawarded to urban and suburban house-holds.

3. Farming is inherently incompati-ble with urban development. Developershold out the promise of “country living,”which includes beautiful scenery, cleanair, clean water, peace, and quiet. But as pointed out in the introduction, out-siders moving into agricultural areas canexperience problems with pesticide spraydrift, the rumble of tractors and combinesearly in the morning and late at night,dust in the air, slow-moving machineryon the roads, and the smell of manure.That’s the business of many modern farm-ing operations, and it doesn’t fit the life-style many newcomers expect.

On the other hand, those who maketheir living off the land must cope withdestructive spillovers from new residents— vandalism, trash, trespassing children,and harassment of livestock by dogs toname a few. When two very differentways of life clash, they lessen the qualityof life for both.

The solution is to learn from history.Rather than to waste time and resourceson nuisance lawsuits in court, it is simplybetter not to mix or intersperse urban and intensive agricultural uses in the firstplace.

DEPT.

P O L I C E600%

higher police response

time50%higher

ambulanceresponse

time

An Emergency Response Issue?

When compared to planned development, sprawl growth patterns result in higher police, ambulance,and fire response times.American Farmland Trust, 1988

33%higher fireresponse

time

22

Option 24. Sustaining a threshold level of

agricultural activity on the rural-urbanfringe requires protection of a largearea. As urban development interfaceswith agriculture on the rural-urbanfringe, some farmers sell out and retireor move away. In the process, marketsfor the traditional agricultural supplyand marketing businesses shrink andoften consolidate or disappear. Theremaining farmers may face an increas-ing cost-price squeeze. They may alsobe forced to second-guess whether tomake large investments in expandingtheir farm operations, particularly if theirfarm is located in the path of develop-ment.

Clustering protected farmland intolarger agricultural protection areas canhelp to reduce the transportation costsfor agribusiness supply and marketingfirms and help to keep them more com-petitive for a longer period of time.

What Critics SayOpponents of Option 2 believe that

the importance attached to the loss of

farmland is vastly exaggerated; thatfarming, rural living, and nature are notin danger; that farmers are inherently nomore valuable than the rest of society;and that farming as an occupation is abusiness and deserves no greater rightsor protections than any other business.

In this view, too much farmland andopen space protection will endanger theperfectly natural progress of humankind.Dreams of the sort of agricultural utopiathat existed in historical times are pie inthe sky. In those days, agriculture wasvery hard work and it took 4 times moreland and 20 times more labor to pro-duce a kernel of corn or wheat. Criticsargue that:

1. There is plenty of farmland andopen space. Agriculture has becomemore and more efficient and productiveat a faster rate than almost any otherindustry. As a result, less land and fewerfarms are needed. The USDA reportsthat 85 percent of the nation’s agricul-tural output now comes from 15 percentof its farms. In addition, average house-hold incomes for commercial farm oper-ations have been higher during the

“All states provide some tax

incentives for protecting

farmland and open space.”

23

Option 2

1990s than the average for all U.S.households. So they ask, “Why do farm-ers deserve special consideration forsubsidies?”

“There’s really no evidence that ourfood supply is threatened,” the DetroitNews editorializes. “Technology hasvastly improved farm productivity. Everyacre generating a higher crop yield,lessens the demand for farmland.”

For example, the News reports,Michigan harvested 227 million bushelsof its most abundant crop — corn — in1992. That was a 19.5 percent increaseover the harvest of five years earlier,even though there were 9 percent morefarms back then. In the same period, themarket value of all Michigan agriculturalproducts sold rose from $2.6 billion tomore than $3 billion. So, say opponents,the evidence shows that each year weneed less farmland to produce our food.

“There’s only one way for govern-ment to help farmers so there would notbe any more land conversion prob-lems,” says Ohio Home Builders’ Execu-tive Vice President Vince Squillace.“Raise crop prices. That’s the key. If you

can’t make money on your crops,you’re going out of business. Farmers,after all, are market oriented. The onlything that can save them is a marketthat pays them more than they invest.”

2. Land protection programs aresometimes costly and ineffective.Opponents of farmland protection pro-grams point out that it is very costly totaxpayers and developers to purchase ortransfer development rights. Studiesshow that the costs of the developmentrights are nearly equal to the value ofthe land for agricultural purposes. Sopurchasing development rights is similarto paying for the land and giving it backto the farmer for his promise not todevelop it.

No wonder there are more farmerswho volunteer for the program thanthere are funds available. When thegovernment purchases developmentrights at taxpayer expense, the govern-ment is throwing taxes down a bottom-less pit.

When government providesstatewide use value property taxes forfarmers and farmland owners, the restof us pay more than our fair share

24

Option 2based on market value. So while we areprotecting farmland and open space, weare increasing rents for a single motherwith five kids, and we may be forcing aretail business on Main Street out ofbusiness. If farmers buy and sell farm-land at market value, perhaps theyought to be willing to pay property taxeson that amount too, critics say.

If farm supply and processing busi-nesses go broke, it’s because farmersaren’t patronizing them. Critics suggestthat maybe some farmers would be bet-ter off if they left farming and soughtemployment elsewhere. Certainly, itmakes no sense to spend ever moremoney on the ever-decreasing farm pop-ulation, particularly when commercialfarmers earn more than the average U.S.household.

3. Farmland and open space pro-tection programs don’t stop sprawl, andin some cases actually increase it. Crit-ics argue that many states with programsfor purchasing or transferring develop-ment rights actually protect only a verysmall amount of acreage in relation tothe amount of urban developmentoccurring. In these cases, sprawl stilloccurs for the most part unabated byfarmland protection programs.

Some opponents point out thatstates may actually be enhancingsprawl, if it grants farmers special prop-

erty rights or special status to opt out ofdevelopment projects located in thenormal path of growth. When dispersedparcels of farmland and open space areprotected, developers leapfrog over andaround them, creating more, rather thanless, sprawl. In the long run, thisincreases the cost of development forthe rest of us, they say.

Opponents point out with somedegree of validity, that other programsdesigned to protect farmland and open space actually result in moredevelopment. Several states imposepreferential property tax assessments forall farmland. Unless these tax breaks aretied to penalties for development oragreements that prevent development,these incentives may actually increasedevelopment. Why? Because developersmay buy farmland and pay lower prop-erty taxes while they hold the land forfuture development.

4. It’s just wrong to halt develop-ment, frustrate potential homeowners,and drive more of a wedge betweenrural and urban citizens. America was-n’t created half rural and half urban,opponents say. Every bit of ground thatis now city was once country. Theyargue that there is no reason to curtailresidences when hardworking city peo-ple can enjoy the benefits of nature thatare here for all of us. Rural areas are notjust for the exclusive enjoyment of farm-ers. It is government’s role to providethe needed infrastructure, not to arbi-trarily deny citizens what they want forthe sake of social engineering.

In the final analysis, both sidesagree that many land use problems onthe rural-urban interface arise becausecity dwellers want to move farther outinto the country in search of such thingsas peace, quiet, security, fresh air, andquality of life. Many are asking whycentral cities couldn’t be redesigned toprovide such things, thus lessening thepressure on suburbia. That question isthe basis for Option 3.

“Rural areas are not just for the exclusive enjoyment of farmers.”

25

ressure for expanding cities intothe countryside may lessen ifblighted core areas of centralcities (and rural main streets) arerehabilitated.

“Ironically, rural America is viewedby a growing number of Americans ashaving a higher [quality of life] notbecause of what it has, but ratherbecause of what it does not have!” saysDon A. Dillman in the Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political andSocial Science, January 1997.

In a 1954 interview, architect FrankLloyd Wright foresaw the future that

sprawl would bring. “The outcome ofthe cities,” he said, “will depend on therace between the automobile and theelevator. And anyone who bets on theelevator is crazy.”

Indeed, car-crazy America dealtthen and continues to deal today withthe need for space not by buildingupward, but by driving outward. In theprocess, we create two conditions.

First, we encounter the drawbacksof living farther and farther away fromjobs, businesses, and cultural centers.We don’t like the long commutes overinadequate roads, not just to get to

Option 3:

Redevelop Central Cities

P

26

Change in U.S. Urban Population, Urban Area, and Density by Decade:

Urban Areamillions acres

50

1826

3547

56

403020100

1950 60 70 80 90

Urban Populationdensity/acre

1950 60 70 80 90

Option 3Another key concern in some states

is the ability of a central city to forcegovernment consolidation with the sur-rounding suburbs. Depending on thelaws of a state, central cities and sub-urbs have a variety of election rules formergers and consolidation of govern-mental units and services. These rulesinfluence growth management policiesand affect who manages the growth onthe fringe. In many states, local govern-ments must go through a two-vote pub-lic referendum process before a city andsuburb can merge. This means voters inboth locations must approve the mergerby a majority vote in order for it tooccur. This allows a smaller rural or sub-urban community veto power over con-solidation into a larger metro city.

Some states, such as Nebraska,allow larger central cities, such asOmaha and Lincoln, to annex smallercontiguous suburbs below 10,000 inpopulation whether they like it or not.This approach prevents suburbs fromdeveloping in the first place. In thiscase, suburbs do not surround centralcities and choke off the central city’spotential for growth. Instead the oldgrowth and new growth areas of thecentral cities and suburbs becomemerged into a metropolitan government.

Instead of geographically consoli-dating all functions of government forcentral cities and suburbs, some states

work, but also to attend art and enter-tainment events. We don’t like thehigher taxes required to bring city ser-vices out to the country. We often missthe convenience of one-stop shopping,24-hour delivery, favorite restaurants,and all the other amenities that drewpeople into cities in the first place.

Second, lack of people, resolve,and resources have often allowed thecentral city life-style to deteriorate tothe point that it drives more people tothe suburbs. Proponents claim that if afraction of the time and money spent indeveloping suburban communities wasinvested in making the central citiesmore viable, people would gladly livethere and contribute more to theregion’s economic vitality.

The conditions in decaying centralcities, though on a much larger scale,are not unlike those faced by manydeclining rural communities. Lack ofattention to main street, an out-migra-tion of people and investment, and anerosion of public infrastructure and ser-vices often create “edge” cities andcommercial areas on the outskirts oftown near access to highways. The exo-dus from the core central cities andrural main streets has resulted inreplacing once vital and viable com-munities with empty storefronts, declin-ing property values, eroding infrastruc-ture, and dwindling services.

604.3

U.S. Urban Populationmillions

200

15097

124149165

185

100

50

01950 60 70 80 90

6543210

3.34.8

3.5

5.4

27

water, law and order, and quality of lifeback to the downtowns of America,people would gladly choose to live andwork there. But as long as those prob-lems exist, all the time and money putinto protecting rural areas from expan-sion won’t be enough to stop it.

2. It’s less expensive to “infill” andutilize existing infrastructure than tobuild new infrastructure systems. Basicinfrastructure is already in place in oururban centers. But continued expansioninto rural areas runs up new bills everyday. Continued expansion of streets,water systems, sewer systems, and utili-ties often come at the expense of main-taining what is already in place. Propo-nents say that creating an ever-increas-ing inventory of infrastructure on the

Option 3provide a process to encourage regionalplanning and limited forms of tax basesharing for suburbs and central cities towork together in managing growth, traf-fic, and other functions that are particu-larly interdependent. At the same time,a measure of autonomy and self-deter-mination is provided.

Patrick F. Noonan and Henry L.Diamond, founders of the SustainableUse of Land Project, urge environmen-tally sound and fiscally responsiblegrowth in their book Land Use in Amer-ica. They recommend that “older areasin cities and suburbs must become afocus for renewal. Government policiesshould help fill in vacant land in alreadybuilt-up areas and renew older proper-ties rather than promote unplannedexpansion at the urban fringe.”

What would such renewed interestin central cities and rural main streetsaccomplish? A turnaround, proponentssay, a return to productive communityliving in the downtown areas of thenation.

In Support of Option 3Those who favor this option make

the following arguments:

1. Focusing on downtowns wouldrejuvenate our central cities and reducethe need for farmland and open spaceconversion. For too long, Option 3 sup-porters say, we have ignored the obvi-ous — that those who move to thecountry aren’t trying to escape from thecity, but from the problems cities havenot solved. In fact, the suburbanitesdemand that certain city amenitiesaccompany them to the country. Whatthey seek to escape are overcrowding,congestion, pollution, high taxes, andcrime.

If governments and developerswould concentrate on redesigning cen-tral cities and main streets to bringspace, convenience, clean air and

What Can Be Done?◆ Private sector groups can work with

government to identify and prioritizethe downtown areas for redesign andrejuvenation for the highest payoff interms of bringing space, convenience,clean air and water, law and order,and quality of life back to the MainStreets of America.

◆ Governments and nonprofit private-sector organizations can assembleand acquire property in blightedareas, pay for the costs of demolition,and provide incentives for redevelop-ment in targeted areas of central citiesand downtowns.

◆ Provide incentives for developers to “infill” empty lots in areas whereinfrastructure already exists.

◆ Provide incentives for the rehabilita-tion of existing buildings and neighborhoods that hold promise for revitalization.

28

Option 33. Redeveloping central cities

would rejuvenate the business and economic environment of the wholeregion. The foundation of any regionaleconomy is grounded in the region’scentral cities and downtowns, propo-nents say. Downtowns are the enginesof the business sector. And thoseengines are being dismantled as jobs,shops, and office facilities follow peopleand homes to the urban fringes.

Businesses that leave for suburbansites are not replaced. Old buildingsbecome obsolete and too expensive toremodel or demolish. Instead, publicand private money is invested in subur-ban areas, where upfront costs aresmaller and taxes lower. But many ofthe costs are hidden and the financialsavings are short lived. A University ofMinnesota study determined that forevery $1 billion invested in publicworks in Minneapolis-St. Paul and sur-rounding fully developed suburbs, therewas a return on investment of $6.5 bil-lion in residential and commercial-industrial development. By contrast, thesame $1 billion invested in urban fringecommunities returned only $2.4 billionfrom the private sector.

4. If we don’t reinvest in centralcities, many services and attractionsthat serve the whole metropolitan areawill cease to exist. Professional sportsteams, convention centers, museums,recreational facilities, and cultural cen-ters are often funded by central cities.Proponents say that suburban residentsoften don’t pay their fair share of theseservices and amenities. They say thatthese costs are disproportionately paidfor by central city taxpayers and theybecome a major drag on their resourcesat a time when the tax base is alreadyeroding. Proponents of Option 3 saythat if those who benefit don’t pay theirfair share, the whole region will lose inthe long run. And while investments aremade in outlying suburbs, the decay inthe central city will only get worse until

rural-urban fringe must often be main-tained with tighter and tighter publicfunding resources at all levels.

Instead of funding new projects forindustrial parks in the suburbs, propo-nents say, tax revenues should be usedto encourage infill, rehabilitation, andredevelopment in the downtown neigh-borhoods. “Infill” means building onexisting open spaces and empty lotswhere infrastructure already exists.Rehabilitation means fixing up andremodeling existing structures. Redevel-opment refers to demolishing andreplacing existing buildings that cannotbe salvaged economically. In each case,the existing downtown infrastructureremains in place and is utilized at ahigher level of capacity.

Proponents claim that less overallinvestment is required to maintain,modernize, and upgrade existing urbaninfrastructure, than for adding more newroads and utility extensions on theurban fringe. They argue that society’ssavings from transportation costs alonewould be huge.

“…tax revenues should be used to encourage infill, rehabilitation, and

redevelopment in the downtown neighborhoods.”

29

Option 3something is done. In the process, manyflagship cultural identities for the wholeregion will be lost.

The lessons are clear, proponentssay. More workable regulations andincentives are needed to encourage theredevelopment of existing sites and re-use of existing infrastructure, rather thanbuilding on undeveloped farmland oropen space in rural-urban fringe areas.

What Critics SayCritics of Option 3 contend that

these arguments are the desperatedreams of social planners with no basisin reality. They offer the following argu-ments in rebuttal:

1. It’s the market that is fueling theoutward expansion, as people seekwhat downtowns no longer provide.The romantic appeal of the suburbanand rural life-style is stronger than thatof downtown neighborhoods. As aspokesman for the home builders in onestate puts it, “Homes in the inner-citycomprise a very small percent of themarket. The outward migration hasnothing to do with home builders’ pref-erences. You can’t escape the fact thatthe overwhelming majority of peoplewant their own single family home to bein the suburbs or farther out.”

Gated communities, farmettes,research parks, law offices, medicalgroups, mega hardware and homeimprovement stores, theatrical and com-edy clubs, new and used car lots, andrestaurants all seek peripheral locationsin pursuit of their markets. The uniqueaspect of all of this development is thatfew businesses have ever failed becausetheir decisions to select locations fartherout were in the wrong direction. Occa-sionally, a retailer or a residential devel-opment has gone under because aninterstate exit was not developed asplanned, but rarely has an economicentity failed because it was developedtoo far out in the suburbs.

2. Plans to lure people back to theinner-city have failed in many cases. Ifthe theory made sense, more centralcities would have had success in follow-ing it. A spokesman for the home build-ing industry in Ohio says, “I can’t thinkof a city in America that didn’t takeadvantage of a federal or state programto rebuild and revitalize old city devel-opment. But in most cases, the trendshave gone in the opposite direction. For example, one of the oldest andlargest inner-cities of the Midwest had to give lots away just to encourage people to come in. They’ve rebuilt hugeshopping centers and malls. But still,their residents continue the move to the suburbs.”

Critics say that the theory may bewell-meaning, but the costs are highand results are often weak. Even withthe problems that central cities have,space is often for sale at a premiumprice making the ventures more risky.Opponents argue that those with vestedinterests in the central city are simplytrying to protect their property valuesand sell newcomers less for more.

Where are the new jobs?• Seven out of ten new jobs created in metropolitan areas

from 1993-1995 were in the suburbs; less than half were located in central cities. — County Business Patterns, 1995

Suburbs Central cities

10

5

0

30

Option 3If they are successful in slowing

down development on the fringe, oppo-nents argue, “it just happens to increasethe value and demand for their property.Why pay more for an apartment, condo,or smaller house on a smaller lot in thecentral city?” People moving to the sub-urbs are simply seeking the most valuefor their money as they pursue theAmerican Dream. Many of them simplyprefer a less congested suburban orrural life-style and most of the jobs nowbeing created are in the suburbs.

3. Redevelopment costs more, notless, than building on vacant land. Thebottom line for development, critics say,is the same bottom line for all economicdecisions. The reason sprawl occurs isthat an abundance of undevelopedopen space land is available, and it rep-resents the least expensive option rela-tive to other development alternatives.Ignoring any social or crime problemdifferences for the moment, propertyoften costs more the closer you get todowntown. The demolition costs to teardown old buildings represent costs thatyou don’t have to pay when you build

on undeveloped farmland and openspace land. So, at a minimum, taxpay-ers have to pay the demolition costs tomake downtown redevelopment morecompetitive with development of farm-land and open space on the fringe.

Those who suggest we make devel-opment on the fringe more expensive sothat downtowns can compete, simplydon’t understand the full ramifications ofwhat that means. It would make the costof living higher for everyone in the met-ropolitan area, driving people and jobsto seek greener pastures in other rural,suburban, and metropolitan areas.

4. Cities have always grown fromthe center out, in ever-increasing rings.That’s the natural growth pattern. Sincethe beginning, settlements have grownfrom the center out until they becametowns, then cities, and finally metropoli-tan areas. Critics point to 1,000-year-oldcities in Europe that have developed injust this way. First-ring suburbs touchsecond-ring suburbs that touch third-ring suburbs and so on. That’s natural.To force growth to go in the other direc-tion is not natural.

And while downtown leaderslament the growth that is moving awayfrom them, leaders of many rural com-munities and neighboring counties areoften ecstatic about the prospects ofexperiencing growth for the first time indecades. In many cases, these leadersare looking for ways to accelerate andextend the growth to rural communitiesalong the interstates and farther into thehinterlands.

Some who oppose focusing toomany resources on central cities anddowntowns point out that there isanother alternative for slowing the nat-ural direction of development withoutkilling it. Option 4 is to do a better jobof managing the growth on the rural-urban fringe.

A Traffic Issue?Between 1970 and 1996, the population of the U.S. increased 29 percent,but the number of vehicle miles traveled increased 123 percent.U.S. Departments of Commerce and Transportation, 1999.

Increase in population of U.S.

Increase in numbers of vehicle miles traveled

0 50 100 150

29%

123%

31

anaging growth means thatincentives and developmentstandards are designed toencourage developers toincrease density, utilize public

resources more efficiently, improvequality, and reduce farmland and openspace conversion.

In his testimony before the SenateCommittee on Environment and PublicWorks, Nelson Rising of a Californiareal estate company, stated that commu-nities using smart-growth planning con-serve open space and provide better realestate investment opportunities thanthose who do not use these availableplanning techniques.

How is managed growth differentfrom the first three alternatives? Man-aged growth represents an attempt to

shape new development rather than toprevent or redirect it. Public input andplanning processes are used to makeadjustments in the free market systemthat will reduce the negative conse-quences of rapid development in therural-urban fringe areas where urbansprawl hits the hardest.

In contrast to Option 2, where theprimary goal is protecting farmland andopen space, Option 4 focuses on toolsfor managing growth and development.In contrast to Option 3, which calls fordowntown and central city redevelop-ment, managed growth for the most partfocuses on adjusting the incentives andregulations to impact the developmentin the rural-urban fringe areas where themost growth is likely to occur.

The first step of one managed

Option 4:

Manage Growth on theRural-Urban Fringe

M

32

growth process is to develop a land useinventory and comprehensive plan. Outof this effort come goals and objectivesfor the major areas of contention in landuse on the fringe. Using a 5-, 10-, or 20-year planning horizon, prime areas forfuture development are identified so as to provide an adequate supply of

land for various kinds ofurban development. Atthe same time, otherareas are identified as prime areas for farm-land and open spacepreservation.

A “Land Evaluationand Site Assessment”process developed bythe U.S. Department ofAgriculture is used bysome city and countyplanning and zoningofficials as a frameworkfor evaluating the poten-tial for agricultural, environmental, andurban uses. For example,farmland and openspace next to good

roads, drinking water, and sewer systemsis given greater weight for housingdevelopments while parcels of primefarmland and unique environmentalresources that are far from existing infrastructure services is given greaterweight for open space protection.

After the areas are identified andclassified, a variety of policy tools areused in an attempt to achieve statedcommunity goals and objectives. Oneapproach is to impose mandatory resi-dential density requirements for varioussubdivision types. This approach tends tofoster neighborhoods of people withsimilar income levels and life-style goals.At one extreme, zero- and low-densityareas are set aside for parks, agriculturalpreserves, and environmental protectionuses. Exclusive zoning for agriculture

Option 4might allow no more than one dwellingper 160 acres to house farm-operatingfamilies and retired farmers.

At the other extreme, land may bezoned for townhouses, apartments, andmultifamily dwellings. Areas zoned forsingle-family homes might be requiredto meet a minimum-density standardsuch as four units per acre. The processestablishes an overall density goal forthe community, which can be measuredto determine progress over time.

Some governmental units with jurisdiction over rural areas combineexclusive agricultural zoning with adop-tion of rural subdivision ordinances. If afarmland owner subdivides or splitsmore than one or two home sites from aparcel of farmland or open space, thenthe change in use is considered to bemore than developing a farm residenceand the rural subdivision ordinanceapplies to the change in land use. Therural subdivision ordinances can help toensure that incompatible uses will notoccur. Density requirements, buildinginspections, and quality standards, andinfrastructure requirements may apply.From a practical perspective, the rurallocal government can provide fire,police, and emergency services moreefficiently and effectively by clusteringrural residences together. The horror ofan expensive new rural home burning tothe ground because of the limited fireprotection capacity is an experience that new rural residents wish to avoid,but often don’t think about until it is too late.

Planning and zoning officials andpolicymakers have a variety of toolsavailable to manage growth. Oneapproach is to establish graduated sub-division impact fees paid by developers.The impact fees are designed so thatdevelopers of lower-density develop-ments pay more impact fees per housingunit than developers of higher-densityhousing. Depending on the level ofgradation, the impact fees can be

“The first step of one managed

growth process is to develop a

land use inventory and

comprehensive plan.”

33

Option 4designed to encourage utilization ofexisting public infrastructure, promotehigher-density development and protect farmland and open space fromconversion.

A second approach is to review alltax abatement policies, urban renewaldistricts, enterprise zones, and any othertax incentive or preferential tax assess-ment districts to ascertain whether theseincentives can be targeted to encouragehigher-density development in areasdesignated for prime development andto preserve farmland and open space inother areas designated for protection.Local, state, or federal policies might beinvolved depending on the type of subsidy or incentive — transportation,affordable housing programs, tax-incre-ment financing, abatements, etc.

A third approach, pioneered inOregon, is to draw a boundary aroundeach city. The boundary is drawn at sufficient distance from the center cityto accommodate development needsfor the next 5, 10, or 20 years. Onlyproperty within the boundary can bedeveloped for urban uses. All propertyoutside the boundary is off limits forurban development. Prior to the expiration of the planning cycle, a new boundary is drawn for the nextplanning cycle.

Finally, some observers note thatcities in some states have annexedfarmland and rural residents decadesbefore they provided city services to residents in these areas. As a result,newly annexed residents often becomeconcerned about paying higher taxes for services provided to other residentsof the city that may not be provided tothem. Plan makers in some states haveproposed legislation that requires citiesto provide minimum services to all residents within two years of an annexa-tion. In other cases, the issue may notbe of concern because response timesand access to greater fire protection,police, and ambulance services often

show marked improvement immediatelyupon annexation.

As noted, all states have laws forannexation — voluntary and involun-tary. Voluntary annexation is typicallynot as controversial because the annex-ation is by mutual agreement. However,involuntary annexation of farmland andrural residents can often create a greatdeal of controversy. The one-vote lawrequiring approval by a majority of thecombined voters is biased towardgrowth and annexation. The two-votemethod, in which separate majorities inboth the city and the proposed annexarea, allows those being annexed toveto the annexation by majority vote.The ability to veto annexation of farm-land and increasingly sprawling ruralresidences outside the city limits maynot only stifle the ability of a city togrow, but it may also limit the potentialfor managed growth.

What Can Be Done?◆To provide an adequate supply of land, the private sector

and government can draw boundaries around primeareas for future development using a 5-, 10-, or 20-yearplanning horizon. Then other areas can be protected asprime areas for farmland and open space preservation.

◆Government can impose mandatory residential densityrequirements and design standards for various subdivi-sion types and land use under its zoning authority.

◆Government can establish graduated subdivision impactfees paid by developers designed to encourage lower-density developments, utilization of existing public infra-structure, and protection of farmland and open space.

◆Government can target tax abatement policies, urbanrenewal districts, enterprise zones, and any other taxincentive or preferential tax assessment to encouragehigher-density development and to preserve farmland.

34

Option 4In Support of Option 4

Supporters of managed growthmake the following points:

1. A land use inventory map helpsto identify the real needs of the com-munity and to develop realistic assess-ments of the community’s prospects forgrowth. These projections help to assuredevelopers that there will be an ade-quate supply of land for development. Ifthe supply of land for development runsout, there are public processes that areinitiated to make the appropriate adjust-ments.

This option does not allow develop-ers to convert and develop land in ascattered pattern of sprawl shaped bythose who may or may not be willing to sell their properties at a given price. It does give developers and home buy-ers information up front as to areas that

are designated bypublic planningprocesses for various kinds ofresidential, com-mercial, industrial,or mixed-usedevelopment.

This approachcan be used toencourage devel-opers to considerinnovative clusterdesigns and com-pact “village” con-cepts. Developersare discouraged

from converting areas set aside as primefarmland or open space areas. In thisway, important areas of open space andprime farmland identified in the landuse inventory can be protected.

In addition, managed growth discourages unnecessarily expensiveinfrastructure extensions. The incentivescan be adjusted to utilize existing infrastructure first and adjacent areas to existing infrastructure next. Projects

involving overly expensive infrastructurecosts are prohibited or discouraged byimpact fees that can help the communityto recoup some of the costs. Design stan-dards and inspection processes can alsopromote minimum standards for density,quality, and aesthetics to maintain andsustain local real estate markets.

2. Landowners are free to use theirland as they see fit as long as the use isnot inconsistent with community objec-tives. While not all property owners are likely to be 100 percent happy, proponents say that all will benefit fromthe reduced uncertainty. Farmers in agricultural areas can make long-terminvestments in whatever agriculturalenterprises they wish, with the knowl-edge that development will not be coming to their area. However, they also know that they will not be able tosell their land for urban developmentprices or to convert their land to nonagricultural uses on their own.

At the same time, farmers and developers in areas designated for development know that housing andcommercial developments will likely becoming to their area. Farmers will planon making fewer longer-term investmentsin intensive agricultural enterprises. They can expect increasing problemswith newcomers to the area. However,they also know that they will eventuallybe able to sell their land for higher urban development prices.

3. As development on the fringebecomes marginally more expensive,interest in infill development automati-cally increases. Central city propertyowners are pleased to learn that theirproperty values are likely to increasesomewhat as the pace of fringe develop-ment slows. Developers who specializein central city redevelopment and rehabilitation will have greater incentiveto do their work and revitalize downtownas the cost of sprawl on the fringe isincreased and the incentives for managed growth are implemented.

“Managed growth discourages

but does not prevent conversion

of farmland and open space.”

35

Option 4

4. Managed growth provides someflexibility for developers to respond toconsumer tastes and preferences.While the other options appear to repre-sent all-or-nothing approaches, themanaged growth option provides someflexibility. Managed growth encourageshigh-density development, but does notprevent low-density development. Man-aged growth discourages but does notprevent conversion of farmland andopen space. Areas designated for farm-land can be protected. Areas designatedfor urban development are identifiedand available. Standards and incentivescan be implemented to ensure high-quality building design and efficient uti-lization of public infrastructure usinginnovative cluster designs and compact“village” concepts.

What Critics SayThe critics of managed growth often

question whether comprehensive plansare based on the broad goals and objec-tives of the community as a whole or

whether a few individuals with theirown agenda drive the process. Somecritics feel that those who own the prop-erty or those who have made significantdevelopment investments ought to havea little more to say about the land’s usethan those who live farther away andwho are essentially unaffected by deci-sions concerning the future use of theparcel in question.

Other opponents of managedgrowth believe that this again is theheavy hand of government coming in totell the private sector what can be doneand what can’t be done, with very littleregard for what works and doesn’t work.

Still other opponents believe thatunique farmland and environmentalresources will be lost under managedgrowth and that stronger measures areneeded to protect farmland and openspace. Critics make the following arguments:

1999 consumer survey on growth issues, based on2,000 randomly selected households.

Do you think addressing growthissues is mainly the responsibility of the federal, state, or localgovernment?

Which of the following approachesshould local government take to influence growth and development?

72%

14%9%

3%2%

75%

12%

11%

Local government

State government

Federal government

Plan and managegrowth

Pass laws torestrict growth

Let people useproperty as theysee fit

None ofthese

Unsure

Source: National Association of Home Builders

36

Option 41. Managed growth represents the

heavy hand of government meddlingwith free markets and property rights.The free market knows best. Managedgrowth constrains the freedom of prop-erty owners to use their property as theysee fit.

It means that some governmentplanning and zoning committee willmake decisions that determine the ulti-mate fate of property. It will also affectthe value of property. Critics say thatany infringement on property rights isunacceptable. Property owners shouldbe able to sell their property to buyersof their choice, free from governmentrestriction.

2. The cost to developers andhomeowners would be higher than theywould be under free market conditions.Impact fees and regulations significantlyincrease the costs of construction anddevelopment. Home buyers don’t wantto pay more for expensive houses onsmaller lots. If they wanted expensivehouses on smaller lots, they would have

stayed in cities to begin with. New busi-ness owners are migrating to rural areasbecause it is cheaper to develop landthere. Under a managed growthapproach, this cheaper land is arbitrarilymade more expensive by government. Ifthe added costs of regulation increasetoo much, business jobs, and peoplewill migrate to other less regulatedmetro areas or rural areas. Thus, withoutregional coordination, managing growthon part of the rural-urban fringe maycreate sprawl on less regulated portionsof the fringe.

3. Perfectly good farmland andopen space areas are prevented fromachieving their highest and best legaluse. Simply because government com-mittees under the influence of socialplanners decide to protect certain areasfrom development, developers areforced to look elsewhere for primedevelopment land. In some cases, theprotected farmland and open space mayeven be the cheapest and most desirableland to develop.

When farmland and open space isprotected from development, critics sayit is prevented from achieving its highestand best legal use in our economy.Therefore, we limit the potential forenhancing economic productivity, per-formance, economic growth, and afford-ability of housing.

4. This approach adds unnecessarylayers of government. Not only doesmanaged growth add to the need forlocal planning officials, but it oftenrequires them to get together on aregional basis. The states set up statecommissions and bureaucracies todefine and implement state objectives.In some cases, local plans even requirestate approval. So the planning bureau-cracy grows larger.

Los Angeles, CACleveland, OHChicago, ILPortland, OR

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Los Angeles, CACleveland, OHChicago, ILPortland, OR

45%

50%4%

-11%

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

200%33%

46%2%

Land Area

Source: American Farmland Trust, 1997

Policies Can Make a DifferenceA Comparison of Four Metro AreasOver Two Decades1970–1990 Change in:Population

37

Conclusion

emember the letter to the SalinaJournal in the introduction, inwhich Dwight N. Miller protest-ed Bob Holgerson’s request torezone and develop the Happy

Corner School area? Within a week ofthat letter’s publication, the newspaperran a story that was reprinted (withminor changes) in newspapers through-out the nation.

According to the story, “The SalinaCounty Commission — tormented byrepeated rezoning arguments — hopes anew project will determine what countyresidents want the county landscape tolook like in the future, which in turnwill help them make better decisions onrezoning requests. . . . County PlanningDirector James Holland proposed a planto the commission Tuesday that would,through a series of public surveys, deter-mine residents’ priorities for rezoningand land use issues: Do we value wideopen spaces? Do we value prime farm-land? Do we value a variety of housingopportunities? . . . [The] trouble is,which objective comes first?”

That question is at the heart of thisissue book and your discussion. Whichcomes first? Individual or collectiverights? Private property or a greatermeasure of community vitality andsecurity? What are your personal goals?What do you want your community tobecome? Where do you want the com-munity to grow? How will that affectyour future?

The 1990 U.S. Census showed thatfor the first time, more Americans livedin the suburbs than in the central cities.The outward expansion continues. Wechange with it. In rural Medina County,

Starting the DeliberationProcess

Ohio, a recent survey found that thetwo greatest concerns of residents aredrug abuse and traffic congestion, con-cerns that are jarringly out of sync withthe idyllic countryside.

You have been studying the con-flicts that come when city and countryclash and the choices available to dealwith the underlying concerns. Each ofthe four options considered up to nowembodies a different definition of theproblem. Each has a different set ofprobable consequences. Each will resultin gainers and losers.

There are two additional optionsthat typically come into play in manypublic deliberations of this issue. Option5 is to continue the present system. Thisis the policy choice selected most often.In many cases, it will be the first optionconsidered because before a decision

Conclusion:

R

“What do you want your community to

become? Where do you want the

community to grow?”

38

Conclusionmaker can deliberate over the merits ofchanging the current policy, citizens andleaders often want to understand howthe present system works.

Option 6 is to develop a newapproach from a combination of theother choices. Each of the first fouroptions offer different ways of thinkingabout the issue; they are not final solu-tions. As individuals and groups beginto gravitate toward certain alternatives,various innovations and combinationscreate an opportunity to generate abroader consensus for building coali-tions. In the case of land use planning, abroader regional or statewide effort maysometimes be required to ensure that allthe stakeholders have a seat at the table.

Depending on the land use con-cern, interested parties span the wholespectrum from the rural hinterland tothe central city. As the nature of theconcerns and the size of the affectedareas grow, so will the magnitude of the

solutions and number of participantsrequired for resolving the issues. Forsome land use issues, a single commu-nity or county solution may be suffi-cient. For other land use issues, jointparticipation of various governmentjurisdictions, private sector entities, andcitizen interests may be required for res-olution. Citizens like you, who chooseto inform yourselves and participate inthis deliberative study process, can playa key role in shaping the outcomes.

We often do not need to know all there is to know about a public concern or set of alternative solutions toarrive at an informed choice on how to solve the problem. However, it isimportant for individuals in deliberativegroups to establish some basis of common knowledge and understanding.Informed decision makers do need tounderstand the values and convictionson which major alternatives are based.Participants need to sort out the proba-ble consequences of the solutions tofind where people agree and disagree,who gains and who loses, what isacceptable and what is not acceptable.

Deliberative groups often seek certain options they can live with, evenif they aren’t perfect. The solution maycost more than we’d like or it may notachieve as much as we want. In mostcases, the final decisions will representa compromise. A lasting compromisemost often represents the commonground on which diverse groups can act to support a policy that will accom-modate the needs of broader citizeninterests.

The journey now begins for you andyour neighbors. Deliberation is aprocess that, once begun, may have no end. But the longer the process ispursued, the more informed webecome, the more we learn to listen to each other, and the more we are likely to find and implement solutionsthat will help us all live together in relative harmony and progress.

“Do we value wide open spaces?

Do we value prime farmland?”

39

SummarySummary:

Comparing the OptionsOption 2: Protect Farmland and Open

Space ◆ Prime farmland and open space is identified, prioritized,

and protected from development using various govern-ment and private sector approaches.

What Can Be Done?◆ Private sector organizations or individuals can purchase

property or development rights, and provide perpetualcare for designated open spaces.

◆ Use tax revenues to purchase development rights orrequire developers to buy development rights to protectother prime farmland and open space areas.

◆ Use zoning laws and create preservation districts toprevent urban encroachment into designated areas.

◆ Provide tax incentives to encourage landowners to keepland in farmland and open space uses.

In Support◆ Protecting nonrenewable resources for future generations

is simply the right thing to do.

◆ Food production is essential to the maintenance of life.Farmland must be protected because agriculture cannotcompete with existing subsidies for urban development.

◆ Farming is inherently incompatible with urban develop-ment. These two uses should be kept separate.

◆ Sustaining a threshold level of agricultural activity on therural-urban fringe requires protection of more than oneparcel — it requires a large area.

In Opposition◆ There is plenty of farmland available. The importance of

farmland and open space protection is overblown.

◆ Most land protection programs are costly and ineffective.

◆ Farmland and open space protection programs don’t stopsprawl. They only redirect development and, in somecases, they actually increase sprawl.

◆ It’s wrong to halt development, frustrate potential home-owners, and drive more of a wedge between rural andurban citizens.

A Likely Trade-off◆ Agricultural and open space can be protected from

sprawl, but the costs of doing so are high and, dependingon what approach to growth is used, may not reducesprawl in the long run.

Option 1: Reestablish the Free Market ◆ In a free market, private property owners determine the use

of the land. Government intervention is minimal.

What Can Be Done?◆ Review purposes of legal barriers that constrain the opera-

tion of free and open markets and recommend changes tolawmakers.

◆ Make public actions such as condemnation, annexation,and takings more difficult. Enhance protections from nui-sance suits.

◆ Reduce funding and authority for planning and zoningfunctions.

◆ Eliminate differential property tax incentives, transportationand housing development subsidies, and impact fees.

In Support◆ Free markets and private enterprise represent the American

way.

◆ The U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of private prop-erty owners to manage their own properties without gov-ernment interference.

◆ A market-oriented land use policy sends a clear messagethat our nation, state, and communities are probusiness,prodevelopment, and progrowth.

◆ If we allow the free markets to work, we become moreefficient and competitive. Competitive prices ultimatelymake homes more affordable for consumers.

In Opposition◆ Free market development costs both new residents and

existing taxpayers more in the long run.

◆ Free markets waste more land resources and create moreurban sprawl than other development systems.

◆ Government has a role in protecting the rights of existingproperty owners from the negative effects that often resultfrom uncontrolled development.

◆ We don’t have the right to destroy our environment. Weneed to protect it for future generations to enjoy.

A Likely Trade-off◆ Government involvement in land use decisions and urban

development declines, but unplanned urban sprawl andconcerns over incompatible land uses on neighboringparcels are likely to increase.

Summary

Option 3: Redevelop Central Cities ◆ If blighted central cities (and rural main streets) are revital-

ized, pressure for expanding development into the coun-tryside declines.

What Can Be Done?◆ The private sector and government should work together

to rejuvenate downtown areas.

◆ Pay the costs of demolition and provide incentives forredevelopment in blighted downtown areas.

◆ Provide incentives for developers to infill open space lotsin areas where infrastructure already exists.

◆ Provide incentives for rehabilitation of existing buildings,neighborhoods, and historic areas.

In Support◆ Rejuvenating central cities and downtown main streets can

reduce the pressures for urban sprawl.

◆ When the hidden costs are figured in, it is less expensiveto infill and utilize existing infrastructure than to build newexpansive systems of infrastructure.

◆ Redeveloping central cities will rejuvenate the businessand economic environment, bringing a big economicboost to the region as a whole.

◆ If we don’t reinvest in central cities, many services, ameni-ties, and attractions that identify the region’s culture andserve the larger metro area will cease to exist.

In Opposition◆ It’s the market that is fueling the outward expansion as

people seek something the downtowns apparently cannotprovide.

◆ The plan to lure people back to the inner city has failed inmany cases. There is little reason to keep trying thisapproach.

◆ Redevelopment costs more — not less — than building onempty land. Open space land represents the least expen-sive option for developers and their customers.

◆ Cities have always grown from the center out, in ever-larg-er rings. That’s the natural growth pattern. To force growthto go in another direction is not natural.

A Likely Trade-off◆ Using more public resources to solve the problems in core

downtown areas may divert resources from addressing theconsequences of growth, urban sprawl, and incompatibleland uses on the rural-urban fringe.

Option 4: Manage Growth on the Rural-Urban Fringe

◆ Under managed growth, standards and incentives are established to encourage developers to increase density,reduce open space conversion, and utilize public resourcesmore efficiently.

What Can Be Done?◆ Draw boundaries around prime areas for future development.

Open areas outside this perimeter can be protected fromdevelopment.

◆ Use zoning to impose mandatory residential density requirements and design standards for various subdivisiontypes and land uses.

◆ Establish graduated subdivision impact fees to be paid bydevelopers.

◆ Establish tax incentives to encourage higher-density development and to preserve farmland.

In Support◆ Under this approach, markets still work efficiently, but there

is some control over urban sprawl and arbitrary loss of primeareas of farmland and open space.

◆ Owners of private property are free to use their land as theysee fit as long as the use is not inconsistent with communitygrowth and preservation objectives.

◆ As development on the fringe becomes marginally moreexpensive, interest in downtown redevelopment and infilldevelopment automatically increases.

◆ Managed growth provides some flexibility for developers torespond to consumer tastes and preferences.

In Opposition◆ Managed growth represents the heavy hand of government

meddling with the free markets and property rights.

◆ Housing is made more expensive than it would be under free market conditions.

◆ Perfectly good farmland and open space areas are closed offfrom development and the potential to achieve their highestand best legal use.

◆ This approach adds more unnecessary layers of government.

A Likely Trade-off◆ Managed growth can result in higher-density developments,

greater utilization of existing infrastructure, and less conver-sion of farmland and open space, but it also means thatlandowners may have less individual freedom in using their land.

40

Please describe your present status. (Check one for each question.)

___Yes ___No A. Do you farm or own farmland or open space?

___Yes ___No B. Do you have a financial interest in development or construction industries?

___Inside ___Outside C. Do you presently live inside or outside the corporate limits of any town or city?

1. Please circle the appropriate response for each item to indicate your opinion of the following general principles. Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Not Sure (NS), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD)

SA A NS D SD A. Some farmland and open space areas are unique and should be protected from urban development.

SA A NS D SD B. All farmland and open space areas are a valuable resource and should be protected fromurban development.

SA A NS D SD C. Some urban development is strategically important for community vitality and should notbe slowed down if it is consistent with a comprehensive land use plan.

SA A NS D SD D. All urban growth is important to community economic viability and should not be slowed down.

SA A NS D SD E. A community land use plan is the best method for allocating land use because itprevents leapfrog development and incompatible uses on neighboring parcels.

SA A NS D SD F. The free market is the best method for allocating land use because it is the most efficient system for deciding what the future land use should be.

2. Under which of the following circumstances should owners of private property be forced to sell their land? Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Not Sure (NS), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD)

SA A NS D SD A. Owners of private property should be forced to sell their land if the sale of the property represents the least expensive development alternative for a community.

SA A NS D SD B. Owners of private property should be forced to sell their land if it is consistent with a regional comprehensive land use plan and prevents sprawl at other locations in the county.

SA A NS D SD C. Owners of private property should never be forced to sell their land.

3. Do you agree or disagree with the following policy alternatives regarding land use? Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Not Sure (NS), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD)

SA A NS D SD A. Land use policy should be continued without much change.

SA A NS D SD B. Land use policy should be adjusted to allow developers to build for their customers and to allow the free market to work better.

SA A NS D SD C. Land use policy should protect more prime farmlands and open space from urban development.

SA A NS D SD D. Land use policy should encourage more redevelopment of central cities and rural community main streets.

SA A NS D SD E. Land use policy should encourage incentives to manage growth in rural-urbanfringe areas.

41

Pre-Forum Ballot

Identifying Your PreferencesFill in your three-digit number here.

42

Please describe your present status. (Check one for each question.)

___Yes ___No A. Do you farm or own farmland or open space?

___Yes ___No B. Do you have a financial interest in development or construction industries?

___Inside ___Outside C. Do you presently live inside or outside the corporate limits of any town or city?

1. Please circle the appropriate response for each item to indicate your opinion of the following general principles. Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Not Sure (NS), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD)

SA A NS D SD A. Some farmland and open space areas are unique and should be protected from urban development.

SA A NS D SD B. All farmland and open space areas are a valuable resource and should be protected fromurban development.

SA A NS D SD C. Some urban development is strategically important for community vitality and should notbe slowed down if it is consistent with a comprehensive land use plan.

SA A NS D SD D. All urban growth is important to community economic viability and should not be slowed down.

SA A NS D SD E. A community land use plan is the best method for allocating land use because itprevents leapfrog development and incompatible uses on neighboring parcels.

SA A NS D SD F. The free market is the best method for allocating land use because it is the most efficient system for deciding what the future land use should be.

2. Under which of the following circumstances should owners of private property be forced to sell their land? Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Not Sure (NS), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD)

SA A NS D SD A. Owners of private property should be forced to sell their land if the sale of the property represents the least expensive development alternative for a community.

SA A NS D SD B. Owners of private property should be forced to sell their land if it is consistent with a regional comprehensive land use plan and prevents sprawl at other locations in the county.

SA A NS D SD C. Owners of private property should never be forced to sell their land.

3. Do you agree or disagree with the following policy alternatives regarding land use? Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Not Sure (NS), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD)

SA A NS D SD A. Land use policy should be continued without much change.

SA A NS D SD B. Land use policy should be adjusted to allow developers to build for their customers and to allow the free market to work better.

SA A NS D SD C. Land use policy should protect more prime farmlands and open space from urban development.

SA A NS D SD D. Land use policy should encourage more redevelopment of central cities and ruralcommunity main streets.

SA A NS D SD E. Land use policy should encourage incentives to manage growth in rural-urban fringe areas.

Post-Forum Ballot

Identifying Your PreferencesFill in your three-digit number here.

For Further ReadingNational Association of Home Builders. Smart Growth: Building Better Places to

Live, Work and Play. NAHB Policy Statement. Washington, D.C. 1999.

Krieger, Douglas J. Saving Open Spaces: Public Support for Farmland Protection.American Farmland Trust Center for Agriculture in the Environment. April 1999.

Farm Foundation. “Land Use Conflicts at the Rural-Urban Interface.” IncreasingUnderstanding of Public Problems & Policies. Proceedings of the National Public PolicyEducation Conference, Clackamas, Oregon, September 20-23, 1998.

Libby, Lawrence W., et al. “The Performance of State Programs for Farmland Reten-tion.” National Conference Proceedings. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio,September 10-11, 1998.

Daniels, Thomas. Holding Our Ground: Protecting America’s Farms and Farmland.Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1997.

Wells, Barbara. “State Investment Strategies to Save Open Space and Steer Devel-opment.” National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices. February 21, 1999.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank the Kettering Foundation for its assistance in pub-

lishing and distributing this issue book. Ed Arnone, Bob McKenzie, and Estus Smithdeserve special thanks for their help in defining the issue, organizing the framework,and clarifying the presentation.

In addition, the authors would like to thank the Farm Foundation for its support inhelping to organize this Land Use Task Force Project and in distributing this issue book.Walt Armbruster and Steve Halbrook deserve special thanks for their roles as reviewersand catalysts.

This issue book was developed by the National Land Use Policy Task Force as aproject of the National Public Policy Education Committee. The National Public PolicyEducation Committee represents the national leadership of the network of Extensionpublic policy educators based at land grant universities throughout the nation.

Special thanks goes to Del Marks, Office of Extension Communications, Iowa StateUniversity.

For additional copies of Land Use Conflict: Where City and Country Clash, contact:David B. Patton, The Ohio State University Extension, 700 Ackerman Road, Suite 235,Columbus, Ohio 43202. Phone: 614-292-8436.

43

For More InformationVisit these Web sites:

http://www.policy.com/issuewk/1999/0426_70/index.html

http://www.nga.org/CBP/Activities/SmartGrowth.asp

http://www.nahb.com/

http://www.landuse.org/

http://www.planning.org/

http://www.farmfoundation.org/pubs/increas/98/contents1.htm

http://www.farmland.org/

44

National Land UsePolicy Task Force Members

Charles W. Abdalla, ChairPenn State University

Marilyn AltobelloUniversity of Connecticut

John AmrheinMichigan State University Extension

Walter J. ArmbrusterFarm Foundation

Janet S. AyresPurdue University

Nelson L. BillsCornell University

Rod ClouserUniversity of Florida

Tom DanielState University of New York at Albany

Mark A. Edelman, Co-ChairIowa State University

Philip FaveroUniversity of Maryland

Howard H. Foster, Jr.University of Rhode Island

Catherine HalbrendtUniversity of Vermont

Jim HiteClemson University

Thomas W. IlventoUniversity of Delaware

Harvey JacobsUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Lawrence W. LibbyThe Ohio State University

Allan E. LinesThe Ohio State University

Bradley D. LubbenUniversity of Illinois

Lori M. LynchUniversity of Maryland

Neil L. MeyerUniversity of Idaho

Kurt J. NorgaardMichigan State University

Patricia NorrisMichigan State University

David B. PattonThe Ohio State University

Don PetersonSouth Dakota State University

Andrew F. SeidlColorado State University

Dave SharpeUniversity of Montana

Alvin D. SokolowUniversity of California-Davis

Bruce A. WeberOregon State University

Raul R. WegmeyerMichigan State University Extension

Carole YohoUniversity of Minnesota

Photos courtesy of Iowa State UniversityExtension Communications