Posted on 03/27/2002 7:15:20 AM PST by cogitator
Smart Growth Programs Fall Victim to Budget Cuts
WASHINGTON, DC, March 26, 2002 (ENS) - Budget shortfalls are forcing more than a dozen states to make or consider massive cuts to smart growth programs, finds a new report from a trio of conservation groups.
The report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse and Smart Growth America, warns that cutting these programs will threaten local economies, the environment and public health, and calls on state legislators to defend them.
"We understand that states have to tighten their belts, but this is not the time to return to the failed policies of the past," said Deron Lovaas, NRDC's deputy director for smart growth policy. "We have hundreds of examples around the country of programs building vibrant communities, revitalizing older neighborhoods, and protecting our cherished green spaces. States have to take the long view."
The economic downturn has slashed state revenues, with one estimate placing the total budget shortfall for states in fiscal year 2002 at $40 billion. Though it appears the economy is on its way to recovery, state budget officials are still struggling to make ends meet in this fiscal year and the next.
The report surveyed the status of smart growth programs in 15 states and the District of Columbia. Funding for these programs could be eliminated in Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Utah. Colorado and Ohio are considering smaller funding cuts.
However, some state officials are expanding similar programs or starting new ones. Three weeks ago, for example, California voters passed a $2.6 billion ballot measure protecting open space.
Washington state lawmakers have passed five smart growth statutes this year, and Massachusetts legislators are considering two measures that would provide more money to preserve green space, clean up brownfields, and encourage communities to incorporate smart growth principles in local planning.
The report's authors say these officials are responding to their constituents.
"While our national priorities clearly have changed since the tragic events of September 11, Americans have a different set of local priorities, and sprawl is one of their top concerns," said Allison Smiley, director of the Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse. "Even in last November's election, voters passed 73 percent of the open space protection ballot measures in 14 states."
The report is available at: http://www.nrdc.org/cities/smartgrowth/pstatebgts.asp
It is to be fought at all costs. The problem is the "nice name", it tricks people.
"Smart Growth" is "Agenda 21"http---www.freerepublic.com-forum-a3ac76978087e.htm
There's a big-a$$ green space in the middle of the country. I think you call it 'fly-over country.' If you want to breathe cleaner air and look at beautiful greenery, I recommend you go there. Housing prices are reasonable, the neighborhoods are safe, and the people are friendly. Unfortunately, they might not take too kindly to the likes of you big-city snobs who take every opportunity to insult their values while confiscating their hard-earned money to pay for your socialist crap.
(No, I'm not from fly-over country. If I were, I wouldn't be suggesting they move there...)
I disagree, and living where I do, just to the northwest of the Baltimore-Washington metroplex, I can see what is happening and what it's costing.
Developers buy urban "fringe" land at low prices. They put in lots of homes. Then the government (primarily state) has to find the funds to pay for new roads, new schools, new sewage treatment, water supply, etc. And most of these taxes are property taxes, and the government keeps finding clever ways to keep raising those on existing homeowners.
The concept of smart growth is to reduce fringe development and concentrate development where infrastructure already exists. Make an addition to an existing school rather than build a new multi-million dollar school (there's another thread running here on FR talking about new $40-50 million dollar schools). Who's paying for all that? US! We're subsidizing developers when zoning laws don't prevent them from developing cheap land.
problem solved.;o)
We see this regularly in the D.C. area, where the actual residents of proposed transportation corridors massively resist new road projects. The problem is, they too often get rolled by county and state authorities responding to the developer-commuter lobby.
First, sewer and water districts are paid by users, in this case the home buyers. Second, zoning laws shouldn't infringe on property rights. Third, towns/states don't have to build roads to new developments. I believe you are wrong on this issue.
And you shouldn't anyway. Liberals could take over the Senate forever if they move enough fascists and greenie dependents to flyover states and have been working at it for a decade at least. Why do you think they are forcing voters back into cities?
Zoning laws, by their very existence, ARE an infringement on property rights.
An interesting area of contention is the call (from the business community primarily) for a second Potomac crossing and the Dulles-to-Rockville "Techway". Virtually nobody living on the Maryland side wants it anywhere near them, because development has been restricted on the Maryland side by farmland preservation initiatives. But the Virginia businesses that employ Maryland commuters want it. Warner has been so busy in Virginia he hasn't had time to revisit the Techway issue. But I think he will.
But it's not proportionally weighted for the costs of extending line to new developments, and the developers work the counties to keep the rates down so that they don't have to pass on the costs to new home buyers. (I.e., all of us pay usage fees which include the costs of building new infrastructure to new households.)
Second, zoning laws shouldn't infringe on property rights.
As someone else said, zoning laws are an infringement on property rights. Theoretically, your next-door neighbor ought to have the right to put an asphalt plant on his land, but some of us might object.
Third, towns/states don't have to build roads to new developments.
True, but if they didn't they'd really p*** off the people who bought the houses. Think they'd blame the developers? NO. They'd blame the government!
I believe you are wrong on this issue.
Honest disagreement is a democratic principle.
If you're talking about the Techway, the Maryland commuters who work for Virginia businesses probably do want it, because that commute has to be a major pain. (I've gone down to DC via 70/270 on weekends, and that's a pain too. I also flew out of Dulles once and had to drive there during rush hour in the morning. Nightmare.) But it's the landowners, many with big riverfront or river-near mansions, plus the farms on the Montgomery county side, that don't want it. Seems to me that there was a nice map of the situation somewhere that I posted a few months ago:
Potomac Bridge/so-called "Techway"
If you click on the map link below the picture you can get a sense of the situation. Some of the priciest real estate in the whole region is on either side of the Potomac River north of the Beltway crossing (American Legion bridge). There are real mansions off River Road in Maryland (Sugar Ray Leonard had a house there, and I think Mike Tyson did or does too.)
Agree with you on the immigration problem. We need the workers but don't have the space!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.