THE SMART GROWTH FRAUD

For decades urban planners have adhered to the mantra that urban sprawl increases pollution and housing costs, more driving time to work and shopping, stress, and the escalating consumption of scarce farmland and open space. Urban planning to implement what Al Gore calls “smart growth” supposedly corrects these problems and creates more livable, inexpensive homes for all. Irrefutable evidence, however, shows that urban planning creates the very nightmares it is supposed to eliminate. In the process, it strips urbanites of one of their most fundamental civil liberties — property rights.

Land-use control has been a goal of socialists for many decades. Laurence Rockefeller’s 1972 publication of The Use of Land: A Citizen's Policy Guide to Urban Growth was instrumental in attempting to enact land-use regulation in Congress several times in the early 1970s. Edited by William K. Reilly, who later served as EPA Administrator under George Bush senior, the report claimed that planning the wise use of land is the best tool to guide growth toward achieving economic equality and protecting environmental quality.

Following the failed attempt to employ the anti-property rights features of The Use of Land, the United Nations set the same agenda in the 1976 Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I) held in Vancouver. For instance, the Preamble of Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report states: “The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable....” (Italics added)

Smart growth advocates seek to preserve land in a natural or agricultural state by encouraging individuals to live in denser communities that take up smaller tracts of land per housing unit. Such communities also encourage residents to rely more on walking or public transit than on cars for mobility, and they more closely mix retail and other commercial facilities with residential units to foster easy access to jobs and shopping.

Land-use control can often become an obsession to planners for obvious reasons. In order to plan and control growth in their enlightened way, government bureaucrats and planning advocates must control property rights. Private property rights and smart growth are therefore mutually exclusive.

Such policies do not permit Americans the freedom to live where they choose. They must live inside urban growth boundaries. Developers must provide open space around new development. Americans may not live in greenbelt areas around urban centers. They may not live in designated viewsheds of scenic highways, or in the buffer zone of a Heritage River or a designated stream.

Those advocating smart growth can become so obsessive they become irrational. For instance, on June18, 2001, the Sierra Club defined "efficient urban density" as a city containing 500 housing units to the acre. Put another way, 500 families would have to live on an acre of land which is 209 x 209 feet! This would require a 14-story apartment building if 36 very small 1,000 square foot units (with hallways) occupied each floor! Increasing the apartment size to 1500 square feet would require a 21-story building!

After being criticized that such densities were more than three times greater than the highest density tracts in Manhattan and more than double the most dense and squalid ward of Bombay, India, the Sierra Club quickly revised its definition of urban efficiency to 100 units per acre. Reaching even that goal, however, would require living arrangements that are 2.4 times as dense as all Manhattan, twice as dense as central Paris and ten times that of San Francisco according to the Heritage Foundation. The density of the average suburban area is 1-3 units per acre.

At least nineteen states have state growth-management laws or task forces to protect farmland and open space. Dozens of cities and counties have adopted urban growth boundaries to contain development and prevent the spread of urbanization to outlying and rural areas. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) partially funded a 2002 report called “Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Manage-ment of Change.” Congress is considering passing “The Community Character Act,” which proposes to fund state and local efforts to reform their land use planning process to conform more closely to smart growth policies.

The Legislative Guidebook calls for using federal funding as a carrot to mandate a more restrictive “integrated state-regional-local planning system that is both vertically and horizontally consistent.” Vertically and horizontally consistent, in turn, means total government control from the federal government to the local community across America. One size fits all. This dovetails with Section 4(c)(1)(D) of the Community Character Act which calls for funding and "coordination of Federal, State, regional, tribal, and local land use plans."

The paranoia about the need to control growth is a constant drumbeat of those promoting urban planning. They claim America is rapidly losing its farmland and open space. Yet, the U.S. Bureau of Census classifies less than 5 percent of the U.S. as being developed and less than 2.5 percent as urban using the 2002 corrected data.

Even in the densely populated east, both New York and Pennsylvania are only 10 percent developed. New Jersey, the most developed state, has only 30 percent of its land developed. To top it all off, less than one-quarter of the loss in farmland since 1945 is due to urbanization, and the rate of loss has been dropping since the 1960s. 1

The presumption that low-density residential development means more pollution, more congestion and fewer preserved natural resources is equally false. Likewise, the belief that higher-density compact development mitigates those impacts is false. Increasing population density does little to alleviate auto-caused smog. Urban and suburban areas with the lowest population densities have the fewest air pollution problems.

Population density or compactness also has little relationship to how much commuters depend on automobiles.2 More than 75 percent of commuter trips are by car — even in urban areas. Thus, any planning strategy that attempts to increase population density usually leads to more traffic congestion and stalled traffic. This exacerbates air pollution levels and potentially causes more areas to fail federal clean air goals.3 This, in turn requires regulations that are even more restrictive.

Portland, Oregon, the model for urban planning, has had the most stringent land-use plans in the U.S. since the 1970s. In implementing its plan, Portland has stopped building highways and instead has built two light commuter rails that failed to achieve their goals. Transit commuter use actually dropped 20 percent from 1980 to 1991. Additionally, in spite of the severe hardship imposed on those who want to use automobiles, the Portland area experienced the largest increase in automobile use per capita from 1990 to 1999 of any U.S. urban area with more than one million people. [4]

The same is true for alternative transit methods. San Francisco's proposed Third Street light rail line, for instance, will cost $40.50 per ride, which is equal to $18,225 annually per new commuter. Notes the Heritage Foundation:

For the same money, each new commuter could lease a new Pontiac Grand Am throughout the "life" of the rail system and pay for more than 100,000 miles of air travel at the average ticket rate each year. Alternatively, one could lease the Grand Am and use the remainder of the annual subsidy for the average mortgage payment in the nation's most expensive housing market. Urban planning has also failed miserably in providing affordable housing. As a rule, more dense areas cost more to build in, tend to have higher taxes, higher levels of pollution, and a higher cost of living. The Heritage Foundation reports that; “Data indicate that housing affordability in Portland (percentage of households that can afford the median priced home) dropped 56 percent from 1991 to 2000, the largest reduction of any major urban area in the nation! Portland's home ownership rate fell as a result.” The poor, of course, suffer the most in this kind of failed policy. Families no longer able to afford single-family homes in Portland have to move into multifamily units. During 1992-97, the number of housing permits issued for multifamily units doubled from 25 percent to 49 percent.

Land-use zoning can also have a devastating impact on the cost of land. A March 2002 study published by the Harvard Institute of Economic Research showed that zoning dramatically increases the cost of land in urban areas. Where regulatory zoning is not artificially driving up the price of land, the cost of an extra quarter-acre in a single lot is very similar to a separate and independent buildable quarter-acre lot. This condition exists in urban Kansas City. However, in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Diego, New York City, Seattle and others like them, the difference between the cost of an extra quarter-acre in a lot, and a separate buildable quarter-acre lot is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. “In these areas,” claims the Harvard study, “only a small percentage of the value of the lot comes from an intrinsically high land price; the rest is due to restrictions on construction.” Land-use restrictions were the only variable correlated with the huge cost increases.

The aggressive promotion of smart growth policies by some in the media, politicians and a gross misrepresentation of the facts by many environ-mentalists threatens the freedom of ordinary Americans to choose living arrangements that best suit their needs. Although smart growth proponents advocate land-use control as a means of providing affordable housing, it punishes low-income families, keeping them from ever being able to afford a home of their own and denying them the American Dream. According to the Heritage Foundation, home ownership rates among African-American and Hispanic families are still below 50 percent, in contrast to the nearly 75 percent ownership rates among white households. The very fashionable Fauquier County, Virginia, which has imposed severe growth restrictions and limits on homebuilding, has seen its African-American population fall both relatively and absolutely over the decade of the 1990s.

No matter how it is cut, urban planning and smart growth is a bald-faced fraud that is creating a nightmare for people across America. From a few academics and environmentalists to the media, state and local officials, and high-level federal officials of all ideologies and party affiliations, this misguided vision has spread despite overwhelming evidence that it does not work. The persistence of these beliefs despite all facts to the contrary is a tribute to the power of a fashionable idea favoring federal intervention, however illogical it may seem in practice and experience.

It is time for the Bush administration to pull all federal funding for any program dealing with smart growth or urban planning. Imposing such altruistic ideals just does not work. They harm both the environment and the citizens whom they are supposed to help

The price of land inside the UGB has skyrocketed! Builders are buying older homes, on larger lots, bulldozing the homes, and putting up 4 to 6 houses. In 1998, a 15,000 sq. ft. lot, on the outside edge of the UGB, was $150K. I don't know how much they are now but, the last time I checked (1999 or 2000), the average lot size was 6500 sq. ft. It won't be long before the Metro area looks like Manhatten! LOL

The going price for a one acre lot outside the UGB is now around $400K. I'm sure glad we bought our lot when we did. Now, we could buy the lot, but we'd have to pitch a tent...

My daughter's family sold their starter home (1350 sq. ft.) 3 years ago for $170K. Pretty sad, if ya' want to be a homeowner.

As sprawl gets further and further out into the rural areas, the attachment to "public sewers", public water", etc isn't often a choice. You are required to do so at whatever price they deem you must pay- whether you can afford it or not- and they will condemn your well and septic tank to force you onto their system. There is a serious movement afoot in Calif to have water meters put on EVERY PRIVATE WELL and make the landowner pay a percieved "owner" of this water. The property owner paid for the drilling of the well, pays for the constant electricity to pump the water, etc, and there is NO REIMBURSEMENT for this improvement to the property. The courts judged in Los Angeles County that the Department of Water and Power OWNED all the water in the county, and that they could charge for the well water usage. I never did find out what they would do if you set up a large gutter collection system into a holding tank for the rain water. I suppose they think they think that is theirs, also. Lots and lots of intrusions onto "private property".
In Wisconsin, where I used to own a 2nd house, the greenies have passed a law that requires you to have your septic "inspected" every 2 years and you must pay the service people for this and pay a FEE to the county to prove that a septic tank that has NEVER given you problems is not giving you problems every 24 months. Nothing to prevent it from becoming every 12 months or 6 months or....There has not been a problem with the septic tank or leech lines on that house since it was built in 1966 since my Dad built it to 150% of specs required and always was careful. Never a garbage disposer- had a Labrador instead.Still it now costs way toooo much to meets this new law. But some Educated Idiot knows better.....

But perhaps it's all a brilliant scheme to drive up property costs and push the peasants out of these areas?

True in a way but not entirely. I'm house hunting now and I'm finding too many of what I call "projects in the country", hundreds of townhouses or condos crammed on several acres surrounded by woods or fields. These units are so close together they can't get top price but they make it up in volume. These to me are the future breeders of suburban crime.

Then you have the single family home developements. Here they cram expensive homes on small lots barely able to contain the home. Houses that should be on 2 or 3 acres are stuffed into .25 or .30 acre lots. They charge an arm and a leg to pay for the extra land they must keep green, so you pay for the land but it just isn't yours. This also keeps the riff-raff out that buy the townhomes and condos above. Included in both is of course your monthly lot rental in the form of HOA fees.

It's amazing that the older communities managed to keep their value and have beautiful green streets and yards without all those regulations that cause the above housing nightmares. I know where I'll buy.

I don't know how much they are now but, the last time I checked (1999 or 2000), the average lot size was 6500 sq. ft. It won't be long before the Metro area looks like Manhatten!

Thats the idea. "Smart Growth" = suburban and rural cleansing. Force the people into urban areas and make them ride bikes and the bus.

Regards

J.R.

Okay, try this.

Ask the county to provide scientific basis for your septic tank inspection. If they can't provide a scientific reason for this law, you are getting clubbed with junk science, something eco-fascists are famous for.

Challenge the law under the Federal Data Quality Act (FDQA). It requires that data used to support laws and regulations must conform to strict scientific standards.

The purpose of the FDQA is to assure that political and legal decisions are based on sound science. It’s designed to protect property owners from arbitrary and capricious bureaucrats with a political agenda. Should a bureaucrat attempt to read junk science into a decision affecting you or your property, the vampire killing tools you need are in the FDQA.

Should they refuse to rescind the law, you can sue them and make them prove their law has scientific merit under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.

Portland, Oregon, the model for urban planning, has had the most stringent land-use plans in the U.S. since the 1970s.

This site has a great P. J. O'Rourke comment on Portland (as well as some good Algore disses):

The Solon-like city-council persons of Portland, Oregon, have had an urban-growth boundary in place for a quarter-century. It's an interesting concept: Keep your figure by encasing yourself in concrete, then eat what you want.

-Eric

If that is his goal, what's to stop someone from building a factory next door to my house?

Well, exactly what is the moral principle you would invoke to stop someone from building a factory on their own property, even if it is next door to you?

In your case, you do not have to worry. Factories are seldom put up where the work force is likely to consist of socialists. (I assume you are typical of the people in your area.)

Hank

I live in a California town that brags it's "planned." When we bought our house I thought single-home density couldn't become much greater but I was wrong! Now they're building houses that practically touch each other and escapees from L.A. are buying them frantically at prices from $250,000 to $500,000 and up. Our older and rather more modest home is in a development surrounded by a lovely greenbelt -- one of the main inducements to our locating here.

There's an interesting twist. The home-development division of a huge lumber company is basically in cahoots with the city. We thought we'd moved to a settled community but now every spare scrap of land is being turned into high-density condos or apartments with the city's blessing. The greenbelt we love so much and which we thought would be there forever is now being eyed for the kind of very high density apartments you mention as future crime-breeders. We're fighting it like crazy but the lumber company has the funds and lawyers to wage an unending campaign. We'll lose in the long run.

I favor property rights, too, but I've lived long enough to become very cynical. When certain city council and planning commission members campaign for reelection, slick well-financed campaigns appear out of nowhere: fancy signs, TV commercials, etc. The money for all that has to come from somewhere, and it's not out of the politicians' own pockets. They're bought and paid for by the development interests. It makes sense: if you can get $350,000 for a house built on an acre of land, why not get $1,400,000 for four houses built on the same space? At that price, buying a few politicians is a bargain. So there are two sides to the issue, as always.

I've seen this game played for 40 years now and the only purpose I have been able to see both from the inside and from the outside ( was a Planning Commissioner for a few years) is the perverse pleasure of depriving others of affordable convenient housing. Period.

The tools are taking huge tracts of land permanently off the tax rolls.
Charging "fees" on development, after empty land has paid decades in taxes for essentially no services (charge them twice).
Deliberately withold essential improvements in order to claim "insufficient infrastructure" to allow more families to move in.

The new concept of "Planning" is totally Orwellian, or more accurately, Fahrenheit 451-ish; Exactly like the "firemen" in that prophetic novel, destroying the very thing their name implies they shoud guide and protect.

It ain't socialism or altruism; It's plain rottenness.
And "government" empowers it.

Unless you are an anarchist, you must acknowledge that there exists some role for government. Building roads, parks, designating school zones, yield signs, stop lights, damns, locks, bridges, waste water treatment, landfills and sewers is not that different from zoning restrictions.

Call me an anarchist then.

What planet did you just arrive from?
70 years ago government did exactly those things you list.

Increasingly over the last 40 years, the main function of planning is to "study" things to death, and come up with reasons not to build any of the above.
And effectively, too. No real planning, no possible growth.

There is scarcely a significant city in the country whose council is not in the pocket of the R.E. development industry.

The land-use and zoning regulations are all about increasing the value of the developers' existing land portfolio and extending the grasp of ideology-driven planners.

So control-freak bureaucrats and unscrupulous businessmen conspire against the general public.

Isn't there a name starting with 'F' for that type of political system?

Don't forget, the "country" you drove through is private property and is now nearly worthless to it's owners because it can never be developed.

This makes no sense. The Urban Growth Boundary was created many years ago (in the 70's). At that time the line was far out in the country and it is unlikely that the owners were just holding it to wait for a chance to develop. Anyone who was prescient enough to anticipate and want to participate in the development game could have sold land and bought on the other side of the line. Over the years the only people I have heard carping are not long-time landowners, but developers who planned to buy land near the boundary and then apply political pressure to have the boundary moved. They were surprised that things didn't work the same way in Portland as elsewhere.

Apparently the land beyond the boundary is not "worthless", as it appears to be in use as farmland. Some people who live beyond the boundary are probably happy that they are not destined to live in a city.

Was the view worth it?

Yes

"Equitable Servitude," eh? Another bizarre, un-American concept dreamed up by busybody lawyers and activist judges!!!

Anything to blast "rugged individualism" into non-existance and corral the populace into compact developments with little trucks with yellow lights on top and "COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT" magnetic signs on their doors, right?

Anything to conform to the late arrived "exurban" refugee from the megolopolis who just moved in to the "urban/rural interface," determined to "protect" his/her new domain from any new homes, or especially (gasp) any new "Multi-Family" affordable housing for "Those People," right?

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.