Researcher: Sprawl doesn't hurt cities
fe...@mscd.edu
>http://www.usatoday.com/news/ndsmon07.htm
>Researcher: Sprawl doesn't hurt cities
>One of the USA's leading urban experts has come up with a finding that
is
>bound to disappoint anti-sprawl advocates: Suburban sprawl does not
cause
>urban decline.
And busing did not cause white flight! = LOL
>New research by Anthony Downs, senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution,
>contradicts the widely held belief that middle-class flight to the
suburbs
>is the main reason many cities are left with high poverty and crime
rates
>and struggling schools.
>Downs himself says he was surprised by his findings. "My goal was to
find
>out whether there was a link between aspects of sprawl such as low-
density
>development, the leapfrog out to suburbs and the use of automobiles and
>urban decline," he says. "It turned out there wasn't. At least I
couldn't
>find one."
Depends! Since I don't see his research. In Clevand, one would have
to be a fool to say such! In Denver with a lot of projects and a
continuing Tax Base in Business, the effect would be mitigated!
Seems to me the greatest effect is on the town experiencing the big
growth in homes! This would be in providing services which are below
the amount that these towns collect in Taxes from the new
developments. See the Sierra Club report about losses to Road
maintaince and development in the Fort Collins area!
>Downs says much of the blame goes to housing and planning policies
that shut
>out the poor from suburbs and concentrate poverty in cities.
Which is from Zoing Regulations! What are you telling me Tim! That
you don't want poor people out there! In fact many a community will
give the poor a one way bus ticket into Denver = Egg on your face and
your planning boards = course the poor would need bus servies and
subsidized utilities = like they get in Denver = tells me a lot of your
Zoing Commission!
>New homes are usually more expensive, but "we don't provide subsidies
to
>most poor people who can't afford this new, high-quality housing, which
>means they cannot live in new growth areas," Downs says.
You do it by planning! A builder comes in you say you can nuild this
if you build so many low income units!!!
>Suburban governments use their zoning powers to keep out cheaper
housing,
>such as apartments and town houses, he says.
Egg on your fact Tim!!!
>Downs looked at 162 urban areas and analyzed nine sprawl indicators,
such as
>density in the suburbs and the city. Downs then compared them with
measures
>of urban decline, such as crime and poverty rates.
>He found that areas that are less sprawling than others suffer as much
>decline in their central cities. His conclusion: Even if every
metropolitan
>area had growth boundaries and development controls to force people to
live
>closer in, central cities would still be in trouble.
Sure! If you zone out all the poor people in Central Cities = There
is a drain!!!!
>Downs' research, reported in the latest issue of Housing Policy
Debate, a
>quarterly journal of the Fannie Mae Foundation, is stirring debate.
>Anti-sprawl advocates have argued that one reason to stop sprawl is to
help
>revitalize central cities.
>"We can't help but draw correlations between decaying city
infrastructure
>and the flight to the suburbs," says Kathryn Hohmann, director of
>environmental quality programs for the Sierra Club, a leading
proponent of
>sprawl control.
>Even some who disagree with Downs' main finding agree that many
government
>policies have favored investment in outlying areas, which has hurt
central
>cities.
How does that support your contention = You are saying tax dollars are
used to support rich developments in suburbia for profits = avoiding
the cities = that totally dams your view!
>"Many mayors would argue that the past generation or two of investment
has
>rewarded areas that are undeveloped and new," says Kevin McCarty of
the U.S.
>Conference of Mayors.
>"They would also argue that many existing policies place many more
burdens
>on existing communities," McCarty says. "It makes our communities less
>desirable."
>The Fannie Mae Foundation, a non-profit community development
organization,
>has commissioned more research on the topic.
>"My take is that the jury is still out on the relationship between the
>decline of cities and urban sprawl," says Robert Lang, Housing Policy
Debate
>managing editor and director of urban and metropolitan research for the
>foundation.
The damage is in increased taxes to support growth and the continued
destruction and fragmentation to the ecosystem of the areas = Increase
in endangered ecosystems and wildlife!
http://www.projo.com/cgi-
bin/frame_it.cgi?URL=/report/pjb/stories/03210271.htm
headline:
2.17.2000 00:18:33
Flight to suburbia comes at huge cost to R.I. residents
A report by Grow Smart Rhode Island says suburban sprawl may cost $1.5
billion over the next 20 years, and its chairman says it poses a clear
threat to our quality of life.
By ARIEL SABAR
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE -- Over the last half century, Rhode Islanders have piled
out of cities by the minivan-load, setting their sights on better
schools, more elbow room and cheaper tax bills in the suburbs. But a
new report says that the flight to suburbia -- long viewed as a middle-
class rite of passage -- has come with a hidden price tag.
Not only has it left older cities grappling with abandoned buildings
and high taxes, the report says, but it could cost Rhode Islanders
nearly $1.5 billion over the next two decades as urban property values
slide and the suburbs raise taxes to pay for new schools, roads and
utility lines.
The report, issued yesterday by Grow Smart Rhode Island, is the first
attempt in the state to quantify the costs of a style of growth that
has predominated for the last 50 years. It recommends more spending for
land conservation, as well as a revamping of property taxes, zoning
laws and building codes to make cities more appealing to homeowners and
builders.
The group expects the 281-page document to become a blueprint for the
growing number of grassroots and government efforts to control the pace
and shape of growth in the Ocean State, already the second most densely
populated state in the nation.
``Sprawl is having a huge impact in Rhode Island,'' said James H.
Dodge, the chairman of Grow Smart, a two-year-old group whose board
includes leaders of some of the state's most powerful companies,
universities and nonprofit organizations. ``It poses a clear threat to
social equity, environmental protection and economic advancement, which
together make up our quality of life.''
The report acknowledges that new homes in suburban and rural towns have
increased the property tax bases there. But it says that these houses
are a net fiscal loss because the property-tax revenues they produce
are more than offset by the costs of new roads, schools and utility
lines needed for their occupants.
Dodge, who is also the president of the Providence Energy Corporation,
said that some costs could not
be quantified. They include air pollution from increased auto
commuting, environmental damage from the loss of forests and farmland,
and a widening income gap and racial divide between cities and suburbs.
State officials embraced the report yesterday, saying it would serve as
a guidepost as local, state and national leaders set out to tackle an
issue that has generated wide public interest.
In Rhode Island, the issue has acquired a new immediacy as housing
sales have surged after a slump in the early 1990s. Governor Almond has
proposed a $50-million open-space bond measure for the November ballot
and plans to announce the formation of a growth advisory council this
week. Rural towns in South County have been enacting tough controls on
development, from annual building-permit caps to outright bans on new
subdivisions. And land trusts have cropped up in 26 Rhode Island
communities.
``The significance of the report is that we now have quality research
that gives us a handle on the costs of growth,'' said Jan H. Reitsma,
the director of the state Department of Environmental Management, one
of several government officials at the morning news conference
yesterday. The news conference was held at an antique Victorian house,
on a gritty stretch of Broad Street, that had been boarded up for 25
years before being rehabbed into office space last year. ...
The report cost about $60,000 and was financed by grants from the
federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Rhode Island
Foundation. It was prepared for Grow Smart by two Connecticut planning
firms, H.C. Plannning Consultants Inc., of Orange, and Planimetrics
L.L.P., of Avon.
Among the report's findings:
The amount of developed land in Rhode Island grew by 147 percent from
1961 to 1995, nine times faster than the rate of population growth.
Fifty percent more land was developed during that period -- 96,000
acres -- than in the 325 years from the state's inception, in 1636, to
1961.
The state's farm acreage was roughly halved between 1964 and 1997,
falling from 103,801 acres to 55,256 acres. If current trends persist,
all 15 rural towns in Rhode Island will turn into suburbs within this
century.
The older industrial cities of Central Falls, Newport, Pawtucket,
Providence and Woonsocket lost 4,600 private-sector jobs from 1980 to
1997, while the rest of the state gained nearly 48,000 jobs.
Though those five cities contain about one-third of the state's
families, they are home to 61 percent of families below the poverty
line, 69 percent of those on welfare, 71 percent of students eligible
for free or reduced-price lunches, and 82 percent of minority public
school students.
From 1988 to 1998, the total value of property in those five cities
decreased by 24 percent, while their average tax rates increased by 44
percent, triple the rate of increase in rural towns.
The report estimates that if these trends continue, the cost in lost
property taxes in cities and in new expenses for the suburbs could
approach $1.5 billion over the next 20 years. That figure also includes
$14 million in lost sales of agricultural products as farmland gives
way to houses, lawns and driveways.
The report's authors calculated the $1.5-billion price tag by comparing
a continuation of current trends with a scenario called ``compact
core'' development. Under that scenario, the five older industrial
citieswould see 20-percent growth in housing units over the next two
decades, instead of the 36-percent decline expected under current
trends. Housing units in suburban and rural towns would grow by 25
percent and 40 percent, respectively, a far slower pace than if current
trends continue unabated.
The report assumes that the state's population, which has remained
stagnant over the last decade, will increase by about 4 percent over
the next two decades and that housing units will grow by 25,000
statewide.
The report is the opening volley in what Grow Smart Rhode Island says
will be a lobbying and education campaign to reverse what it views as a
worrisome trend of urban decay and unchecked suburban growth.
Among its recommendations are:
More money for land conservation, downtown renewal and mass transit.
A boost in incentives to reuse thousands of vacant properties in
cities.
Property-tax reform to make cities more inviting to homeowners.
A revamp of state building codes to make it easier and cheaper to
rehabilitate old buildings.
More money for affordable housing to ensure that land-preservation
efforts don't price the poor out of the housing market.
Zoning changes that would permit second-floor apartments above
storefronts in downtown business districts.
``We are calling for some major changes in policy and practice,'' said
Grow Smart's executive director, J. Scott Wolf, a Rhode Island
congressional candidate in 1988 and 1990 and a onetime adviser to
former Gov. Bruce Sundlun. ``The issue is not whether we grow, but how
we grow.''
The report blames government policies for the decline of cities and the
growth of suburbs. Sprawl, a term for low-density, large-lot suburban
development, ``is largely the unintended effect of the government's
policies to decentralize the population, encourage home ownership and
mitigate overcrowded urban centers,'' the report says.
But a national survey of 2,000 households by the National Association
of Home Builders last year suggested that individual preferences also
play a large role in the growth of suburbs. More than 8 of 10 people
surveyed said they would prefer a detached, single-family house in an
outlying suburb to a city townhouse near work, public transportation
and shopping.
Wolf said the group isn't trying to stop people from moving to the
suburbs, but wants to make cities more attractive so people have more
options.
Rhode Island differs in two important ways from other places dealing
with undesirable effects of suburban growth. First, its population
hasn't grown over the last decade. And second, it has very little room
to grow; it is second only to New Jersey in population density.
As Wolf sees it, these facts mean that the state still has time to
redirect growth before the last forests, farmland and historic
buildings become the stuff of postcards. ``We still do have villages
with intact centers,'' Wolf said. ``We haven't become a homogenous,
blah space. We're not Atlanta, we're not Phoenix. But there are some
areas of the state headed that way.''
Wolf says the first efforts to lure people back to cities should be
aimed at ``niche'' markets, including empty-nesters, the elderly and
young single people.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Aozotorp
>http://www.usatoday.com/news/ndsmon07.htm
>
>"One of the USA's leading urban experts has come up with a finding that is
>bound to disappoint anti-sprawl advocates: Suburban sprawl does not cause
>urban decline."
>
>
Really??? Look at the funding levels for the schools in the area!!!
Langrrr
fe...@mscd.edu wrote:
> "Tim Schreiner" <timsch...@businessweekmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.usatoday.com/news/ndsmon07.htm
>
> >Researcher: Sprawl doesn't hurt cities
>
> >One of the USA's leading urban experts has come up with a finding
that
> is
> >bound to disappoint anti-sprawl advocates: Suburban sprawl does not
> cause
> >urban decline.
>
> And busing did not cause white flight! = LOL
Whatever its effects on resident relocation, busing _did_ eviscerate
the ability of minority students to get a quality education and begin
to enter the job world on an equal footing. The one true determinant
in success of child education is parental involvement - and parental
involvement by minority parents was destroyed by busing.
>
> >New research by Anthony Downs, senior fellow at the Brookings
> Institution,
> >contradicts the widely held belief that middle-class flight to the
> suburbs
> >is the main reason many cities are left with high poverty and crime
> rates
> >and struggling schools.
>
> >Downs himself says he was surprised by his findings. "My goal was to
> find
> >out whether there was a link between aspects of sprawl such as low-
> density
> >development, the leapfrog out to suburbs and the use of automobiles
and
> >urban decline," he says. "It turned out there wasn't. At least I
> couldn't
> >find one."
>
> Depends! Since I don't see his research.
Actually, this is yet another good study from a generally liberal
organization like Brookings, which set out on one course, and
discovered that the thesis was incorrect - and the author had the
courage not only to admit it, but to publish his admission. Much like
Christopher Foreman and "The Promise and Peril of Environmental
Justice".
> In Clevand, one would have
> to be a fool to say such! In Denver with a lot of projects and a
> continuing Tax Base in Business, the effect would be mitigated!
>
> Seems to me the greatest effect is on the town experiencing the big
> growth in homes! This would be in providing services which are below
> the amount that these towns collect in Taxes from the new
> developments. See the Sierra Club report about losses to Road
> maintaince and development in the Fort Collins area!
>
All of which evens out over time, and through turnover of residents.
> >Downs says much of the blame goes to housing and planning policies
> that shut
> >out the poor from suburbs and concentrate poverty in cities.
>
> Which is from Zoing Regulations! What are you telling me Tim!
He's telling you what I've been telling you from the start, that
development restrictions put forth by the anti-sprawl crowd are
regressive, classist, and potentially racist.
But you refused to admit that heretofore - and here's someone else
telling you the same thing.
> That
> you don't want poor people out there! In fact many a community will
> give the poor a one way bus ticket into Denver = Egg on your face and
> your planning boards = course the poor would need bus servies and
> subsidized utilities = like they get in Denver = tells me a lot of
your
> Zoing Commission!
>
And yet aren't you the one who is constantly defending zoning boards
and "smart growth", "no growth", and "anti-growth" proposals - all of
which will have the effect of eviscerating affordable housing markets,
keeping the poor out of suburbs, and creating enclaves for the rich and
white.
Tim and I are standing here defending the opportunites for the poor and
non-white. What are you doing?
> >New homes are usually more expensive, but "we don't provide subsidies
> to
> >most poor people who can't afford this new, high-quality housing,
which
> >means they cannot live in new growth areas," Downs says.
>
> You do it by planning! A builder comes in you say you can nuild this
> if you build so many low income units!!!
>
That is an unconstitutional exercise of government power. Not to
mention a nauseating one.
Zoning determines general land use, which in term determines value.
That value determines individual use choices.
But witholding permits in order to secure some unrelated public policy
aim is unconstitutional.
> >Suburban governments use their zoning powers to keep out cheaper
> housing,
> >such as apartments and town houses, he says.
>
> Egg on your fact Tim!!!
>
Actually, that's egg on yours. By keeping out high density housing in
less desirable zones, you destroy the market for building affordable
housing. Period.
> >Downs looked at 162 urban areas and analyzed nine sprawl indicators,
> such as
> >density in the suburbs and the city. Downs then compared them with
> measures
> >of urban decline, such as crime and poverty rates.
>
> >He found that areas that are less sprawling than others suffer as
much
> >decline in their central cities. His conclusion: Even if every
> metropolitan
> >area had growth boundaries and development controls to force people
to
> live
> >closer in, central cities would still be in trouble.
>
> Sure! If you zone out all the poor people in Central Cities = There
> is a drain!!!!
>
Which is what gentrification does. Once again, Don - if you engage in
urban renewal which squeezes the affordable housing market, while at
the same time placing restrictions on communities to build higher
density housing, where do you expect poorer people to move?
> >Downs' research, reported in the latest issue of Housing Policy
> Debate, a
> >quarterly journal of the Fannie Mae Foundation, is stirring debate.
>
> >Anti-sprawl advocates have argued that one reason to stop sprawl is
to
> help
> >revitalize central cities.
>
> >"We can't help but draw correlations between decaying city
> infrastructure
> >and the flight to the suburbs," says Kathryn Hohmann, director of
> >environmental quality programs for the Sierra Club, a leading
> proponent of
> >sprawl control.
>
> >Even some who disagree with Downs' main finding agree that many
> government
> >policies have favored investment in outlying areas, which has hurt
> central
> >cities.
>
> How does that support your contention = You are saying tax dollars are
> used to support rich developments in suburbia for profits = avoiding
> the cities = that totally dams your view!
>
Well, besides the fact that you need to look below for an answer, I'll
tell you. State governments have been trying to attract new industries
to within their borders for all sorts of reasons, not the least of
which is to create jobs, get people working, and increase their tax
rates. This attraction generally doesn't happen in cities, but was
shifted outside of them.
And it wasn't designed to benefit the rich, but to benefit the poor who
needed jobs.
That's just one example.
> >"Many mayors would argue that the past generation or two of
investment
> has
> >rewarded areas that are undeveloped and new," says Kevin McCarty of
> the U.S.
> >Conference of Mayors.
>
> >"They would also argue that many existing policies place many more
> burdens
> >on existing communities," McCarty says. "It makes our communities
less
> >desirable."
>
> >The Fannie Mae Foundation, a non-profit community development
> organization,
> >has commissioned more research on the topic.
>
> >"My take is that the jury is still out on the relationship between
the
> >decline of cities and urban sprawl," says Robert Lang, Housing Policy
> Debate
> >managing editor and director of urban and metropolitan research for
the
> >foundation.
>
> The damage is in increased taxes to support growth and the continued
> destruction and fragmentation to the ecosystem of the areas = Increase
> in endangered ecosystems and wildlife!
>
Besides the fact that the first portion of the argument is red herring
nonsense, and that Robert Lang is certainly more of an expert in these
issues than you are, your solutions to preserving these ecosystems and
wildlife are unconstitutional, counterproductive, and part and parcel
of your generally anti-person attitude.
I mean the bottom line to your statement is "Forget housing for the
poor and minorities, what we need to be doing is saving ecosystems and
species!"
> http://www.projo.com/cgi-
> bin/frame_it.cgi?URL=/report/pjb/stories/03210271.htm
>
> headline:
>
> 2.17.2000 00:18:33
> Flight to suburbia comes at huge cost to R.I. residents
> A report by Grow Smart Rhode Island says suburban sprawl may cost $1.5
> billion over the next 20 years, and its chairman says it poses a clear
> threat to our quality of life.
>
> By ARIEL SABAR
> Journal Staff Writer
>
> PROVIDENCE -- Over the last half century, Rhode Islanders have piled
> out of cities by the minivan-load, setting their sights on better
> schools, more elbow room and cheaper tax bills in the suburbs. But a
> new report says that the flight to suburbia -- long viewed as a
middle-
> class rite of passage -- has come with a hidden price tag.
>
That's right - so they left to find cheaper tax bills. Well, prices do
rise if you want to maintain or improve quality of services or increase
their quantity.
> Not only has it left older cities grappling with abandoned buildings
> and high taxes, the report says, but it could cost Rhode Islanders
> nearly $1.5 billion over the next two decades as urban property values
> slide and the suburbs raise taxes to pay for new schools, roads and
> utility lines.
>
And the point is what, close the gate behind you so that you can
benefit from the quality of services and cheap taxes?
How progressive, diversity-seeking, and brotherhood-of-man that is!
> The report, issued yesterday by Grow Smart Rhode Island, is the first
> attempt in the state to quantify the costs of a style of growth that
> has predominated for the last 50 years. It recommends more spending
for
> land conservation, as well as a revamping of property taxes, zoning
> laws and building codes to make cities more appealing to homeowners
and
> builders.
>
> The group expects the 281-page document to become a blueprint for the
> growing number of grassroots and government efforts to control the
pace
> and shape of growth in the Ocean State, already the second most
densely
> populated state in the nation.
>
As people flee, and I mean _FLEE_ "Taxachussetts". There is a reason
for that, you know.
A 281-page blueprint. For Rhode Island, no less. And that sounds
reasonable?
> ``Sprawl is having a huge impact in Rhode Island,'' said James H.
> Dodge, the chairman of Grow Smart, a two-year-old group whose board
> includes leaders of some of the state's most powerful companies,
> universities and nonprofit organizations. ``It poses a clear threat to
> social equity, environmental protection and economic advancement,
which
> together make up our quality of life.''
>
In other words, people are moving here. We don't want any more people
to move here. So we need to find ways to keep people out. Especially
poor people who need more government services than they can pay in
taxes.
> The report acknowledges that new homes in suburban and rural towns
have
> increased the property tax bases there. But it says that these houses
> are a net fiscal loss because the property-tax revenues they produce
> are more than offset by the costs of new roads, schools and utility
> lines needed for their occupants.
>
Which is always the case with new residents in any new housing which
requires new infrastructure. But those costs are amortized over time,
and are shifted when other new residents move in.
> Dodge, who is also the president of the Providence Energy Corporation,
> said that some costs could not
>
> be quantified. They include air pollution from increased auto
> commuting, environmental damage from the loss of forests and farmland,
> and a widening income gap and racial divide between cities and
suburbs.
>
And preservation of green space increases distances and spreads out
land needed for certain developments, while concentrating other
developments in tight clusters - stressing the environment in
individual areas, and increasting those stressors which contribute to
societal ills (blight, crime, etc).
> State officials embraced the report yesterday, saying it would serve
as
> a guidepost as local, state and national leaders set out to tackle an
> issue that has generated wide public interest.
>
> In Rhode Island, the issue has acquired a new immediacy as housing
> sales have surged after a slump in the early 1990s. Governor Almond
has
> proposed a $50-million open-space bond measure for the November ballot
> and plans to announce the formation of a growth advisory council this
> week. Rural towns in South County have been enacting tough controls on
> development, from annual building-permit caps to outright bans on new
> subdivisions. And land trusts have cropped up in 26 Rhode Island
> communities.
>
In other words, let's shut the door behind us. Well, that's fine.
When their community dies from lack of growth, they'll learn their
lesson.
> ``The significance of the report is that we now have quality research
> that gives us a handle on the costs of growth,'' said Jan H. Reitsma,
> the director of the state Department of Environmental Management, one
> of several government officials at the morning news conference
> yesterday. The news conference was held at an antique Victorian house,
> on a gritty stretch of Broad Street, that had been boarded up for 25
> years before being rehabbed into office space last year. ...
>
> The report cost about $60,000 and was financed by grants from the
> federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Rhode Island
> Foundation. It was prepared for Grow Smart by two Connecticut planning
> firms, H.C. Plannning Consultants Inc., of Orange, and Planimetrics
> L.L.P., of Avon.
>
FYI - that's roughly $240 per page.
> Among the report's findings:
>
> The amount of developed land in Rhode Island grew by 147 percent from
> 1961 to 1995, nine times faster than the rate of population growth.
That is first of all indicative of nothing. In thirty five years, the
amount of land developed doubled and went up an additional half.
Second, this statistic makes no indication as to what this additional
development was used for - new jobs, new shopping, or what.
It also is contraindicative of the assertion that Rhode Island
communities are unduly stressed by the demands made on community
infrastructure.
>
> Fifty percent more land was developed during that period -- 96,000
> acres -- than in the 325 years from the state's inception, in 1636, to
> 1961.
>
So? Horror of Horrors! Since the first settlements on this nation's
eastern shores, the population has gone from 20 to 250,000,000!!!!!
> The state's farm acreage was roughly halved between 1964 and 1997,
> falling from 103,801 acres to 55,256 acres. If current trends persist,
> all 15 rural towns in Rhode Island will turn into suburbs within this
> century.
>
So? Welcome to the Northeastern United States.
> The older industrial cities of Central Falls, Newport, Pawtucket,
> Providence and Woonsocket lost 4,600 private-sector jobs from 1980 to
> 1997, while the rest of the state gained nearly 48,000 jobs.
>
So?
> Though those five cities contain about one-third of the state's
> families, they are home to 61 percent of families below the poverty
> line, 69 percent of those on welfare, 71 percent of students eligible
> for free or reduced-price lunches, and 82 percent of minority public
> school students.
>
Who won't be able to move out if the state's anti-sprawl/anti-growth
crowd has its way.
> From 1988 to 1998, the total value of property in those five cities
> decreased by 24 percent, while their average tax rates increased by 44
> percent, triple the rate of increase in rural towns.
>
Which is also indicative of the problems of overtaxation and the
attraction or retention of residents.
> The report estimates that if these trends continue, the cost in lost
> property taxes in cities and in new expenses for the suburbs could
> approach $1.5 billion over the next 20 years. That figure also
includes
> $14 million in lost sales of agricultural products as farmland gives
> way to houses, lawns and driveways.
>
Then it is a spurious method of accounting. I mean - not only is the
revenue curve dynamic based on population and tax rate, but to take the
negative amount of lost "farm products" on its own, without a
consideration of what was gained by the "extra development" (that
development which was over and above what was utilized for simple
housing - ie, new corporations, factories, etc) is misleading at best.
It is like someone moaning about how much of his paycheck from a
regular job he spends, but neglecting to tell you about his home-based
business on the side which is racking up bucks!
> The report's authors calculated the $1.5-billion price tag by
comparing
> a continuation of current trends with a scenario called ``compact
> core'' development. Under that scenario, the five older industrial
> citieswould see 20-percent growth in housing units over the next two
> decades, instead of the 36-percent decline expected under current
> trends. Housing units in suburban and rural towns would grow by 25
> percent and 40 percent, respectively, a far slower pace than if
current
> trends continue unabated.
>
But what does it assume about tax rates?
> The report assumes that the state's population, which has remained
> stagnant over the last decade, will increase by about 4 percent over
> the next two decades and that housing units will grow by 25,000
> statewide.
>
> The report is the opening volley in what Grow Smart Rhode Island says
> will be a lobbying and education campaign to reverse what it views as
a
> worrisome trend of urban decay and unchecked suburban growth.
>
> Among its recommendations are:
>
> More money for land conservation,
Which will increase sprawl.
> downtown renewal
Which drives up housing costs.
> and mass transit.
>
Which is a drain on scares public resources.
> A boost in incentives to reuse thousands of vacant properties in
> cities.
>
I have zero problem with that.
> Property-tax reform to make cities more inviting to homeowners.
>
I have no problem with that, either.
> A revamp of state building codes to make it easier and cheaper to
> rehabilitate old buildings.
>
No problem with that, either.
> More money for affordable housing to ensure that land-preservation
> efforts don't price the poor out of the housing market.
>
Which is an artificiality. Generally, this almost always backfires.
But I endorse the spirit wholeheartedly.
> Zoning changes that would permit second-floor apartments above
> storefronts in downtown business districts.
>
> ``We are calling for some major changes in policy and practice,'' said
> Grow Smart's executive director, J. Scott Wolf, a Rhode Island
> congressional candidate in 1988 and 1990 and a onetime adviser to
> former Gov. Bruce Sundlun. ``The issue is not whether we grow, but how
> we grow.''
>
I just want to know what people like Ferry are going to say when the
cities become too crowded.
> The report blames government policies for the decline of cities and
the
> growth of suburbs. Sprawl, a term for low-density, large-lot suburban
> development, ``is largely the unintended effect of the government's
> policies to decentralize the population, encourage home ownership and
> mitigate overcrowded urban centers,'' the report says.
>
> But a national survey of 2,000 households by the National Association
> of Home Builders last year suggested that individual preferences also
> play a large role in the growth of suburbs. More than 8 of 10 people
> surveyed said they would prefer a detached, single-family house in an
> outlying suburb to a city townhouse near work, public transportation
> and shopping.
>
(snipped the rest).
- Andrew Langer
--
The Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments
for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end
in itself: "Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that
derive from the diffusion of sovereign power." - NY v. US (1992)
Tim Schreiner
news:20000217011316...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
> >
> >http://www.usatoday.com/news/ndsmon07.htm
> >
> >"One of the USA's leading urban experts has come up with a finding that
is
> >bound to disappoint anti-sprawl advocates: Suburban sprawl does not cause
> >urban decline."
> >
> >
>
> Really??? Look at the funding levels for the schools in the area!!!
What is your point ?
Tim Schreiner
"Bill" <s...@text.org> wrote in message news:8EDD4D91A.....@news.frii.com...
> In part, Tim Schreiner wrote in <JMSq4.10$h1....@news.uswest.net>:
>
> >What is your point ?
>
> suburban locations, the assessed valuation and the taxes supporting
> existing schools in the cities decline on a per-student basis.
> This has been happening here for years. The more we grow, the
> worse off many school districts are and the greater disparity in
> funding, creating a further snowball effect of people with children
leaving
> the older cities and suburbs.
And what of Gov. Romer's school equalization legislation ? It was supposed
to divert funding from wealthier districts to poorer districts ... do you
mean to tell me his redistribution scheme didn't work ?
> The conclusions of your posted article do not take the school funding
> mechanisms for Colorado and many other states into consideration,
They apparently did look at struggling schools, as evidenced by this
paragraph:
"New research by Anthony Downs, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution,
contradicts the widely held belief that middle-class flight to the suburbs
is the main reason many cities are left with high poverty and crime rates
and struggling schools."
> hence it's only 'proof' of your shallow level of logical reasoning
ability.
Can't win the debate, resort to ad hominen's ...
> Get it now?
Of course, not everone agrees with your premise about education funding.
> -BK
> In the vicinity of Berthoud
Chris
Tim Schreiner wrote:
> What is your point ?
He's into the floor wax again...
Tim Schreiner
> timsch...@businessweekmail.com (Tim Schreiner) wrote in
> <5W_q4.108$Q36....@news.uswest.net>:
> >I have never denied that urban sprawl exists.
>
> The title of your post is the following:
> Researcher: Sprawl doesn't hurt cities
That was the title of the article verbatim ...
> Either you're going to stand behind that blanket assertion
> headlined under your name or you're not. Which is it?
> Don't try to weasel out by now saying that it was the
> researcher's claim, not yours.
The facts are the facts.
> >Did you consider the possibility that Colorado school funding was not
> >within the scope of the research ?
>
> Yep. Therefore, their research is flawed as it applies to Colorado,
> isn't it?
Still haven't read the article, have you ?
> >> valid angles to a complex issue as the God-given truth still stands.
> >
> >Do you profess to speak for God, too ? Or is it just convenient to
> >invoke His name ?
>
> Are you aware of something called a "figure of speech", or are you just
> being an jerk? Ignorant or asshole- which is it?
NOTA
> >I'm not interested in presenting several angles ... some of them are
> >already over-representated, ad nauseum.
>
> But you *are* apparently interested in presenting someone's flawed point
> of view, if it serves your purposes, aren't you?
Thought it to be of general interest - upstream from the prevailing
viewpoint, too.
> >If you had bothered to 'read' the article, you would realize that the
> >research was intended to cover the entire nation, and is not localized.
> >Did you know they looked at 162 urban areas ?
>
> Wonderful. Their conclusion would still be flawed for overlooking
> school funding as a city/inner suburb problem made worse by
> sprawl in ever more distant suburbs.
Still haven't read it, huh ?
> >Speculation. You don't know where I stand on that issue, except that I
> >disagree with you.
>
> Ha. LOL! You aren't going to further waste my time with your evasiveness,
> intellectual dishonesty and game playing.
>
>
> -BK
> In the vicinity of Berthoud
Okay
fe...@mscd.edu
>In article <88hab7$cd5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> fe...@mscd.edu wrote:
>> "Tim Schreiner" <timsch...@businessweekmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.usatoday.com/news/ndsmon07.htm
>>
>> >Researcher: Sprawl doesn't hurt cities
>>
>> >One of the USA's leading urban experts has come up with a finding
>that
>> is
>> >bound to disappoint anti-sprawl advocates: Suburban sprawl does not
>> cause
>> >urban decline.
>>
>> And busing did not cause white flight! = LOL
>Whatever its effects on resident relocation, busing _did_ eviscerate
>the ability of minority students to get a quality education and begin
>to enter the job world on an equal footing. The one true determinant
>in success of child education is parental involvement - and parental
>involvement by minority parents was destroyed by busing.
Or in the early 60's with automation, sending out jobs to countries
with cheap labor, movement of the factories and warehouses to
interstate areas unaccessable to the poor, and continuing automation =
it ended the abilty of the black man to earn a living wage for his
family!!!
>>
>> >New research by Anthony Downs, senior fellow at the Brookings
>> Institution,
>> >contradicts the widely held belief that middle-class flight to the
>> suburbs
>> >is the main reason many cities are left with high poverty and crime
>> rates
>> >and struggling schools.
>>
>> >Downs himself says he was surprised by his findings. "My goal was to
>> find
>> >out whether there was a link between aspects of sprawl such as low-
>> density
>> >development, the leapfrog out to suburbs and the use of automobiles
>and
>> >urban decline," he says. "It turned out there wasn't. At least I
>> couldn't
>> >find one."
>>
>> Depends! Since I don't see his research.
>Actually, this is yet another good study from a generally liberal
>organization like Brookings, which set out on one course, and
>discovered that the thesis was incorrect - and the author had the
>courage not only to admit it, but to publish his admission. Much like
>Christopher Foreman and "The Promise and Peril of Environmental
>Justice".
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/02/16/fp1s1-csm.shtml
Headline:
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2000
Headlines
USA
WHAT CITY DWELLERS REALLY WANT
Forget crime - but please fix the traffic
Urban sprawl and traffic top the list of local concerns for many
Americans today, a new survey reveals.
Brad Knickerbocker (brad...@aol.com)
Special correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
Sitting behind the wheel during "beep and creep" time, fuming about how
long it takes to get home from work, commuters reflect a new social and
political trend: the growing number of Americans for whom urban sprawl
has become their top concern.
Growth and traffic congestion, in fact, have caught up with crime as
the most serious public problem personally faced by those surveyed
around the country. And in many urban areas, sprawl-related issues have
leapt past crime, education, and the economy as areas of concern.
This presents both opportunity and challenge to politicians seeking
votes at a time when reduced crime rates have helped make people feel
safer, and when peace and prosperity have pushed to the background
concerns about jobs and national security. Al Gore has made a big deal
out of controlling sprawl, and elected officials around the country -
Republicans as well as Democrats - have begun to address the problem.
The Washington-based Pew Center for Civic Journalism this week reported
the results of five public-opinion surveys showing that "Americans' top
concerns are directed much closer to home, with dramatic frustrations
over sprawl and growth now edging out more traditional issues...."
"Sprawl is now a bread-and-butter community issue," says Jan Schaffer,
executive director of the Pew Center, "and Americans are divided about
the best solution for dealing with growth, development, and traffic
congestion."...
excerpts:
Asked to name "the most important problem facing the community where
you live," 18 percent of respondents across the country cited building
sprawl and traffic as their top concern - the same percentage as those
citing crime. But in urban and suburban areas across the country, the
number of people who think sprawl is their community's worst problem
jumps to 26 percent - higher than crime or any other issue - and in
some areas, that concern is far higher.
In addition to the national survey, which was conducted by Princeton
Survey Research Associates, Pew specifically sought responses from
people in Denver, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Tampa-St.
Petersburg, Fla.
"In Denver," reports Pew, "an astonishing 60 percent of residents name
sprawl as the biggest problem facing the area." Forty-seven percent did
so in the San Francisco area, 33 percent in the Tampa-St. Petersburg
area. In Philadelphia, an older city with less recent growth, crime
outpaces sprawl as the top concern. Still, 60 percent of Philadelphians
think "too much growth and development" is a problem, with 34 percent
saying it's a big problem.
Other recent data confirm such findings. A poll released last week by
the University of Colorado's Institute for Public Policy had 83 percent
of respondents saying they are "concerned" about growth, with 73
percent saying the region is "growing too fast." Two-thirds of those
surveyed in Colorado said they wanted more government spending to
preserve open space, even if they had to pay more taxes....
Vice President Gore has been outspoken in advocating a federal role in
controlling sprawl, pushing a $2 billion plan to set aside new park
land and fight urban sprawl.
Last week, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge (R) proposed a "Growing Smart"
program that would provide state aid to cities and towns for land-use
planning. The plan also would increase local officials' ability to
contain growth within already developed areas.
In Georgia, officials are looking for federal help to deal with the
sprawl and resulting traffic and air-quality problems that have hit the
13-county Atlanta metropolitan area. Last week, officials made a pitch
on Capitol Hill for $15 million in federal aid.
"I believe the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority can turn the
Atlanta region from the poster child for sprawl into a national model
for regional cooperation and progress," said Catherine Ross, head of
the state's transportation agency.
In California, the nation's most populous state, a new legislative
proposal would require that new state office buildings around the state
be located in downtown areas.
"The state has the opportunity to help revitalize downtown areas by the
location of its buildings," says state Sen. Patrick Johnson (D), one of
the bill's authors. "This bill fights sprawl and helps rebuild our
cities."
Go To:
http://www.pewcenter.org/doingcj/research/r_ST2000.html
Langrrr
That statement ignores the basic fact that it is knowledge which gives
one the ability to earn a decent wage, and that knowledge really can
only be gained through education.
So, my statement still stands. Busing destroyed the ability of
minority students to get a quality education. _THAT_, in turn,
destroyed their ability to earn a living wage.
After all, the educated generally do not have to rely on manufacturing
jobs to make a living, do they, Donald?
And Gore, and others, solutions ignore several basic realities:
1) People move to less congested areas for quality of life issues:
fewer people, less crime, an easier-paced existence. They will
continue to do so;
2) The controls being proposed will have deleterious effects on the
ability of the poor to move, by jacking up housing prices; and
3) They will create vast new bureaucracies whose controls will cause
property rights violations on a massive scale.
Leadership means recognizing when a public demand is both irrational
and the solutions untenable, unwarranted, and generally a bad idea.
> The Washington-based Pew Center for Civic Journalism this week
reported
> the results of five public-opinion surveys showing that "Americans'
top
> concerns are directed much closer to home, with dramatic frustrations
> over sprawl and growth now edging out more traditional issues...."
>
The Pew Center. Donald, care to tell me a little about Pew? Are they
more balanced than Brookings?
The point is, as we lock up more and more land, Donald, where are
people going to live?
(snipped the rest, which is overly repetitious)
- Andrew Langer
--
The Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments
for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end
in itself: "Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that
derive from the diffusion of sovereign power." - NY v. US (1992)
Chris
Spode5101 wrote:
> TheWeisGuy did intone:
>
> >Busing may well have caused "white flight."
>
> Ah, those those thrilling days of yesteryear...another heavy handed mandate,
> another failed government program.
>
> While I graduated from high school too early in this century to enjoy being
> bused across town to a strange neighborhood, my younger brother got to catch a
> bus across the street from the high school two blocks from our home in order to
> ride across town to an "inner city" school. He felt very noble about being a
> government pawn.
>
> For some strange reason, he dropped out of school, mumbling something along the
> lines of if he was going to have to commute it might as well be to a
> job...kids.
>
> Turned out okay, though. Got his GED and went to community college.
>
> There's a moral in there somewhere...just not sure where or what it is.
Seemed pretty obvious to me, glad he got back on "track"...
Social engineering is not without its detours.
> All hail Spode!
Chris
Scott Weiser wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:25:03 -0700, Howard Brazee
> <bra...@webaccess.net> wrote:
>
> >A city can go one of three ways:
> >
> >1. It can get more crowded. (people like the city and don't leave - prices
> >go up)
> >2. People can leave for the suburbs. (they like spending money in the city,
> >but don't like the crowds or can't afford the city)
> >3. People can leave. (they dislike or can't afford the city)
> >
> >I get the idea that we are supposed to fight all three alternatives or we're
> >uncaring.
>
> Worse than that, loons like Donald want to *mandate* that we all live
> in crowded urban "hives", and that rich and poor alike ought to be
> allocated a few hundred square feet of living space, in socialistic
> solidarity, and that there should be a wall around the city which
> prevents anyone from leaving and thereby impacting any "ecosystem."
See you on Carosel, "runner"...
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott Weiser
>
> ******
> "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
> friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
> ******
>
> http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/
>
> "The Constitution is not a pool or a pond circumscribed by
> limitations and constrained in its depth, it is a flowing
> river of humanity, fed by the wellspring of liberty and
> freedom. It is as deep as human emotion, as wide as
> human thought and it circles the universe of belief
> and expression and returns to feed itself, and thus
> grows ever deeper and wider."
>
> Copyright 1999 by Scott Weiser
fe...@mscd.edu
moi wrote:
>
>
> Scott Weiser wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:25:03 -0700, Howard Brazee
> > <bra...@webaccess.net> wrote:
> >
> > >A city can go one of three ways:
> > >
> > >1. It can get more crowded. (people like the city and don't
leave - prices
> > >go up)
> > >2. People can leave for the suburbs. (they like spending money in
the city,
> > >but don't like the crowds or can't afford the city)
> > >3. People can leave. (they dislike or can't afford the city)
> > >
> > >I get the idea that we are supposed to fight all three
alternatives or we're
> > >uncaring.
> >
> > Worse than that, loons like Donald want to *mandate* that we all
live
> > in crowded urban "hives", and that rich and poor alike ought to be
> > allocated a few hundred square feet of living space, in socialistic
> > solidarity, and that there should be a wall around the city which
> > prevents anyone from leaving and thereby impacting any "ecosystem."
>
> See you on Carosel, "runner"...
>
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~pppm/landuse/sprawl.html
Indicators of Urban Sprawl
Prepared by Oregon's Department of Land Conservation and Development
May 1992
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
* From 1970 to 1990, the density of urban population in the United
States decreased by 23 percent.
Source: Associated Press article "Census: Cities Takeover U.S.,"
Statesman Journal, December 18, 1991.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
* From 1970 to 1990, more than 30,000 square miles (19 million acres)
of once-rural lands in the United States became urban, as classified by
the U.S. Census Bureau. That amount of land equals about one third of
Oregon's total land area.
Source: Associated Press article referred to above.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
* From 1969 to 1989, the population of the United States. increased by
22.5 percent -- and the number of miles driven by that population
("vehicles miles traveled" or "VMT") increased by 98.4 percent.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, "Selected Highway Statistics
and Charts--l 989," quoted in March 1991 Special Trends, by the Urban
Land Institute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
* From 1983 to 1987, the population of the United States increased by
9.2 million-people -- and the number of cars and trucks increased by
20. 1 million.
Source: Statistical Abstract of United States, 1989, quoted in Anthony
Downs' "The Need for a New Vision for the Development of Large U.S.
Metropolitan Areas."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
* "In the 1980s in Oregon, the number of vehicle miles traveled
increased eight times faster than the population."
Source: TRI-MET Strategic Plan (Discussion Draft), April 1992, p. 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
* From 1940 to 1970, the population of the Portland urban region
doubled-and the amount of land occupied by that population quadrupled.
Source: The University of Oregon's Atlas of Oregon, 1976.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Quotations About Sprawl
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
"Taken together, the studies [on costs of sprawl] reach similar
conclusions: development spread out at low densities increases the
costs of public facilities."
Douglas R. Porter, in the foreword to
The Costs of Alternative Development Patterns,
by James E. Frank, 1989
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
"Studies conducted over the last 30 years have concluded that when
development is spread out at low densities, the per-unit cost of
constructing and maintaining public facilities increases. The reason
for this is that low- density development requires more miles of roads,
curbs, sewers, and water lines; and municipal services must be
delivered over a greater geographic area."
The Urban Land Institute
The Case for Multifamily Housing, 1991
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
"For the last three decades, urban economists and city planners have
recognized that unplanned sprawling residential development is very
costly. As this development extends outward from the core, city
infrastructure, service and maintenance costs increase exponentially .
. . ."
Katherine E. Stone and Dennis Martinek
"The Economic Consequences of Unmanaged Growth"
Western City, November 1991
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
"By updating and standardizing the studies Frank [cited above] found
that streets, utilities, and schools for a suburban single family
development with 3 dwelling units per acre built 5 miles from sewage
and water treatment plants in a leapfrog pattern would cost $43,381 per
dwelling in 1987 dollars. Building the same development adjacent to
existing development and near central facilities would reduce costs by
$11,597 per dwelling unit, a 27 percent reduction."
Center for Urban Studies (PSU) and Regional Financial Advisors, Inc.
DLCD's Local Government Infrastructure Funding in Oregon, 1990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
"For Loudon County, the average annual revenue shortfall or net public
be approximately three times as large ($2200 per dwelling) from the
lowest-density residential community projected in the study as from the
highest- density community ($700 per dwelling)."
The American Farmland Trust
Density-Related Public Costs, 1986
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
"The results of the study . . . show a surprising consistency:
'planning' to some extent, but higher densities to a much greater
extent, result in lower economic costs, environmental costs, natural
resource consumption, and some personal costs for a given number of
dwelling units."
Real Estate Research Corporation
The Costs of Sprawl, 1974
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Department of Land Conservation and Development, May 1992
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Revised 5/10/95
HTML formatting by Jeanne Kowalewski
fe...@mscd.edu
Langrrr <Lan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> The Pew Center. Donald, care to tell me a little about Pew? Are they
> more balanced than Brookings?
>
> The point is, as we lock up more and more land, Donald, where are
> people going to live?
>
I thought you were the one who said there was no land shortage??? In
any casae smart grown is hardly locking up all the land!
Sprawl Info sites:
http://webcom.com/~pcj/sprawl/sprawl1.html
The Sprawl Resource Guide is designed to familiarize you with several
of the key issues associated with sprawl, and direct you to some of the
wealth of information already available on the Web.
((((Sprawl is a problem that affects urban, suburban, and rural
communities. The results of sprawl range from the loss of farmland to
the decay of older urban centers. The bad news is that sprawl "Sprawl
eats up our open space. It creates traffic jams that boggle the mind
and pollute the air. Sprawl can make one feel downright claustrophobic
about our future."
-- New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, Inaugural Address,
January 20, 1998 ))))
continues to be the norm in most parts of the country. The good news
is that a growing number of people, including many citizens, are
fighting back by advocating alternatives to sprawl. ...
http://www.mcdef.org/sprawl.htm
fe...@mscd.edu
><snip>
>Donald,
>ALL of your cites appear to be OLD, some as far back as 1974 ?
>Could it be they are out of date ?
Or foretelling what is to come!!!
http://www.accessatlanta.com/news/1999/07/26/marta.html
MARTA planners predicted sprawl
By Bill Torpy, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
• AJC business news
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
The Stacks:
Find past articles from the Atlanta Journal- Constitution
Nearly 40 years ago, they were the young planners preparing the
blueprint for MARTA. They warned us then of sprawl on the horizon. That
prediction, along with many others, has been right on the money.
They told you so.
Nearly four decades ago, they predicted Atlanta's suburban explosion
would create an exhaust-choked morass if dramatic steps weren't taken.
Today, those young lions of urban prognostication are gray-haired gents
who continually witness their long-ago warnings come alive.
H. McKinley Conway is surprised by the new subdivisions sprouting from
the forests each time he pilots his airplane.
Thomas H. Roberts often gets mired in molasses-thick traffic when
driving to barbershop quartet practice in Roswell.
And all Winfield Salter has to do is peer out his Buckead office window
at the legions of suburbanites creeping north on Ga. 400.
In 1962, they were part of a blue-ribbon committee that created the
blueprint for what became MARTA. The region had just experienced what
was, for then, phenomenal suburban growth and their report concluded
with a challenge:
"The greatest single question for Atlanta's citizens to consider is
whether the region is to grow with a strong, conveniently accessible,
central city complex linked by rapid transit to outlying centers that
will grow in importance . . . or whether, without rapid transit, the
region is to grow in expanding rings of solid urbanization with
congestion in each new ring raising a barrier to the old."
Expanding rings. Solid urbanization. Congestion. Does all this sound
familiar?
"It does seem like you go around in circles," said Roberts, who in 1962
was the staff planning director for the Atlanta Regional Metropolitan
Planning Commission.
Today, sprawl is now Atlanta's bugaboo and Gov. Roy Barnes' super
agency--the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority--was the top
issue this year facing the Legislature. GRTA's goal is to cajole metro
Atlanta's political leaders into creating a real regional
transportation plan. The idea is to help correct past mistakes.
"When I was a young planner, we'd write a report starting, 'City X,Y or
Z can avoid the problems that have plagued other cities by...' "
Roberts paused and then chuckled. "Well, no city ever avoids the
mistakes of other cities."
After the initial surprise of being called after all these years,
Roberts, Conway and Salter recently reminisced over forecasts that were
right on the money--sprawl; and where they missed it--the extent of
that sprawl.
"We pretty much pictured the Alpharetta and Roswells as staying mini-
cities, more like satellite centers, with rural areas in between," said
Roberts. But the endless sea of $300,000, four-level homes? Well, who
could see that?
Today, MARTA is drawing up proposals that might one day mean a line to
Alpharetta. Back then, the most they envisioned was a bus line to
Abernathy Road, some 10 miles to the south.
The plan--or, more correctly, the ideal--was for residential clusters
to grow around each spoke of the rail and highway systems, leaving vast
amounts of greenspace in between, Conway said.
While 1962 saw the start of epochal racial change, planning group
members admit they failed to see race as a recurring barrier to
bringing rapid transit to the suburbs.
As for their greatest success? Mostly, they say it was helping make
MARTA what it became.
Their biggest disappointment? What MARTA has not become. And the
parochialism.
The study envisioned that by 1980 MARTA would extend to Marietta,
Norcross, Forest Park and North Druid Hills. By now, they figured the
system would have expanded from those points and even started
crisscrossing.
The first three cities are in counties--Cobb, Gwinnett and Clayton,
respectively--that chose not to join MARTA. And plans to extend the
rapid transit line to North Druid Hills were dropped last week after
strong neighborhood opposition. Still on the table is a proposed line
that would run along I-20 to Lithonia.
Their proposal envisioned a 66-mile system costing $292 million in 1962
dollars. So far, the 46 miles of rail have cost $2.7 billion.
"It's disappointing that the leadership of communities, of counties and
the (Atlanta Regional Commission) have not taken a regional view," said
Salter. "Hopefully, it will be overcome by GRTA."
Perhaps time has come for a wide-ranging transit system, they say.
"People don't take painful remedies until they are hurting," said
Roberts, who says GRTA is the greatest transportation initiative since
their stab at it in the 1960s.
"We were just beginning to think metro then," said Conway.
For the decade after World War II, soldiers got college degrees on the
GI Bill, started families and hurled themselves into jobs. The federal
government helped the vets build their dreams with VA home loans and by
highway construction.
The wartime service gave millions of men a taste of life outside their
own relatively small orb and they returned home, vowing to create a
better life, said Conway, 78, who served as a Navy flight trainer in
California. He returned and formed Conway Data, a planning firm that
helped businesses select sites. In 1962, he was elected to the Georgia
senate from north DeKalb, then the area's fastest growing suburb.
"We were mostly eking out a living, paying the bills," he said of his
fellow vets. "Finally, we started looking around, wondering what are we
doing?"
In the late 1950s, Atlanta city fathers gathered to discuss the rapid
suburbanization and signs that downtown was starting to decline. People
were earning more money and buying cars, freeing them up from the
increasingly sluggish bus lines and allowing them to travel where they
chose. ...
...
Tim Schreiner
Tim Schreiner
> > more balanced than Brookings?
> >
> > The point is, as we lock up more and more land, Donald, where are
> > people going to live?
> >
>
> any casae smart grown is hardly locking up all the land!
Donald, if you believe there is land shortage, you need to get up in an
airplane. Be sure to get a window seat.
What Chris may be referring to, was restricting the use of the land i.e.
ranching, farming and recreation. All of those activities require vast
amounts of land.
We have the EPA and others telling these people that they can't use portions
of their land because of some endangered species that may (or may not) have
habitat located on or near their land.
I looked at the web page you referenced about sprawl. It looks to contain
many references to East Coast states, which has different problems/solutions
than the Western states. The page had many links that were broken, articles
that I could no longer reference.
It also contained quotes from the govenors of New Jersey and Maryland. BFD.
Langrrr
fe...@mscd.edu wrote:
> In article <88jo2g$2t7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Langrrr <Lan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
they
> > more balanced than Brookings?
> >
> > The point is, as we lock up more and more land, Donald, where are
> > people going to live?
> >
>
There is no shortage of undeveloped land. There is a shortage of land
upon which, due to over-regulation, construction can occur.
> In
> any casae smart grown is hardly locking up all the land!
>
Development restrictions are locking up much-needed land.
If the land weren't desired for housing and other development, Donald,
then there would be nobody locking it up through growth restrictions.
> Sprawl Info sites:
>
> http://webcom.com/~pcj/sprawl/sprawl1.html
Which did not prove your statement above. PCJ is a journal for
planners.
fe...@mscd.edu
Go To:
ftp://pao.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/PAO/Releases/2000/00-23.htm
Lynn Chandler
Lynn.Ch...@gsfc.nasa.gov
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
(Phone: 301-286-5017) Feb. 21, 2000
RELEASE NO: 00-23
URBAN SPRAWL REDUCES ANNUAL PHOTOSYNTHETIC PRODUCTION
A study of the impact of urbanization and industrialization over the
past seven years using satellites shows that annual photosynthetic
productivity can be reduced by as much as 20 days in some areas where
urbanization is intense, not unlike turning the lights off in a
greenhouse during the growing season.
The study also reveals that urbanization may be creating vast heat
islands that can actually lengthen the growing season, but do not
improve the productivity of the land.
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (Greenbelt, Md.) researcher Dr. Marc
L. Imhoff presents his findings during a news media briefing at the
2000 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual
Meeting at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel (Washington, D.C.) on
Monday, Feb. 21 at 3 p.m. in the Wilson Room.
According to Imhoff's research, urbanization and industrialization have
resulted in the development of mega-cities and urban and suburban
sprawl. The environment is altered as a result of replacing land cover
with roads, housing, and commercial and industrial structures.
"Human survival depends on the ability of the landscape to produce
food," said Imhoff. "Food production can be fundamentally linked to
primary production or photosynthesis. If the capacity of the landscape
to carryout photosynthesis is substantially reduced - then the ability
of the planet to support human life must also be diminished."
Imhoff said data from the mid-1990's from two different satellite
systems were combined with land cover maps and census information on
population and housing to study the effect of urbanization on
photosynthetic production in the United States. Nighttime images from a
Department of Defense satellite, which show a dramatic picture of
Earth's city lights, were used to determine which areas and how much
land have been converted to urban, suburban, or industrial use. Maps
showing urban, peri-urban (suburban), and non-urbanized areas were
created from the "city-lights" satellite data.
"Using a computer, we combined the city-lights satellite data with
another type of satellite data that records a measure of 'greenness' or
photosynthetic potential of the landscape over the course of an entire
year," Imhoff said. "By merging the satellite data we could examine how
urbanization affects the potential of the land surface to carryout
photosynthesis by looking at the 'greenness' index inside and outside
the urbanized areas for the whole continental United States."
Results show that urbanization can have a measurable but variable
impact on photosynthetic productivity. Annual photosynthetic
productivity can be reduced by as much as 20 days in areas where
housing and commercial land use is very dense.
"However, we also found that in resource limited regions, human
activity can increase productivity by altering the environment," he
said. "For example, this was the case for arid and semi-arid areas
where lawn irrigation and planting changed the ecosystems from shrub
lands and desert to deciduous forests."
A most interesting finding according to Imhoff was that urbanization
seems to elongate the growing season, yet still reduces the overall
productivity of the land. "Vegetation greens up earlier in the spring
and takes longer to senesce in the fall, but has lower peak season
productivity than similar nearby areas that are not urbanized," he
said. "This could be demonstrating a profound urban heat island effect
and have implications in climate change, especially in the northern
Hemisphere where urban development is most intense."
Analysis of the data also found clear evidence that human beings
definitely tend to locate themselves on the most productive land and
that those lands are being transformed into less productive types.
"The results of this study should increase our awareness of the
importance of land use planning especially in the context of
sustainable growth and development," Imhoff stated. "Human survival
depends on photosynthesis. If urbanization and industrialization
continue, the capacity of the landscape to carry out photosynthesis is
substantially reduced. "
For supporting images:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/imagewall/AAAS