Smart Growth Policies:
What Some Experts Say

Edward J. Dodson

[November 1999]

Comments on a paper titled "Retracting Suburbia: Smart Growth and the Future of Housing," written by Karen A. Danielson of the Urban Land Institute, Robert E. Lang of the Fannie Mae Foundation and William Fulton, a Senior Research Fellow at the Southern California Studies Center, University of Southern California. This paper is published by the Fannie Mae Foundation in Housing Policy Debate, Vol.10, Issue 3, 1999, pp.513-540.

The authors of this paper acknowledge that the loss of open space to land extensive development has evoked a societal response even as sprawl continues mostly unabated. Some 160 state and local ballot measures were adopted in 1998 "to limit urban sprawl" and a "coalition forming around the idea of limiting sprawl includes environmentalists, farmers, big-city mayors, some developers, and, perhaps, most importantly, suburban voters who appear to be 'fed up' with growth." Truly, those of us who live in the gridlock-prone suburbs are increasingly stressed by longer (in terms of both time and distance) commutes to and from the work place, collisions on the highways that result in death or permanent disability to thousands of people each year, air and noise pollution (one unregulated cause of which are gasoline-powered lawn mowers and leaf blowers) and the proliferation of isolated subdivisions that foster nothing close to a sense of community with neighbors.

One of the central questions raised in this paper is how "housing can be used to promote successful smart growth policies." How, for instance, can people be attracted to purchase housing on land that is more densely developed and with mixed uses. Regulation is one way, certainly, by establishing outer growth boundaries and then adopting higher density policies within those boundaries. Existing suburbs also resist changes in zoning that would permit higher density development because of "for of what it might do to property values" and "who may reside in such housing."

Somewhat surprisingly, Los Angeles is described as having "the highest gross population density of the nation's 20 largest metropolitan areas." And yet, when we think of sprawl Los Angeles immediately comes to mind. Along with the geography of this narrow basin – bordered by ocean on the west and desert and mountains on the east are, as we know, the socio-political constraints on how land is held, developed or hoarded. Yet, the authors manage to cite a study concluding that much of the sprawl associated with Los Angeles is associated with (caused by?) “an overabundance of low-quality commercial space."

The hope for the future is not simply a slowing or even an ending to sprawl but a particular type of development pattern: “Smart growth … represents a type of high-density development, one in which land uses are mixed in such a way that people benefit from greater built densities.” Many benefits are identified as arising from this pattern of development. At the top of the author’s lists of problems is one readers will recognize: “A speculative market for buildable lots.” Which is closely connected to the “loss of affordable housing,” the “curtailment of economic growth” and other ills. The authors correctly conclude that the solutions are to be found in the political arena. Demographics – the aging of the U.S. population – is already leading the so-called “empty nester” couples to put suburban homes (with their high demands for home and landscape mainteance) in favor of the amenity-rich townhome located in proximity to urban amenities available to those who have the incomes necessary for their enjoyment. One place where this has been happening – pointed to as a “planning model” for urban America – is the city of Portland, Oregon, with this caveat: “Urban growth boundaries work best when linked to comprehensive regional planning.” The authors note that similar efforts by San Jose in California and Seattle in Washington acted just at the worst time, when “harsh limits on land supply precisely when land costs are under the most pressure as a result of growth – a sure recipe for a housing affordability crisis.” They express great concerns over this result.

A 1998 Urban Land Institute report declared the shortage of developable land at affordable prices one of the serious results of Seattle’s restrictions on development. Portland’s government has thus far dealt with the same problem by setting aside half of all developable residential sites for the construction of multifamily and attached housing. The authors provide what they believe is a comprehensive list of public policies to mitigate the downside impact of restricting outward growth:

1. Zoning flexibility such as residential cluster and zero-lot line zoning, and mixed-use zoning allowing three or more linked land uses.
2. Urban infill and redevelopment at higher intensities than surrounding land uses, often facilitated by redevelopment agencies.
3. Creative zoning that encourages diversity of housing opportunities (through “inclusionary” zoning), innovative subdivision designs (through cluster and zero-lot-line zoning), and clear separations between potentially incompatible uses (through nontraditional and “exclusive use” zoning).
4. Minimum density and intensity zoning that assures that land intended for higher density development such as apartments and town houses is not developed as low-density, single-family housing.
5. Neighborhood conservation: targeted infill of vacant lots with compatible housing, allowing accessory residential housing in existing older and larger homes, and providing sufficient residential choices to allow for life-cycle and lifestyle housing.
6. Strategic uses of new communities, such as transit-oriented developments near transit stations and New Urbanist communities elsewhere.

In conclusion, the authors urge a greater commitment to higher density development accompanied by the those amenities that make living close together both enjoyable and beneficial. Despite the above references to land prices, there is no discussion of what public policies might actually bring land prices down and keep them down, or even a mention of this as a desirable public policy objective.

Housing Policy Debate includes responses from two persons: Gregg Easterbrook of The New Republic and Michael S. Carliner of the National Association of Home Builders. Easterbrook boldly declares suburban sprawl as “one of the key engines of the national economy” threatened if smart growth policies take hold. He comments on the extent to which existing suburbanites have come together in opposition to more intensive development in order to preserve the character of their communities, sprawling surface parking lots and all. Sprawl, states Easterbrook, cannot be stopped and should not be stopped because sprawl is the answer “to grant minorities, immigrants, and others the chance to live in the same favored circumstances the current generation of suburban dwellers now enjoys.” Is sprawl absorbing the nation’s land surface? Not at all, notes Easterbrook. The entire developed area of the United States occupies only 3.4% of the total land mass. On the other hand, he makes no mention of the public revenue needed to repeatedly recreate the public goods necessary to support new communities. Affluence and the increasing number of automobiles on the roadways create the impression that sprawl is out of control, he concludes. And, in this observation he makes a good point. A typical suburban family with teenage or adult children living at home may have not two but three or four automobiles. With so many families of two-income earning adults, daily usage of the automobile has dramatically increased during the last thirty years.

One might reasonably expect an economist working for the National Association of Home Builders to have something to say about land costs. In his rather brief comments, Michael Carliner’s main point is that most of those of us who own single-family houses on relatively large lots continue to vote with our financial decisions to maintain this type of development. Even lower income households will, given the choice, commute further and accept fewer community amenities in exchange for a large piece of land.

Clearly, the main paper and these two responses are disheartening, in the sense that these writers are so representative of the housing and economic development community. Remarkably rare among those with years of experience and/or academic credentials is there an understanding of the insight broadly shared by readers of GroundSwell: that a high annual tax on the rental value of land parcels, combined with the removal of annual taxes from buildings will more quickly create the type of communities desired – and reduce pressure on remaining open space and agricultural land – than any of the measures being proposed or utilized. Despite the reference to comprehensive planning, most of the shifts in public policy designed to curb sprawl fall into the same pattern of disjointed incrementalism that has characterized decision-making in the United States during the twentieth century.