By Author:Iain MurrayJonathan H. Adler Amy Ridenour Tom Tanton Steve Hayward Randal O'Toole Michael DeAlessi Joel Schwartz IMGrant Andrew Morriss J. Bishop Grewell Chris Horner Marlo Lewis Carlo Stagnaro Pete Geddes John Downen John Baden Jane Shaw John La Plante Fred L. Smith Ken Green Ben Lieberman By Category:AgricultureAir Quality Biotechnology Brownfields CAFE Standards Climate DDT/Malaria Energy Energy Independence/National Security Environmental Alarmism Environmental Economics Environmental Risk European Union Extinction Federal Lands and Parks Federal Programs Federalism Forests International Media Oceans Pollution Population Poverty and Hunger Precautionary Principle Private Conservation Property Rights Recycling Sustainable Development Tragedy of the Commons Transportation Urban Planning and Sprawl Water Wildlife By Month:September 2007April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004
Powered by
Site design by |
Containing Sprawl: The True Cost
Posted by Amy Ridenour · 9 February 2005 · Urban Planning and Sprawl
National Center Policy Analyst Ryan Balis has a letter in the Washington Post today on the cost of containing sprawl. As per usual with environmentalist schemes, the cost of "smart growth" anti-sprawl initiatives tends to be borne by those who can least afford it. As Ryan says in his letter: The Feb. 3 Metro story on plans by the District and other area officials to control "suburban sprawl" with ever-denser development ["Building Strategies to Map Out Growth"] did not address the policy's effect on rising home prices.The National Center has published an econometrics study examining the impact of so-called "smart growth" policies. Based on an examination of the record of the policy in practice in Portland, Oregon, the study revealed that smart growth housing restrictions disproportionately penalize minorities, the poor, urban families and the young. What's more, the policies fail to generate the expected environmental benefits, actually increasing suburbanization rates while failing to reduce vehicle miles traveled or congestion. Our study asked this question: If cities nationwide had adopted Portland's smart growth policies in 1992, how would America's most disadvantaged populations been affected by 2002? We learned: 1) 260,000 minority homeowners circa 2002 would not have been able to become homeowners;We dubbed our report "Smart Growth and Its Effects on Housing Markets: The New Segregation" -- so named because smart growth policies deter minorities from home ownership at disproportionate rates. The study is available for download (PDF file) here. Cross-posted on the National Center for Public Policy Research blog.
|