Urban Planning and Sprawl Archives

Randall O'Toole has published a commentary today on the Globe and Mail website -- "A plague of planners" -- which critiques centralized urban planning by government planners.

He uses the example of Portland, Oregon, which has been touted as a model for "smart growth" -- but which has led to high housing costs, leading families with children "to flee to nearby (and relatively unregulated) Vancouver, Wash., and more distant suburbs where they can afford a home with a yard."

The UN's 3rd World Urban Forum concludes today in Vancouver, Canada (daily bulletins about the Forum available here).

Earlier this week, the Forum was criticised by a former slum-dweller, Jockin Arputham, President of India's National Slum Dwellers Federation -- who said that delegates were more keen on writing reports than ending poverty.

Arputham said that water and sanitation were chief among the concerns of slum dwellers. Laveesh Bhandari and Aarti Khare recently wrote about water and sanitation in urban India, in my book The Water Revolution. They show that informal entrepreneurs are, to some extent, addressing the artificial water scarcity prevalent in slums in New Delhi.

In the Spring 2006 edition of Cato’s Regulation magazine, Randall O'Toole of the Thoreau Institute has written an excellent book review – of Robert Bruegmann's book, Sprawl: A compact history.

The Supreme Court's Kelo decision provoked outrage in most ideological corners. Environmentalist groups were conspicuously absent from Kelo's critics, however. This was surprising, as the unconstrained use of eminent domain to promote economic development poses significant risks to environmental conservation, or so Ilya Somin and I argue in "The Green Costs of Kelo: Economic Development Takings and Environmental Protection. A draft of the paper is now available on SSRN here. The abstract is below.
UPDATE: Ilya's also blogged on our study at the Volokh Conspiracy here.

Glenn Reynolds on Robert Bruegmann's new book, Sprawl: A Compact History.

In The Long Emergency, James Howard Kunstler argues that "peak oil" will soon lead to apocalyptically high energy prices that will destroy the suburbs and put Wal-Mart out of business. "Finally!" says one anti-auto group, cheerfully.

Kunstler's peak-oil theory may be no more than wishful thinking. His case critically depends on four strong assumptions:

1. We are running out of oil;
   
2. There are no substitutes for oil;
   
3. Higher prices will lead people to drive less; and
   
4. Less driving will force people to return to the cities.

If any one of these assumptions is wrong, Kunstler's argument falls apart. A paper I have written questions all four assumptions.

1. While extraction costs may moderately increase fuel prices, the world has sufficient known reserves to last for many decades.
2. Substitutes include solar, nuclear, and coal, but the first "substitute" will be the use of more fuel-efficient cars.
3. Americans will respond to sustained higher fuel costs more by cutting back on other transport costs, such as by keeping their cars a little longer or buying less luxurious cars, than by driving less.
4. To the extent that people do drive less, they could actually accelerate the suburbanization and exurbanization trends that the New Urbanists oppose.

Government policies based on a presumption of peak oil are likely to do far more harm than good to our cities and our economy. For more information, see Does Peak Oil Spell Death for the Suburbs?

In yesterday's edition of The Times, economics reporter Gabriel Rozenberg provides a great critique of the British government's land use planning system and the 'Green Belt' surrounding London and other British cities (which apparently celebrates its 50th anniversary this month).

Members of British public, and particularly the elite, are horrified at the mere mention of scrapping the planning system -- yet as Rozenberg notes, chaos does not reign in other parts of the economy when prices are allowed to govern demand and supply for scarce resources. In the case of land use, 'Prices allow a much more sophisticated level of co-ordination, in which demand for houses, offices and open spaces are all stirred into the mix.'

He continues:

Planning a town, working out how to mix homes, infrastructure and open spaces, is difficult, but not impossible. The problem is that there is only ever one planner — the Government. To scrap state planning would bring about a renaissance in a forgotten world from a century ago, when private corporations bought land speculatively and created garden cities and suburbs, many with restrictive covenants to keep them from decline. Competition between planners — something the current system lacks — drove up standards of design.

C. Kenneth Orski and Jane Shaw have a piece today in the Rocky Mountain News on smart growth's failure to gain traction across the United States. According to Orski and Shaw, "[T]he latest evidence, including recent U.S. Census Bureau data documenting demographic trends since the 2000 census, suggests that the smart-growth movement is having little influence on reshaping America's urban landscape."

Two weeks ago I had a chance to visit Halle-Neustadt, which an urban planner once told me was one of the most sustainable (i.e., least auto-dependent) cities in the world. It turns out it was only sustainable when its people were kept oppressed and poor by East German dictators; as soon as Germany reunified, the residents either bought cars or simply moved out.

The principles behind Halle-Neustadt are described in detail in a 1971 book titled The Ideal Communist City, which was written by planners from the University of Moscow. Everyone should live in mixed-use, mixed-income communities close to mass transit, said the book, while autos should be discouraged because they created too much congestion.

These principles are nearly identical to those of "smart-growth" planners. The only significant differences are that smart growth allows for some variation in the size of homes and prefers mid-rise construction (4 to 6 stories) instead of high rise. But both the communists and the smart-growth planners believe that an elite should decide how other people should live and move around.

You can read my full report of Halle-Neustadt and the Ideal Communist City in my Vanishing Automobile update #53.

Last week, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down land-use regulations designed to curb development in Loudon County, Virginia. This was not a sweeping victory for property rights, however, as the ruling was largely based on procedural grounds. The rules in question had been adopted without adequate public notice. Nonetheless, the folks at Gristmill are none too happy.

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.

Suppressing housing development as demand for it grows will cause prices to skyrocket. This is evident in Portland, Ore., long considered a model for "smart growth" planning. There, fewer than half the homes in 2002 were affordable to median-income earners. The city plunged from the 55th-most-affordable city in the country in 1991 to 163rd place in those rankings in 2002.

Is the Washington area going to follow in forcing out thousands of low- and middle-income residents?

Ryan Balis
Policy Analyst
National Center for Public Policy Research
Washington

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;

2) One million homeowners of all races circa 2002 would not have been able to afford their homes by that year;

3) The average home price in 2002 would have been $10,000 more expensive;

4) The average cost of renting a home or apartment in 2002 would have increased six percent over its actual price.

The study is available for download (PDF file) here.

Cross-posted on the National Center for Public Policy Research blog.

On February 22, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Kelo v. New London, a case challenging the use of eminent domain for economic development. Those interested in Kelo may also be interested in today's conference on "Eminent Domain, Urban Renewal & The Constitution." The conference considers both the constitutional and policy aspects of eminent domain, particularly the use of eminent domain for economic development. The proceedings are viewable via webcast here. The conference is co-sponsored by the Case Center for Business Law & Regulation and the Federalist Society Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group. Speakers include Thomas Merrill (Columbia University), Tim Sandefur (Pacific Legal Foundation), Sam Staley (Reason Public Policy Institute), Jeffrey Finkle (International Economic Development Council), and Peter Byrne (Georgetown University).

Senator Dole placed a call to Andrew Card before Christmas asking the White House to consider Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory for EPA administrator, among other positions.

UPDATE: It appears that the majority of McCrory's federal and environmental experience has come in the form of lobbying for dollars for light rail transit and "smart growth" initiatives. See, for instance, his congressional testimony from March of 1997. The only difference between McCrory's "conservative" smart growth and other smart growth policies is that he seeks more of the subsidy dollars for developers directly instead of city regulatory coffers --- though he certainly hasn't been squeamish about soliciting federal dollars for the city of Charlotte itself. One thing seems rather certain: there certainly would be nothing conservative about the budget for a McCrory EPA.

Neil Pierce, a pro-smart-growth writer, worries that Oregon's passage of measure 37 could "blow a hole in the side of the nation's surging smart-growth movement." Measure 37, of course, requires state or local governments to compensate landowners whose property values have been reduced by land-use regulation.

Pierce has "visions of residential subdivisions starting to sweep across the rural Willamette Valley, of Cascade Mountain vistas spoiled by an eruption of Burger Kings and Wal-Marts, of pear orchards sprouting crops of McMansions." This is just the type of fear-mongering that land-use activists have always used. In fact:
* A study commissioned by a smart-growth group concluded that, without land-use planning, urbanization would cover only 1 percent of the Willamette Valley that wouldn't otherwise be developed.
* Almost all of the Cascade Mountains are owned by the federal government.
* Pear (and other fruit) orchards probably cover more land than all the cities and towns in Oregon, so are not in any danger of development.

Pierce repeats claims of land-use proponents that measure 37 was somehow deceptively written to make it appear innocuous. Says one, "The problem is that what it means is insidious." The only insidious part is that land-use planners can no longer push people around.

California has no statewide land-use planning. It is also the nation's most populated state. Yet 94 percent of its people live on just 5 percent of its land. California's rural population density of 13 people per square mile is not much more than Oregon's 8 per square mile. (Census data documenting these and similar numbers for every state are posted on the American Dream Coalition web site.) Colorado, which also lacks any statewide planning, has a rural population of just 7 per square mile even though its average density (including rural and urban areas) is much greater than Oregon's. So oppressive planning is not essential to protect farm lands, vistas, or fruit orchards.

Finally, Pierce brings up the old "givings" argument, i.e., that government actions enhance the value of some properties, implying that this makes it okay to take away the value of other people's property. His examples are "highway interchanges, colleges and laboratories and stadiums." Frankly, we can do without any more government-funded stadiums and probably without any more government-funded (i.e., non-tolled) highways. But this is beside the point.

The real point is, if someone does something on their land (such as build a nice house) that produces real benefits for them, and I also happen to benefit (because their house upgrades my neighborhood), they don't have a right to demand I pay them. But if someone puts in a polluting factory that reduces the value of my property, I do have a right to compensation or correction of such a nuisance. In the same way, if a transportation agency builds a highway because it will improve transportation, and it is paid for out of user fees, they don't need to make me pay. But if government planners tell me I can't use my land for some purpose in order to benefit the "public interest," they do have to compensate me.

At least, they do in Oregon.

The American Farmland Trust reports that two-thirds of the state and local open space initiatives that included funding for farmers and ranchers passed in last month's elections. The Trust notes that this is down from 89 percent in the 2000 elections.

The decline is probably the result of two factors. A decline in exuberance about the economy made voters more stingy with their pocket books. And two, as David Goldberg of Smart Growth America, commented, "My sense is the low-hanging fruit has been picked." In other words, the marginal value of extra farmland protection declined as more voters began to feel that they have already protected sufficient areas for open space.

While these initiatives are basically subsidies to agricultural landowners, at least the local initiatives are passed primarily by the people who pay the taxes to support them. Thus, the link between the cost of the "open space" and those receiving the benefit is fairer and more direct. This removes some of the cognitive disconnect in that people who vote for the initiatives understand that what they are voting for will come directly out of their pocketbook. They aren't spending other people's money to the same extent that state and national spending does, which is why I think we will continue to see increased frugality in these initiatives over time.

As a side note, in states with high property taxes like Montana, the initiatives may be seen as an inefficient way of shifting some of the tax burden from owners of land to those earning income from labor and those holding their capital in non-land assets.

A recently published coffee table book on the architecture of The Sea Ranch is filled with glorious pictures of this fascinating coastal development community in Northern California. The November issue of Reason Magazine has my review of the book, which not only has lots of pretty pictures but also provides an insider's view of the environmental policy debates that profoundly affected The Sea Ranch, including the creation of the notorious California Coastal Commission.

The title of the article is Cramped Style: How regulators derailed California’s most environmentally progressive development.

Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Kelo et al v. City of New London. This is an important property rights case. As Lyle Denniston reports on SCOTUSBlog:

The New London property rights case is a highly significant test of the meaning of two words in the Constitution. It involves the scope of the Fifth Amendment protection against government taking of private property, unless the government plans a “public use” of what it has seized. The amendment also requires compensation for what has been taken, but that is not at issue in this case.

The Connecticut Supreme Court, in a 4-3 ruling on March 9, ruled that property may be taken for a public use so long as the result will be to create “public benefits,” such as creation of new jobs, increasing tax and other revenue, and contributing to urban revitalization. . . .

The New London case grows out of the efforts by a private corporation to redevelop an area of 90 acres in what is called the Fort Trumbull section of the city, along the Thames River. The project area has been occupied for years by private homes and small businesses. The development corporation, using property-seizure power delegated to it, planned seven parcels of renovation, with a new hotel and conference center, a high-tech research office building, parking and related services for a state park in the parcel, and other office space. Seven property owners challenged the seizure of their property, arguing that the project was not a “public use.”

The property-owners’ appeal to the Supreme Court said: “This is not a case that concerns the use of eminent domain for a traditional public use such as a road or public building; nor does it concern the use of eminent domain for the purpose of urban renewal/blight removal…Rather, this case presents a vital constitutional question that this Court has never before addressed: whether the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment…authorizes the exercise of eminent domain to help a government increase its tax revenue and to create jobs.”

Today I'm attending the Claremont Institute conference on Defending the Constitution: Property Rights & the New Regulation. Topics to be covered span from property theory, zoning, land-use controls and "smart growth," among other things. I will update this post throughout the day to comment on the proceedings.

As I noted here, the Michigan Supreme Court recently overturned the infamous Poletown decision in Wayne v. Hathcock. While most free-market types see this case as an important victgory for property rights, not everyone agrees.

The Detroit News published dueling op-eds on the decision, one by George Mason law professor Ilya Somin, defending the ruling, and another by defended the ruling, and another by Wayne State professor John Mogk defending the use of eminent domain for economic development.

Courtesy of the Volokh Conspiracy, the debate continues:
Somin responds to Mogk here.
Mogk responds in turn here.
Somin's final rejoinder is here.

Some interesting data from urban planning expert Wendell Cox and Joshua Utt of the Heritage Foundation in The Costs of Sprawl Reconsidered: What the Data Really Show.

The analysis was spurred by the cost arguments of the 'Smart Growth" movement. As they summarize,

Much of the justification for the current campaign against the low-density (sprawling) urban development that Americans and Western Europeans1 prefer is based upon assumptions that it is more costly than the more dense development of central cities.

Variously described as "smart growth," "growth management," or "New Urbanism," the movement would force people to live at higher densities, in multi-family units, townhouses, or clustered single-family developments--while placing significant restrictions on the expansion of suburban commercial development

The rationales offered for limiting suburban housing choices are many, various, and of questionable validity. At one point or another over the past half-decade, critics of suburban development have cited its adverse impact on "food security," wildlife, and air and water quality. Critics of suburban expansion even contend that suburbs contribute to serial killings, teenage angst, social alienation, low wages, obesity, asthma, and higher taxes. This last item, the belief that lower-density, "more sprawling" development fuels higher government expenditures, is the most common reason elected officials in many municipalities adopt measures to limit housing growth in their communities.

Typical of the concern that low-density development raises municipal costs--and therefore local taxes--is a contention in a recent, federally funded study of sprawl and costs that claims the United States "no longer can pay for the infrastructure necessary to develop farther and farther out in metropolitan areas."

THis past week, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned the infamous Poletown decision that allowed the city of Detroit to raze an entire neighborhood to pave the way (quite literally) for a General Motors plant. The decision, Wayne v. Hathcock, is potentially quite significant, as there is an increasing amount of litigation challenging the use of eminent domain for "economic development." Eugene Volokh quotes the additional thoughts of George Mason law professor Ilya Somin on the decision here.