View
221
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Rural Residential Growthand Land Use Issues
Lori GarkovichProfessor, Extension Rural Sociologist
Department of Community and Leadership DevelopmentUniversity of Kentucky
November, 2003
Population Trends in the South
The South accounted for nearly half (11 million) of total US population growth (24 million) during the 1990s
The South accounted for over 70% of the net migration growth during the 1990s
The majority of the population growth in the South occurred in metro counties
Since the 2000 Census, estimates are that the South accounted for more than half of the nation’s nonmetro population gains
Population Trends in the South
Two patterns of population change Rural population loss counties Rural population growth counties
Two patterns of sprawl “Urban” sprawl counties - adjacent to metro
places “Rural” sprawl counties - redistribution of
population within county boundaries
Population Loss Nonmetro Counties
¼ of nonmetro counties in the US lost population during the 1990s
These counties are characterized by Remote location distant from metro centers Low population density Limited natural amenities (e.g., climate, topography,
presence of lakes) Many of these are also agriculturally-dependent not
because they are exceptionally suitable for agriculture but because they have no other alternative industrial sectors
Population Loss Nonmetro Counties
In the South, the high population loss counties are found in the Mississippi Delta, the Black Belt, Central Appalachia, and west Texas
140 (of 1,021) nonmetro counties in South have had persistent out-migration since 1970.
These 140 counties are also characterized by high poverty rates, low human capital attainment and high proportions of minorities in their populations
Areas of Population Gain:Remote “Frontier” Counties
Roughly ¼ of the remote, thinly settled and low amenity nonmetro counties gained population during the 1990s rather than losing population
In these counties, the impetus for growth was not development actions within the county but decisions by external agents which produced new conditions Casinos Prisons Meat packing plants or new feed lots Creation of lakes
Areas of Population Gain:Urban Sprawl Counties
The vast majority of nonmetro counties in the South that experienced population growth during the 1990s are adjacent to metro counties
The majority of these in-migrants are moving to a residential choice, but continue to work in a more urbanized place
Areas of Population Gain:Urban Sprawl Counties
Renkow notes that rural population growth in the South is clearly linked to the geographic expansion of urban labor markets
This is evidenced by the fact that nearly a third of the rural labor force commute out-of-county for employment
Areas of Population Change:Rural Sprawl Counties
Rural sprawl is the shift of population among political boundaries – shifting the pieces on the geographic chess board
Rural sprawl reflects the fact that community boundaries are more permeable to people and economic activities than in the past
Areas of Population Change:Rural Sprawl Counties
People living in a rural town move to the open country
People move to a rural county but do not settle in town but in the open country
Service area boundaries extend beyond a particular community The Wal-Mart effect Rural hospital service areas Rural labor market areas
Urban and Rural Sprawl
Urban and rural sprawl will continue given the economic incentive to seek lowest costs for residential, industrial and commercial development and the construction of roads to facilitate it
In other words, sprawl will not go away if we ignore it In a list of cities most affected by sprawl, 10 Southern cities
are among the top 20 cities listed by size Atlanta and Fort Lauderdale (top 10 cities of 1 mil+) Orlando, Austin and West Palm Beach (top 5 cities 1/2-1 mil) McAllen TX, Raleigh NC, Pensacola, Dayton FL and Little
Rock AK (the top five cities of 200,000-1/2 mil)
The Consequences of Sprawl
The conversion of land to urban uses
The economic costs of delivering public services to geographically dispersed households
The social, family and community impacts
The consequences of sprawl -Land conversions
From 1970 to 1990 : The population of the US increased by 45
million (22.5%) and... The urban population increased by 36 million
(24.2% but... The density of the urban population declined
by 23.2% because... Land in urban areas increased by 21 million
acres, a 60% increase in total area
The consequences of sprawl -Land conversions
Every hour of every day, 50 acres of prime farmland are lost to development
Nearly 80% of the acreage used for housing constructed since 1994 - about 2 million acres - is land outside urban areas. Almost all this land (94%) is in lots of 1 acre or larger with 57% in lots of 10+ acres
During the late 1990s, about 1.4 million acres a year were being added to urban uses in the South, the highest rate of conversion of any region
The consequences of sprawl -Land conversions
Between 1992 and 1997, 6 of the top ten states in conversion of land from farms
and woodlands to urban development were in the South (TX, GA, FL, NC, TN, SC)
7 of the top ten states in percentage increase in developed land were in the South (WV, GA, TN, SC, MS, NC, AL)
6 of the top ten states in acres developed per person were in the South (GA, WV, SC, TN, MS, NC)
The consequences of sprawl -Land conversions
Since 1970, the population of the Atlanta metro area rose 161%, and land within the metro area rose 254% while the population density of the metro area declined by 27% In 1970, the Atlanta metro area with a population of
1.4 million covered 1,727 sq. miles and 5 counties In 2000, the Atlanta metro area had 4 million people
and stretched 50 miles from north to south and covered 6,126 sq. miles in 20 counties
The consequences of sprawl -Land conversions
Between 1970 and 1990: Nashville’s population grew by 28% while its
urbanized area grew by 41% Charlotte’s population grew by 63% while its
urbanized area grew by 129%! The dominant pattern of development is to
convert “cheap” rural land to urban uses
The consequences of sprawl -Land conversions
Land use conversions occur at the urban edge -- whether the edge of Atlanta or Somerset KY
While the conversion may hardly be noticeable in an Atlanta, the smaller the community the more visible and often controversial are the changes
Finally, since a substantial amount of rural and much of the urban sprawl is occurring in communities with few if any policies for land management, residents are more affected by what can be called “random” land conversions
The consequences of sprawl -Land conversions
Directly, the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses often leads to: Trespass, vandalism, theft, and liability
concerns for farmers Soil erosion and increased flooding during and
after the time of development Competition for road between commuters and
farm vehicles
The consequences of sprawl -Land conversions
Indirectly, sprawl reduces the agricultural potential of remaining farms Restrictions on types and timing of agricultural
activities due to nonfarm neighbors complaints or law suits
Reduction in land available for agricultural use due to diversion to or idling in anticipation of urban use
Increased costs of farm land still available to agriculture due to comparative pricing
Limits on using newer technologies that require more land to achieve full economies of scale
The Consequences of sprawl -Economic costs
There is an overwhelming belief that residential growth pays for itself through higher revenues from property taxes
But property tax revenues are only one component of the public balance sheet -- we need to evaluate the public costs of growth
With few exceptions, property tax revenues lag behind demand for local public services expenditures
The Sprawl Balance Sheet
An acre of land in agricultural use –
For every $1 in property tax revenues
Receives $0.21 to $0.36 in public services expenditures
The same acre of land now in low density residential use –
For every $1 in property tax revenues
Receives $1.05 to $1.36 in public services expenditures
The Consequences of sprawl -Economic costs
Low density residential development - sprawl - increases the costs of:
Providing police, fire, and EMS services School transportation services School facilities and operations Public water service - extending water lines,
expanding treatment capacity Parks and recreation facilities and programs
Calculating the economic costsof sprawl
Picture a rural county road with 10 homes in 1990 and 14 in 2000. The four additional houses annually will: Increase demand for water service by 227,760
gallons (56,940 gal/yr/HH or, given a HH size of 2.6 persons x 60 gal/person/day x 365 days)
Generate 11,972 more day trips on the road Generate 16,320 pounds more of solid waste
The average new single family home built in Washington State entails a
capital investment in public facilities and infrastructure of $83,000 per home for schools; electric power generation;
water; sewers; solid waste disposal; police, fire, and EMS services; parks
and recreation; and, new off-site transportation facilities.
The Cost of Growth in Washington State, 2000
“In South Carolina, if sprawl continues unchecked,
statewide infrastructure costs for the period 1995-2015 will be more than $56 billion, or $750 per citizen -- every year for the
next 20 years.”
Burchell and Shad, 1998
“A 1989 Florida study demonstrated that planned,
concentrated growth would cost the taxpayers 50 to 75 percent
less than continued sprawl.”
American Planning Association,Knowledge Exchange, http:www.planning.org
The Consequences of Sprawl -Social Costs
Low density residential development increases Response times - 600% higher for police, 50%
higher for ambulance and 33% higher for fire The number of vehicles on roads Commuting times and average hours spent in
vehicles Air pollutants discharged Smog produced
The Consequences of Sprawl -Social Costs
Low density residential development leads to: Decline of Main Street and downtown retail
sectors Conflict between farm and nonfarm neighbors Loss of place identity and unique community
qualities Creation of a sense of “anywhere anyplace
USA”
Summary
Studies in communities with strong growth management policies show that property values rise as the area is defined as a more desirable place to live
Polls and ballot initiatives show that the public is increasingly dissatisfied with sprawl In November 1998, 72% of the 240 ballot initiatives
related to limiting urban growth or preserving open space or agricultural land passed authorizing $7.5 billion in spending
Ballot initiatives continue to be successful in localities and states
Public Perspectives on Sprawl
“Do you favor or oppose the establishment of a zone or greenbelt around your community where new homes, businesses or stores could not be built on land that is currently undeveloped?”
Favor: 57% all - 59% urban 62% suburban - 52% rural CNN/Time Poll, 1999
Public Perspectives on Sprawl
“Do you favor or oppose using taxpayer money to buy undeveloped land to keep it free from residential and commercial development?”
Favor 44% all - 42% urban 49% suburban - 39% rural CNN/Time Poll, 1999
Summary
Urban and rural sprawl is consequential for the economics of rural local governments, the viability of agriculture, and the quality of life in rural communities
The public is increasingly dissatisfied with the consequences of sprawl
Yet because of the lack of planning and a vision for alternative patterns of development, sprawl seems to be the only option
Summary
While the belief “residential growth” remains strong, more local officials are coming to recognize that the benefits may not offset the costs
But there is a complimentary belief among many public officials that “the people, my constituents” don’t want land use planning and growth management
Unfortunately, while we struggle to decide for sure what we want and how we ought to accomplish it, our communities are changing in fundamental ways that will have land, economic and social consequences for decades to come