RESPONSES TO INTERNET QUERY ON SUBSIDIES FOR SPRAWL
Thanks to everybody who responded.
Eban Goodstein
Eban--
Several reactions:
I'll send you a paper that Peter Gordon of USC ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
presented at our seminar two years ago entitled, "Regional Science and
Compact Cities." Gordon argues that many of the assumed subsidies to
suburban development are over-estimated and that transit is subsidized
even more heavily.
The topic has been resuscitated by an article the Journal of the
American Planning Association (1989) by Peter Newman and Jeffrey
Kenworthy "Gasoline Consumption and Cities" and was responded by Gordon
and Harry Richardson and by Jose Gomez-Ibanez of Harvard.
A classic in this subject was "The Costs of Urban Sprawl: Detailed Cost
Analysis" by the Real Estate Research Corporation in 1975 which Gordon
criticizes heavily in his article.
Tony Rufolo of our department ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is a big advocate of
impact fees to handle the infrastructure costs of suburban development.
As I understand his point and the data, suburban housing developers have
to pay fees for various uses including parks, roads, sewers, and water
supply, which amount to several thousands of dollars. This misses out
on the entire costs since under current state law, impact fees for
school development are outlawed. Hence, a portion of that burden is
borne by existing residents.
This issue has also been addressed by Metro in looking at the areas in
which the urban growth boundary should be expanded. They commissioned a
study by KT Analytics, I believe, to study the infrastructure costs on a
per unit basis of all the urban reserve areas in the tri-county area.
As you may know, we're in the middle of a draft report-final report
process on a study of the housing cost impacts of Metro's decision to
expand/not expand the Urban Growth Boundary. We were commissioned by
Don Morissette, one of the Metro commissioners. Most of our work looks
at the housing demand side and not on the infrastructure cost side.
Good luck.
Gerry
Gerry Mildner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (503) 725-5175 wk w/ voice
Urban Studies & Planning (503) 725-5199 fax
P.O. Box 751, Portland State Univ.
Portland, Oregon 97207
********
I recently saw a book entitled Privtopia. Can't remember the author. From
my cursory glance, I think there was relevant info. Think it also won a
major award in the political science profession.
********
Would references re the cost of community services (developed vs.
undeveloped land) be of help? They get at the problem from the perspective
of property tax impacts. I have several, but want to make sure you need
them before I pull them and type in the entries.
Best regards,
Donald Mansius
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**********
From: JOHN HAUGLAND <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: subsidies for sprawl -Reply
Here are a few references concerning subsidization of
sprawl:
"Moving to Corn Fields: A Reader on Urban Sprawl
and the Regional Future of Northeast Ohio" by
EcoCity Cleveland, 1996. 216-932-3007.
E-mail: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
"Alternatives to Sprawl," Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy, Cambridge, MA, 1995.
"Divided We Sprawl," The Kansas City Star, a reprint
of a series of articles that ran in December, 1995. A
good overview of historical subsidies.
"Sprawl Costs Us All: How Uncontrolled Sprawl
Increases Your Property Taxes and Threatens Your
Quality of Life," Brett Hulsey, Sierra Club Midwest
Office, Feb. 1996. 608-257-4994.
I hope these help. US EPA Region 5 is trying to
analyze sprawl in the midwest in order to develop
some approaches that it can use within its statutory
limitations. If you are interested, I'll let you know what
direction we end up taking.
I forgot to mention the 1974 report funded by EPA,
HUD and CEQ: "The Costs of Sprawl: A Detailed
Cost Analysis," prepared by the Real Estate Research
Corporation, April 1974.
-- and --
The Use of Land: A Citizens' Policy Guide to Urban
Growth; A Task Force Report Sponsored by the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund, edited by William Reilly,
Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, 1973.
While dated in time, they seem to still be current in a
large part of their content. Cheers.
***************
Moe, Richard,, "Growing Wiser: Finding Alternatives to Sprawl" perpared
for the Alternatives to Sprawl Conference, Washington D.C: The Brookings
Institute, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Lincoln Land
Institure, March 1995.
(This is more about the social costs of sprawl than ecological).
Ewing, Reid H. "Characteristics, Causeas, and Effects of Sprawl: A
Literature Review". _Environmental and Urban Issues_, Winter 1994. p
1-15.
Frank, James E. The costs of Alternative Development Patterns: A Review
of the Literature. Washington D.C. Urban Land Institute, 1989.
(this one's a goodie--he talks about the explicit and implicit costs of
sprawl, which speaks to the question of subsidization.)
Kasowski, Kevin, "The Costs of Sprawl, Revisted." _Developments_, Vol 3,
No 2. The National Growth Management Leadership Project, Sept 1992.
Audirac, Ivonne, and Maria Zifou, October 1989. Urban Development
Issues: What is controversial in Urban Sprawl? An Annotate Bibliography of
Often Overlooked Planning Literature--Bureau of Economic and Business
REsearch, College of Business Administration, University of Florida.
Real Estate Research Corporation, for the Council on Environmental
Quyality, Department of Housing and Urban Development; Environmental
Protection Agency, April 1974. The Costs of Sprawl: Environmental and
Economic Costs of Alternative Residentiall Development Patterns at the
Urban Fringe: Detailed cost analysis.
(ok, ok, it's really old, but it is still really good--you didn't say what
you were using it for, and this report gives a nice foundation for
understanding how subsidization of owner-occupied housing and automobile
use has led to low-density, single use communities has led to environmental
degradation and inflated costs of public facilities and services).
Good Luck,
Lisa A. Schweitzer,
Research Associate
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Policy Center
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242
*************
1. Just before being forced out of business the Office of Technology
Assessment published
report: The Technological Reshaping of Metropolitan America. It
includes a good
chapter on the costs of sprawl.
2. Wim Wiewel and I have just completed a report for the Chicago
Brownfields Forum where
we try to estimate externalities, public sector costs and private
gains associated
with industrial development in the central city of Chicago, the
inner suburbs and
the greenfields of the outer suburbs. There's a white paper summary
and a longer
report. You can get copies by writing to Wim at
Wim Wiewel
Office of the Special Assistant to the Chancellor
M/C 102
University of Illinois at Chicago
601 S. Morgan St., Room 2800
Chicago, IL 60607-7121
Our basic finding is that subsidies and negative externalities of
outer suburban
development are about the same order of magnitude as private
benefits. Interestingly,
the major private benefit seems to be the willingness of relatively
skilled women to
work for lower wages in the outer suburbs than they command in the
central city.
"Joe Persky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
************************
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: subsidies for sprawl
Some
Someone here at York University did a study & found that people who live
in the suburbs of Toronto are subsidized to the tune of $14,000/year.
I will have to check, however, who wrote it. The study was publicized
several months ago in NOW magazine, Toronto's answer to the Village
Voice, by former mayor and columnist John Sewell.
Shlomit Segal
***************
Charlie Komanoff, who made his name exposing the economic absurdities of
nuclear power, has been working on cars a lot lately. He has lots of
numbers on hidden costs of driving that are probably relevant to this line
of inquiry. He's at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or 212-334-9767 or 270 Lafayette
Street - #400, NYC 10012.
Doug
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice
+1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
******************
From: Kevin Devitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Eban Goodstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: subsidies for sprawl
The Rocky Mountain Institute had a research/publication project on the go
on this project last year (or the year before?), aimed at collecting this
kind of information, and I believe, aimed at putting it into a form that
would be useful for local municipal governments. I believe they have a
homepage with a publications list. Good luck with your research,
Kevin Devitt
****************
From: "Michael O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
for all new development in an attempt to recoup the capital costs of
extending service. We have SDC's in the following areas:
o Sewers (imposed by the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington
County);
o The traffic impact fee (TIF), for building streets;
o Water;
o Parks, to help acquire new properties;
o Electric power (called "line extension charges").
There is no SDC for the library. Under Oregon law, we *cannot* impose
SDC's for public safety or education. Here in Forest Grove we'll be
seeking a new tax base in May, primarily so that our police and fire
departments can keep up with our rapid growth in population. The new tax
base (an increase of $750,000 over the existing one) is largely a subsidy
for development.
public investment for extending services, there is a subsidy of some
sort. The extent of the subsidy might be determined by looking at
comparable jurisdictions that have SDC's (or equivalent).
SDC's, by law, have to be supported by findings and carefully calculated
to reflect actual costs imposed on the system. Our SDC's do not pay for
oversizing, by the way, which means that we don't recover the real costs
imposed by a development on the entire infrastructure of the city.
Some of us have grappled with the question of externalities, but it's
difficult to develop credible numbers. If you come up with anything, I'd
sure appreciate your forwarding it to me.
I hope this may be of some help to you. The City of Lake Oswego, which
is examining a "neutral" strategy for growth management, is probably
farther along than most jurisdictions in looking at these questions. You
might contact Tom Coffee, the Assistant City Manager, or Councilor Bill
Atherton for an update. A proposed resolution reads, in part:
"...promoting population growth through subsidies...or by
reducing the level of environmental protection is a form of
taxation and any decision to levy this tax should be a conscious
decision arrived at with open, fact-filled deliberation."
It would be interesting to see if Lake Oswego has developed any findings
on these questions. At least they might have more references than I can
offer right now. Good luck!
Michael O'Brien
Mayor of Forest Grove
********************
From: Chris Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eban,
The Ontario government's Gold Report (the chair of the commission was Ann
Gold) has just produced such a report. She is helping the provincial
government "update" regional government in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area)
that has already benefited from regional government, but which simply has
too many of them: 5-6, each with several local municipalities "under"
them. I will be getting a friend's CD-ROM version today and might be able
to post some stuff here re: her findings.
I don't have any contact info except to contact Ontario Gov't publications
or the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing via directory assistance.
Chris Bradshaw
Ottawa
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Eban Goodstein email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Economics phone: 503-768-7626
Lewis and Clark College fax: 503-768-7379
Portland, OR 97219
