I just made an executive decision as I wrote this. I’m going to talk about the issues that prompted the post tonight and make my counter-arguments Sunday. Local growth is making my weekend shorter.
Is growth good? That was the question asked last night as a number of Delmarva environmental organizations and Wor-Wic Community College welcomed noted community planner and author Eben Fodor to speak before an audience of about 70 people.
It was a happy coincidence that prompted me to move this post back a few days to check out Fodor’s viewpoints. The original impetus for writing this was a Daily Times article about a bid by Wicomico County’s Rural Areas Planning Committee to do away with cluster projects in agricultural areas along with a possible change to the transfer development rights that landowners currently have but do not use.
While the headline screamed “Limit housing or face ‘death of agriculture,’ committee says” it seems to me that the intention is to actually kill housing projects in agricultural areas, forcing developers to cut the number of houses they can erect in a development. Assuming a 100 acre parcel, current cluster zoning allows 33 houses to be built. Under the proposal, that number is at most ten, one house per ten acres on a lot that’s one acre or less per house. While I’m not convinced that agricultural areas are the best places to put housing, the fact remains that landowners should have the right to maximize their property’s potential and this edict would dampen the possible value of their land to a developer unless they wished to attempt a zoning change.
So I found the timing of Mr. Fodor’s visit to be quite handy for adding a viewpoint that was likely to compete with mine, particularly when I found out as part of his presentation that I was a “special interest” as an architect. Overall, the premise of his visit was to explain some of the “myths” about growth. Seeing that he had about an hour to speak, he only touched heavily on a few: our changing landscape, the cost of growth, growth creating jobs, and the politics of growth. The last part was where I was deemed a “special interest.”
While Eben had a lot of numbers concerning growth, he noted that many of the studies that covered the topic were several years old, with a possible explanation being that the people studying the trends made the developers angry by disclosing the accelerating pace. In one example, Fodor cited a study where growth had been pegged at 2.2 million acres a year from 1992-97, a pace dwarfing the previous decade’s. Another way to put it was that an area the size of Indiana was being developed every decade, while the aggregate area of impervious surface nationwide was now about the same as the area of the entire state of Ohio. So call that hitting me where I lived.
Two of the key “myths” as he posited were that growth creates tax revenue and jobs. He argued that neither was true. Instead, he suggested that the revenue deficit created by growth manifested itself in one of four ways: higher taxes on individuals, more debt for the community to pay off, an “infrastructure deficit”, or reduction in services. Eben also claimed that larger cities paid higher taxes per capita and taxes increased faster with quicker growth. As for putting a price tag on growth, Fodor stated that an average house had a service cost to taxpayers anywhere between $25,000 and $90,000 depending on what facililities were already present.
Eben continued his talk by going into the politics of growth, the part that made me perk up and listen of course. According to him, those in favor of land development were the “most powerful political force” at the local level, while on the other hand the public at-large generally felt that growth was a problem. Using a survey of Eastern Shore voters, Fodor said that 54% of our area felt the biggest problem was something related to growth (sprawl, environment, traffic, etc.) while just 11% cited the economy. He later made the claim that growth begats anti-tax sentiment.
It was in this last portion of his presentation where he started showing his far-left leanings more and more, as he sought to address the problem of developer money in politics by instituting campaign finance limits and public financing. More red meat for the “watermelon” crowd came during the question and answer period when Fodor cited:
- a need to “give other species more room”;
- zero population growth policy was “working” in Europe and was “functional” and “viable”, and;
- we needed to “look at (the) demand side” when it came to energy.
If you watch the rebroadcast on PAC 14, you’ll see that I made it up to the microphone to ask a question, but I stumbled around a bit trying to figure out how to ask it intelligently. I really had two somewhat related questions regarding where the line was between stopping growth vs. private property rights and also about the government buying land to create an open space buffer (as Maryland has a program to do just that – Fodor also spoke about a city in New York he claimed saved taxpayer money by purchasing a greenbelt of land to surround it.)
Eben didn’t really answer the first part, but stated to the second part that the loss of tax base would be made up because the land surrounding the open space would become more valuable. With that, I’m going to wrap up this half of the post and address what I think about some of what he said along with the Daily Times article I spoke of above in a later post.
Was there his show — Mr. Fodor hit the nail on the head about how current residents are subsidizing new development in various ways — he must have had Salisbury in mind with its massive TIF deals like on the old mall, and developer reimbursements. What a voice of fresh air. Didn’t see any of our leading developers and only a few of the camp followers — archiects, engineers, attorneys, etc.
Please let us know when this presentation will be on PAC-14, because many folks could not be there to see it live.
Someone who was there says that Mr. Fodor could have used Salisbury as a case in point for his critique of local government officials. Uncontrolled growth and development has resulted in overcrowded roads and schools and a much higher tax rate — up by double digits this year and more than 25% in the past 5 years. And the City is controlled by developers and their lackeys and continues to subsidize growth with TIF’s and reimbursements. It is even building a “road to nowhere” to create still more development.
I wonder if the “WET” people told him about “Sprawlsbury”?
Better Not Bigger
by Eben Fodor
New Society Publishers, 1999 ($14.95)
Reviewed by NPG Executive Director Sharon McCloe Stein
American attitudes toward growth reflect a great deal of ambivalence. Many see economic and population growth as good business, more consumers, more workers, more prosperity ÷ a rising tide that lifts all boats. For those who directly profit, growth is an engine of expanding wealth and power, with many politicians seeing it as the ticket to re-election and just as importantly a well-funded war chest. For most others, growth is a fact of life, something to be endured, the inevitable price of progress. For most ordinary American families living in sprawl ravaged communities, however, growth has a dark underside that has, until recently, received far too little exposure.
Now, Eben Fodor, who describes himself as a “public interest community planning consultant (i.e., not a development planner),” has written a book for those who want realistic alternatives to the prospect of never-ending growth. Better Not Bigger is a thoroughly accessible, information- filled, action guide that definitively exposes the myth that growth is an unalloyed good. His analysis of the money, economic forces, and political alliances that drive growth clearly delineates who are the real winners and losers. As Fodor follows the money, we find that it is not the long-term well being of American communities but an unwritten and too often unexamined mantra “In Growth We Trust” that drives the local politics of growth. Whether it is community activists or the increasing number of local decision-makers who are looking to battle the powerful and well-funded development interests, this is a book that provides the answers and arguments necessary to be an effective advocate for rejecting the growth imperative and moving toward truly sustainable communities.
Just as growth consumes communities piece by piece, Fodor meticulously takes apart the growth machine and exposes its inner workings. At the heart of this machine are what he describes as the “The Twelve Big Myths of Growth.” One by one, he addresses and carefully provides a detailed refutation of growth’s core ideology, myths such as: “growth provides needed tax revenues, we have to grow to provide good jobs, we have to Îgrow or die’.”
Fodor pays special attention to one of today’s most prevalent myths ÷ that “smart” growth is the answer. If only we do a better job at planning, create some green space, revitalize the urban cores, “smart growth” can provide it all, good jobs, affordable housing, an increased quality of life and a healthy environment. He calls this “The Catch 22 of Growth: the better you make your community, the more people will want to live there, until it is no better than any other community.” Far too many communities have been seduced by the belief that they can have their cake and eat it too, that they can somehow manage growth, mitigate the worst impacts of sprawl and still preserve quality of life and the environment. This book is a powerful exposition of the fundamental contradictions that underlie the rhetoric and often self-serving promises of smart growth apologists.
Much of the hard-hitting analysis on the costs of growth came from a groundbreaking study that Fodor did on the infrastructure costs to local communities of single family homes in Oregon. In what is perhaps the best in depth examination of the costs of growth to local communities available, Fodor’s detailed analysis is a virtual activist primer on determining the costs of growth to any community across the country.
This book is far more than just a critique of growth. Its greatest value is to grassroots organizers, environmentalists, and other activists who want to get involved and do something to help their local communities put the brakes on growth. Much of the latter half of the book is a detailed nuts and bolts look at what local communities can do to control and in many cases stop growth on the local level. Unlike the growth accommodation masquerading as smart growth so fashionable among some national and state political leaders, Fodor recognizes that simply making the best of a bad situation is not enough. He is keenly aware that the main battles over growth are won and lost in thousands of local communities across the nation. This book also provides the analysis, information and resources to successfully take on the growth machine.
This emphasis on the local is both a strength and weakness in the book’s approach to growth issues. If there is a shortcoming, it is in a failure to put local growth control efforts in the larger context of national economic and population growth. While he details effective strategies and tactics for controlling or stopping growth on the local level, Fodor never quite comes to grips with the extent that national population growth drives both economic expansion and ultimately growth on the local level. As long as the national population keeps growing, the additional people will need jobs, houses, transportation and resources to consume. Populations may grow nationally, but they impact is most acute in the local community. No matter how well you manage, mitigate or minimize, additional humans means additional impacts on quality of life and on the environment be it locally, nationally or globally.
Likewise, Fodor never really examines how much more effective the measures he advocates would be if population growth pressures were alleviated. Good planning and design, economic and tax incentives, effective and innovative land use regulation, preserving undeveloped land, and citizen involvement are all important parts of controlling growth and moving toward sustainability. But, no matter how effective these measures are they are not by themselves sufficient for lasting gain. From a long-term perspective, the only sound foundation for ending growth is a stable and stationary national population, ideally at an optimum level much smaller than today’s. Better Not Bigger gives much needed insights, analysis, practical tools and activist resources for those working for “smart” growth. Were these efforts combined with national efforts to lower immigration and eventually stop national population growth, the approaches presented in this book could be the basis for achieving truly livable and sustainable communities.
About the author Sharon McCloe Stein is Executive Director of Negative Population Growth.
© Copyright 1999 by NPG. Permission to reprint is granted in advance. Please acknowledge source and author, and notify NPG.
Eben Fodor’s 12 Myths about Urban Growth
by Donella H. Meadows
We need to bring in business to bring down taxes. This development will give us jobs. Environmental protection will hurt the economy. Growth is good for us.
If we’ve heard those arguments once, we’ve heard them a thousand times, stated with utmost certainty and without slightest evidence. That’s because there is no evidence. Or rather, there is plenty of evidence, most of which disproves deeply held pro-growth beliefs.
Here is a short summary of some of the evidence. For more, see Eben Fodor’s new book BETTER, NOT BIGGER which lists and debunks the following Twelve Big Myths of Growth.
Myth 1: Growth provides needed tax revenues. Check out the tax rates of cities larger than yours. There are a few exceptions but the general rule is: the larger the city, the higher the taxes. That’s because development requires water, sewage treatment, road maintenance, police and fire protection, garbage pickup-a host of public services. Almost never do the new taxes cover the new costs. Fodor says: “The bottom line on urban growth is that it rarely pays its own way.”
Myth 2: We have to grow to provide jobs. But there’s no guarantee that new jobs will go to local folks. In fact they rarely do. If you compare the 25 fastest growing cities in the U.S. to the 25 slowest growing, you find no significant difference in unemployment rates. Says Fodor: “Creating more local jobs ends up attracting more people, who require more jobs.” And services.
Myth 3: We must stimulate and subsidize business growth to have good jobs. A “good business climate” is one with little regulation, low business taxes, and various public subsidies to business. A study of areas with good and bad business climates (as ranked by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the business press) showed that states with the best business ratings actually have lower growth in per capita incomes than those with the worst. Fodor: “This surprising outcome may be due to the emphasis placed by good-business-climate states on investing resources in businesses rather than directly in people.”
Myth 4: If we try to limit growth, housing prices will shoot up. Sounds logical, but it isn’t so. A 1992 study of 14 California cities, half with strong growth controls, half with none, showed no difference in average housing prices. Some of the cities with strong growth controls had the most affordable housing, because they had active low-cost housing programs. Fodor says the important factor in housing affordability is not so much house cost as income level, so development that provides mainly low-paying retail jobs makes housing unaffordable.
Myth 5: Environmental protection hurts the economy. According to a Bank of America study, the economies of states with high environmental standards grew consistently faster than those with weak regulations. The Institute of Southern Studies ranked all states according to 20 indicators of economic prosperity (gold) and environmental health (green) and found that they rise and fall together. Vermont ranked 3rd on the gold scale and first on the green; Louisiana ranked 50th on both.
Myth 6: Growth is inevitable. There are constitutional limits to the ability of any community to put walls around itself. But dozens of municipalities have capped their population size or rate of growth by legal regulations based on real environmental limits and the real costs of growth to the community.
Myth 7: If you don’t like growth, you’re a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) or an ANTI (against everything) or a gangplank-puller (right after you get aboard). These accusations are meant more to shut people up than to examine their real motives. Says Fodor: “A NIMBY is more likely to be someone who cares enough about the future of his or her community to get out and protect it.”
Myth 8: Most people don’t support environmental protection. Polls and surveys have disproved this belief for decades; Fodor cites examples from Oregon, Los Angeles, Colorado, and the U.S. as a whole. The fraction of respondents who say environmental quality is more important than further economic growth almost always tops 70 percent.
Myth 9: We have to grow or die. This statement is tossed around lightly and often, but if you hold it still and look at it, you wonder what it means. Fodor points out, quoting several economic studies, that many kinds of growth cost more than the benefits they bring. So the more growth, the poorer we get. That kind of growth will kill us.
Myth 10: Vacant land is just going to waste. Studies from all over show that open land pays far more — often twice as much — in property taxes than it costs in services. Cows don’t put their kids in school; trees don’t put potholes in the roads. Open land absorbs floods, recharges aquifers, cleans the air, harbors wildlife, and measurably increases the value of property nearby. We should value and pay for it to be there.
Myth 11: Beauty is no basis for policy. One of the saddest things about municipal meetings is their tendency to trivialize people who complain that a proposed development will be ugly. Dollars are not necessarily more real or important than beauty. In fact beauty can translate directly into dollars. For starters, undeveloped surroundings can add $100,000 to the price of a home.
Myth 12: Environmentalists are just another special interest. A developer who will directly profit from a project is a special interest. A citizen with no financial stake is fighting for the public interest, the long term, the good of the whole community.
Maybe one reason these myths are proclaimed so often and loudly is that they are so obviously doubtful. The only reason to keep repeating something over and over is to keep others from thinking about it. You don’t have to keep telling people that the sun rises in the east.
Donella H. Meadows is Director of the Sustainability Institute and professor
of environmental studies at Dartmouth College.
From Population Press, March/April 1999, pp. 12-13.