State growth management, smart growth and urban containment: A review of the US and a study of the heartland

Abstract

The literature in the US has extensively examined the policies of state and sub-state areas that are well known for their anti-sprawl measures. This has resulted in little knowledge of what is happening elsewhere. This paper provides a case study of one of the lesser-known states, Michigan, which is representative of the vast majority of non-growth management states. The study finds that Michigan has been influenced by trends from the better-known areas. This has led to a host of state, regional and local-level initiatives, sometimes wrapped in the language of economic development, aimed at curbing sprawl. However, there is little evidence that these initiatives are successful. This is primarily due to the absence of state level mandates for planning, a lack of funding and a strong home rule tradition. The findings are probably repeated in many states across the nation: a proliferation of initiatives, which, with only few exceptions, will not represent best practices.

Notes

1 The word ‘approximately’ is used with good reason: there is disagreement in the literature on exactly how many states could be considered ‘growth management’ states. In the mid-1990s, Nelson & Duncan (1995, p. 21) listed 13 states as containing ‘State Comprehensive Growth Legislation’: California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. However, in another article that same year, Nelson (1995) omits Georgia, Massachusetts and New York from this list. Weitz (1999b) declines to list the number of growth management states by arguing that the number depends on the definition of what constitutes a growth management state. However, he notes that much of the literature considers only 10 states to qualify as being growth management states: Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. On a related note, the term ‘state comprehensive planning’ is generally taken to mean planning in which states “set policy goals and objectives but leave, to varying degrees, the specific details of the content and information of plans to the discretion of local governments” (Burby et al., 1997, p. 3). In a stricter definition of comprehensive planning, Nelson (1992) argues that only Florida, Maine, New Jersey and Oregon are comprehensive planning states because only these have legislation that attempts to shape urban form at the state level. To make matters worse, Salkin (1999) notes that as of 1999, 37 states were considering major land-use reforms, although clearly the vast majority of these states would not be considered growth management states.

2 Indeed, there are others who believe that sprawl is not a problem, and that the word sprawl is itself pejorative and biased. For this literature, see, for example, Bruegmann (2005), Staley (2004), O'Toole (2004), and Gordon & Richardson (1997, 2001).

3 The word ‘measured’ is used with caution because how one chooses to measure sprawl depends on the chosen definition of sprawl (Galster et al., 2001).

4 However, it had a much lower percentage of Hispanics (3.3% verses 12.5% for the entire nation).

5 Nelson & Dawkins (2004) have attempted to pull the three themes together by stating: “Growth management choreographs techniques to achieve a land-use pattern consistent with smart growth principles. Urban containment is a framework for guiding the preparation and implementation of growth management with the specific objective of creating a reasonably clear separation between urban and rural land uses” (p. 2) However, this tortuous attempt to meld the three areas reflects rather than resolves the ambiguity.

6 Others have traced land-use planning to other points in time. For example, it has been traced to the New Deal Era, but the impetus for these policies was economic development rather than any intrinsic concern for land use.

7 There is some disagreement on where to place the intervening years between the early to the late 1990s. DeGrove (2005) does not consider this period, but Weitz (1999b) describes it as the third phase during which Georgia, Washington and Maryland introduced land-use legislation. Weitz (1999b) refers to the smart growth period (from the late 1990s to the present) as a fourth phase.

8 The success or failure of second-phase policies has also been associated with the institutional characteristics of their implementation. Nelson (1999) attributed less sprawl to mandatory local comprehensive planning in Florida and Oregon, and sprawl to voluntary local comprehensive planning in Georgia. Anthony (2004) found that state growth management policies did not result in denser land use, although the degree to which density fell in these states was less than the degree to which density fell in states without growth management policies. In brief, the second phase of growth management policies appears to have had mixed effects on densification and sprawl, but there is evidence to show that states such as Florida and Oregon fared better than they would have if these policies were not in place.

9 Others place the genesis of smart growth to the early 1990s (Porter et al., 2000).

10 While some scholars view new urbanism as an offshoot of smart growth (e.g. Lund, 2003), others view them as different but related paradigms (in the words of Godschalk, 2004, they are cousins).

11 In keeping with the potential environmental benefits of these approaches, researchers have documented the positive effects that new urbanism can have on protecting watersheds (Berke et al., 2003) or protecting habitat for birds (Odell et al., 2003). Others have documented increased household satisfaction (Kaplan et al., 2004) that has resulted in the increased value of lots located in ‘conservation subdivisions’ (Mohamed, 2006). The nature of the literature is also changing. While still interested in issues such as the preservation of open space, this literature has begun to use fine-grained data to dissect detailed effects. For example, Song & Knaap (2004) in a study of two new urbanist neighborhoods in Portland, Oregon, found that after 1990 there were increases in “connectivity, pedestrian access, and density” (p. 223). Other aspects of this emerging literature address health issues. For example, better street connectivity (Crane & Crepeau, 1998; Boarnet & Crane, 2001) and mixed land uses (Cervero, 1996; Cervero & Kockelman, 1997) have been found to be associated with increased physical activity and, by extension, healthier lifestyles. Rodríguez et al. (2006) also found that subdivisions amenable to physical activity led to more walking and bicycling. Interestingly, these activities were not necessarily related to leisure and were undertaken in preference to using automobiles. Saelens et al. (2003) reported similar findings in their study of general urban forms. However, Crane (1996) found that new urbanist communities did not produce the advertised reductions in driving. It is expected that literature of this type will evolve to examine other socio-economic issues, such as whether smart growth reduces crime or promotes racial cohesion.

12 Urban service boundaries tend to focus on water and sewer services, whereas APFOs tend to be more general and can include schools, roads and parks.

13 Because of the absence of state-wide growth management policies, it is not possible to place Michigan into one of the typologies of state growth management discussed earlier.

14 Many of these key reforms were allowed through both federal and state legislation.

15 Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) is primarily used to protect farmland and allows owners of farmland and open space to retain their land for agricultural purposes while receiving payment equal to the difference between that land's value if sold for development and if sold for agriculture. Related techniques include the transfer of development rights (TDRs) and conservation easements.

16 The MSA's most recent venture has been to join with state agencies and the private sector to “encourage mature suburbs to bolster their competitive attractiveness” through a “redevelopment readiness committee”.

17 This heading is a takeoff on: ‘Measuring Urban Form: Is Portland Winning War on Sprawl?’ by Song & Knapp (2004).