Dreams and Realities: Coping with Urban Sprawl
By Hank Savitch
INTRODUCTION
There exists in this nation a great deal of exhortation about what we ought to be doing about urban sprawl. Most people believe, in one way or another, that we ought to contain sprawl. I want to address not so much what we ought to be doing, but why it is that we cannot do what we are exhorted to do, and why things are as they are. We have complained about sprawl for nearly a generation, yet it has grown worse. In response to those complaints a substantial number of states have adopted legislation to contain sprawl, and many communities have taken action against spread settlements. Despite these best intentions, change has rarely materialized.
A recent study by the Sierra Club illustrates this conundrum. It found that declarations are made against sprawl, and many communities do adopt legislation to curb it. In 1998, approximately 240 ballot initiatives were submitted to voters to tame sprawl and seventy percent were approved. Across the country governors and legislatures have initiated smart growth legislation, and have dedicated over $7.5 billion to protect open space. But all to often these measures are not implemented, exemptions are granted to soften them, or they are altogether evaded. The Sierra Club also found enormous variation among the states in their willingness to deal with sprawl. While open space protection enjoyed broad popular support, only twenty-five states have taken steps to protect farmland. Its study is based on an evaluation of urban and environmental policies within our fifty states.
Figure 1 evaluates all fifty states according to land use planning and uses four indicators to judge state performance: state acts, state roles, implementation tools, and field expert inputs. It is interesting to note that Virginia is ranked twenty-eighth in terms of land use planning. Some states are rather constant throughout the rankings: Oregon, Vermont, Maryland and sometimes New Jersey are high, but Virginia is consistently fairly low on the list.
There exists in this nation a great deal of exhortation about what we ought to be doing about urban sprawl. Most people believe, in one way or another, that we ought to contain sprawl. I want to address not so much what we ought to be doing, but why it is that we cannot do what we are exhorted to do, and why things are as they are. We have complained about sprawl for nearly a generation, yet it has grown worse. In response to those complaints a substantial number of states have adopted legislation to contain sprawl, and many communities have taken action against spread settlements. Despite these best intentions, change has rarely materialized.
A recent study by the Sierra Club illustrates this conundrum. It found that declarations are made against sprawl, and many communities do adopt legislation to curb it. In 1998, approximately 240 ballot initiatives were submitted to voters to tame sprawl and seventy percent were approved. Across the country governors and legislatures have initiated smart growth legislation, and have dedicated over $7.5 billion to protect open space. But all to often these measures are not implemented, exemptions are granted to soften them, or they are altogether evaded. The Sierra Club also found enormous variation among the states in their willingness to deal with sprawl. While open space protection enjoyed broad popular support, only twenty-five states have taken steps to protect farmland. Its study is based on an evaluation of urban and environmental policies within our fifty states.
Figure 1 evaluates all fifty states according to land use planning and uses four indicators to judge state performance: state acts, state roles, implementation tools, and field expert inputs. It is interesting to note that Virginia is ranked twenty-eighth in terms of land use planning. Some states are rather constant throughout the rankings: Oregon, Vermont, Maryland and sometimes New Jersey are high, but Virginia is consistently fairly low on the list.