Recharacterizing the Debate: A Critique of Environmental Democracy and an Alternative Approach to the Urban Sprawl Dilemma
By Thomas Benton Bare III
INTRODUCTION
Urban sprawl has become a lively topic in land-use policy debate. Published articles discussing its existence, causes, and effects abound, and it would seem that nearly every author has a different solution to the problem. In addition to media coverage, nearly all of the major non-profit environmental groups have commented on the phenomenon.1 Sprawl has even begun to invade discussions around the water coolers of America, and a few politicians have gotten involved pushing for discussion on smart growth initiatives and other forms of sustainable development.
This Article will summarize the current state of the sprawl debate and serve as a critique of Rose Kob and William Shutkin's environmental democracy/civic environmentalism answer to the dilemma of uncontrolled growth.
In addition to providing a critique of the Kob-Shutkin position, the Article will advance an alternative approach to urban sprawl. Assuming there is a growing anti-sprawl sentiment in the United States, federal action will help set the stage for local democratic solutions. This Article will propose repeals of both the mortgage interest income tax deduction and automobile-related subsidies, combined with the imposition of development impact fees. These measures, if enacted together, would force consumers to realize the full costs of their living arrangements and could spark grassroots action to develop sustainable alternatives.
Unfortunately, federal initiatives along these lines are not likely to garner widespread support until the sprawl dilemma is viewed differently in the public eye. Americans currently view development patterns as a reflection of individual choice and market preference. As long as this view persists, and as long as suburban residents have no incentive to change their behaviors, widespread change is not likely to occur. Before implementing the above steps and generating serious local involvement, Americans need to view sprawl and its consequences as a collective disaster, rather than an efficient individual choice. Realization of the full effects of continued suburban development should be presented through consumer education as a critical part of any effort to generate smart growth alternatives.
The position presented here will be broken down into four separate parts. Part II will provide an overview of the issues involved in the sprawl debate with particular emphasis on its causes and effects. The arguments of proponents of present patterns of suburban development will also be addressed in this opening section. Part III will summarize the points of the Kob-Shutkin position to lay a foundation for the critique. Part IV will illustrate the failings inherent in the Kob-Shutkin environmental democracy response under current conditions. Finally, Part V will provide a discussion of a more plausible solution to the phenomenon of urban sprawl, involving re-characterization of consumer perception and certain federal initiatives. The Article concludes that sustainable change will not occur until sprawl is defined in public value terms and steps are taken at the federal level to directly impact suburban as well as urban populations.
Urban sprawl has become a lively topic in land-use policy debate. Published articles discussing its existence, causes, and effects abound, and it would seem that nearly every author has a different solution to the problem. In addition to media coverage, nearly all of the major non-profit environmental groups have commented on the phenomenon.1 Sprawl has even begun to invade discussions around the water coolers of America, and a few politicians have gotten involved pushing for discussion on smart growth initiatives and other forms of sustainable development.
This Article will summarize the current state of the sprawl debate and serve as a critique of Rose Kob and William Shutkin's environmental democracy/civic environmentalism answer to the dilemma of uncontrolled growth.
In addition to providing a critique of the Kob-Shutkin position, the Article will advance an alternative approach to urban sprawl. Assuming there is a growing anti-sprawl sentiment in the United States, federal action will help set the stage for local democratic solutions. This Article will propose repeals of both the mortgage interest income tax deduction and automobile-related subsidies, combined with the imposition of development impact fees. These measures, if enacted together, would force consumers to realize the full costs of their living arrangements and could spark grassroots action to develop sustainable alternatives.
Unfortunately, federal initiatives along these lines are not likely to garner widespread support until the sprawl dilemma is viewed differently in the public eye. Americans currently view development patterns as a reflection of individual choice and market preference. As long as this view persists, and as long as suburban residents have no incentive to change their behaviors, widespread change is not likely to occur. Before implementing the above steps and generating serious local involvement, Americans need to view sprawl and its consequences as a collective disaster, rather than an efficient individual choice. Realization of the full effects of continued suburban development should be presented through consumer education as a critical part of any effort to generate smart growth alternatives.
The position presented here will be broken down into four separate parts. Part II will provide an overview of the issues involved in the sprawl debate with particular emphasis on its causes and effects. The arguments of proponents of present patterns of suburban development will also be addressed in this opening section. Part III will summarize the points of the Kob-Shutkin position to lay a foundation for the critique. Part IV will illustrate the failings inherent in the Kob-Shutkin environmental democracy response under current conditions. Finally, Part V will provide a discussion of a more plausible solution to the phenomenon of urban sprawl, involving re-characterization of consumer perception and certain federal initiatives. The Article concludes that sustainable change will not occur until sprawl is defined in public value terms and steps are taken at the federal level to directly impact suburban as well as urban populations.
