|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
State Programs that Bust Sprawl and Measures that Can Be Used in Diagnosing Sprawl |
||
| Jerry Weitz, Ph.D., AICP | |||
| Session: April 19, 2000, 10:15 - 11:30 a.m. | Author Info | ||
States and localities seek to prevent or mitigate sprawl, but planners have few measures to evaluate their efforts. This paper provides definitions of sprawl and summarizes why planners seek to prevent it. Second, it introduces one of the American Planning Association’s new books, Sprawl Busting: State Programs to Guide Growth (Chicago: Planners Press, 1999) by summarizing efforts designed to mitigate sprawl in four states- Florida, Oregon, Washington, and Georgia. Third, this paper provides a literature-based compilation of measures that can be used in diagnosing sprawl.
This paper accompanies a presentation at the year 2000 national planning conference on "state programs that bust sprawl." The following persons served on the panel that discussed various programs now used by states in mitigating sprawl development patterns: Deborah Howe, Ph.D., FAICP, Professor of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University; Tracy Burrows, AICP, Planning Director for 1000 Friends of Washington, and James Murley, Director of the Joint Center for Urban and Environmental Problems (Florida Atlantic University/Florida International University). Jerry Weitz, Ph.D., AICP, Planning Director for Roswell, Georgia, moderated the session.
The panel session is intended to introduce and expound upon one of the American Planning Association’s new books, Sprawl Busting: State Programs to Guide Growth (Weitz 1999a). Sprawl Busting provides a history and structural analysis of state growth management programs in Florida, Georgia, Oregon, and Washington, with an emphasis on land use planning and regulation to prevent sprawl. This paper is organized in three parts. The introduction describes sprawl and summarizes why states and localities seek to prevent sprawl development patterns. The second section summarizes and assesses the effectiveness of programs used by states to mitigate sprawl. The third section offers a literature-based compilation of measures that can be used in diagnosing sprawl. Planners need such measures to evaluate state and local growth management programs.
INTRODUCTION
Defining Sprawl
Ewing (1994, 1997) identifies four characterizations of sprawl, three of which (strip, leapfrog, and scattered development) are based on spatial patterns (Weitz and Moore 1998). The other characteristic is density. Low densities and dispersed spatial patterns of development are the two most often cited elements of sprawl.
Other observers have broadened the definition of sprawl beyond the two basic indicators of density and spatial pattern. For instance, Florida’s anti-sprawl rule defines sprawl as (paraphrased) urban, low-density development or uses primarily in rural areas that are: 1) premature or poorly planned; 2) not functionally interdependent; or 3) fail to maximize use of public facilities (Florida Administrative Rule 9J-5, cited in Weitz 1999, 231). As another example, Freilich (1999, 16) cites Richard Moe’s definition of sprawl: "low-density development on the edges of cities and towns that is poorly planned, land-consumptive, automobile-dependent [and] designed without regard to its surroundings." Yet another example is 1000 Friends of Washington (1999), which defines sprawl as "unplanned development that: uses our land inefficiently; forces residents to depend on their automobiles almost exclusively for transportation; has inadequate open space amenities, such as parks and stream corridors; and does not include a balance of jobs and affordable housing."
Why States and Localities Want to Prevent Sprawl
Not every planner or policy maker believes that sprawl is bad. Steiner (1994) argues that sprawl can be good. However, most do not like it, and many state and local land use programs are designed at least in part to prevent or mitigate sprawl. Much literature has been offered about the costs of sprawl (Ewing 1994). The economic and fiscal (Burchell 1997), as well as social (Freilich and Peshoff 1997), reasons for wanting to prevent or mitigate sprawl are well documented. Sprawl is considered by many to be an inefficient way to consume land and provide public facilities. To others, sprawl brings undesirable social consequences of automobile dependence and the deterioration of central cities.
STATE PROGRAMS THAT BUST SPRAWL
Florida
Florida, more than any other state, has attempted to combat sprawl. Governor Bob Martinez established a Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns in 1988 that reported on the costs of sprawl and provided numerous recommendations for stopping urban sprawl. The state’s well-known "concurrency" requirements, absent sufficient funding for facilities, are believed to have actually contributed to sprawl patterns (Weitz 1999a, 91-93).
Florida has sought to combat sprawl through its Rule 9J-5 by defining it, enumerating indicators that characterize it, establishing criteria for evaluating how to discourage it, and reviewing local plans to ensure that they mitigate it (Weitz 1999a, 231-234). Florida’s Department of Community Affairs has frequently challenged local plans as promoting urban and rural sprawl (Weitz 1999a, 93).
In addition to implementing an anti-sprawl administrative rule, Florida appointed a Commission for a Sustainable Florida in 1997. The commission recommended and the state established the Florida Sustainable Communities Demonstration Project. Pursuant to that program, the state has established four pilot projects designed to promote sustainability and limit sprawl via urban development boundaries (Weitz 1999, 98-99).
Oregon
The Beaver State is well known for its adoption in 1973 of Senate Bill 100 and its mandate that local governments implement urban growth boundaries (UGBs). The literature on Oregon’s program finds generally that UGBs have been successful in containing urban growth (see Weitz 1999b). However, more than a decade ago, Oregon realized that it needed to do more to manage urban growth. The state sponsored a study of urban growth patterns and passed a transportation planning rule in 1991 (Weitz 1999a, 106-107).
Despite these additional efforts to address transportation and growth management issues, further study in 1995 found that more efforts were needed. The Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program was created in 1993 to provide funding for urban growth management and transportation planning, to study existing problems, and to prepare and recommend new growth management tools. The TGM Program has survived an unfavorable political climate during the late 1990s and expanded its "smart development" (Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program 1998) and grant programs. New legislation was passed in 1995 that mandated certain local governments complete buildable lands inventories. This mandate signifies a step toward improved urban growth management. Oregon’s TGM Program has most recently been working on a new administrative rule to implement and refine Goal 14, Urbanization (Weitz 1999a, 106-112).
The TGM Program studied development within the Bend UGB and found that its dispersed development pattern was the prototype of what the state program wanted to avoid (see Weitz 1999a, Sidebar 5.1, 108-109). As noted by prominent growth management lawyer Robert Freilich (1999), UGBs do not provide a "tier system" (subareas for growth phasing) to avoid leapfrogging inside UGBs. The TGM Program’s study of development inside the Bend UGB is testimony to Freilich’s observation. However, three other state-sponsored studies of development inside UGBs have shown that growth has occurred in a more-or-less contiguous fashion (Weitz and Moore 1998).
Washington
Washington tried but was unable to pass legislation during the quiet revolution to address spatial patterns of development. Instead, Washington used a combination of environmental protection statutes, the State Environmental Policy Act (1971) and the Shorelines Management Act (1971) to address various problems of growth (Weitz 1999a, 55-59). However, almost two decades after Oregon passed Senate Bill 100 and mandated urban growth boundaries, Washington finally followed suit. In 1990 and 1991, Washington put in place a growth management program that mandated protection of critical areas and classification of resource lands by all local governments and the establishment of urban growth areas by local governments in rapidly growing counties (Weitz 1999a, 112-115).
The first two goals of Washington’s Growth Management Act are: (1) "Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist," and, (2) "Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development" (see Weitz 1999a, 215-217). These goals have been carried out primarily through the establishment of urban growth areas and through required conservation measures for rural, farm and forest lands.
Recent focus by the state legislature has shifted from protecting rural lands to making sure that the land inside the urban growth boundary is used efficiently. In 1997, the legislature mandated that urban cities and counties along the Interstate 5 corridor monitor the land supply within the boundaries and to determine whether they are achieving the densities established in their local comprehensive plans (Weitz 1999a, 119, 221-229).
During the 2000 legislative session, the legislature is considering a requirement that local governments establish density and housing production targets within urban growth areas. Under the proposed legislation, local governments that fall short of the targets would have to amend their plans and development regulations to encourage more compact growth (Tracy Burrows, personal communication, February 2000).
Georgia
Georgia is described last because, despite passing a planning act more than a decade ago, it has not yet developed a program to manage urban development patterns. Indeed, one of the nation’s leading growth management scholars has observed that Georgia is "not a growth management state — yet" (Nelson 1995). Like Washington, Georgia tried but failed during the quiet revolution to pass growth legislation designed to address patterns of development (Weitz 1999a, 48-49).
The Georgia Planning Act of 1989 lacks consistency requirements and has been too weak to effectively manage growth (Weitz 1999a, 296-299). Despite the limitations of Georgia’s program, there have been four recent efforts that suggest Georgia is moving toward establishing a sprawl busting program of its own: a reevaluation of the 1989 planning act; establishment of the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority; initiation of a greenspace program; and funding for livable centers in the Atlanta region.
The final report of the Growth Strategies Reassessment Task Force (1998) provides numerous recommendations for moving Georgia’s program from one of growth "strategies" to growth "management." The task force recommends adopting an overall state vision for growth management, providing incentives for mitigating local policies and practices that encourage sprawl development, and strengthening consistency requirements with regard to local zoning regulations and comprehensive plans (Weitz 1999a, xxix). Over time, Georgia may integrate growth management tools into regional and local planning programs.
Senate Bill 57, passed in 1999, created the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA). The authority has only been in existence for a short period of time, and the true scope of its powers is not yet known. However, powers granted the GRTA by Senate Bill 57 are sweeping (Ehrenhalt 1999). The establishment of a powerful state agency to oversee regional transportation, as well as local development practices, is a major step toward regional governance in the Atlanta metropolitan area. If GRTA exercises all of its powers, it might become one of the more significant sprawl busting programs in the nation.
After successfully establishing GRTA, Governor Roy Barnes in 1999 announced his intent to establish a program designed to require fast growing counties to maintain 20 percent of their total land area as connected open spaces. Barnes appointed a Community Green Space Advisory Committee (1999) that recently reported on the need to preserve green spaces in Georgia and how to go about attaining that objective. Legislation is pending that would, if passed, make the development of county greenspace plans optional for local governments. As an incentive, the state would provide a greenspace trust fund.
The Atlanta Regional Commission (1999) recently announced a $5 million funding program for local governments and other organizations to plan for smarter development within town centers and activity centers in the region. Approximately $1 million will be awarded by ARC this year and each of the next four years. Capital projects recommended as part of these livable communities initiatives will be eligible for preferential funding from a $350 million pool of improvement funds.
Summary of Programs
The programs described above, and others that are discussed in Sprawl Busting, are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of State Programs that Directly or Indirectly Bust
Sprawl
| Description of Program or Action | Summary of How the Program or Action Mitigates Sprawl | States that Employ the Program or Activity | |||
| FL | GA | OR | WA | ||
| Urban growth boundaries/areas | Contain urban development. | X | X | ||
| Urban reserves | Provide for logical and efficient urban expansion | X | |||
| State agency rejection of local UGB designations | Provide more efficient urban land uses | X | |||
| Farm and forest land protection | Preserve natural resources | X | X | ||
| Greenbelts within urban areas | Provide open space amenities | X | |||
| Critical areas protection | Protect environmental areas. | X | X | ||
| Adequate public facilities requirements (a.k.a., concurrency) | Control location of development and level of services | X | X | ||
| Enforcement of statewide planning goals and administrative rules | Ensure implementation of sprawl mitigation | X | X | X | |
| Minimum density zoning | Provide for planned densities | X | |||
| Transportation system plans reviewed for land use efficiency | Promote higher densities that encourage alternative travel modes | X | |||
| Infill and redevelopment policies | Efficient use of areas already served by infrastructure | X | X | X | X |
| Description of Program or Action | Summary of How the Program or Action Mitigates Sprawl | States that Employ the Program or Activity | |||
| FL | GA | OR | WA | ||
| State land development plan
|
General guidance on urban form to local governments | X | |||
| Local land use standards that provide and encourage mixed land uses | Efficient land use; reduced vehicle miles traveled | X | |||
| Jobs-Housing Balance | Efficient land use; reduced vehicle miles traveled | X | |||
| Implementation mandate | Ensure implementation consistency | X | X | X | |
| Evaluation and appraisal reports | Ensure implementation consistency | X | |||
| Development of regional impact reviews are mandated | Review development for regional implications (e.g., sprawl patterns) | X | |||
| Critical areas ordinance mandate | Protect environmental areas | X | X | X | |
| Areas of critical state concern | Manage special areas | X | |||
| Buildable lands inventories | Identify areas available for infill and redevelopment | X | X | ||
| State smart growth assistance | Education and assistance to local governments | X | X | ||
| Funding for smart growth planning | Identify acceptable local methods to prevent sprawl and grow smarter | X | X | ||
| Affordable housing requirements | Alleviate spread of low density housing in rural areas | X | X | ||
| Sustainable Communities Demonstration Projects | Provide for self-sustaining communities | X | |||
Source: Derived from Weitz 1999a and based on limited input from panel participants.
MEASURES USED IN DIAGNOSING SPRAWL
This final section of the paper summarizes measures that can be used to diagnose sprawl.
Smart Growth Auditing
A Smart Growth audit is a structured evaluation of how well a jurisdiction is promoting smart growth principles (Avin and Holden 2000). Generally, smart growth can be considered the opposite of urban sprawl. Basic considerations in the smart growth audit for Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, include: variety and choice in housing opportunities, efficient land use, and higher density infill development. Other considerations suggested for inclusion within a smart growth audit are: providing an adequate long-term urban land supply, compact development, protection of natural resources, provision of substantial public open space, balanced multimodal transportation, and maximum use of existing infrastructure. In Charlotte, an independent panel reviewed 29 policy documents and measured them against a checklist of 14 smart growth concepts in an effort to determine how well the city was meeting principles of smart development. Techniques suggested by Avin and Holden (2000) include looking at the nature, location, compactness, and accessibility of development, and assessing the holding capacity of the zoned, vacant land.
Sprawl Quotient or Index
Journalists (Bookman 1999) and some scholars (Staley 1999) have used what might be termed a sprawl "quotient" or "index" to measure sprawl in the states. It is the ratio of change in urban land to change in population. In other words, one divides the acres consumed by the number of people added (Sprawl index = % D Urban Land / % D Population, where D represents the standard notation for change). If this number is more than 1.0 (i.e., acres added exceeds the population increase), then the area is considered to be sprawling. For instance, development in Georgia between 1992 and 1997 has used 1.4 acres of open land for each additional Georgia resident added during that period. By contrast, Texas during the same period consumed 1.2 million acres while adding 1.7 million people, for a sprawl quotient of 0.7 of an acre per new resident (Bookman 1999). As noted by Staley (1999), the sprawl index would make more sense if applied to the metropolitan level, but data are not available.
Measures of the Location of Development (Contiguity)
Three of the six principles of contiguous development patterns suggested by Weitz and Moore (1998) have operational measures. These measures of contiguity, along with the normative standards for what are desirable or undesirable urban forms, are noted in Table 2.
Table 2. Contiguity Principles and Operational Standards
| Principle of Contiguity | Operational Standard |
| Predominantly Urban Core Development is Desirable. | 85 percent or more of total housing units in the UGB (or urban growth area) are in the "urban core." |
| Over Time, a Combination of Development That is Predominantly Urban Core Infill, Redevelopment, or Contiguous to the Urban Core is Desirable. | The percentage of total UGB housing units constructed during the study period (e.g., five years) that were in the urban core or contiguous to the urban core was at least 85 percent. |
| Development in the Rest of the UGB (i.e., the Urban Fringe) is not Desirable. | The portion of total housing units in the UGB (or urban growth area) constructed in the "rest of the UGB" (the non-urbanized area) should not exceed five percent. |
Source: Weitz and Moore 1998.
Measures of Inefficient Residential Land Development
Sprawl Busting (Weitz 1999a, 301) provides a sidebar that describes the types of data needed to determine ways that urban residential development occurs in a less-than-optimal manner. Based on that information, Table 3 shows potential measures that might be considered. These indicators improve some on the "sprawl quotient," in that measurements are based on residential land rather than all (including non-residential) land.
Measures of Residential Density and Mix
In an effort to establish an objective measure of sprawl, 1000 Friends of Washington (1999) has compiled data on the performance and the policies of 33 cities in King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties as they relate to density, transportation, housing and jobs, and the environment. According to the Sprawl Report Card, "density measures offer the clearest measures of sprawl." Density measures are summarized in Table 4.
Table 3. Potential Measures of Inefficient Residential Land Development
| Measures of Inefficient Residential Land Development | Description/Explanation |
| Number of Residential Acres Consumed Versus Number of Acres Projected to be Used During a Given Time Period | If actual developed acreage exceeds acreage projected to be used, but the number of units provided was about the same as that projected, then this could be considered a measure of inefficient residential land use. |
| Number of Subdivision Lots Exceeding Minimum Lot Sizes by 20 Percent or More | If subdivision developments consume much more than the minimum amount of land, then the development practices in that community are, arguably, excessive or inefficient. |
| Number of Multi-Family Units Approved and Constructed
Versus the Number Of Multi-Family Units Allowed Under Maximum Densities
|
Like the preceding indicator, underbuilding of densities allowed by the plan or as provided by local zoning regulations is a possible measure of excessive residential land consumption. |
| Number of Detached Single Family Residential Units Permitted in Multi-Family Zones | Lower density detached dwellings use up lands zoned for higher densities and thereby contribute to inefficient use of lands within designated urban growth areas or boundaries. As an alternative, one could simply calculate the overall density of developments in multi-family zones and compare them to maximum allowable densities. |
| Number of Units Constructed in Designated "Infill" Areas | Local governments could, with the benefit of buildable lands inventories, designate infill opportunity areas and establish targets for units to be constructed within such areas. If such targets are not met, that might be another measure of inefficient residential land development. |
Source: Derived from Weitz 1999a.
Table 4. Measures of Residential Density and Mix Used for Diagnosing
Sprawl
| Density Measure | Description/Explanation |
| Population per acre of residentially zoned land | The population per acre measure is defined as "the number of people per acre of residentially zoned land." 1000 Friends of Washington derived their numbers from data collected by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) on population and residential acreage. |
| Minimum density requirements | Whether cities have adopted minimum density requirements. Establishing minimum densities is a way to combat the inefficient underbuilding of urban residential land supplies. The organization also looked at densities surrounding major transit stops, suggesting that minimum densities are needed to support transit. |
| Minimum lot sizes that allow for urban single family lots | Whether city zoning ordinances and land use plans provide a significant portion of single-family zoning devoted to small lot, single-family development on lots of 5,000 square feet or less. Cities that provided zoning for urban lots received higher scores. |
| Reasonable fair share of the region’s urban land supply needs | If the required size of new single family lots is too large to provide a supply of urban residential land needed to meet the region's capacity to accommodate growth, then the city’s policies contribute to regional sprawl. Avin and Holden’s (2000) smart growth audit also indicates that providing a long-term supply of urbanizable land is an important criterion. |
| Mix of housing types and provisions for higher densities | Whether a city’s zoning provides for a mix of housing types, including single-family houses, cottages, accessory housing, townhouses, and multi-family housing. At least 10% of all residential land within each city should be zoned for densities of over 15 dwelling units per acre, and that at least 10% should be zoned for densities between 8 and 15 dwelling units per acre, with much higher densities in urban centers. |
Source: 1000 Friends of Washington 1999.
Measures of Transportation
Both 1000 Friends of Washington and the Sierra Club (1999) include transportation measures in their analyses of sprawl. The Sierra Club’s report ranks programs adopted by states on the extent to which they manage growth, deal with sprawl, and promote effective smart growth solutions. The report rates each of the 50 states by measuring progress in four categories: open space protection, land use planning, transportation planning, and community revitalization. It compares the states with each other, not against an absolute. Yardsticks that measure how well such initiatives have been implemented are provided for each of the four categories. For transportation measures, see Table 5.
Table 5. Transportation Measures Used For Diagnosing Sprawl
| Measure of Transportation | Description/Explanation | Source |
| Maximum parking ratios | Whether local parking requirements include maximum parking ratios (i.e., a cap on the number of parking spaces that can be built in a particular development). | 1000 Friends of Washington |
| Pedestrian friendliness | Whether cities have pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly streets in their downtowns based on site visits of each city. Twelve different factors (e.g., architectural design, landscaping, human scale, mix of uses, public art, placement of parking, and placement of buildings relative to the sidewalk) were evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest score, then aggregated into an overall score. | 1000 Friends of Washington |
| Expenditures on alternative transportation | Based on data provided by the Federal Transit Administration, the amount of money states are spending per person in their urban areas on transportation choices like commuter trains, bus service, light rail and even walking and bike paths. | Sierra Club |
| Emphasis on maintenance before expansion of the road network | "Sprawl-busting states maintain current roads and existing transportation systems before spending money on new ones." Based on data from the Surface Transportation Policy Project, States that spent over half of their federal transportation dollars on new road construction are considered to be performing poorly. | Sierra Club |
| Change in commute times. | Time spent in cars from 1992 to 1997 based on data from the Federal Highway Administration. | Sierra Club |
Sources: 1000 Friends of Washington 1999 and Sierra Club 1999.
Measures of Environmental Protection
Table 6 provides measures of environmental protection used by 1000 Friends of Washington and the Sierra Club in diagnosing whether programs prevent or mitigate sprawl.
Table 6. Environmental Protection Measures Used for Diagnosing Sprawl
| Environmental Protection Measure | Description/Explanation | Source |
| Municipal open spaces | Whether cities have invested in acquiring open spaces, based on a traditional measure, the number of park acres per 1,000 persons. | 1000 Friends of Washington |
| Wetland protection and riparian buffers | Whether cities have adopted wetland and stream protection policies and regulatory provisions (based on data collected by the Washington Department of Ecology) | 1000 Friends of Washington |
| Loss of open space | Whether states are preventing the loss of open space. The better-performing states are those that have passed initiatives to keep lands held in trust for all. The best states are purchasing parks and open space outright. | Sierra Club |
| Retention of farmland in farmer’s hands | Ratings of how well states are keeping their farmlands in farmers' hands. | Sierra Club |
| Management of floodplain sprawl | Whether development is allowed in flood plains. | Sierra Club |
Sources: 1000 Friends of Washington 1999 and Sierra Club 1999.
Measures of Community Revitalization
Finally, the Sierra Club has used measures of community revitalization in its scoring of states relative to mitigating sprawl. These measures are provided in Table 7.
Table 7. Community Revitalization Measures for Diagnosing Sprawl
| Measure of Community Revitalization | Description/Explanation |
| CDBG expenditures in downtown areas | How much funding (i.e., Community Development Block Grants) is sent from the federal government to the states to help downtown areas, using data from the National Priorities Project. |
| State efforts to preserve historic places | Based on data from the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the best states have passed laws that guarantee funding for community-level preservation programs and offer property owners and others tax incentives if they carry out historic-preservation work. |
| State establishment of brownfields initiatives | Based on data from the Environmental Law Institute, whether states have established initiatives to address Brownfields (i.e., abandoned and sometimes polluted urban areas that badly need cleanup and redevelopment). |
Source: Sierra Club 1999.
CONCLUSION
This paper has shown that sprawl can be defined in various ways, most notably according to the density and location of development. Sprawl is viewed negatively by most planners, for reasons that have been thoroughly described in the literature. This paper has described efforts in four states-Florida, Georgia, Oregon, and Washington-to mitigate sprawl. Planners looking to evaluate state and local growth management programs need measures for diagnosing sprawl. By synthesizing several sources into a more comprehensive set of measures used to diagnose sprawl, this paper hopefully has contributed toward that end.
Note: The author wishes to thank the session participants, Deborah Howe, Ph.D., FAICP, Tracy Burrows, AICP, and Jim Murley for their helpful review and comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
REFERENCES
Atlanta Regional Commission. October 27, 1999. Strategy 2000: Annual Work Program and Budget. Draft.
Avin, Uri P., and David R. Holden. January 2000. Does Your Growth Smart? Planning 66, 1: 26-29.
Bookman, Jay. December 13, 1999. Improved Land Use is the Key to Solving Area’s Sprawl. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, page B-3.
Burchell, Robert W. 1997. Economic and Fiscal Costs (and Benefits) of Sprawl. The Urban Lawyer 29, 2: 159-180.
Community Green Space Advisory Committee. December 15, 1999. Georgia’s Community Green Space Program: A Report of the Community Green Space Advisory Committee. Downloaded from the web page of the Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia, Athens.
Ehrenhalt, Alan. May 1999. The Czar of Gridlock. Governing. http://www.governing.com/.
Ewing, Reid. 1994. Characteristics, Causes, and Effects of Sprawl: A Literature Review. Environmental and Urban Issues 21, 2: 1-15.
Ewing, Reid. 1997. Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association 63, 1: 107-126.
Freilich, Robert H. 1999. From Sprawl to Smart Growth: Successful Legal, Planning, and Environmental Systems. Chicago: American Bar Association.
Freilich, Robert H., and Bruce G. Peshoff. 1997. The Social Costs of Sprawl. The Urban Lawyer 29, 2: 183-198.
Growth Strategies Reassessment Task Force. 1998. Georgia’s Future: Beyond Growth Strategies. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Community Affairs.
1000 Friends of Washington. 1999. Sprawl Report Card. Seattle: 1000 Friends.
Nelson, Arthur C. 1995. Growth Management and the Savings and Loan Bailout. The Urban Lawyer 27, 1: 71-85.
Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program. 1998. The Principles of Smart Development. Planning Advisory Report No. 479. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Sierra Club. 1999. 1999 Report on Sprawl. http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl /report99/intro.asp.
Staley, Samuel R. 1999. The Sprawling of America: In Defense of the Dynamic City. Los Angeles: Reason Foundation.
Steiner, Frederick. 1994. Sprawl Can Be Good. Planning 60, 7: 14-17.
Weitz, Jerry. 1999a. Sprawl Busting: State Programs that Guide Growth. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Weitz, Jerry. 1999b. From Quiet Revolution to Smart Growth: State Growth Management Programs, 1960 to 1999. CPL Bibliography 355/356/357. Journal of Planning Literature 14, 2: 267-338.
Weitz, Jerry, and Terry Moore. 1998. Development Inside Urban Growth
Boundaries: Oregon’s Empirical Evidence of Contiguous Urban Form. Journal
of the American Planning Association 64, 4: 424-440.
Copyright 2000 By Author
Jerry Weitz, Ph.D., AICP, is author of Sprawl Busting: State Programs
to Guide Growth (Chicago: Planners Press, 1999). His work has been
published in the Journal of the American Planning Association, Journal
of Planning Literature, and Land Use Law and Zoning Digest.
Weitz has held professional positions in Georgia, Oregon, and Washington.
He can be contacted by e-mail at Jerryweitz@aol.com.