The Struggle To Manage Growth in the Metropolitan Fringe


The Struggle To Manage Growth in the Metropolitan Fringe	.
Tom Daniels Ph.D.	Author Info

Abstract

Fringe counties and communities have pursued three strategies toward managing growth: pro-growth, balanced growth, and no - or slow - growth. The progrowth strategy reflects the view that the fringe is a holding area for future suburban growth. Economic development is the driving mentality. The balanced growth approach includes an economic growth element together with some land protection. A pro-growth strategy tends to overlook the fact that residential growth generally does not pay its way in terms of public service demands. The balanced growth strategy is aimed at keeping public costs reasonable by directing development to certain locations. The no- or slow-growth strategy views the community as a fortress.

Introduction

America is a metropolitan nation. About four out of every five Americans live in a metropolitan county. These counties cover about one-fifth of the nation's land (see Figure 1). But within these counties, and in several non-metro adjacent counties there are large areas of open land that are actively farmed, ranched, and logged. For example, about 25% of the America's food is produced in metropolitan counties, and another 32% in non-metro adjacent counties.

Figure 1

The metropolitan fringe can be defined as a region between 10 to 40 miles outside of major urban centers where traditional rural industries are giving way to residential, commercial, and industrial development. This new development is mainly locating along highways and in the countryside, not in established settlements (see Table 1).

It is often difficult to say where the suburbs end and the fringe begins. One way is to identify a change in parcel sizes through a GIS map from fairly small lots to parcels of ten or more acres. But many people who live in the fringe have a suburban lifestyle: they commute a long distance to jobs in the suburbs, edge cities, and even the central city.

The fringe is America's premier region of growth and change. The fringe is attractive because it offers open space, potentially cleaner air and water than a city or suburb, less congestion and noise, less crime, and a better place to raise a family. In this sense, the fringe has significant economic development potential. In the Information Economy, businesses and workers are more footloose than ever. Both business owners and workers want to live in a pleasant environment with access to cultural amenities. The fringe combines the environmental advantages with proximity to suburban and urban activities.

Table 1. Land Area and Population of Selected Cities and the Percentage of the Metropolitan Area and Population, 1992

City	Population	% of Metro Regional Pop.	City Land Area (sq. miles)	% of Region Land Area ¹
Albuquerque	398,000	64.6%	132.2	55.5%
Atlanta	395,000	12.6%	131.8	14.4%
Baltimore	725,000	30.2%	80.2	3%
Boston	552,000	10.1%	48.4	3%
Chicago	2,768,000	32.9%	227.2	6%
Los Angeles	3,490,000	23.1%	469.3	11%
Minneapolis St Paul	363,000 268,000	24.1%	107.7	10.9%
Phoenix	1,012,000	43.4%	419.9	50.5%

Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1995, Tables 43 - 46.
¹ Based on 1980 metropolitan area. The 1990 Census did not include metropolitan areas. Several metro areas grew in size between 1980 and 1992.

Fringe Growth Management Challenges

The fringe presents some special short-term and long-range planning challenges (see Table 2). In the short-run, the major obstacles are the fragmentation of governments and authorities, a lack of vision, and hence a lack of effective planning.

Table 2. Eight Obstacles to Growth Management in the Fringe

Fragmented and overlapping governments, authorities, and special districts.
The large size of fringe areas.
Lack of a community, county, or regional vision.
Lack of a sense of place and identity.
Newcomers and social conflicts.
The spread of scattered new development.
Too few planning resources.
Outdated planning and zoning techniques.

In the long-run, the most obvious challenge is population growth (see Table 3). Some population increases in the fringe are the result of shifting populations. For example, between 1970 and 1990 the population of the Chicago metro area increased by only 4%, but the developed region grew by 46%. But the U.S. Bureau of the Census estimates that by the year 2050, there will be 383 million Americans, about 116 million more than today. Where will these people live, work, shop, and recreate?

Table 3. Forces That Create Fringe Growth

Technology - especially the car and telecommunications.
Public investment - in roads for greater mobility.
Affluence - A growing economy produces job opportunities and higher incomes. People can afford a long commute.
Fear - of the congestion, crime, and dirt of the city and suburbs.
Preferences for a more rural lifestyle, featuring space and a more natural environment than the city or suburb.
Private real estate speculation and development.
Lack of a collective vision and ineffective government. People are interested in their personal private space to the detriment of public planning. There is a pervasive distrust of government, and politicians which discourages strong government action to manage growth.
Population growth.

A second challenge is that as the suburbs expand into the fringe and more scattered development occurs within the fringe, a massive amount of funds will be spent on new infrastructure: roads, schools, sewer and water facilities, etc. This huge investment will draw dollars away from upgrading and maintaining infrastructure in central cities and older suburbs.

Third, the growth of the fringe has been made possible in large part by the automobile. Although America is down to an estimated 10 years of oil reserves at current rates of production, new technologies to power cars, such as hydrogen, natural gas, and electricity should be widespread within 20 years. That is, transportation will not place a limit on fringe growth.

Fourth, telecommuting is becoming increasingly popular. People can work at home at least part of the time rather than physically going to the office every workday. Telecommuting means greater choice about where to live, and the fringe offers many attractions.

Fifth, the burgeoning fringe has been made possible by rising affluence. To live in the fringe requires at least a two- car family. In some fringe areas, real estate is more expensive than in older suburbs or central cities.

Growth Management Responses

Growth management involves government taxation, spending, and regulations aimed at controlling the location, rate, amount, type, design, and timing of development. Fringe counties and communities have pursued three strategies toward managing growth: pro-growth, balanced growth, and no- or slow-growth. The progrowth strategy reflects the view that the fringe is a holding area for future suburban growth. Economic development is the driving mentality. The balanced growth approach includes an economic growth element together with some land protection. A pro-growth strategy tends to overlook the fact that residential growth generally does not pay its way in terms of public service demands. The balanced growth strategy is aimed at keeping public costs reasonable by directing development to certain locations. The no- or slow-growth strategy views the community as a fortress. Residents oppose the forces of suburbanization that threaten to turn a community into "Anywhere U.S.A." Development is grudgingly allowed. Local ordinances may be challenged as a taking under the Fifth Amendment, or exclusionary under the 14 Amendment.

Two Case Studies

Chittenden County. Vermont

Chittenden County, Vermont stretches west from Mount Mansfield--the highest point in the state at 4,200 feet--over twenty miles to the broad blue waters of Lake Champlain, America's largest body of fresh water after the Great Lakes (see Figure 2). In between, the Champlain Valley has a varied topography of gently rolling land interspersed with hills. Parts of Chittenden County suggest the classic New England landscape of tidy villages surrounded by working farms and forests. Figure 2

Chittenden County stands out as Vermont's only metropolitan county with 141,000 people in 1996, an increase of 22 percent from 1980. A 1991 population projection by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission estimated there would be 175,000 residents by 2010 (Regional Plan, p 4).

Chittenden County has no county government outside of the court system. The government structure consists of 15 towns (elsewhere known as townships) and two cites: Burlington and Winooski. Each municipal government has control over the planning and zoning of its own turf.

Vermont's Growth Management System

Vermont's approach to growth management has been shaped by two laws: Act 250 of 1970 and Act 200 of 1988. Act 250, established a permit development process in which developers who proposed to build residential projects of 10 or more dwellings, develop commercial projects of more than one acre, or create 10 or more lots, or build on land over the 2,500 foot level would first have to apply for a permit. The permit applications are reviewed by district environmental commissions which consist of appointed lay people with hired staff. The proposed projects are judged according to ten criteria ranging from impact on government services to air and water quality, and loss of farmland. The decision of a district commission may be appealed to the quasi-judicial State Environmental Board, and from there to the Vermont Supreme Court.

Over 95 percent of all Act 250 applications have been approved, most with conditions attached. The effect of Act 250 has been to promote quality development, not create a regional planning system or a growth management program. The Act 250 process does not involve a comprehensive assessment of the cumulative impact of development over time, nor does it directly address where development should or should not go. For example, in 1988, a proposed circumferential highway sweeping a wide arc through the center of the county was granted an Act 250 permit. The ability of the road to foster further development did not receive close scrutiny.

Many Vermonters have recognized that Act 250 is not a substitute for planning. In 1988, the legislature passed Act 200 which sets incentives and grants for coordinated township and regional planning which would be consistent with state agency plans. Act 200 recommended that new development occur within designated growth centers and state agency plans reflect this strategy. But both municipal and regional plans have been vague about where growth centers are located and what a growth center means.

The missing link in Vermont's approach to planning is strict zoning on lands outside of cities and villages. Most of the rural land in Chittenden County is zoned for two acre lots. The state subdivision regulations exempt lots of over ten acres, so that owners who build a house do not have to do a percolation test or install a certain kind of septic system. As a result, significant amounts of the Vermont countryside have been parceled into lots of between ten and twenty acres. Between 1982 and 1992, Chittenden County lost nearly 32,000 acres of farmland to other uses--an area of 50 square miles. The rate of farmland loss, almost 30 percent in ten years, was one of the fastest in then nation. Only one-quarter of Chittenden County was in farm use in 1992, producing a mere $21.3 million in farm output.

The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission has identified 18 growth centers in the county, but has no authority to direct growth to those centers. The one notable exception to Chittenden County's sprawl is the Town of Richmond (population 4,030) on the county's eastern edge. While the neighboring Town of Williston wooed, battled, and finally got a Wal-Mart, Richmond quietly went about changing its zoning ordinance. The new ordinance, passed in 1996, discourages big box retail outlets like Wal-Mart as well as restricting highway strip development. At the same time, mixed-use development is promoted in the town center. Richmond has also debated adopting a growth boundary to ensure that new growth is concentrated. The private, non-profit Richmond Land Trust is looking to preserve rural lands outside the town center. In short, Richmond is trying to maintain its character as a New England village.

The lack of a county comprehensive planning and zoning process is painfully evident in Chittenden County. In addition to large superstores, retail strip development is posing a threat to traditional downtown and small town character. A huge manufacturing plant that would employ up to 2,000 workers is being hotly debated in another fringe community in the county. A 16-mile circumferential highway is being built arcing from the north to the center of the county. As of 1998, only 6 miles had been completed, at a cost of $69 million; the remaining section will cost an estimated $80 million. (Walsh, 1997)

Although Act 200 called for the coordination of local plans and a regional plan, the planning effort "has withered from a lack of funding and political support." (Burlington Free Press, p. 12A) Moreover, lamented one newspaper editorial, "When will we plan like we mean it? Local leaders haven't created zoning laws which direct growth in the manner their community wants." Instead, town zoning allows considerable development and is not coordinated from town to town.

As an observer from central Vermont, attorney Josh Fitzhugh suggested that the time has come for Chittenden County to form a county government:

"A strong Chittenden County government, elected by county residents and funded by a state-collected income tax on people who work there, could help considerably in addressing regional problems like police protection, transportation difficulties, open space requirements and recreation needs. Existing regional groups could be consolidated and, in my opinion, better managed",
(Cahill, 1997)

Clearly, Chittenden County needs to take more coordinated steps toward managing growth. In 1997, sprawl critic James Howard Kunstler took a tour of the county and remarked that development favored cars more than people and was mostly devoid of civic life. He summed up his observations by saying: "What's new in Chittenden County is that you've made either the conscious or the inadvertent decision to develop this county just like Los Angeles." (Vermont Times, 1996).

Sonoma County, California

Sonoma County extends northwest from the northern edge of the San Francisco Bay, between Marin County to the west and Napa County to the east. The topography features a Pacific Coastal headlands, a plain along the San Francisco Bay, long narrow valleys, and steep ridge lines. The climate is Mediterranean, warm and fairly dry. Though not quite as famous as neighboring Napa County, Sonoma County is a major wine-producing region and tourist destination.

According to the Census Bureau, Sonoma County had 414,000 people in 1995, an increase of 38 percent over 1980. The main cities are Petaluma, Sonoma, Santa Rosa, and Rohnert Park.

Beginning in the 1970s, Marin County designated new development for the Highway 101 corridor running along the county's eastern boundary and then up into Sonoma County. West of the development corridor, Marin created an agricultural zoning district with a 60-acre minimum lot size and added a successful purchase of development rights program in the l980s. Marin's Pacific coastline is under federal control--the Point Reyes National Seashore and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area-- and development is tightly controlled.

The success of Marin's planning efforts had the result of pushing development coming out of San Francisco north and east into Sonoma County. Farmland covers just over half of Sonoma County. The more than 500,000 acres of farmland generate over $340 million a year in gross sales, with wine, grapes, cattle, and chickens the leading products. The Sonoma County General Plan, adopted in 1989, identified an Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District. In 1990, the voters of Sonoma County approved a one- quarter of one percent local sales tax to raise revenue to purchase development rights to farmland and open space. The tax will disappear after 20 years. So far, the tax is generating about $10 million a year, and more than 22,000 acres have been permanently preserved. Part of the county strategy is to preserve land to keep communities separate and distinct.

In 1996, three Sonoma County communities--Healdsburg, Santa Rosa, and Sebastopol--voted by convincing margins to adopt twenty-year urban growth boundaries. In Healdsburg, 71 percent of the voters supported the growth boundary, 59 percent in Santa Rosa, and two-thirds in Sebastopol. This was the first time in the nation that growth boundaries had been formed through a direct vote of the populace.

And since the vote endorsing the growth boundaries, other cities in Sonoma County and throughout California have been looking into adopting their own boundaries. And the action to create has spread to other cities in the San Francisco Bay Area. In Santa Clara County, the city councils of Cupertino, Morgan Hill, and San Jose each voted to create growth boundaries.

The Greenbelt Alliance, a non-profit land use group based in San Francisco, played an instrumental role in waging the ballot campaign in Sonoma County. Beginning with roundtable discussions in 1990, Greenbelt Alliance pursued a strategy of involving the private sector in the planning process. The Alliance helped to forge a coalition of downtown businesspeople and the United Wine Growers in the countryside. Opposition to growth boundaries came from Sonoma Alliance, a building industry organization, and the Sonoma County Farm Bureau. But the downtown merchants did not want to lose business to sprawling commercial strips; and the wine growers did not want to have sprawl encroaching on their operations or detracting from the beautiful scenery of the grape producing valleys.

Says Greenbelt Alliance Executive Director Jim Sayer, "Urban Growth Boundaries create a win-win situation for everyone. Farmers avoid suburban encroachment, developers know precisely where they can build, taxpayers know their hard-earned dollars won't be paying for extravagant service extensions, and the public knows where their community stops and where the countryside begins." (Greenbelt Alliance, 1996)

Adds Christa Shaw, the Greenbelt Alliance coordinator in Sonoma County, "We need to focus now on using the land within the boundaries efficiently. There is a strong push under way to find creative alternatives, especially in Santa Rosa, where there is a movement to revitalize the downtown. In that area, we need to build housing for people in all walks of life so that we will have a real community that works." (Cahill, 1997)

The residents of Sonoma County are opting for slower growth that will be more compact. Annexations will be limited and public services more concentrated in existing settlements. Putting growth issues to a public vote may even set a national precedent.

Conclusions

The case studies share the problems of fringe population growth, scattered rural residences, and dwindling farmland. Those places with a strong farming economy, such as Sonoma County, are better positioned to manage growth. Where agriculture is weak, such as Chittenden Counties, farmland protection efforts are also weak and low-density sprawl a real threat.

A common solution that emerges is the use of government regulations to encourage more compact development. Sonoma county is implementing growth boundaries to limit sprawl and to keep cities distinct from one another. By contrast, a few villages in Chittenden County are taking first steps to become growth centers, but permissive zoning in the countryside is a hindrance.

Regional government appears to be emerging in Sonoma County simply by the shear size of the county. Chittenden County has a regional planning commission that is appointed; otherwise, there is no county government except the court system. This lack of regional authority makes for uncoordinated planning, despite the best intentions of Act 200. The Act 250 process injects a state role in regional planning though in reaction to proposed developments rather than as a proactive comprehensive planning approach.

The search for and implementation of effective public policy solutions and functional development designs is a constant job. What works for a number of years, may eventually become inadequate. It will be to the advantage of growing fringe counties and communities to stay abreast of growth management efforts in other parts of the nation.

A common thread in these case studies is a sense of urgency. Public officials know that more people and development are coming their way, and how to manage that growth will be high on the public agenda for a long time. Neither of the case studies exhibits a strongly pro-growth stance. But growth is not strongly discouraged, either. The balanced growth option still has time to work, but a different conclusion may be drawn in the year 2020.

References

Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. Chittenden County Regional Plan. Essex Junction, Vermont, 1991, p. 6.

Daniels, Thomas L. and Mark B. Lapping. "Has Vermont's Land Use Control Program Failed?" Journal of the American Planning Association 50: 4, 502-507.

Cahill, Greg. "Voters Put Sprawl-Busting Measures to the Test." Sonoma Independent, November 7-13, 1996.

Greenbelt Alliance, news release, October 8, 1997.

Fitzhugh, Josh. "It's Time to Take Another Look at Counties." The Burlington Free Press, January 12, 1997, p. All.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1992 Census of Agriculture.

Vermont Times. "Yield to Progress." October 8, 1997

Walsh, Molly. "State Cool to Highway Bypasses." The Burlington Free Press, September 10, 1997, p. All.

Walsh, Molly. "Postcard from the Edge." The Burlington Free Press, August 24, 1997, p. lE.

"You Can't Buy Vermont Character at a Strip Mall." The Burlington Free Press, May 8, 1997, p. l2A.

Tom Daniels Ph.D., Director
Agricultural Preserve Board
Lancaster County, PA.