Smart Growth WA State Growth Management Act Urban
Smart Growth, WA State Growth Management Act, Urban Growth Boundaries UDP 450 Oct 16, 2007 10/16/2007 1
10 Principles of SG 1) mixed land uses; 2) take advantage of compact building design; 3) create housing opportunities and choices; 4) create walkable communities; 5) foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place; 6) preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas; 10/16/2007 2
10 Principles of SG (cont) 7) strengthen and direct development towards existing communities 8) provide a variety of transportation choices 9) make development decisions predictable, fair and cost-effective 10) encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions 10/16/2007 3
SG: Bottom-up approach • Smart Growth (SG) approach began as a bottom-up measure based on market incentives (partnerships, education, priority funding), and became a nationwide movement GMA is a top-down, command control approach. It depends on locality, or state. 10/16/2007 4
SG vs GMA a tool box approach: Localities can pick and choose Plain English community building: compact, community needs, clean air, water, benefits for all income groups. 10/16/2007 Comp plans mandate Planning Terminology; Legalistic Language Same as SG 5
SG vs GMA “Energy” “Health and safety” “Livable Communities” “Regional and state coordination” 10/16/2007 “Urban growth area” “Reduce sprawl” “Property rights” “Permits” citizen participation and coordination” 6
SG elements vs. GMA goals: WA 1) Housing 2) Transportation and Land Use 3) Natural resources 4) Energy 5) Health and safety 6) Historic preservation 7) Infrastructure 8) Salmon-friendly land uses 9) Economic vitality 10) Livable communities 11) Regional and state coordination 12) Open space and greenbelts 10/16/2007 How do Washington’s SG elements differ from GMA goals? 7
14 Goals of GMA Planning Goals (RCW 36. 70 A. 020) 1. Encourage urban development in urban areas 2. Reduce sprawl, reduce low-density development 3. Encourage multimodal transportation systems 4. Encourage affordable housing 5. Encourage economic development 6. Provide just compensation for private property 7. Process permit applications timely and fairly 10/16/2007 8
14 Goals of GMA Planning Goals (RCW 36. 70 A. 020) 8. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries 9. Encourage the retention of open space & development of recreational opportunities 10. Protect the environment and enhance the state’s quality of life 11. Encourage citizen participation in planning process 12. Encourage the availability of public facilities & services 13. Identify and encourage historic preservation 14. Shoreline management act 10/16/2007 9
Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) 10/16/2007 10
Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) • Draws lines/areas around the city to promote development inside the boundary • Most rigid form of growth management 1. Limits long-term urban land consumption (20+ years) 2. Politically difficult to change the boundary 10/16/2007 11
UGBs (cont. ) • “Blue Line” (elevation: 5, 750 ft): the earliest form of GM in Boulder – created Greenbelt in 1992 via land acquisition (from sales tax revenues) • Hawaii – stringent state regulations about zoning: urban, rural, conservation and agricultural districts 10/16/2007 12
Merits of UGB • Sets a limit to continuous sprawl • Promotes densification and in-fill development • Facilitates mixed-use projects • May help to promote more transit use 10/16/2007 13
Merits of UGB • Influences consumer choice: – Facilitates some higher density development (“higher density” is a relative term by international standards) – Fosters variety of housing types 10/16/2007 14
Merits of UGB (cont. ) • Changes Developers’ Attitudes – Cannot go anywhere else within a metropolitan region, if all cities have similar restrictions – More effective with Statewide GM rather than cityby-city cases (e. g. CA), where developers can find pro-growth communities 10/16/2007 15
Drawbacks of UGB • Leapfrog development beyond the boundary, adding to commuting times • UGBs alone do not address the issue of adequate public facility provision (heavy traffic, school overcrowding, overloaded public services, etc) within the boundary 10/16/2007 16
Drawbacks of UGB (cont. ) • Inequity among property rights holders inside and out • Knaap argues that UGBs can never constrain development because of the 20 -year land requirement 10/16/2007 17
BOUNDARY TYPES • Types – UGB (Urban Growth Boundary): Oregon (1973/1979) – UGA (Urban Growth Area): Washington (1990) – Urban District: Hawaii • 3 Districts: Urban/agricultural/conservation – Greenbelt: Boulder, CO (1992) • Land acquisition via sales tax increase • cf. London , since 1947; Seoul, Korea, since 1971) 10/16/2007 18
• Washington State 10/16/2007 • Puget Sound Region 19
10/16/2007 • London 20
• Seoul, Korea 10/16/2007 21
UGBs vs. GREENBELTS • Greenbelts preserve huge land areas against development; GBs are more conducive to leapfrog development • UGB is more likely to result in densification in the U. S. because in Seoul and London densities are already very high • Greenbelts have been less flexible in terms of boundary changes (Korean changed in 2002 after 31 years of adoption) 10/16/2007 22
Critique of UGB • UGBs may bring “undesirably draconian outcomes because they are not directly linked to the underlying market failures responsible for sprawl. ” – Brueckner, Jan, Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies, p. 14, Urbana, IL: Institute for Government and Public Affairs 10/16/2007 23
Defenders of UGB • UGB is one of the most effective growth management technique • “…a clean break between potentially inconsistent urban and rural land uses, thereby protecting rural land from urban spillovers while also providing important environmental and economic benefits to urban development. ” – [quoted by Knaap, p. 3 in Nelson and Duncan, Growth Management: Principles and Practices. Chicago, IL: APA Press, p. 147] 10/16/2007 24
Defenders of UGB (cont) • Farm and forest land protection outside UGB: [Knapp, Gerrit J. and Arthur C. Nelson (1992), The Regulated Landscape, Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. ] 10/16/2007 25
UGB and Land Prices • GB designation reduced land values • land within the GB: 26 percent less than in the excepted areas [Nelson, Arthur (1988), “An Empirical Note on How Regional Urban Containment Policy Influences an Interaction Between Greenbelt and Exurban Land Markets, ” Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring: 178 -84. ] 10/16/2007 26
UGB and Housing Prices • UGB’s effects on housing prices are not statistically significant (although they could be as high as $15 -21 K) – Phillips, Justin and Eban Goodstein (1998), “Growth Management and Housing Prices: the Case of Portland, OR, ” unpublished draft, Portland, OR: Lewis and Clark College, Forthcoming, Contemporary Economics Policy) - 10/16/2007 27
UGB and Housing Prices • “Thus, they conclude, Portland’s relatively large price increases over the last decade reflect a “conventional housing market dynamic—a speculative bull market riding on the back of an initial demand surge. ” ” (Knaap, 2000, p. 10) 10/16/2007 28
Inventory Approaches • Knaap and Hopkin’s suggested new approach to deal with housing/land prices with UGB via an “inventory” approach • Release an appropriate amount of land gradually depending upon market conditions • Knaap & Hopkins (2001) “The Inventory Approach to Urban Growth Boundaries, ” Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(3), p. 314 -26. 10/16/2007 29
- Slides: 29