1 / 24

Smart Growth

Smart Growth. UDP 450 Prof. Bae Oct 16, 2007. Ten Principles Of Smart Growth. Mix land uses Take advantage of compact building design Create a range of housing opportunities and choices Create walkable neighborhoods Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place

baruch
Download Presentation

Smart Growth

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Smart Growth UDP 450 Prof. Bae Oct 16, 2007

  2. Ten Principles Of Smart Growth • Mix land uses • Take advantage of compact building design • Create a range of housing opportunities and choices • Create walkable neighborhoods • Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strongsense of place • Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas • Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities • Provide a variety of transportation choices • Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective • Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/principles/default.asp (Sustainable Communities Network)

  3. Maryland Smart Growth • Harriet Tregoning, EPA • Gov. Parris Glendenning • Prof. Gerrit-Jan Knaap, The National Center for Smart Growth Education and Research http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/ • Provide incentives to guide growth in focused (designated) geographic areas, and to protect rural areas

  4. 1992 Planning Act • The Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act of 1992 • All municipalities prepare comprehensive plans including land use, community facilities, etc. • They should include goals, objectives, standards to protect “sensitive areas” • Streams and their buffers; • 100-year floodplains; • Habitats of threatened and endangered species; and • Steep slopes

  5. 7 visions 1. Development to be concentrated in suitable areas (PFAs; Priority Funding Areas) 2. Sensitive Areas to be protected 3. In rural areas, growth would be directed to existing population centers and protected resource areas (RL; Rural Legacy) 4. Stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and the land is a universal ethic 5. Conservation of resources, including a reduction in resource consumption, is practiced 6. To assure the achievement of [the] above, economic growth would be encouraged and regulatory mechanisms streamlined 7. Funding mechanisms directed to achieve this vision (especially the PFAs)

  6. POLICY INSTRUMENTS 1. Priority Funding Areas 2. Rural Legacy 3. Brownfield Cleanup 4. Live Near Your Work 5. Job Creation Tax Credits

  7. 1. Priority Funding Areas • Provides infrastructure subsidies to areas within city boundaries or using other criteria • every municipality, as they existed in 1997; • Inside the Washington Beltway and the Baltimore Beltway; • designated areas • enterprise zones • neighborhood revitalization areas • heritage areas • existing industrial land • http://www.mdp.state.md.us/pfamap.htm

  8. http://www.mdp.state.md.us/localplan/baci/Baci.pdf

  9. Portland UGB

  10. PFAs & UGBs: Are they different? • Designation (& revision) of PFAs is a politically lengthy process, with no clear-cut approach • PFAs are more likely to leak • No way to prevent urban development outside PFAs • Also, no state subsidies provided • Local govts. (& private) funds might subsidize the costs of urban services outside PFAs

  11. PFAs & UGBs • Sprawl continues in PFAs • Development patterns within PFAs will continue to sprawl Cf. Oregon UGBs need to have 20-year land supply (every 5-yr revision); hence, they never have shortage of developable lands for urban uses • Portland in 1990s: 50% Pop growth, 30% land area growth • UGB’s influence on avg lot sizes and mixed uses were minimal (Song & Knaap, 2002)

  12. PFAs & UGBs • Raising land & housing prices • UGB constrains urban land supply, therefore raises land and housing prices substantially • Jeopardizes housing affordability • Debate on housing affordability continues; No clear answer • 10/18, Thur, Tim Trihimovich, Futurewise

  13. PFAs & UGBs • Positive impact on the land use planning process & quality • Govts. can take the first step tomonitorland development location, measure land use intensity, etc. • This will lead to better land management in the future

  14. PFAs & UGBs • Conflict between local govts. & State agencies • Some local govts. want to grow more, so that they can obtain more state subsidies • Cf. Bremerton, WA in early 1990s • Regional center vs. urban centers • Future population growth forecasts from WA OFM and Kitsap County

  15. 2. Rural Legacy (RL) • Preserving rural lands, natural and cultural resource areas (32,530 acres protected as of 09/2002) • Keeping urban uses via PFAs & rural use via RL • Discouraging urban development in outlying areas • Recognizing rural land conservation for state’s health and economy

  16. Rural Legacy • Greenfields and open space helps to maintain good water quality by reducing run-off problems to rivers and Chesapeake Bay • Protect resource-based economies • Agriculture • Forestry • Outdoor recreation & tourism

  17. http://dnr.maryland.gov/education/growfromhere/LESSON15/MDP/PFAMAP.HTMLhttp://dnr.maryland.gov/education/growfromhere/LESSON15/MDP/PFAMAP.HTML

  18. 3. Brownfields Cleanup • Contaminated, underutilized and/or abandoned site • According to CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 1980), owners of superfund sites are responsible for clean-up • Uncertainty re. “what constitutes clean?” “How long it will take to clean-up” “Who will pay the costs?” • Federal government’s National Priorities List • WA: 46 sites (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/wa.htm) • MD: 21 sites

  19. 4. Live Near Your Work (LNYW) • City pays incentives to those who locate near their workplace in target areas to reduce commuting($3,000/HH in 2002) • When a homebuyer purchase a house, s/he is buying a bundle of goods: • Physical attributes (# sq. ft., bedrooms, bathrooms, garden, etc.) • Neighborhood attributes (school quality, safety, etc) • Amenities (view of mountain, ocean, etc.) • Accessibility (proximity to work, supermarkets, trails, etc.)

  20. LNYW (cont.) • Therefore, it is questionable how well LNYW will work • Trade-off exist between housing location choice and commuting distance • Residential locators do not minimize commute. May be helpful at the margin • It may subsidize high income suburban residents/workers • Only 267 homeowners, 47 employers were participating in LNYW by 2000 • currently 85+ employers in Baltimore city (www.livebaltimore.com/hb/inc/lnyw/emp)

  21. 5. Job Creation Tax Credit (JCTC) • Income tax credit to business owners (>25 jobs created in PFAs) • Credit: 2.5~5% of annual wages (Max $1,000~1,500) • Full time, permanent, > 150% of minimum wage • 123 applications, 28,000 jobs by 1999 • Economic base, high tech industry, e.g. biotech, research development & testing, computer programing, etc.

  22. JCTC (cont.) • Conflicting report on the effects of economic incentives to create more jobs • Papke (1994), unemployment claims declined by 19% after the designation of enterprise zone in Indiana • Boarnet and Bogart (1995), no similar impact in NJ • Surveys find positive responses toward job creation and tax credit programs

  23. JCTC (cont.) • Job creation programs have an impact on the spatial distribution of employment within metropolitan areas

More Related