Smart Growth, WA State Growth Management Act, Urban Growth Boundaries

1. Smart Growth, WA State Growth Management Act, Urban Growth Boundaries UDP 450 Oct 16, 2007

2. 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;

3. 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

4. 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 nation-wide movement • GMA is a top-down, command and control approach. It depends on locality, or state.

5. SG vs GMA

6. SG vs GMA

7. 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 How do Washington’s SG elements differ from GMA goals? SG elements vs. GMA goals: WA

8. 14 Goals of GMA Planning Goals (RCW 36.70A.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

9. 14 Goals of GMA Planning Goals (RCW 36.70A.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. Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs)

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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 city-by-city cases (e.g. CA), where developers can find pro-growth communities

16. Drawbacks of UGB • Leapfrogdevelopment 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

17. 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

18. 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)

19. Washington State Puget Sound Region

20. London

21. Seoul, Korea

22. 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 theU.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)

23. 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

24. 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]

25. 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.]

26. 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.]

27. UGB and Housing Prices • UGB’s effects on housing prices are not statistically significant (although they could be as high as $15-21K) • 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) -

28. 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)

29. 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.