[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
. THE CASE FOR (AND AGAINST) COMPACT URBAN DEVELOPMENT 59City planners long have maintained that compact development savescapital and operating costs for infrastructure systems.A major study ofthese factors was commissioned in the early 1970s by the U.S.Depart-ment of Housing and Urban Development, the Council on Environmen-tal Quality, and the Environmental Protection Agency.The study, calledThe Costs of Sprawl, remains the principal study supporting the conceptthat sprawl costs more to serve by urban systems than compact devel-opment.3 Although its methodology has been criticized, the researchfound that low-density development required more extensive and there-fore more costly infrastructure systems than higher-density develop-ment.Other analyses, including one by the National Association ofHome Builders, found similar results.In a 1989 summary of cost-of-sprawl studies to date, James E.Frankconcluded that capital costs of streets, sewers, water, storm drainage,and schools for a typical subdivision of three houses per acre can be re-duced at least one-third by developing near basic public facilities andemployment centers, at densities averaging 12 houses per acre (assum-ing a mix of housing types).4Most of such studies assume that all development will be served byurban-type facilities.Much rural development, however, relies on unim-proved roads, water wells, and septic tanks rather than more expensivefacilities.Those private infrastructure costs, plus the lower land coststypically found in outlying locations, have not been factored into thestudies cited above.Nevertheless, several factors tend to affect such costsavings:" The costs of many nonprivate facilities such as schools (includingbussing), fire stations, police protection, and road maintenance are in-creased by scattered development." Initial low-cost infrastructure in low-density areas must be replaced atsubstantial cost when more intensive urban development occurs in thearea." The dependence of scattered development on wells and septic tanks al-most inevitably leads in the long term to maintenance problems and po-tential impacts on water quality.The upshot of all analyses to date is that the fiscal case for or againstcompact development remains unclear.Recent research by RobertBurchell and Paul Tischler, two of the nation s preeminent specialists infiscal studies, concluded that sprawl development increases some infra-structure costs by relatively small amounts about 25 percent for localroads, 15 percent for water and sewer systems, and 5 percent forschools.5 Local road improvement costs, however, are often funded bydevelopers; water and sewer costs are often funded by raising water Fiscal Issues in Managing GrowthPaul S.TischlerA program for managed growth will not be implemented unless it is fundable.Fiscal analysis techniques can evaluate the fiscal reality of various land useplans and other managed growth scenarios.The bottom line for fiscal impactanalyses is the cash flow to the public sector from prospective development.To determine cash flow, three components must be considered: revenues,capital costs, and operating costs.From a fiscal perspective, several important issues arise in evaluatinggrowth management proposals.One is the overall concept of fiscal impactanalysis.Unfortunately, fiscal analyses too often consider only potential cap-ital costs, which can lead to erroneous conclusions.Urban sprawl costs morethan concentrated development in almost all cases when only capital facilitycosts are considered.Longer lengths of pipes and roadways, as well as schoolbus routes, make low-density development more expensive to serve withurban facilities.However, capital costs make up only 10 to 20 percent of mostjurisdictions budgets, making operating costs a major consideration.Forsome services operating costs may not vary significantly due to developmentpatterns.For others, such as fire protection, marginal-cost fiscal impacts basedon case studies usually indicate significant operating cost variations.For thatreason, infill and contiguous new development are likely to produce lowerfire protection costs than for leap-frog development.Probably the most important component of fiscal analyses is revenues.De-pending on specific state and local revenue mechanisms, it is possible thatlower-density, high-value market values will generate higher net revenuesthan more compact development, even after accounting for higher capitaland/or operating expenses.Growing jurisdictions in Maryland, for example,generate most of their revenues from property and income taxes and transferfees, all related to the market value of development.Residential market val-ues generally increase as densities decrease.These kinds of findings must beunderstood as part of the decision-making process for managing growth.Theymay add significance to nonfiscal impacts of growth on the environment,quality of life, and other factors.Other fiscal factors pertain to the timing and geographic distribution of pro-jected development.Once facilities and services have been extended to ur-banizing areas, rapid development of those areas usually produces the bestfiscal results.Debt service and other costs for new facilities benefit from steepincreases in revenues from new development.Similarly, understanding fiscalimplications of development in various parts of an urbanizing area can assistplanners in optimizing both geographic location and timing of future devel-opment [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]