URBAN SPRAWL
Gov. Tom Ridge's 21st Century Environment Commission officially launched debate over the perils of sprawl this week with the release Friday of a report that said land use was the biggest challenge facing the Commonwealth. According to the report, the population of Pennsylvania's 10 largest metropolitan areas grew by 13 percent, while its development land area grew by 80 percent since 1960. Additionally, more than 1 million acres of farmland and open space have been lost to sprawl since 1960. Poorly planned development is rife in the state, causing higher taxes and increased traffic and pollution.
The commission identified sprawl development as the most serious challenge facing the Commonwealth and calls on Ridge to take a leadership role in solving the problem. "Sprawl wastes open land, damages habitat and natural diversity ... [and] strains public funds to build the roads and sewers and schools that must spread to serve a spreading population ... What is needed are government incentives, mostly voluntary, to encourage more compact development served by accessible, reliable, affordable mass transit."
In what promises to be the most controversial recommendation, the 40-member commission advocates broader government control over where development occurs. The commission crafted the phrase "targeted growth areas" to describe a process that allows government to draw a circle around areas where development should be encouraged. The process known elsewhere as "urban growth boundaries" is in limited use in Lancaster County. It is a staple in cities such as Portland, OR and Charlotte, NC. "The wording was changed to appease builders and developers who oppose growth boundaries," said Karen Glotfelty, co-chairwoman of the commission.
"Those phrases sound like limits on personal property rights and individuals' right to choose where they live," said John DiSanto, president of Triple Crown Development Corp. and the only commission member who refused to sign the document. "People have a right to live where they want to live," said DiSanto, a developer. The Pennsylvania Builders Association (PBA) rejected the premise that sprawl development is an environmental threat. "To assert that sprawl has created severe environmental repercussions is not proved and is more a point of emotionalism as opposed to fact," the PBA said in a detailed and scathing critique of the commission's report.
In addition to the 21st Century Environmental Commission report, the Sierra Club issued a report citing urban sprawl as America's fastest growing environmental threat. According to David Rusk, the author of RENEWING OUR COMMUNITY: THE FUTURE OF GREATER YORK, urban sprawl involves:
*paving over precious farmland at three times the rate that farms are being saved through public and private conservation programs;
*costing both new homeowners and local taxpayers heavily for more new roads, new water and sewer lines, new schools, and other public facilities that would be necessary with more sensible development policies;
*steadily sucking away home values and tax bases in both York city and other boroughs and close-in townships as they are built out; and
*concentrating poor minorities increasingly in Old York city neighborhoods, both depriving their children of the opportunity to grow up in mainstream schools and neighborhoods (as most poor white children do in York County) and stifling sustained redevelopment of Old York city, potentially the region's most valuable real estate.
His major specific proposals include:
-Urban growth boundaries: So-called UGBs have been effective at controlling sprawl, preserving rural land and accelerating development inside the boundaries. It would take a change in state laws to mandate these. Some courageous local lawmaker should tackle it.
-Planning and zoning: The authority belongs at the county government level.
-Mixed-used housing: This issue is tinged by race and class discrimination. The evidence is strong that the best way to fight poverty is to disperse it. In communities that allow a small amount of low-income housing to coexist in neighborhoods with other housing, it causes barely a ripple of a problem. Meanwhile, those living in poverty are likelier to escape. Rusk put it succinctly, "Bad neighborhoods destroy good people."
-A vision for York: The city should be the centerpiece of the county's economic development, not an albatross. Rusk articulates ways to capitalize on historic York. The city is on that path already with the mural project, South George Street revitalization, the Rail Trail and other projects. That's the "inside game," as Rusk describes it. It won't much matter unless the surrounding communities share the vision. That's the "outside game."
-Regionalism: The newspaper is filled with stories that suggest there are key services that can be handled at different levels. Taxpayer groups like this because cost savings are possible. Good government groups like it because there's a chance quality of service can improve.
For example, a recent commentary by Frances Haas, Jr. of Harrisburg, notes there are 22 police chiefs within 10 miles of downtown Harrisburg. That means the taxpayers are paying $880,0000 in police chief salaries for a community of 250,000 residents.
Regionalism has to be more than buying office paper together, or even screening teacher applicants together, as local school districts do. If the discussion isn't about the "big" issues such as housing and land use, the discussion isn't much worth having.
-Revenue sharing: It's a natural outgrowth of regionalism. Safe streets in York contribute to safe streets in Springettsbury. Better roads in Manchester Township mean ease of use for people who live around Dover.
____________________________________________________________________________