Hat tip: Geoff Clegg.
I was recently directed to a paper co-authored by two scholars, John Carruthers of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Gudmunder Ulfarsson of Washington University in Saint Louis, regarding the relationship between smart growth concepts and public finance.
Their article contains substantive empirical data that backs up an argument frequently made by champions of smart growth: Expansive, low-density development costs the public more than higher-density, “in-fill” development. Quoting from the article:
The results of the analysis link one of the main ideas behind smart growth—namely, that low-density, spatially expansive development patterns are more expensive to support—directly to public finance. While there is a lot of variation in how the density and the spatial expanse of development influence different types of services, other things being equal, sprawl, as a cost factor, nearly always raises per capita spending, and the effects translate into large dollar values when summed across the entire country. They are also quite large on a case-by-case basis when capitalized at a conventional long-term lending rate as approximations of opportunity costs. These findings strongly suggest that the reasoning behind fiscally motivated, anti-sprawl smart growth policy frameworks is sound.
While the paper does raise legitimate questions about the “quality” of those services provided, it also underscores the basic economic feasibility of smart growth. Indeed, it is definitive in its assessment that sprawl development does cost the public significantly more than smart growth development. To read the 34 page paper, click here.
Interestingly, in another recent article, the LA Weekly claims that the economic feasibility of smart growth has been exploited and perverted by developers who use the term “smart growth” in order to secure public funding for projects that actually qualify as sprawl. In other words, sprawl development has sometimes adopted the rhetorical terms and conditions of smart growth, and although this has been used as simply a device, sprawl developments may superficially implement a cherry-picked set of requirements to qualify for publicly-funded incentives. For example:
Pacific Coast Capital Partners found a way to redefine smart growth, transforming the phrase to mean any infill project in a low-income neighborhood. The firm then traveled to government-employee pension boards up and down the Golden State, using the marketing magic of smart growth to seek funds for development.
The timing was perfect. State Treasurer Phil Angelides was already encouraging CalPers, the nation’s largest pension fund, to invest in inner-city real estate projects. In 2004, the Los Angeles City Employee Retirement System, which represents nearly 42,000 retired and current city employees, voted to invest $10 million in the fund managed by Pacific Coast Capital Partners known as Southern California Smart Growth. The fund manager promised to deliver a “double bottom line” — bringing social benefits while wisely investing in promising real estate projects.
Yet oddly enough, one of the fund’s first major acquisitions was an existing 47-acre outdoor outlet mall in the San Ysidro neighborhood of San Diego.
When considering the significant growth of our region, it seems wise to look at the empirical data and to stand guard against those who seek to exploit a “catch-all” phrase to build developments that are, in reality, adverse to the public’s best interest. Although we may be over a decade behind much of the nation in the implementation of smart growth, we are afforded the unique opportunity of learning from others’ mistakes. And the lesson is to recognize the purity of the concept, to wholly understand what it means to grow smartly– green space, in-fill, inner-core, and downtown revitalization and redevelopment, walkability and a deemphasis of car-centric transit.
CenLamar 
Lamar, while the basic concepts of “smart growth” do make a lot of sense, from a public finance point of view, that is not the only consideration that needs to be kept in mind by our local elected officials.
Having a walk about highly congested living downtown area, relying on mass transit and all of it’s benefits over car emissions and gasoline costs, often fails to consider the local make up of our people. Perhaps the two most overlooked factors, locally, are the aging population and the rural character of the people of this area. First, statistics show that our population is growing toward a larger percentage being elderly. One need only to go to Walmart or Kroger and see the number of handicap parking spaces and motorized wheelchairs and scooters used. Malls also developed, in part, for a clear preference for the convenience to nearby parking to shopping facilities. In other words, it has been clearly demonstrated that people of this area, for numerous reasons, will not support a downtown area lacking convenient relatively close parking. Parking garages, offering convenient and efficient parking is a must for any future downtown development. If downtown development is seen as a youth only interest, it is doomed to failure in this area.
Additionally, our development in Alexandria has basically been from a rural culture. Just a couple of generations ago, most Alexandrians came to the City from a rural culture. Perhaps one of the hallmark facts of such a culture is love of land and open spaces. Alexandria is not a high rise apartment or condo supporter, at this time. The majority of the people, I dare say, want to move on up, not to a high rise, but to properties with acreage.
These often competing interests, with many of the principals of “smart-growth”, must be kept in mind when molding such a philosophy for Alexandria.
Greg,
I think you make some sound points about our aging workforce and the subsequent demographic changes that we must acknowledge when planning for future growth.
And while I don’t mean to sound too alarmist, an aging workforce does not bode well for our region.
A couple of weeks ago, George Robertson of CAP gave an excellent presentation to the City Council on this very subject. Using empirical data culled from across the nation and projected demographic changes here in Louisiana, Robertson argued for the importance of attracting and retaining young people. Interrelatedly, he also argued for the expansion of vocational education or skill-based education. One of the most interesting things he said was that while our region may suffer from a lack of a young, skilled workforce, most people can be trained in a skill within 20 to 40 hours; as he said, generally, our aptitude levels are very high, which is promising.
That said, of course, any plans for growth should take in account the needs of the elderly and the disabled. As you may know, I have my own physical limitations, and I agree with your argument about convenient parking and the need to address downtown parking when considering any revitalization efforts.
The local character issue is another matter entirely, however. As you point out, people in our region like to live on a lot of acreage; this is a lifestyle choice, and typically, it means people live outside of the city limits.
I don’t always agree with the “If you build it, they will come” philosophy, but I think there is a real, tangible interest in downtown living– an untapped market. And while this market does not represent the majority by any means, studies have shown downtown housing is the linchpin for revitalization.
But perhaps one of the more interesting things about this untapped market is that it’s not simply composed of young people, which means it must consider the needs of people from all walks of life.
Just as an add-on: Much has been made about downtown revitalization on this website. Personally, I believe the project has merit and potential, but I should also emphasize that smart growth isn’t just about downtown revitalization and reclaiming our waterfront. It affects all areas of town and indeed, at its best, should respond to the needs and demands of the entire region.