Transcript Slide 1

Rural Residential Growth
and Land Use Issues
Lori Garkovich
Professor, Extension Rural Sociologist
Department of Community and Leadership Development
University of Kentucky
November, 2003
Population Trends in the South




The South accounted for nearly half (11 million)
of total US population growth (24 million) during
the 1990s
The South accounted for over 70% of the net
migration growth during the 1990s
The majority of the population growth in the
South occurred in metro counties
Since the 2000 Census, estimates are that the
South accounted for more than half of the
nation’s nonmetro population gains
Population Trends in the South

Two patterns of population change



Rural population loss counties
Rural population growth counties
Two patterns of sprawl


“Urban” sprawl counties - adjacent to metro
places
“Rural” sprawl counties - redistribution of
population within county boundaries
Population Loss Nonmetro Counties


¼ of nonmetro counties in the US lost population
during the 1990s
These counties are characterized by




Remote location distant from metro centers
Low population density
Limited natural amenities (e.g., climate, topography,
presence of lakes)
Many of these are also agriculturally-dependent not
because they are exceptionally suitable for
agriculture but because they have no other
alternative industrial sectors
Population Loss Nonmetro Counties



In the South, the high population loss
counties are found in the Mississippi Delta,
the Black Belt, Central Appalachia, and west
Texas
140 (of 1,021) nonmetro counties in South
have had persistent out-migration since 1970.
These 140 counties are also characterized by
high poverty rates, low human capital
attainment and high proportions of minorities
in their populations
Areas of Population Gain:
Remote “Frontier” Counties


Roughly ¼ of the remote, thinly settled and low
amenity nonmetro counties gained population
during the 1990s rather than losing population
In these counties, the impetus for growth was not
development actions within the county but
decisions by external agents which produced new
conditions




Casinos
Prisons
Meat packing plants or new feed lots
Creation of lakes
Areas of Population Gain:
Urban Sprawl Counties


The vast majority of nonmetro counties
in the South that experienced population
growth during the 1990s are adjacent to
metro counties
The majority of these in-migrants are
moving to a residential choice, but
continue to work in a more urbanized
place
Areas of Population Gain:
Urban Sprawl Counties


Renkow notes that rural population growth
in the South is clearly linked to the
geographic expansion of urban labor
markets
This is evidenced by the fact that nearly a
third of the rural labor force commute outof-county for employment
Areas of Population Change:
Rural Sprawl Counties


Rural sprawl is the shift of population
among political boundaries – shifting the
pieces on the geographic chess board
Rural sprawl reflects the fact that
community boundaries are more
permeable to people and economic
activities than in the past
Areas of Population Change:
Rural Sprawl Counties



People living in a rural town move to the open
country
People move to a rural county but do not
settle in town but in the open country
Service area boundaries extend beyond a
particular community



The Wal-Mart effect
Rural hospital service areas
Rural labor market areas
Urban and Rural Sprawl


Urban and rural sprawl will continue given the
economic incentive to seek lowest costs for
residential, industrial and commercial development
and the construction of roads to facilitate it
In other words, sprawl will not go away if we ignore it




In a list of cities most affected by sprawl, 10 Southern cities
are among the top 20 cities listed by size
Atlanta and Fort Lauderdale (top 10 cities of 1 mil+)
Orlando, Austin and West Palm Beach (top 5 cities 1/2-1 mil)
McAllen TX, Raleigh NC, Pensacola, Dayton FL and Little
Rock AK (the top five cities of 200,000-1/2 mil)
The Consequences of Sprawl



The conversion of land to urban
uses
The economic costs of delivering
public services to geographically
dispersed households
The social, family and community
impacts
The consequences of sprawl Land conversions





From 1970 to 1990 :
The population of the US increased by 45
million (22.5%) and...
The urban population increased by 36 million
(24.2% but...
The density of the urban population declined
by 23.2% because...
Land in urban areas increased by 21 million
acres, a 60% increase in total area
The consequences of sprawl Land conversions



Every hour of every day, 50 acres of prime farmland
are lost to development
Nearly 80% of the acreage used for housing
constructed since 1994 - about 2 million acres - is
land outside urban areas. Almost all this land (94%)
is in lots of 1 acre or larger with 57% in lots of 10+
acres
During the late 1990s, about 1.4 million acres a year
were being added to urban uses in the South, the
highest rate of conversion of any region
The consequences of sprawl Land conversions

Between 1992 and 1997,



6 of the top ten states in conversion of land from farms
and woodlands to urban development were in the
South (TX, GA, FL, NC, TN, SC)
7 of the top ten states in percentage increase in
developed land were in the South (WV, GA, TN, SC,
MS, NC, AL)
6 of the top ten states in acres developed per person
were in the South (GA, WV, SC, TN, MS, NC)
The consequences of sprawl Land conversions

Since 1970, the population of the Atlanta metro
area rose 161%, and land within the metro area
rose 254% while the population density of the
metro area declined by 27%


In 1970, the Atlanta metro area with a population of
1.4 million covered 1,727 sq. miles and 5 counties
In 2000, the Atlanta metro area had 4 million people
and stretched 50 miles from north to south and
covered 6,126 sq. miles in 20 counties
The consequences of sprawl Land conversions

Between 1970 and 1990:



Nashville’s population grew by 28% while its
urbanized area grew by 41%
Charlotte’s population grew by 63% while its
urbanized area grew by 129%!
The dominant pattern of development is to
convert “cheap” rural land to urban uses
The consequences of sprawl Land conversions



Land use conversions occur at the urban edge -whether the edge of Atlanta or Somerset KY
While the conversion may hardly be noticeable in an
Atlanta, the smaller the community the more visible
and often controversial are the changes
Finally, since a substantial amount of rural and much
of the urban sprawl is occurring in communities with
few if any policies for land management, residents
are more affected by what can be called “random”
land conversions
The consequences of sprawl Land conversions

Directly, the conversion of agricultural land to
urban uses often leads to:



Trespass, vandalism, theft, and liability concerns
for farmers
Soil erosion and increased flooding during and
after the time of development
Competition for road between commuters and
farm vehicles
The consequences of sprawl Land conversions

Indirectly, sprawl reduces the agricultural
potential of remaining farms




Restrictions on types and timing of agricultural
activities due to nonfarm neighbors complaints or law
suits
Reduction in land available for agricultural use due to
diversion to or idling in anticipation of urban use
Increased costs of farm land still available to
agriculture due to comparative pricing
Limits on using newer technologies that require more
land to achieve full economies of scale
The Consequences of sprawl Economic costs



There is an overwhelming belief that residential
growth pays for itself through higher revenues
from property taxes
But property tax revenues are only one
component of the public balance sheet -- we
need to evaluate the public costs of growth
With few exceptions, property tax revenues lag
behind demand for local public services
expenditures
The Sprawl Balance Sheet

An acre of land in
agricultural use –


For every $1 in
property tax revenues
Receives $0.21 to
$0.36 in public
services expenditures



The same acre of land
now in low density
residential use –
For every $1 in
property tax revenues
Receives $1.05 to
$1.36 in public
services expenditures
The Consequences of sprawl Economic costs






Low density residential development - sprawl increases the costs of:
Providing police, fire, and EMS services
School transportation services
School facilities and operations
Public water service - extending water lines,
expanding treatment capacity
Parks and recreation facilities and programs
Calculating the economic costs
of sprawl

Picture a rural county road with 10 homes in
1990 and 14 in 2000. The four additional
houses annually will:



Increase demand for water service by 227,760
gallons (56,940 gal/yr/HH or, given a HH size of
2.6 persons x 60 gal/person/day x 365 days)
Generate 11,972 more day trips on the road
Generate 16,320 pounds more of solid waste
The average new single family home
built in Washington State entails a
capital investment in public facilities
and infrastructure of $83,000 per home
for schools; electric power generation;
water; sewers; solid waste disposal;
police, fire, and EMS services; parks
and recreation; and, new off-site
transportation facilities.
The Cost of Growth in Washington State, 2000
“In South Carolina, if sprawl
continues unchecked,
statewide infrastructure costs
for the period 1995-2015 will be
more than $56 billion, or $750
per citizen -- every year for the
next 20 years.”
Burchell and Shad, 1998
“A 1989 Florida study
demonstrated that planned,
concentrated growth would cost
the taxpayers 50 to 75 percent
less than continued sprawl.”
American Planning Association,Knowledge Exchange, http:www.planning.org
The Consequences of Sprawl Social Costs

Low density residential development
increases





Response times - 600% higher for police, 50%
higher for ambulance and 33% higher for fire
The number of vehicles on roads
Commuting times and average hours spent in
vehicles
Air pollutants discharged
Smog produced
The Consequences of Sprawl Social Costs

Low density residential development leads
to:




Decline of Main Street and downtown retail
sectors
Conflict between farm and nonfarm neighbors
Loss of place identity and unique community
qualities
Creation of a sense of “anywhere anyplace
USA”
Summary


Studies in communities with strong growth
management policies show that property values rise
as the area is defined as a more desirable place to live
Polls and ballot initiatives show that the public is
increasingly dissatisfied with sprawl
 In November 1998, 72% of the 240 ballot initiatives
related to limiting urban growth or preserving open
space or agricultural land passed authorizing $7.5
billion in spending
 Ballot initiatives continue to be successful in localities
and states
Public Perspectives on Sprawl


“Do you favor or oppose the establishment of
a zone or greenbelt around your community
where new homes, businesses or stores could
not be built on land that is currently
undeveloped?”
Favor:

57% all
62% suburban

CNN/Time Poll, 1999

- 59% urban
- 52% rural
Public Perspectives on Sprawl


“Do you favor or oppose using taxpayer
money to buy undeveloped land to keep it
free from residential and commercial
development?”
Favor

44% all
49% suburban

CNN/Time Poll, 1999

- 42% urban
- 39% rural
Summary



Urban and rural sprawl is consequential for
the economics of rural local governments, the
viability of agriculture, and the quality of life in
rural communities
The public is increasingly dissatisfied with the
consequences of sprawl
Yet because of the lack of planning and a
vision for alternative patterns of development,
sprawl seems to be the only option
Summary



While the belief “residential growth” remains strong,
more local officials are coming to recognize that the
benefits may not offset the costs
But there is a complimentary belief among many
public officials that “the people, my constituents”
don’t want land use planning and growth
management
Unfortunately, while we struggle to decide for sure
what we want and how we ought to accomplish it,
our communities are changing in fundamental ways
that will have land, economic and social
consequences for decades to come