H ow Your Ta xe s Fuel Suburban Spra w lSprawlCosts Us All

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Roads and Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Fire, Police and Emergency Medical Services . . . . . . . . 12

Corporate Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

This report was over-seen by the Challenge to Sprawl Committee:

Glen Besa

Larry Bohlen (co-chair)

Scott Elkins

Tim Frank (co-chair)

Ben Hitchings

John Holtzclaw

Judy Kunofsky

Bill Myers

Joy Oakes

D i re c t o r, Environmental Quality Pro g ra mKathryn Hohmann

Campaign CoordinatorBrett Hulsey

Project CoordinatorDeron Lovaas

Writer and EditorNicholas L. Cain

Research AssistantAnne Hauck

Senior EditorsKim Haddow andDaniel Silverman

Field Research andEditorial AssistanceSandy Bahr, John ByrneBarry, Glen Brand,Rebecca Cochran, JennyCoyle, Marc Conte,Jennifer De Garmo,Frank Fox, ReneeGuillory, Marc Heileson,Mary Kiesau, RobinMann, Mike Paparian,Francisco Sanchez, JimSconyers, Jeff Tittle,Bill Wolfe

DesignerCynthia Sumner

Sprawl Costs Us All

Acknowledgments

The first “Sprawl Costs Us All” report was written in 1996 by Brett Hulsey and the Sierra Club Midwest Office. Chapters and field offices in Arizona,Colorado, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Mexico, Tennessee, theMidwest and Virginia have since also written sprawl reports.

We wish to thank all of the chapters and activists who wrote these reports —without their work, this report would not be possible.

Thanks also to Miriam Axel-Lute (National Housing Institute), Kendra Briechle(International City-County Management Association), Denny Johnson (AmericanPlanning Association), Greg LeRoy (Good Jobs First) and Fritz Plous (citizenactivist) for their research assistance. Thanks also to the American FarmlandTrust and Robert Burchell for their work on the costs of sprawl.

This report funded by a grant from The Sierra Club Foundation.

© 2000 Sierra Club

Sprawl Costs Us All is a registered service mark of the Sierra Club, and can beused by giving the Sierra Club attribution.

How Your Taxes Fuel Suburban Sprawl

S u burban sprawl has been rightlyb l a med for ma ny things: de s t ro y i ngg reen space, inc re a s i ng air and waterp o l l u t ion, fra c t u r i ng our ne ig h b o r-hoods and fo rc i ng us to drive grid-l o c ked roads for every cho re. Butt he re is one cons e q u e nce that u s ually goes unme nt io ned — spra w lis dra i n i ng our pocketbooks and ra i s i ng our taxe s.

Sprawl is the result of over fivedecades of subsidies paid for by theAmerican taxpayer. These range fromthe obvious to the obscure andinclude big projects — like thebillions we spend on new roads —as well as smaller ones — like thetax-breaks that encourage businessesto move to the edge of town. We’vesubsidized sprawl at such a basiclevel for so long, that many peoplebelieve the status quo is actually fairand neutral. This is false — what we

think of as a level playing field istilted steeply in favor of sprawlingdevelopment.

How do we subsidize sprawl?Through an array of state, local andfederal programs — and throughincentives built into the develop-ment process itself.

The biggest federal contribution tosprawl is the billions of dollars spenton building new roads. Over the past50 years, we have built almost 4 mil-lion miles of highways. This massivenetwork of roads has done more thanspeed us from point A to point B —it has reshaped the landscape byopening up rural areas to suburbandevelopment and it has reshaped our society by making the car king.Travel by car has become not justanother option — in too many places,it has become the only option.

O t her fede ral pro g ra ms are alsoe nc o u ra g i ng sprawl. For years wehave subsidized cons t r uc t ion in floodp l a i ns while ma k i ng it far too easy tode s t roy critical wetland s. This enc o u r-a ges the de s t r uc t ion of open spacesa nd adds to the pre s s u re to spra w l .

T he growth of suburban spra w l ,t hough aided by fede ral spend i ng, is also the pro duct of de c i s io ns at t he state and local levels. The corpo-rate ent ic e me nt game — played bye v e r y o ne from go v e r nor to count ys u p e r v i s or — e nc o u ra ges comme rc ia lde v e l o p me nt far from cities andt o w ns. Over the past few de c a de s, c o r p o ra t io ns have become inc re a s i ng l y

Introduction

2 | S P R A W L C O S T S U S A L L

Suburban sprawl is irresponsible,poorly planned development thatdestroys green space, increasestraffic, crowds schools and drivesup taxes.

Smart growth is intelligent, well-planned development that channelsgrowth into existing areas, provides public-transportationoptions and preserves farm landand open space.

What is suburban sprawl?

What issmart growth?

S I E R R A C L U B | 3

skilled at playing one commu n i t ya g a i nst ano t her in an effort to wre s tg reater perks from state and localgo v e r n me nt s. Big - b ox retailers andisolated business parks are unw i t t i ng l ys u b s idized by our own tax do l l a r s.

S p rawl subsid ies are also built i nto the de v e l o p me nt process itself.Most ne w, spra w l i ng de v e l o p me ntcosts mo re to build and service thant he taxes or fees it ge ne ra t e s. When anew re s ide nt ial or comme rc ial de v e l-o p me nt is built outside of an ex i s t i ngc o m mu n i t y, ro a d s, sewer systems andwater lines have to be built. As thede v e l o p me nt ex p a nd s, it re q u i re ss c hools and eme rge ncy servic e s.W he re does the mo ney for all thisc o me from? In most cases, ne i t he rt he developers nor the new re s ide nt spay their full, fair share — it is therest of us who ma ke up the differ-e nc e. The bottom line is that ne wde v e l o p me nt is costing us mo ne y.

What’s InsideThis report identifies the most com-mon subsidies that create sprawl andprovides examples from across theUnited States. For each type of sub-sidy we provide analysis and solu-tions. Where appropriate, our reportalso provides figures for the cost ofthese subsidies and calculates thecost of sprawl.

Roads and Highways — Roads arethe lifeblood of sprawl. Building newroads encourages sprawling develop-

ment and, because of the high cost,crowds out other transportationoptions. And when driving becomesthe only choice, residents must drivefor every chore. Thisleads to gridlockedtraffic, frustrated driv-ers and calls for biggerroads. But it’s impossi-ble to build our wayout of this mess — newlanes and new roadsact like magnets fornew traffic, encourag-ing more people todrive more miles.Recent research hasshown that up to one-half of the additionallanes or roads built arefilled by this new traf-fic. This means thathighways designed tomeet an area’s needsfor a decade or morebecome full of traffic in a fraction ofthat time — putting communitiesright back where they started.

S c h o o ls — A good educ a t ion is pric e-less and our children deserve top-notch scho o l s. But, like a cat chas-i ng its tail, sprawl is fo rc i ng ours c hool districts to blow their budge t sb u i l d i ng new schools ra t her thanma k i ng our school system great. Inc o m munity after commu n i t y, we’veseen districts shu t t i ng schools inex i s t i ng ne ig h b o r hoods as they build

How do we subsidize sprawl?

Building new and wider roads

Building new schools on the fringe

Extending sewer andwater lines to sprawling

d e v e l o p m e n t

Extending emergencyservice to the fringe

Direct pay-outs to developers

4 | S P R A W L C O S T S U S A L L

new ones on the fringe. The re s u l t :We lack the mo ney we need for p ro g ra ms and teachers; the quality of educ a t ion suffers and our kids pay the pric e.

Utilities — Building a housingdevelopment outside of town sapsresources from the community thatprovides the utilities. The high costof extending water and sewer systemsout to the fringe is rarely paid for bynew development. And haphazardgrowth just compounds this — thefarther from existing resources andthe more spread-out the develop-ment, the more expensive it is toextend the needed infrastructure.

S e r v i c es — Not only does sprawlingdevelopment require roads, schoolsand utilities, it also requires police,fire and emergency medical services.These services are as expensive asthey are important. But once again,the taxes and fees generated don’tcover the costs — turning a sharedresource into a hidden subsidy.

C o r p o rate Subsidies — T hough theo v e r w he l m i ng majority of Ame r ic a nsw a nt to protect green spaces likep a r k s, wetlands and farm land, ma nystate and local go v e r n me nts actua l l ye nc o u ra ge the de v e l o p me nt of the s el a nd s. Why? Po l i t ic ia ns re s p o ns i b l efor the giveaways claim that the ya re necessary to grow the locale c o no my. Ho w e v e r, as we detail,

this Faustian bargain ra rely nets thee c o no m ic benefits that its boostersp ro m i s e. In fact, in ma ny cases,l e a v i ng a field undeveloped or aw e t l a nd unfilled is better for ana rea’s econo my than de v e l o p i ng it.

S o l u t i o ns — In our conc l u s ion we dis-cuss innovative solutio ns and suc c e s s-ful commu n i t ie s. The good news isthat some of the most spra w l - c ho ke dp l a c es — l i ke Virg i n ia’s Prince Willia mC o u nty and Florida’s Palm BeachC o u nty — a re turning back the tide ofh a p h a z a rd growth with simple change sin civic and fiscal polic y. Though thea p p ro a c hes differ, the unde r l y i ng prin-ciple is the same: We must re q u i redevelopers to pay the true cost of ne wde v e l o p me nt and use sma r t-g ro w t htechniques to both minimize the s ecosts and protect the enviro n me nt .

The vast majority of Americanswant clean, safe, livable communities— yet many fear that we are power-less to slow sprawl. The good news is that there are solutions. There aremany ways to reign in out-of-controldevelopment. And, as this reportillustrates, there are many ways toprevent it.

Sprawl is the fruit of 50 years ofgovernment subsidies. Cutting thesesubsidies will not just save us billions of dollars — it will savehabitats and green space, lead tocleaner air and water, and revitalizeour towns, cities and suburbs.

Sprawl is the

result of more than

five decades of

subsidies paid for

by the American

t a x p a y e r.

S I E R R A C L U B | 5

Roads lead to sprawl and spra w l-i ng de v e l o p me nt leads to mo re dr i v-i ng. New roads ra rely re l ieve con-ge s t ion and in ma ny cases actua l l yma ke things worse. Yet, every year,f e de ral and state go v e r n me nts giveaway billio ns of dollars to build ne wh ig h w a y s. The good news is thatt he re are proven solutio ns to bre a k-i ng this vic ious cycle. Ma ny statesa re learning that investing in publict ra ns p o r t a t ion eases tra f f ic,i m p roves air and water qua l i t y, a nd is mo re cost-effective thanb u i l d i ng new ro a d s.

Seeing RedEver been stuck in tra f f ic and won-de red: “Whe re are all these peoplego i ng?” The answer is “e v e r y w he re. ”While people once had ma ny ways to travel using public tra ns p o r t a t io n ,over the past 50 years we have builta car-only culture. Sho p p i ng ma l l s,b ig - b ox re t a i l e rs — even our ho me s,of f ices and scho o ls — a re too fre-q u e ntly cut off from sidewalks andt ra nsit by high-speed access ro a d sa nd acres of parking. This ma kes tak-i ng public tra ns p o r t a t ion inc o n v e n-ie nt and walking or biking da nge ro u sor impossible. Driving is, in ma nyc a s e s, the only optio n .

A nd accord i ng to re c e nt stud ie s,dr i v i ng is exactly what we’re do i ng .In 1998, Ame r ic a ns drove a stagge r-i ng 2.6 trillion miles1 — that’s thee q u i v a l e nt of dr i v i ng to Mars andback almost 10,000 time s. We no w

drive well over three times as ma nymiles per capita as we did in 1960.2

Not surprising l y, sprawl is the ma j o rculprit. The Surface Tra ns p o r t a t io nPo l icy Project (STPP) re c e ntly calcu-lated that from 1983 to 1990,a l most 70 perc e nt of the inc rease indr i v i ng was due to the impacts ofs p rawl. This is common sens e :S p ra w l i ng de v e l o p me nt fo rces us todrive mo re fre q u e ntly and ma kel o nger trips.

S p rawl also fo rces us to spend mo re t i me stuck in tra f f ic. Time losta nd fuel burned while stuck in tra f-f ic cost us tens of billio ns of do l l a r sa year. In the birthplace of spra wl—Los Ange l es — t ra f f ic delays are e s t i mated to cost re s ide nts a w ho p p i ng $12 billion a year.3

O t her me t ro areas like Wa s h i ng t o n ,D.C., and the San Fra ncisco Bay A rea aren’t far behind.

T he na t u ral re s p o nse to beings t uck in tra f f ic all the time is tow a nt to build mo re ro a d s. Un fo r t u n -a t e l y, building new roads anda dd i ng new lanes to ex i s t i ng ro a d sa c t ually enc o u ra ges mo re people todrive and opens new areas tos p ra w l .4 T he STPP and othe rre s e a rc hers have fo u nd that fo revery inc rease in our highway ne t-work, half of the new capacity ist a ken up by “induced de ma nd” —that is, tra f f ic drawn to the ro a dbecause it’s the re. Building ne wroads and add i ng mo re lanes dra w s

Roads and Highways

Traffic delays

cost residents

of Los Angeles

$12 billion a

y e a r.

people who otherwise would no thave driven onto the ro a d s.C o m b i ned with the delays cre a t e dby cons t r uc t ion and the time itt a kes to complete a major pro j e c t ,ro a d b u i l d i ng pro v ides almost nore l ief from tra f f ic de l a y s.5 A nd it’si nc redibly ex p e ns i v e.

N ew highwa ys usually cost tens of m i l l io ns of dollars per mile. Ye t ,despite the stic ker shock, statesjust love building them. Why? Onereason is that the fede ral go v e r n-me nt gives away billio ns of do l l a r sto build new hig h w a y s. “TEA- 2 1”—t he Tra ns p o r t a t ion Equity Act for t he 21st Cent u ry — sets out fede ra lt ra ns p o r t a t ion spend i ng for sixy e a r s. Sig ned into law in June of1998, it authorizes an eye-popping$173.1 billion for highways but setsa s ide only $41 billion for publict ra ns p o r t a t ion pro j e c t s. In othe rw o rd s, we plan to spend well overfour times as much on highways ason public tra nsit (see graph atr ig ht ) .

Legacy Highway, Utah $2.76 billion

A perfect example of an unne e de dh ighway fueled by fede ral cash can be fo u nd in Utah. Gov. MikeLeavitt is pushing to build a 120-mile loop that would parallel an ex i s t i ng int e r s t a t e, de s t roy c r i t ical wildlife habitat and openr u ral areas to spra w l .

Despite the re du nda nt ro u t e, s t a g ge r i ng price and serious envi-ro n me ntal effects, Gov. Leavitt isp u s h i ng fo r w a rd. The first sectio n ,t h rough Davis Count y, will run rig htnext to the eastern sho re of theG reat Salt Lake. This area is int e r na-t io nally recognized as one the mo s tv a l uable sho re b i rd and waterfo w lb re e d i ng and mig ra t ion areas in theWestern He m i s p he re. Millio ns ofb i rds stop over to rest and feed du r-i ng their annual mig ra t io ns. Rig htnext door lies critical habitat whe rebald eagles nest, red foxes hu nt andmule deer gra z e.6 T hough a ne wroute that gives wider berth to thea rea has been pro p o s e d, the pro j e c twould still re p re s e nt the large s t - e v e rh ighway int r u s ion into a wetlands int he western United States.7

A no t her major problem in the SaltL a ke City re g ion is the cho k i ng smo gthat perio d ically blankets the citya nd its surro u nd i ng s. Blessed with a stunning mo u ntain ra nge — t heWasatch Fro nt — t he area is alsocursed with weather inversio ns thatt rap polluted air against the peaks.Add i ng ano t her six lane s, as Gov.Leavitt is pro p o s i ng with the LegacyH ig h w a y, will just ma ke thing sw o r s e.

R e g a rdless of whe t her Legacy isbuilt, Salt Lake City will be add i ngmo re cars to the ro a d. In pre p a ra-t ion for the 2002 Winter Olympic s,I nterstate-15, which para l l e l sLegacy’s proposed ro u t e, is slated to6 | S P R A W L C O S T S U S A L L

From 1983 to 1990,

almost 70 percent

of the increase in

driving was due

to sprawl.

be wide ned from six lanes to 12.P ro p o ne nts of the Legacy Hig h w a y

p o i nt to the ge o g ra p hy and cultureof the re g ion and argue that ro a d sa re the only ans w e r. Ho w e v e r, there c e ntly built TRAX lig ht rail system( w h ich has exc e e ded its ride r s h i pgoals by 40 perc e nt) is pro of positive that tra nsit can work —even in Utah.

Despite the fact that a new free-way will only make traffic worse, anddespite all the environmental prob-lems that the road will cause, themost shocking thing about Legacy isits high price. The entire loop has aprojected price tag of $2.76 billion.The first 12 miles will cost an esti-mated $374 million — or $31 millionper mile. Of course, the governor ofUtah isn’t really concerned — likemost highway projects, at least halfof the cost will be picked up byUncle Sam.

Grand Parkway, Texas$2 Billion

Houston is already ringed by threehuge beltways and each one has onlymade traffic worse. But despite allthe roads and all the traffic, statetransportation officials are pushingon with the proposed developmentof the Grand Parkway.

T he new beltway’s proposed 177-mile route will de s t roy key habitat,open rural areas to sprawl and wors-en the dirtiest air in the na t ion. TheParkway will slice through fra g i l e

open spaces inc l ud i ng Lake Ho u s t o nState Park, Brazos Bend State Pa r ka nd the Katy Pra i r ie. The U.S. Fisha nd Wildlife Service states that t he Gra nd Parkway will result in“ t re me ndous secondary impacts”because it will open rural areas to mo re spra w l .8

The Grand Parkway will also surelymake Houston’s dirty air — now themost toxic in the nation — evenworse. And, instead of U.S. taxpayerssplitting the cost 50-50 with thestate, the federal government hasagreed to pay 90 percent of the pro-jected $2 billion cost. That’s a cool$1.8 billion out of our wallets.

Woodrow Wilson Bridge,District of Columbia$2.1 billion

The West and South aren’t theonly places threatened with sprawl-creating boondoggles. Right near thenation’s capital, the Federal HighwayAdministration is finalizing plans foran incredibly expensive 12-lanedrawbridge to replace the WoodrowWilson Bridge over the PotomacRiver.

This design is plagued with prob-lems. As often happens, many homeswould have to be leveled to accom-modate the new lanes. And, due tothe magnetic effect of expandingroads, the additional capacity createdis projected to be used up by thetime the bridge is finished. In addi-tion, the new bridge makes it diffi- S I E R R A C L U B | 7

Federal transportationspending from 1998 to2004Source: FHA

Federal Spendingon Transportation

Publictransportation

Roads

$ 1 7 3 . 1b i l l i o n

$ 4 1b i l l i o n

Schools

cult to add Metro trains or other pub-lic transportation to the crossing.

B u i l d i ng a tunnel under thePo t o mac is a much better idea. No tonly would a tunnel cost up to a bil-l ion dollars less than the dra w b r idge,it would be able to imme d ia t e l ya c c o m mo date the public tra ns p o r t a-t ion that the re g ion so de s p e ra t e l yne e d s. A rail link across the Po t o ma ccould move 100,000 commuters perday and re duce tra f f ic and pollutio nwhile re v i t a l i z i ng commu n i t ies likeO xon Hill in Ma r y l a nd.

Transportation is both a key cause of sprawl and a potential cure —

depending on how we spend ourmoney. The funding and constructionof freeways is a huge, hidden sprawlsubsidy that is all too often anexcuse to build new roads instead of an authentic response to ourtransportation needs.

Breaking this vicious cycle is easy:all we have to do is spend more onpublic transportation and less on newroads. In a country like ours, roadswill always have their place. But, byinvesting more in public transporta-tion, we will give people a choice inhow they travel — clearing the air,preserving key habitat and freeing usfrom the traffic trap we have created.

8 | S P R A W L C O S T S U S A L L

Transportation is

both a key cause

of sprawl and a

potential cure.

A top-notch education is crucial forour children’s future. But too manycommunities are distracted from thegoal of providing a quality educationby the need to build new schools tokeep up with sprawling growth. It’shard to pay teachers what theydeserve and provide students withup-to-date materials when a districtmust focus on constantly buildingnew buildings.

To be clear, pro v id i ng hig h - q ua l i t ys c hools for our stude nts is absolute-ly critical. The problem is thats p rawl fo rces us to build costly ne ws c hools on the outskirts as we closedown perfectly good schools in

ex i s t i ng commu n i t ie s. These spra w l-i ng schools share all the pro b l e ms of spra w l i ng de v e l o p me nt : T hey areex p e nsive to build and they are cut-off from ne ig h b o r ho o d s, publict ra ns p o r t a t ion and ex i s t i ng infra-s t r uc t u re.

Between 1970 and 1990,M i n neapolis–St. Paul built 78 ne ws c hools in the outer suburbs andclosed 162 schools in good cond i-t ion located within city limits.9

In Ma i ne, though the stude nt p o p u l a t ion de c l i ned by 27,000 s t ude nt s, the state spent a who p-p i ng $727 million on new school c o ns t r uc t io n .1 0

Costs of School Expansion in Rhode Island

S I E R R A C L U B | 9

Many districts can’t afford such lavish spending on new schools andare forced to erect temporary class-rooms instead. According to its stateDepartment of Education, Floridaalone has almost 18,000 trailers serv-ing as temporary classrooms.Nationwide, the use of temporaryclassrooms has reached epidemicproportions. In a 1995 report, theGeneral Accounting Office found thatmany districts have housed studentsin such temporary buildings for years.Julian Garcia, general manager ofconstruction services for the HoustonIndependent School District, estimat-ed that the district is using about2,100 portable classrooms and leasestemporary space in several buildings.

Just like poorly planned housing or comme rc ial de v e l o p me nt, spra w l i ngs c hools are far from public tra ns p o r t a-t ion and are usually served only byro a d s. And just like the gro w nu p s,k ids have to sit in tra f f ic to get the re.

A re c e nt Sie r ra Club study in Colora dofo u nd that stude nts are wasting mo ret i me than ever stuck in tra f f ic. No r t hof Denver in Larimer Count y, busroutes take up to a third longer todrive compared with a de c a de ago .1 1

A nd with longer ro u t e s, busing stu-de nts to school is becoming veryex p e ns i v e. In Ma i ne, despite a sharpdrop in the stude nt populatio n ,s p e nd i ng on bus service has balloone dto $54 million per year — six time st he amo u nt spent 30 years ago .1 2

A recent study of the costs ofsprawl in Washington state concludedthat school costs were the numberone “hidden cost” of sprawl in thestate. They found that for theIssaquah School District, providingeducation cost $18,600 for each newsingle-family house. However, theimpact fees paid by developers —fees meant to recoup the cost ofproviding services and structures —ranged from a piddly $1,100 to amodest $6,140. This leaves a burden

Change in enrollment 2000–2020

Cost of school additions

(in millions)

Core -3,400 $0 1,900 $19 -$19

Ring 500 $5 1,100 $12 -$7

Suburban 5,200 $52 2,000 $21 +$31

Rural 6,600 $66 4,000 $40 +$26

State 8,900 $123 9,000 $92 +$31

S P R AW L

Cost of school additions

(in millions)

Change in enrollment 2000–2020

Net costs of sprawl

(in millions)

S M A R T G R O W T H

A recent Sierra

Club study found

that students

are wasting

more time than

ever stuck

in traffic.

of roughly $12,000 per household tobe paid for by the state’s taxpayers.13

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. The Sierra Club’s study of Colorado’s Front Rangefinds similar trends. In three sepa-rate districts in Larimer County,per-student costs totaled between$10,874 and $12,500 — yet thefees charged to developers totaledbetween $0 and $446.

A nd even when a city or count ypasses a mo dest impact fee to covernew school costs, developers willp rotest. That’s just what’s happeningin Apache Junc t ion, Ariz., whe redevelopers re c e ntly tried to sue thecity for $1 million in past fees.S i nce 1988, Apache Junc t ion hasc h a rged only $1,300 in impact feesper new ho me.

A study produced for “Grow SmartRhode Island” mapped out two differ-ent scenarios, one of sprawling devel-opment and one focusing on revital-izing existing cities and towns. Theyfound that communities across RhodeIsland, if they opted for smart-

growth development, would save acool $31 million in school additioncosts over the next 20 years (see table on page 9).

Like all sprawl subsidies, these hidden pay-outs do more than costus money — they tilt the playing fieldin favor of more sprawl. Building newschools on the outskirts of town alsorobs districts of the resources neededfor other important educationalneeds. And, just to exacerbate theproblem, district officials often don’t coordinate with communityplanners.14 So communities end uphaving to play catch-up with sup-porting infrastructure like roads andsewer lines, leading to yet morepoorly planned development and theloss of more cherished open space.

So how do we break out of thiscycle? By charging developers andresidents the full, fair cost of bring-ing schools to new communities, andby making sure our communities andour schools are intelligently designedand properly planned.

10 | S P R A W L C O S T S U S A L L

Utilities

One sprawl subsidy that is hidden— l i t e ra l ly — u nde rg ro u nd is the costof ex t e nd i ng new sewer and waterl i nes out to spra w l i ng de v e l o p me nt .In most are a s, taxpayers pay thecost of ho o k i ng up new de v e l o p-

me nts to sewer and water servic e ;t he further a new de v e l o p me nt isf rom town, the mo re ex p e nsive thiswill be. And though some cities andt o w ns charge fees to help pay fo rt hese ex p e nsive systems, this ra re l y

Even when a city

or county passes

a modest impact

fee, developers

will protest.

S I E R R A C L U B | 11

covers the whole bill. Who picks upt he differe nce? The taxpayers do .

Even a simple water or sewer system can cost big buc k s. Ma r y l a ndG o v. Parris Glende n i ng estimated thecost of the avera ge new sewer line tobe aro u nd $200,000.1 5 Planners inMinneapolis–St.Paul estimate it willcost $3.1 billion for the new waterand sewage services that will beneeded to accommodate projectedgrowth between now and 2020.16

Even when impact fees are charge d,t hey often don't cover the whole cost.For exa m p l e, in Spring Hill, Te n n . ,ho me of the Saturn bra nch of Gene ra lMo t o r s, over $7 million was ne e ded tocover the cost of new sewer and waters e r v ice for the plant. But, impact feesonly recouped $2 million of the cost—l e a v i ng the city with a $5 millio nde f ic i t .1 7

In Colora do, we find the samedy na m ic. Arvada, a suburb ofD e n v e r, is gro w i ng via the tried andtrue process of land annexa t ion. As part of the annexa t ion agre e-me nt, Arvada has agreed to hook upa proposed de v e l o p me nt, TenEyck, toits sewer system. TenEyck will con-sist of 90 ho me s, located nine milesf rom the ne a rest sewer line. The ne wsewer line will cost between $2.25m i l l ion and $2.7 million, yet thea v e ra ge new ho me in Arvada willb r i ng in only $1,293 per year inp roperty taxe s. Even if all of thenew re s ide nts’ property taxes weres p e nt paying for the sewer, the re

would still be a sho r t fall of well over$2 millio n .

A new study of Pima County,Ariz., starkly reveals how poorlyplanned growth and irresponsiblesubsidies can feed on each other tocreate a financial and environmentalnightmare. Pima County allows “wild-cat subdivisions”— where landownerscan split parcels up to five times andbuilders are subject to few regula-tions — to be built almost anywhere.These wildcat developments are theepitome of sprawl — they are built farfrom existing communities and aresubject to little oversight.

According to the study, each newhome built in a wildcat developmentcosts the county $23,000 while con-tributing only about $1,700 in prop-erty taxes.18 And wildcat subdivisionsare very popular. A 1997 report foundthat over 40 percent of all new,single-family building permits issuedby Pima County were for this type ofdevelopment. Not surprisingly, this is costing the county a bundle.The report estimates that providinginfrastructure and emergency servicesto these developments costs between$35 and $55 million a year.

T h e re are other options. Smartg rowth can lower infra s t r uc t u re costsa nd tax bills. A re c e nt study compare d18 differe nt commu n i t ies in Mic h ig a na nd fo u nd that sma r t - g rowth de v e l o p-me nt re duced cons t r uc t ion costs fo r

Smart-growth savingsfor Rhode Island:$142 million

Source: Rhode IslandDepartment of Administration

Cumulative Cost of Sewer Systems

Smartgrowth

Sprawlingdevelopment

$ 3 3 0m i l l i o n

$ 1 8 8m i l l i o n

water and sewer lines by almost $33m i l l io n .1 9 A mo re in-depth study ofV i rg i n ia Beach, Va., fo u nd similar sav-i ngs (see chart on page 17).

Smart growth can save taxpayers a lot of money. In turn, reducing thesubsidies hidden in water and sewerline construction will slow sprawl.

12 | S P R A W L C O S T S U S A L L

Fire, Police and Emergency Medical Services

Fire, police and emergency medicalservices are crucial to our safety andour peace of mind. But sprawlingdevelopment is stretching these serv-ices thin, forcing us to jeopardize oursafety or pay higher taxes. And, sincethe true cost of extending these serv-ices out to sprawling communitiesisn’t paid by the new residents, thiscost becomes one more hidden sprawlsubsidy.

Fire and police stations are lessexpensive and land-intensive thanroads or schools, but they entail siz-able operating costs. Unlike schools,they are on-call 24 hours a day,seven days a week. Thus, even asmall force of firefighters can cost acommunity more than $500,000 peryear.20 And since the size and place-ment of the force is driven by theneed for short response times, themore spread out or poorly plannedthe transportation system, the morefire and police stations are required.

In sprawling Phoenix, 18 addition-al fire stations are planned for newsuburbs over the next 20 to 40 years,

costing new and current taxpayers upto $14.7 million annually.21

Warren County, outside ofCincinnati, is Ohio's second-fastestgrowing county — having grown 23percent since 1990.22 And, like fast-growing counties across the nation,it needs more police officers. Six new deputies will cost the county$281,000 per year. The communityof Monroe, also part of WarrenCounty, has seen its population leapby over 30 percent since 1995.Between 1998 and 1999, fire runswere up by 41 percent, emergencymedical calls by nearly 31 percentand police calls by about 11percent.23 Fire Chief Mark Neu tracesthis dramatic increase in fire runs toexplosive community growth.24

It’s the same story on the EastCoast. In Ke n nebunk, Ma i ne, ne wde v e l o p me nt 25 minutes outside of town has created the need fo ra no t her police patrol. The cruisera nd of f icers ne e ded for the patro lwill cost this relatively small town$175,000 a year.2 5

Taxpayers in exist-

ing communities

end up footing the

bill for extending

the public safety

net to new areas.

While the costs of mo re polic e,f i re and eme rge ncy services areb o r ne by both ex i s t i ng and new re s i-de nt s, the ex t ra covera ge usua l l yb e nefits new re s ide nts alone. So tax-payers in ex i s t i ng commu n i t ies endup fo o t i ng much of the bill fo rex t e nd i ng the public safety net tonew are a s. Is the re an alterna t i v e ?I nstead of building new fa c i l i t ies andh i r i ng the requisite staff, commu n i-t ies can opt to stretch the ex i s t i ngs e r v ice area. But stre t c h i ng the serv-ice area me a ns longer re s p o ns et i me s, which sacrifices public safety.

The American Farmland Trust com-p a red polic e, fire and eme rge nc yre s p o nse times in four differe ntc o m mu n i t ies in and aro u nd Chic a go .T heir re s e a rch fo u nd, not surprising-l y, that eme rge ncy personnel tookl o nger to reach ne w e r, spra w l i ngc o m mu n i t ie s. What was surprising

was the differe nc e.T he fire de p a r t me nttook, on avera ge,a l most three time sas long to re a c hne w, spra w l i ngde v e l o p me nt as itd id to reach de v e l-o p me nt closer toex i s t i ng commu n i-t ie s. The differe nc ein re s p o nse time sfor most police callswas even mo re pro-no u nced (see gra p hat rig ht ) .2 6

I nstead of ex t e nd-i ng our service are a sw i l l y - n i l l y, we mu s tfollow a plan. And, we must chargenew re s ide nts their fair share. Ens u r i ngthat new de v e l o p me nts pay for thetrue cost of these services will savemo ney — a nd possibly even lives.

S I E R R A C L U B | 13

A B C D

25.3

4.1

17.8

7.6

A = Recent sprawling developmentB = Municipal community

adjacent to site AC = Mature sprawling developmentD = Municipal community

adjacent to site B

Source: “Living On The Edge,” American Farmland Trust, January 1999

Corporate Subsidies

In poll after poll, Americans ex p re s so v e r w he l m i ng support for pro t e c t i ngg reen space. Yet, year after year, wepay developers to pave over the s ep re c ious places. Not only do we losekey habitat, storm buffers and na t u ra lplaces to re c reate and relax, but we’rep a y i ng for it through hig her taxe s.

In 1998, voters passed 70 percentof a record 240 smart-growth initia-

tives on state and local ballots.That year, voters also approved over$7.5 billion in new funding to pro-tect open space. And this trendshows no signs of dying out: InMarch, California voters approvedthe biggest open-space bond meas-ure in state history.

Many Americans would be shockedthen to learn that as we fight to

Average Police Response Time for All Calls

(in minutes)

14 | S P R A W L C O S T S U S A L L

protect these precious open spaces,millions and perhaps billions of dol-lars are being given out by state andlocal governments to encourage theirdestruction. Why? Because state andlocal governments are playing a cyni-cal shell game of incentives to luredevelopment to their region.

It works like this: Big corpora t io nsp romise towns and cities de v e l o p me ntp rojects that will create lots of jobs.All the community has to do is ponyup some mo ney in the form of unde-veloped land, tax discount s, sweet-heart utility de a l s, massive road pro j-ects or even stra ig ht cash. And, sinc emost commu n i t ies feverishly competea g a i nst each other in this giveawayg a me, companies shop aro u nd for thebest deal (see opposite page ) .

All this would make sense if thesepay-outs benefited our communities.Unfortunately, this is rarely the case.Many times the promised jobs don’tpan out. Even if they do, the tax-breaks and incentives lavished on thebusinesses frequently undercut anyeconomic gain — especially in thecase of subdivision development,which usually results in a net loss ofrevenue for communities.

And then there are the environ-mental losses. Wetlands, for instance,store and then slowly release floodwaters, cutting the damage frommassive downpours. Paving wetlandsover or plowing them under increasesthe risk of flooding. Floods have

killed almost 1,000 Americans overthe past 10 years and damage hascost us an estimated $45 billion.Communities that preserve wetlandsand flood plains tend to fare betterduring floods.

Wetlands also act as natural filtersby removing toxins from the water-shed before they reach streams andrivers. And they serve as habitat fora wide range of species. Despite thecritical importance of wetlands —and the economic benefits of pro-tecting them — we are still destroyingwell over 100,000 acres a year.

A recent U.S. Department ofInterior report highlighted 42 federalprograms that subsidize wetlanddestruction. Just seven of these programs cost an estimated $7 billiona year.

O t her types of open space arealso valua b l e. Forests cleanse theair and soak up global-warmingg a s e s. Parks and open spaces pro-v ide aesthe t ic and re c re a t io nal b e nefits that are hard to calculatebut easy to miss.

Unfortunately, not only are we losing these crucial open spaces andpaying a steep environmental price,in many cases we are actually payingdevelopers to destroy them.

Paying to SprawlOne of the most expensive cases of paying to sprawl is unfolding in New Jersey’s Hopewell Township. TheMerrill Lynch corporation was prom-

The overwhelming

majority of

Americans

p a s s i o n a t e l y

believe in the

importance of

preserving green

space.

ised well in excess of $200 million in subsidies to help build a massiveoffice park on mostly undevelopedfarm and woodland. This project,which will chew up 450 acres of openspace, is inaccessible by public trans-portation and far from shops, homesor stores. Due to its location in amostly rural area it is sure toincrease sprawl.

T he subsid ies of f e red read like as p rawl wish list: $77 million for ro a di m p ro v e me nts and $24 million for an eig ht-mile sewer line — not tome nt ion $135 million for equipme nta nd an $8.3 million dollar sales taxb reak. Yet all these subsid ies haven’tg ua ra nteed that Merrill Lynch will

keep its workers in state. In fa c t ,t he company re c e ntly anno u nc e dp l a ns to cut 800 jobs from its Ne wJersey workfo rc e.

This is not an isolated case.W i s c o nsin’s Comme rce Departme nthas mo re than 50 inc e ntive pro-g ra ms under its purvie w, and overt he past 13 years has handed out mo re than $1 billion worth of inc e nt i v e s. Bre a k i ng down the s ei nc e ntives ge o g ra p h ic a l l y, we findthat Milwaukee’s suburbs rank as thes e c o nd big gest re c i p ie nt of inc e n-tives at $37.9 million.

Yet despite the billions of dollarscommunities spend trying to attractjobs and businesses, these subsidies S I E R R A C L U B | 15

Company asks city or town for a taxbreak, subsidy or land grant to eitherencourage it to relocate or to build a newfacility. Many times this involves movingan established business from an existingdevelopment to the fringe.

C Y C L E O F S U B S I D I E S

Town or city, to build its tax base and attract jobs,grants the company major tax breaks and subsi-dies. They often also provide infrastructure — likenew roads, water lines and sewage service — tothe new development. Since it’s easier to build onundeveloped land, many cities also often offer open space to entice business to move.

The cost of providing the infrastructureand subsidies to the new business turnsout to be greater than the economic bene-fits provided. To make up for the revenueshortfall, the city or town feels compelledto bring more businesses to the area anddevelop more open space.

often play only a marginal role inwhere companies choose to locate.When corporations decide to move,they tend to look more at factors likethe quality of the labor force and theregion’s overall quality of life. This isthe ultimate irony of the subsidygame: Taxpayers in existing citiesand towns are paying through thenose to attract or keep companies,yet those same companies are stilllikely to thumb their nose at a com-munity by moving elsewhere.

Chief executives and top managersat 118 foreign-owned companies withoperations in North Carolina wereasked to rank the factors that influ-enced their decision to come to thestate or to expand operations. Forthe period between 1997 and 2006,North Carolina has committed morethan $1.72 billion in tax relief andbusiness incentives to attract andretain companies. But in the survey,executives said that the quality andavailability of labor and transporta-tion, the overall quality of life andthe general business climate were themost important factors in their deci-sions. Tax incentives, location assis-tance from government agencies,government financing efforts andstate marketing assistance ranked atthe bottom.27

Despite this evidence, elected offi-cials across the country describeincentives as a necessary evil and

make it eminently clear that theywon’t be the first to lay down theirarms in the competition for jobs andbusinesses. So officials in Columbus,Ohio, didn’t blink when asked to helpfinance the development of 6.2 mil-lion square feet of retail space inoutlying areas like Easton, TuttleCrossing and Polaris.

L i ke w i s e, Jefferson County inC o l o ra do didn’t hesitate when mu l t i -b i l l io n - dollar corporate gia nt GatewayComputers asked for hu ndreds oft ho u s a nds of do l l a r s — even tho u g hit would contribute to the spra w la l re a dy eating up the potent ial ho s ttown of Lake w o o d. Charlotte, N.C.,gave the nod rig ht away to a de ma ndfor $161 million worth of tax inc e n-tives to build a new plant in a ne ig h-b o r i ng rural commu n i t y.2 8 A nd, inPe n ns y l v a n ia, Alleghe ny County of f i-c ials are mo re than happy to pro v ideover $20 million in tax fina nc i ng fo rDeer Creek Cro s s i ng .2 9 This will fa c i l i-tate the cons t r uc t ion of 243 acre sworth of retail space on an unde v e l-oped area that inc l udes almost sevena c res of valuable wetland s.

T h e re is an alternative. We mustde ma nd that local of f ic ials cons ide rt he true costs of de v e l o p me nt de a l sa nd we must push for businesses topay their full, fair share of these costs.Only when we end the hidden subsi-d ies that pay for sprawl will we beable to break this de s t r uctive cycle.

16 | S P R A W L C O S T S U S A L L

State and local

governments are

playing a cynical

shell game of

i n c e n t i v e s .

S I E R R A C L U B | 17

A recent survey by the PewCharitable Trusts found that sub-urban sprawl is tied with crime as the top concern for most Americans.The message hammered home by thisresearch is simple: Americans aresick and tired of sprawl.

So why do we keep sprawling? Asthis report has shown, haphazardgrowth is being fueled by billions ofdollars in government subsidies. Froma hundred-mile freeway to a singlenew sewer line, from a massive mega-mall to a single subdivision — sprawlsubsidies are perverting the free mar-ket and undermining our best effortsto grow smarter. We’ve becometrapped in an endless cycle that isdestroying what Americans hold dear— green spaces, healthy communities,

clean air and water — while drainingus of crucial resources.

There is another way: Cut the sub-sidies that feed sprawl, ensure thatthe costs of growth are fairly sharedand employ tested smart-growthtechniques.

We can change business as usua lby starting with our tra ns p o r t a t io ns p e nd i ng. Curre nt l y, we spend about$200 million a day on building ,ex p a nd i ng and ma i nt a i n i ng ourhu ge network of ro a d s. Me a nw h i l e,we spend only a fra c t ion of that on other tra ns p o r t a t ion optio ns,s uch as lig ht rail and commu t e rt ra i ns. We need to invest mo re inp u b l ic tra ns p o r t a t ion and spend lesson building new ro a d s.

Though these changes could do

Solutions

Sprawl is tied

with crime

as the top

concern for

m o s t A m e r i c a n s .

Sprawl Development Smart Growth Benefits of Smart Growth

Growth in number ofdwelling units: 70,000 70,000 ———

Farm land developed:12,691 acres 7,559 acres Consumes 45% less land

Annual fiscal impacts on general fund: Positive Negative $19,067,709 $5,121,592 Costs 127% less

Total infrastructure costs$613,681,094 $338,270,087 Infrastructure costs 45% less

Total vehicle miles Citizens drive 65% less,traveled per day: 1,711,124 600,635 air pollution cut by 50%

Note: This is a comparison between two different scenarios for Virginia Beach, Va., 1990–2010. Source: Virginia Sprawl Costs Us All report (Primary source: 1990 study by Siemon, Larsen, Purdy et al.)

Comparison of Smart-Growth Versus Sprawl Developmentfor Virginia Beach, Virginia

much to stem sprawl, the real workneeds to happen at the state andlocal levels. Thankfully, smarter poli-cies are already being adopted insome places.

Virginia’s Prince William County —which was mentioned in our previoussprawl reports as a poster child forbad development — recently passedan ambitious set of measures to bet-ter manage growth. Pressured bothby citizen concern, and a more than$300 million deficit in funding forpublic projects, they plan to preservethe western half of the county asfarms and open space while increas-ing impact fees fivefold. Though thevisionary plan, which would takeeffect in 2001, is already underattack by builders,30 the lesson for

other communities is clear: If PrinceWilliam can do it, anyone can.

A nd other cities and count ies arefo l l o w i ng suit.3 1 L a nc a s t e r, Calif.,c h a rges developers a fee that inc re a s-es with the distance from the cent e rof the city. Palm Beach Count y, Fla. —w h ich re a c hed 1 million people in1 9 99 — a dopted a tie red system toma na ge growth with four differe ntl a nd use de s ig na t io ns: urban/subur-ban, rural, agric u l t u ral reserve andg l a de. Capital fund i ng for ro a d s, sewerl i nes and the like are tied to the s et ie r s — re duc i ng subsid ies to spra w l .3 2

There are also fiscal policies thatcan help restore neglected urbanareas. Several Pennsylvania cities,including Pittsburgh, have benefitedfrom an innovative policy called a“split-rate tax.” Taxes on buildingsare reduced and taxes on land areincreased. This encourages develop-ment in our existing communitiesand discourages the land speculationthat leads to more sprawl.33

Cutting the subsidies that feeds p rawl can help us grow in a mo rec o nt rolled fa s h ion. In turn, sma r tg rowth can save us billio ns of do l l a r sin wasteful spend i ng — as well asc o ns e r v i ng open space, re duc i ng airp o l l u t ion and ma k i ng our commu n i-t ies mo re livable. An in-depth studyof Virg i n ia Beach, Va., (see page 17)v i v idly illustrates how the vic ious spi-ral of sprawl and subsid ies can bereversed by smart growth and better18 | S P R A W L C O S T S U S A L L

S O L U T I O N S

1. Educate planners and decision-makers about theeconomics of sprawl: Preserving green spacesaves tax dollars. Request or perform a Cost ofCommunity Services assessment for recent andnew developments. (Contact American FarmlandTrust for details — see resource box, next page)

2. Hold local officials accountable for the costs ofsprawl. Require property tax impact statementsfor any proposed development.

3. Make sprawl pay its own way. Demand that devel-opers pay the full, fair costs of any new projects.

4. Make it clear that there are better ways to develop. Suggest smart-growth alternatives tosprawl, such as using intelligent planning thatchannels growth to areas with infrastructure.

5. Push for more public-transportation options.Advocate for balanced funding that invests ourmoney in public transportation instead of moreroads.

p l a n n i ng. Ac c o rd i ng to the study,s mart growth will save Virg i n ia Beachwell over $300 million in infra s t r uc-t u re costs — a 45 perc e nt saving sc o m p a red to spra w l i ng de v e l o p me nt —while cons e r v i ng farm land and sig-n i f ic a ntly re duc i ng air pollutio n .

Though cutting subsidies andusing smart-growth techniques cando much to help us reign in sprawl-ing development, the impact of arapidly growing population shouldnot be ignored. No matter how smartthe growth, a rapid increase in popu-lation can overwhelm our bestefforts. That’s why it is essential towork for population stabilization

along with smart growth.T he enviro n me ntal costs of spra wl

— l i ke disappearing green space andpolluted air — a re all too obvio u s.But, after five de c a de s, the subsid ie sthat power its spread have becomea l most invisible. Our pre v ious re p o r t shave de mo ns t rated the enviro n me n-tal costs of sprawl and showed us how we can use smart gro w t htechniques to slow out-of - c o nt ro lg rowth. This report illustrates thatby cutting off the subsid ies that fuels p rawl, we can pre v e nt poorlyp l a n ned growth and build safer,c l e a ner commu n i t ies — for our fa m i l ies and for our future. ■

S I E R R A C L U B | 19

W H E R E T O G O F R O M H E R E

Want to get learn more about suburban sprawl? Want to get involvedwith the fight to curb haphazard growth? The Sierra Club’s main sprawlpage is a great place to start: h t t p : / / w w w. s i e r r a c l u b . o r g / s p r a w l/

To find out what Sierra Club activists in your area are up to or to getinvolved with your local Sierra Club chapter, please visit your chap-ter’s Web page: http://www.sierraclub.org/chapters/

If you want more specific help with organizing a Sprawl Costs Us Allreport, creating a Cost of Community Services assessment or draftinga tax impact statement, please check out our sprawl-fighters toolkit:http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/resources/challenge/index.asp

The American Farmland Trust’s Web site is a great source of generalinformation on sprawl and has in-depth information on how to createa Cost of Community Services assessment: http://www.farmland.org/

Sprawlwatch is an excellent source of up-to-date news and informa-tion on efforts to control sprawl: http://www.sprawlwatch.org/

The Surface Transportation Policy Project’s Web site has lots of greatinformation on issues related to transportation and sprawl:http://www.transact.org/

E N D N O T E S1 U.S. Department of Transportation,

Vehicle Miles Traveled, 1998

2 F. Kaid Benfield, Matthew D. Raimi,Donald D.T. Chen, Once There WereGreenfields, Natural Resources DefenseCouncil, 1999, p. 32, figure 2-2

3 “1999 Annual Mobility Report,” Texas Transportation Institute, 1999

4 Alan Sipress, “More Lanes Better? NotNecessarily; Traffic Increases, StudiesFind,” Washington Post, 1/13/00

5 “Why Are The Roads So Congested? AnAnalysis of the Texas TransportationInstitute’s Data on MetropolitanCongestion,” Surface TransportationPolicy Project, November 1999, p. 2

6 Marlin Stum, “A Road Runs Through It,the True Impacts of Our Legacy,”http://www.stoplegacyhighway.org/road.htm

7 “Legacy Proposal Wins Feds’ Nod,” Salt Lake Tribune, 1/12/00

8 “ G reen Scissors 1999,” edited byGawain Kripke, Beth Mo o r man and Eric hP ica, Frie nds of the Earth, Taxpayers fo rC o m mon Sens e, U.S. Public Int e re s tR e s e a rch Group, 1999, p. 83

9 “ T he Dark Side of the Ame r ican Dre a m :T he Costs and Cons e q u e nces of SuburbanS p rawl,” Sie r ra Club, 1998, p. 22

10 “The Cost of Sprawl,” Maine StatePlanning Office, May 1997, p. 8

11 “Sprawl Costs Us All,” Sierra ClubPoudre Canyon Group (Rocky MountainChapter), January 2000, p. 17-19

12 “The Cost of Sprawl,” p. 8

13 Patrick Mazza and Eben Fodor, “Takingits Toll: The Hidden Costs of Sprawl inWashington State,” Climate Solutions,2000

14 Eric Damina Kelly and Barbara Becker,Community Planning: An Introductionto the Comprehensive Plan,IslandPress, 2000, p. 165–166

15 David Bollier, How Smart Growth CanStop Sprawl, Essential Books, 1998, p. 10

16 “The Dark Side of the AmericanDream,” p. 1

17 “Smart Growth Benefits Us All,”Tennessee Chapter of the Sierra Club,1998, p. 5

18 Tony Davis, “Wildcat Subdivision Coststo Taxpayers is ‘Staggering’,” ArizonaDaily Star, 2/23/00

19 Brett Hulsey, “Suburban Sprawl CostsUs All in the Midwest,” Sierra ClubMidwest Office, 1996, p. 20

20 “Community Planning,” p. 164

21 “Sprawl Costs Us All,” Grand CanyonChapter of the Sierra Club in conjunc-tion with the Sierra Club Southwestoffice, 1998, p. 19

22 “Six Deputies Will Beef Up Sheriff’sUnit; Warren Co. Responds to Growth,”Cincinnati Enquirer, 12/24/99

23 Ja net Wetzel, “Gro w i ng City Equals Mo reE me rge nc ies; Extra Pe r s o n nel Will Me e tNe e d s,” Cinc i n nati Enquire r, 6/13/99

24 Ibid.

25 “The Cost of Sprawl,” Maine StatePlanning Office, May 1997, p. 9

26 A. Ann Sore nsen, J. Dixon Esseks,“ L i v i ng on the Edge: The Costs andRisks of Scatter Developme nt,” Ame r ic a nF a r m l a nd Trust, Center for Ag r ic u l t u re int he Enviro n me nt, No r t hern Illino i sUn i v e r s i t y, revised Ja nuary 1999, p. 7

27 Kenan Institute of Private EnterpriseSurvey, as noted in The News andObserver (Raleigh, North Carolina),11/5/99

28 Scott Mooneyham, “Tax Incentives,Industries Bring More Than Jobs toRural Communities,” AP News Wire,5/31/99

29 Dan Eggen, “County May Ask More ofBuilders for Services,” WashingtonPost, 5/9/98

20 | S P R A W L C O S T S U S A L L

30 Lisa Rein, “Builders Mount Attack onPrince William Plan,” Washington Post,2/13/00

31 “Smart Talk for Growing Communities,”by Michelle Archie and Howard D. Terry,Topsfield Foundation Inc., 1998, p. 14

32 American Planning Association, “PalmBeach County Receives National Awardfor Land Use Plan,” news release,2/4/00

33 Anthony Downs and A. KnightonStanley, “D.C. Should Learn FromPittsburgh,” Washington Post, 9/24/95

S E L E C T B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Sierra Club Reports Used

Brett Hulsey, “Suburban Sprawl Costs Us Allin the Midwest,” Sierra Club Midwest Office,1996

“The Dark Side of the American Dream: TheCosts and Consequences of SuburbanSprawl,” Sierra Club, 1998

“Smart Growth Benefits Us All,” TennesseeChapter of the Sierra Club, 1998

“Sprawl Costs/Sprawl Solutions for NewMexico and El Paso,” Rio Grande Chapter ofthe Sierra Club, December 1999

“Sprawl Costs Us All,” Grand Canyon Chapterof the Sierra Club in conjunction with theSierra Club Southwest office, 1998

“Sprawl Costs Us All,” Sierra Club PoudreCanyon Group (Rocky Mountain Chapter),January 2000

“Taming the Sprawl Monster,” editors: GlenBesa, Joy Oakes, Sierra Club AppalachianRegional Office, (no date)

Other Reports Used

“The Cost of Sprawl,” Maine State PlanningOffice, May 1997

“The Cost of Sprawl in Pennsylvania,” pre-pared for the 10,000 Friends ofPennsylvania and Preservation Pennsylvaniaby Clarion Associates, January 2000

“The Cost of Suburban Sprawl and UrbanDecay in Rhode Island,” prepared for GrowSmart Rhode Island by H.C. PlanningConsultants, Inc. and Planimetrics, LLP.,December 1999

“Green Scissors 1999,” edited by GawainKripke, Beth Moorman and Erich Pica,Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for CommonSense, U.S. Public Interest Research Group,1999

A. Ann Sorensen, J. Dixon Esseks, “Livingon the Edge: The Costs and Risks of ScatterDevelopment,” American Farmland Trust,Center for Agriculture in the Environment,Northern Illinois University, revised January1999

“Is Farmland Protection a CommunityInvestment? How to do a Cost ofCommunity Services Study,” AmericanFarmland Trust, Spring 1993

Mazza, Patrick and Eben Fodor, “Taking itsToll: The Hidden Costs of Sprawl inWashington State,” Climate Solutions,January 2000

“Why Are The Roads So Congested? AnAnalysis of the Texas TransportationInstitute’s Data on MetropolitanCongestion,” Surface Transportation PolicyProject, November 1999

Books Used

Benfield, F. Kaid, Matthew D. Raimi, DonaldD.T. Chen, Once There Were Greenfields,Natural Resources Defense Council, 1999

Kelly, Eric Damian and Barbara Becker,Community Planning: An Introduction to theComprehensive Plan,Island Press, 2000

S I E R R A C L U B | 21