Extension Communications
3614 Administrative Services Building
Ames, Iowa 50011-3614
(515) 294-9915
PLAIN ECONOMIC SENSE
For release after Dec. 14, 1998
Column 359
Common Ground on Iowa's Land Use Policy?
By Mark A. Edelman
Extension Public Policy Economist
Iowa State University Extension to Communities
A northwest Iowa regional conference on land use issues was held recently in Cherokee. After listening to presentations by State Rep. Russell Teig of Jewell, co-chair of the Legislative Interim Study Committee, and Stuart Huntington, Iowa State University professor who is conducting a pilot land use inventory for the Legislative study, participants discussed land use issues for an hour in a wide ranging panel discussion. Then the participants had an opportunity to indicate their policy preferences on a survey instrument which covered many of the land use issues discussed.
The survey instrument was designed by ISU Extension for Positively Iowa, a broad-based group of rural Iowa leaders who are interested in encouraging more rural-urban dialogue and creating a clearer vision of nonmetro Iowa. The results are not scientific and represent a very small sample of 24 respondents, but the farm and community leaders who filled out the survey were interested enough in the topic to learn about the issues.
Participants were from a predominantly rural region of the state and were not directly influenced by the growth of the larger metro areas. They were fairly evenly balanced between farm and rural community with 54 percent living in the countryside and 46 percent living in town. This means the respondents' interests were not representative of Iowa's overall population. However, the survey provided an opportunity for at least one group of farm and rural community leaders to identify areas of agreement and disagreement.
All of the respondents agreed that "some farmland is unique and should be protected from urban development." However, the respondents were of mixed opinion on whether "all farmland is a valuable resource and should be protected from urban development."
All respondents agreed that "some urban growth is strategically important for community vitality and should not be slowed down if it is consistent with a comprehensive land use plan." However, the respondents were of mixed opinion as to whether all "urban growth is important to community economic viability and should not be slowed down."
Surprisingly, respondents gave a higher rating for community land use planning as the best allocator of land use because it helps prevent leapfrog development and urban sprawl. In contrast, a lower rating was given to the free market as the best allocator of land use.
Seventy percent of the respondents agreed (16 percent disagreed) that owners of private property should sometimes be forced to sell their land, if the sale of the property represents the least expensive development alternative for a community, if it prevents sprawl and if it is consistent with the comprehensive land use plan. Sixty-two percent disagreed (8 percent agreed) with the statement that "owners of private property should never be forced to sell their land."
All but one of the respondents favored changing state policy. Ninety-six percent disagreed with the statement that Iowa's land use policy should be continued without much change. While 58 percent agreed (29 percent disagreed) with changing land use policy to protect prime farmland from development, an even stronger majority of 83 percent majority agreed (16 percent disagreed) with changes to encourage higher density development so less farmland is used when development occurs. Seventy-nine percent of the respondents also agreed (20 percent disagreed) that Iowa's land use policy should be changed to encourage more redevelopment of urban centers and infill of rural communities to utilize existing infrastructure.
The results became more mixed and higher levels of not sure responses were received when the farm and rural community leaders were asked about specific strategies to accomplish these goals. Those in favor and opposed were about equal on using public funds to purchase development rights on farmland. In addition, support and opposition were about equal on having developers finance transfer of development rights for farmland. Fifty-four percent agreed (33 percent disagreed) with having farmers sign 10-year no-development contracts in return for assessing property taxes on use value rather than market value. Similarly, 54 percent agreed (20 percent disagreed) with providing additional property tax relief for farmland owners who sign no-development contracts. With higher numbers of not sure responses, a plurality of respondents favored developing a system of urban growth boundaries and a plurality of respondents disagreed with collecting rollback taxes on farmland that is converted to urban uses.
On the lighting rod issues of annexation and condemnation, 58 percent agreed (12 percent disagreed) that cities and counties should have authority to condemn private property, if it is in a strategic location for economic growth and if it is consistent with a countywide comprehensive land use plan. Fifty-four percent agreed (25 percent disagreed) that city governments should have the authority to annex farmland into the city involuntarily if it is in a strategic location for economic growth and if it is consistent with a countywide comprehensive land use plan. Fifty-four percent also agreed (29 percent disagreed) that farmland owners should be prohibited from creating rural housing subdivisions outside of the corporate city limits.
Edelman is a professor of economics and an extension public policy specialist at Iowa State University.
ml: isupes
Extension programs are available to all without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability.