Extension Communications
3614 Administrative Services Building
Ames, Iowa 50011-3614
(515) 294-9915
11/29/99
Contacts:
Mark Edelman, Extension Economics, (515) 294-3000, x1edelma@exnet.iastate.edu
Del Marks, Extension Communication Systems, (515) 294-9807,
dkmarks@iastate.edu
PLAIN ECONOMIC SENSE, Column 391
For release Nov. 29, 1999
Land Use Conflict: When City and Country Clash
By Mark A. Edelman
Extension Public Policy Economist
Iowa State University Extension to Communities
A recent publication titled "Land Use Conflict: When City and Country Clash," provides an interesting outline of alternative approaches for solving the urban sprawl problem. The publication was organized into an alternatives and consequences framework similar to the National Issues Forum materials. The publication was a university extension project of the national land use task force sponsored by the Farm Foundation of Chicago.
"Land Use Conflict" outlines four alternatives: (1) reestablish the free market, (2) protect farmland and open space, (3) redevelop central cities and rural main streets, and (4) manage growth on the rural-urban fringe. Here is a summary of each approach.
Option 1. Reestablish the free market. In a free market, owners of private property rights determine the use of the land. Government intervention is minimal. Supporters of this option believe the free market and private enterprise represents the best way to manage land use, development and allocation of resources. Those who wish to alter or preserve land use must either own the land, be prepared to purchase it or, at a minimum, convince the current owners why it is in their interest to alter or maintain a preferred use.
Supporters argue with some validity that the market provides an efficient and inexpensive development process for the ultimate consumers of new housing, businesses, or commercial centers. However, opponents argue that free markets directly create unplanned urban sprawl and concerns over incompatible uses on neighboring parcels are likely to increase under the free market alternative. While this option results in less government intervention in land use, unique environmental resources may be lost in the process.
Option 2. Protect farmland and open space. Prime farmland and open space is identified, prioritized and protected from development using a variety of government and private sector land use management tools and approaches. Private sector organizations or individuals can purchase property or development rights, and provide perpetual care for designated open space uses. Tax revenues are used in some states to purchase development rights of high priority open space areas. In other states, developers wanting to develop in designated areas must purchase and transfer development rights to protect other designated areas in the county.
Zoning laws can be strengthened to create agricultural preservation districts for discouraging rural subdivisions and problems with incompatible uses. Finally, tax incentives are used to encourage land owners to keep land in agricultural and open space uses. The tradeoff is that the cost of protecting farmland and open space can be high, and depending on the approach used, may not reduce sprawl in the long run.
Option 3. Redevelop central cities and rural main streets. Supporters of this option, suggest that if blighted central cities and rural main streets are revitalized, pressure for expanding into the countryside will decline. Private-public sector partnerships can identify target areas and acquire them for redevelopment. Incentives for accomplishing redevelopment include tax incentives and abatements for rehabilitation, infill of existing open spaces where infrastructure already exists and incentives for urban renewal and brownfields where costs of demolition and cleanup are heavily subsidized.
Critics of this option suggest that plans to lure everyone back to the downtowns will not necessarily stop urban sprawl, and using more public resources to solve the problems in core downtown areas may divert resources from addressing the expansion needs in more suburban settings. The flight to the suburbs has been a 50-year trend that reflects where more people really want to live, if given a choice.
Option 4. Manage growth on the rural-urban fringe. Under managed growth, regional planning and development standards and incentives are established to encourage developers to increase density, reduce open space conversion and utilize public resources more efficiently. Some states draw boundaries around prime areas for future development. Open space areas outside of these urban boundaries are off limits to development.
Other states use planning and zoning authority to specify mandatory residential density requirements and design standards for various land use designations. Some states like Florida use graduated impact fees to encourage developers to increase density and utilize existing infrastructure first. Finally, tax increment financing and tax abatements could be limited to prime development areas and targeted to encourage higher density middle-income developments. The research on planned growth shows that it results in higher density development, greater utilization of existing infrastructure and less farmland conversion, but this option also means landowners may have less individual freedom in determining the use of their land.
This publication can be ordered through your local county extension office or directly by contacting Professor Edelman at 560 Heady Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, phone (515) 294-3000.
ml: isupes
Extension programs are available to all without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability.