Rural Residential Growth and Land Use Issues

1
Rural Residential Growthand Land Use Issues

• Lori Garkovich
• Professor, Extension Rural Sociologist
• Department of Community and Leadership
  Development
• University of Kentucky
• November, 2003

2
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
  nations nonmetro population gains

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
Areas of Population GainRemote 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

7
Areas of Population GainUrban 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

8
Areas of Population GainUrban 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 out-of-county
  for employment

9
Areas of Population ChangeRural 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

10
Areas of Population ChangeRural 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

11
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)

12
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

13
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

14
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

15
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)

16
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

17
The consequences of sprawl -Land conversions

• Between 1970 and 1990
• Nashvilles population grew by 28 while its
  urbanized area grew by 41
• Charlottes 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

18
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

19
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

20
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

21
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

22
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

23
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

24
Calculating the economic costsof 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

25
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
26
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
27
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, httpwww.planning.org
28
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

29
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

30
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

31
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 - 59 urban
• 62 suburban - 52 rural
• CNN/Time Poll, 1999

32
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 - 42 urban
• 49 suburban - 39 rural
• CNN/Time Poll, 1999

33
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

34
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 dont 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