Great Lake Bulletin Spring 1998

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Bottling UpSprawl IMAGE imgs/glbsp9813.gif

Maryland's "Priority FundingAreas," which describe where thestate will direct public money, aremore flexible than but accomplishmany of the same goals as"Urban Growth Boundaries,"which draw lines on a map.

One of the most effective tools ever developed for curbing sprawl is the Urban Growth Boundary. TheUGB, widely used in Europe, establishes a clear difference between the city and the countryside by drawingan actual "container" line around urban and town areas. States and localities then support residential andcommercial development inside the boundary; beyond it, farmland, forest, and natural areas remain for themost part unchanged.
In 1973 Oregon became the first state in the nation to adopt this idea, and required every one of its citiesand towns to draw a UGB. In 1990 Washington required local governments to establish UGBs around thelargest and the fastest growing communities.
The reason more places haven't tried the approach is that boundaries are difficult to enact. Developmentinterests and owners of large blocks of land typically attack them as a violation of private property rights, andwrongly accuse them of being an unecessary meddling by government into private decisions about how land isused. State lawmakers, in debt to these interests for their campaign contributions, generally crumble under thelobbying pressure.
Oregon and Washington prevailed because of the severity of their sprawling growth, the apprehensionamong residents that their states were in danger of becoming like California, and the ardent support andleadership of their governors.
One of the breakthroughs in Maryland's Smart Growth program is that it requires local governments todefine "Priority Funding Areas" where state development dollars will be spent, but it does not draw a fixedline around them. And in the early years of the program the zones will remain fairly flexible. In general,any area in the state that has water and sewer lines and a minimum of two homes per acre qualifies as aPriority Funding Area eligible for state subsidies and investments.
By establishing a relatively generous definition of a Priority Funding Area and avoiding a cumbersomegovernment process to refine growth boundaries on a map, Maryland was able to focus discussion on thecentral issue: How to make the best use of public dollars to guide development to appropriate areas.
Maryland's program is not intended to be as restrictive as Oregon's pioneering growth management law.But state officials believe Priority Funding Areas are a first crucial step to get citizens and local governmentsthinking and working in new, more sensible ways. And they are confident that the potential to strengthen theprogram will grow as the benefits to communities become more apparent.



			Bottling UpSprawl

				Maryland's "Priority FundingAreas," which describe where thestate will direct public money, aremore flexible than but accomplishmany of the same goals as"Urban Growth Boundaries,"which draw lines on a map.
			One of the most effective tools ever developed for curbing sprawl is the Urban Growth Boundary. TheUGB, widely used in Europe, establishes a clear difference between the city and the countryside by drawingan actual "container" line around urban and town areas. States and localities then support residential andcommercial development inside the boundary; beyond it, farmland, forest, and natural areas remain for themost part unchanged. In 1973 Oregon became the first state in the nation to adopt this idea, and required every one of its citiesand towns to draw a UGB. In 1990 Washington required local governments to establish UGBs around thelargest and the fastest growing communities. The reason more places haven't tried the approach is that boundaries are difficult to enact. Developmentinterests and owners of large blocks of land typically attack them as a violation of private property rights, andwrongly accuse them of being an unecessary meddling by government into private decisions about how land isused. State lawmakers, in debt to these interests for their campaign contributions, generally crumble under thelobbying pressure. Oregon and Washington prevailed because of the severity of their sprawling growth, the apprehensionamong residents that their states were in danger of becoming like California, and the ardent support andleadership of their governors. One of the breakthroughs in Maryland's Smart Growth program is that it requires local governments todefine "Priority Funding Areas" where state development dollars will be spent, but it does not draw a fixedline around them. And in the early years of the program the zones will remain fairly flexible. In general,any area in the state that has water and sewer lines and a minimum of two homes per acre qualifies as aPriority Funding Area eligible for state subsidies and investments. By establishing a relatively generous definition of a Priority Funding Area and avoiding a cumbersomegovernment process to refine growth boundaries on a map, Maryland was able to focus discussion on thecentral issue: How to make the best use of public dollars to guide development to appropriate areas. Maryland's program is not intended to be as restrictive as Oregon's pioneering growth management law.But state officials believe Priority Funding Areas are a first crucial step to get citizens and local governmentsthinking and working in new, more sensible ways. And they are confident that the potential to strengthen theprogram will grow as the benefits to communities become more apparent.