This is the last in a series of articles I’ve written on Measure 49. Measure 49 is on the ballot this November, and if passed, it will clarify the language of Measure 37 to allow certain reasonable exceptions to Oregon’s land use restrictions, while preventing the outright conversion of farm and forest land into stripmalls and subdivisions. It is an attempt by the state legislature to balance the problems that inspired voters to pass Measure 37 and the problems that have been created by it. I’ve talked about the history and politics of Measure 49, and the relationship between land-use laws and housing cost. This article focuses on other costs, both public and private, of poor land use.
The urban growth boundary has been less effective at stopping sprawl since Measure 37. It was hard to stop even before 37, given the massive profit incentives and poor regulatory structures that encourage it. The urban growth boundary confined all sprawl into an area close to existing cities, so everything inside of the boundary could be developed into urban densities, while everything outside must remain as large agricultural or timber parcels.
Poor planning has serious costs for cities. While the growing population can create economic growth, expand the tax base, and attract businesses, the people who are there at the time the growth took place often had to throw down the costs up front. They are shouldered with the consequences of sprawl also. Every new subdivision requires roads and city services, which may be built by the developer, but often is maintained by the local citizens.
Sprawl, often being low density development and covering large, previously undeveloped distances, encourages driving and carries with it the costs of that: increased traffic volume, strain on city road maintenance and, most importantly, environmental costs. Impact fees paid by developers are intended to offset some of these, yet often they don’t go far enough and are typically passed on to the customers, increasing housing prices. Citizens often end up in a death trap between subsidizing new development and prohibiting affordable housing – neither of which they tend to be particularly happy about.
Low-density sprawl additionally carries with it psychological costs. This is rarely talked about, because it’s hard to quantify, but everyone who’s driven the nerve-racking haul out Coburg Road or West 11th knows what I’m talking about. Sprawling subdivisions, stripmalls, box stores and parking lots are incredibly irritating. I can’t explain exactly why; maybe it’s because we think about how they’re costing us in infrastructure, or maybe it’s the bad traffic, but something about sprawl is just, somehow, disgusting. Cities where it happens are paying these costs, too.
It also hurts farmers. This isn’t usually talked about either, perhaps because farmers tend to benefit from subdividing their land and selling it to developers. But farmers who are interested in staying in the farming business are seriously threatened by uncontrollable urban growth, as their livelihood and necessary resources cannot coexist with it. Suburbanites draw water from farming watersheds, depleting the resources farmers need to irrigate and grow their crops. The people who move into low-density developments often complain (both informally and legally) about the noise and nuisance of the farming operation next door, encouraging the family farmer to pack up and leave.
But most significantly, farmland located near a new subdivision or commercial development becomes more valuable, and is therefore assessed for higher taxes. This means that while the farmers’ land is still producing the same yield of crops as it did before the subdivisions moved in next door, their costs have increased substantially as their property taxes have been driven up by the nearby urban growth. This can quickly make farming infeasible, and soon the farmer starts thinking about subdividing their own land simply to make ends meet. In this way, sprawl acts like a cancer: reproducing itself unchecked while bleeding the surrounding area dry of its resources.
Sprawl begets sprawl, subdivision encouraging subdivision. Within a short time, a vast and fertile agricultural resource such as the Willamette Valley can be converted irreversibly into cul-de-sacs, box stores, parking lots, and well-trafficked arterial roads.
It is possible this assessment problem could be fixed without an urban growth boundary, but the difficulty and ineffectiveness of changing a taxing structure seems prohibitive in comparison to the urban growth boundary of Measure 49. The urban growth boundary also has other benefits that a new rural taxing structure would not: deterring environmental costs of sprawl, increased car use, and poorly planned development. The advantage of Oregon’s land-use strategy is not just that it helps prevent the horribly disgusting sprawl so many communities suffer. It’s also that it protects the farming lifestyle, especially of smaller agricultural businesses that can’t afford an increase in their resource, legal and taxing costs.
[email protected]