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 nation’s 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. 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 Population Loss Nonmetro Counties

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 Gain:Remote “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 Gain:Urban 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 Gain:Urban 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 Change:Rural 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 Change:Rural 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: • Nashville’s population grew by 28% while its urbanized area grew by 41% • Charlotte’s 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. 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 The Sprawl Balance Sheet

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, http:www.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” don’t 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