Growth, Sprawl and New Jersey: Ten Myths and Misconceptions (by New Jersey Future and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation) Governor Christie Whitman offered a vision and a mandate in January’s inaugural address. Both hold special promise for residents of New Jersey.
Her vision is the end of suburban sprawl -- unplanned and ill-planned growth that devours open space as it drains cities, clogs roads with traffic and hikes property taxes. Her mandate is aimed at her Cabinet: to end sprawl using the State Plan.
The New York Times saluted the Governor’s message with an editorial which noted, "It looks as if Mrs. Whitman has got her priorities right." The Star-Ledger observed that "at the core of Whitman’s proposal is the reasonable belief that shaping the future of New Jersey -- city, country and everything in between -- is a job the state must oversee."
Still others were confused, even concerned, about a Governor and a State Plan that manages suburban growth. Doesn’t everyone want a big lot in the suburbs, as far from town as they can get? Isn’t home ownership a free market? Aren’t cities and towns bad for the environment with their traffic and pollution, and bad for people with their crime and dirty streets?
These myths and other misconceptions deserve straight talk because New Jersey can no longer afford sprawl. We explore the 10 most popular myths below.
Myth One: Everyone wants a big lot in the suburbs.
According to the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) yearly surveys, for decades people have consistently said that what they want is the most house for their money (good value) in a good neighbor. The NAHB surveys confirm that home buyers do not necessarily want a big lot, nor one that is isolated from retail and community services. Easy walks to parks and shops, good schools, sociable town centers, narrow (not wide) streets and conserved open space also rank very high in other recent housing consumer preference surveys.
Conventional large lot developments simply cannot deliver on many of these characteristics. Ironically, compact "town-type" development is cheaper to build, thus a greater value to buy; the "cheaper" housing farther from towns (because of lower land costs for the developer) fails to account for vastly increased and hidden transportation costs for the buyer.
Myth Two: Everyone wants a big house in the suburbs.
Even though the era of "Ozzie and Harriet" is some 30 years past, we’re still building homes as if this TV family reflected today’s households. Fewer than half of all American families today have children under 18 living at home -- and of those that do, one-third are single-parent families. Also, as today’s baby boomers age and the elderly live longer, productive lives, this population will comprise a growing proportion of housing consumers whose small household size will require different types of housing and different development patterns -- townhomes or condominiums near public transportation and downtown shopping, for example.
Myth Three: Developers are simply building what and where the public wants; it’s a free market.
The market for housing hasn’t been "free" for at least 50 years. Since the late 1940s, federal and state governments have actively promoted suburban sprawl. Everything from tax policy to the overwhelming government support for highways over all other modes of transportation have supported sprawl. These public policies have encouraged home buyers to "buy new." At the same time, state and local policies, laws and plans have encouraged home builders to build on farms or forestland well outside of town, or required that they build in low-density, single-use patterns. Ironically, although there is little real "product" out there from which to choose, numerous visual preference surveys confirm that people actually prefer communities which more resemble pre-World War II towns.
Myth Four: Cities and towns are bad for The Garden State.
It is true that urban runoff supplies toxic pollutants to creeks and rivers and the air. But such runoff is not reduced in the long run by scattering housing across the landscape, building huge strip shopping centers and malls, and isolating office and industry in single use "parks." The results of sprawl are insidious: more and wider roads are required to connect these land uses; their relative isolation requires several times the driving and air pollution, which then falls back to the ground and waterways; and the commercial land uses built to serve residents are wholly auto-oriented.
Furthermore, such patterns consume farmland, forest and wetland. Farms and forest are naturally beneficial. The former, if well managed, can produce less toxins than residential lawns, and can always revert to forest and wetland in the future. Finally, accommodating several million people in or adjacent to city, town or village centers is just plain efficient: it saves naturally productive open land and produces less pollutants on a per-person basis. It also allows for efficient technical solutions for runoff, such as improved sewage systems.
Myth Five: More density means more crime, and congested roads.
Study after study confirms there is no cause-and-effect relationship between housing density and crime rates. Scholar and urbanist Jane Jacobs makes excellent arguments for density and for community designs that put more "eyes on the street." According to Portland, Oregon’s chief of police, community policing is made much easier with designs that include pedestrian-friendly streets, a diversity of housing types and densities, and a diversity of people of different ages, incomes and cultures who get to know one another. Driving around spread-out suburban areas is very inefficient for police patrols, and many such areas never see any police presence.
The traffic corollary is that density (and mixes of land uses) do not produce more traffic than compact, mixed use communities. In fact, one recent study showed that a doubling of density reduces the total number of vehicle miles driven in an area by 20 to 30 percent. The reason is that with added density and some mix of uses, more people can accommodate their daily needs without using cars or with fewer and shorter "chained" trips. In contrast, car ownership patterns and driving habits in the suburbs dramatically increase the number of miles driven and trips taken. We cannot build our way out of traffic congestion by urbanizing areas, but changes in land use patterns, with more compact development, can reduce certain travel needs and support safe and efficient modern transit.
Myth Six: Large lot zoning preserves rural character.
The opposite is true. Two- and three-acre lots, and even five- and ten-acre "farmettes," eat up traditional landscapes, ruin country vistas, and make natural economically productive uses in rural areas (such as farming or timbering) impossible to sustain. Strip malls, fast food joints and endless subdivisions quickly overtake community character, converting the real rural heritage of New Jersey -- vegetable farms and orchards, shore land, wetlands and forests -- into the unrecognizable sameness of everywhere else.
Myth Seven: "Managing growth" means that the state will take over local government power.
Local governments must retain primary authority for making local land use decisions for reasons of accountability and local knowledge. But local planning can and should be guided by overarching state growth objectives and requirements since the effects of local decisions don’t stop at the county line. New Jersey’s State Plan provides such guidance by encouraging development and redevelopment around town centers, where sewers, roads and public services already exist; and by discouraging substantial development outside of town centers. The state, too, has a stake in conserving open and productive land and in making efficient public infrastructure investments.
Myth Eight: "Managing growth" means forcing everyone to live in cities or apartments.
Most new growth would be directed toward (and adjacent to) existing town centers and other centers of development -- but there will always be some opportunity for very low-density living. Traditional town designs following familiar, centuries-old patterns, can accommodate higher densities without sacrificing privacy, safety or comfort by providing a variety of housing types. Some of New Jersey’s most prestigious towns, such as Princeton and South Orange, combine small lots with townhomes, apartments and duplexes very successfully.
Myth Nine: Local economies need the tax base that growth management would destroy.
The tax base of local communities is terribly weakened by today’s sprawl. Unmanaged development is difficult and expensive to provide with public services. Single-use, low-density growth usually costs communities much more than it returns to local coffers; thus the local debt faced by many communities "growing" through sprawl. Implementing a good local growth management program increases predictability for the community and developers alike, and helps preserve the quality of life that makes a region attractive to business and industry.
Myth Ten: Urban areas will benefit from growth management, but rural areas will suffer.
Not true. Rural areas that need economic development will still be able to attract it -- but those jobs and improved services will be more appropriately directed toward established rural towns and villages, and other designated centers. In addition, traditional local rural industries such as farming, forestry, tourism and recreation endangered by sprawl will be protected. Suffering urban areas can also find relief through redevelopment, and through the revitalization that naturally occurs as people rediscover towns and cities.
Bottom line: Managed growth is better for the environment, more cost-efficient for local governments which keeps taxes down, and more profitable for developers. New Jersey can no longer afford sprawl.
URL: http://www.oocities.org/~hartwheels
