/Council on Environmental Quality. Council on Environmental Quality (U.S.) Washington, D.C.:For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Gov. Print. Off.,1974. Land use United States. Regional planning United States. Community development Economic impacts United States. Regional planning Economic impacts United States. Rural development Economic impacts United States. Land use United States. oet Coastal zone tniormatilon Center 2't" AX HD MWO d ft 205 NOW C68 1974 Other CEQ Land Use Publications Available at U.S. Government Printing Office: The Costs of Sprawl: En@ironmental and Economic Costs of Alternative Development Patterns at the Urban Fringe Executive Summary Detailed Cost Analysis Literature Review and Bibliography prepared for CEQ, HUD, and EPA by Real Estate Research Corporation, 1974 The Taking Issue-An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control, by Fred Bosselman, David Callies, and John Banta, 1973 The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control-Summary Report, by Fred Bosselman and David Callies, 1971 Available at National Technical Information Service U.S. Department of Commerce: Interceptor Sewers and Suburban Sprawl Volume 1: Analysis Volume 2: Case Studies by Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc., 1974 Recreational Properties: An Analysis of the Markets for Privately Owned Recreational Lots and Leisure Homes, by Richard L. Ragatz Associ. ates, Inc., 1974 Total Urban Water Pollution Loads: The Impact of Storm Water, by Enviro Control, Inc., 1974 Potential Onshore Effects of Deepwater Oil Terminal-Related Industrial Development Vo um a Vo=: @:: Ex cutive Summary Mid-Atlantic Region and Maine Volume lit: Guli Coast Region Volume IV: Appendices by Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1973 Land Use Change and Environmental Quality in Urban Areas: Some Comparative Studies [Denver, Los Angeles, Kansas City, Baltimore, Riverside/San Bernardino], by Earth Satellite Corporation, 1973 In Preparation:- Delaware River Basin Recreational use of water supply reservoirs Land use impacts of highway, mass transit, and sewer investments Leisure homes and recreational properties Preferential assessment for open space preservation Land use impacts of federal taxes Energy consumption and land use COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WASHINGTON, D. C.. ERRATA: Land Use P_ 8, third full paragraph, line 2 should read: "subdivisions and more clustered developments typical of many sub-" p. 11, second full paragraph, line 31 the last word should be "the", not "by" p. 47, footnote 117 should be placed at the end of the previous sentence p. 61, footnote 179 should be moved to the end of the third full para- graph on p. 63 p. 74, footnote 14, "213" should be 1 123111 p. 80, footnote 106, "244" should be "224" p. 83, footnote 162J., "Newman" should be "Noonan" .p. 83, footnote 169, "polit.ies" should be "pol-icies" 0 COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413 property of CSC Library LAND USE Reprinted from Environmental Quality-1974 The Fifth Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality December 1974 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government PrintiDg Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.20 Stock Number 4111-OW24 Preface Land use is perhaps the most complex and pervasive environ- mental issue of all. Pollution levels, agricultural productivity, housing patterns, and recreation axe a few of the manifestations of the way that we'use our land. But unlike many of the other environmental issues, there is no common scale upon which to measure progress toward good land use. Planners can suggest some better ways to design and locate development; economists can tell us what patterns are most efficient from the point of view of land consumption, energy use, industrial location, etc.; and lawyers can advise on what is legal and constitutional in the way of land use regulations. Yet it is really the community itself-whether locality, region, or state-which must try to pull all these considerations together into coherent land use planning and regulatory policies in order to preserve those things that the community values and to foster the growth and change that the community wants. This booklet is intended to identify issues and options for citizens to consider in formulating such land use policies for their communi- ties. It is a reprint of Chapter I of the Council's 1974 Annual Report. Those interested in further information and reports on land use or other environmental issues are invited to write the Council with their requests. RuSSELL W. PFTERSON Chairman Contents Page Effects of Development ......................................... 3 Development in Metropolitan Areas ............................ 3 Land Use ................................................ 8 Economic Costs ........................................... 9 Environmental Costs ....................................... 12 Energy Costs .............................................. 15 Water Use ................................................ 19 Social Costs .............................................. 19 Balancing Costs ........................................... 20 Leisure Homes and Recreational Development .................... 21 How, Where, and When? ..................................... 26 Development Stimulants ........................................ 27 Federal Taxes ............................................... 28 Pollution Regulations ........................................ 31 Air Pollution Regulations ................................... 31 Water Pollution Regulations ................................. 34 Public Infrastructure Investments .............................. 36 Sewers ................................................... 36 Highways ................................................ 39 Mass Transit ............................................. 42 Energy Development ......................................... 44 Stimulants as Controls ....................................... 47 Land Use Controls ...................... ..................... 49 Quiet Revolution Revisited .................................... 49 Controlling Development ..................................... 51 Zoning . . ............................... 51 Review of lb@v'c*1'o`prn' e' n*t' 'P'r*o'p*o*sals ............................ 54 Development Rights: Donation, Purchase, and Transfer ........... 55 Land Banking ............................................ 59 No-Growth and Slow-Growth Policies ........................ 61 Preferential Assessment . . ............................... 64 Open Space as a Land Use. 6ontrol ............................ 68 Controls as Stimulants ...................................... 70 Conclusion ................................................... 70 References ............................. ..................... 72 Appendix-Recent State Land Use Legislation ..................... 87 Land Use To define and achieve good use of land may well be the most fundamental of all environmental objectives. In the broadest sense, the way in which we use our land determines the way in which our society functions. Land is the basic source of our food, fiber, shelter, water, and oxygen. Sound land use is fundamental to preserving stable ecosystems, to controlling pollution, and to creating the political, social, and economic structure of our society. Land reflects our history and traditions; the values we place on its use show a great deal about what we cherish from our past. A debate over land use is a debate that quickly turns to basic rights of citizens and basic powers of government that must be accommodated under our Constitution. Land is seen as a measure of the wealth, power, and status of an individual in our society. Our present use of land reflects how we have thought about these things. How we permit changes in its use indicates the direction of our thinking today and tomorrow. In the early years of environmental awakening in the late 1960's, land use was seldom treated as an issue on a par with air and water pollution or solid waste management. But all that has changed. A recent survey found that officials in American cities identify "land use" and "growth" as the two most serious environmental problerns.' 'Similar concern is reflected in increasing citizen involvement in de- ciding how land will be used, and manifested by the many local land use and land development referenda. Finally, this concern is ex- pressed by the increasing number of local, state, and Federal laws and regulations which explicitly recognize the need for improved evaluation of and control over land use. But the issue of proper land use is as complex as it is fundamental. An attempt to control pollution may stimulate land use changes that result in the creation of more pollution. Efforts to control growth and sprawl in one place may stimulate worse sprawl in another. An under- 7 Now The way we use our land reffects the values and traditions of our society. 2 standing of land use requires an understanding of law, economics, sociology, ecology, and many other disciplines. This chapter attempts to deal with some of these complexities by compiling and analyzing current knowledge about a number of important land use issues. It is not an attempt to provide a compre- hensive analysis of how all the pieces fit together, but neither does it approach the subject from a strictly legal, or economic, or social, or ecological viewpoint. . The subject of land use includes a broad range of topics-from redevelopment in cities to strip mine reclamation and wilderness preservation. We have decided to focus on those places where de- velopment and land use changes are most intense-the urban fringe of our cities and those rural areas being impacted by the boom in leisure homes and recreational developments. While this selection may seem to ignore other areas where land use problems exist, con- ditions there are different more in degree than in kind, and the same principles and interrelationships apply everywhere. The chapter is organized into several sections. "Effects of De- velopment" summarizes what is known about the environmental, economic, social, and natural resource implications of land develop- ment, documenting the importance of the land use issue. The next section analyzes some of the stimulants to land development, par- ticularly those that result from actions by the Federal Government. There follows an analysis of some of the tools available to control the impacts of land use stimulants and to mitigate unfavorable im- pacts from land development. The conclusion discusses how all these perspectives and considerationsfit together and suggests some changes that might improve the effectiveness of land use planning and control. Effects of Development More and more people are recognizing that land use-good or bad-affects a wide spectrum of environmental, economic, social, and political concerns. In many cases these effects can be essentially irreversible. Until recently, very little information has been available on how significant the various effects are. The purpose of this section is to summarize some of the most recent information available on this question. Development in Metropolitan Areas Urbanization and suburbanization have been the predominant characteristics of population shifts in the United States over the past two decades. Approximately 70 percent of all Americans live in metropolitan areas, and over half of those in the suburbs alone .2 While the population of central cities increased 5 percent in the 1960's, 3 40, ""1 %-,qx We are just now beginning to understand the process of urban development. These photos show what occurred in one area of the Philadelphia metropolitan area over the period of a few years in the 1950's. that of the suburbs increased by 28 percent (see Table 1). This popu- lation shift resulted in a 31 percent increase in the number of dwell- ing units in suburban areas. As a result, 35 million acres of land is now in urbanized areas (see Table 2), and from 1960 to 1970 over 2,000 acres a day shifted from rural to urban use. Much of this devel- opment has taken place in an uncoordinated, scattered fashion which leaves many parcels of vacant land within urbanized areas.3 Owing to this "leapfrogging" and the fact that the single family house has -been the most common type of dwelling unit, the population density Table 1 U.S. Suburban Population and Housing, 1960 and 1970 [in millions] Percent 1960 1970 change, Total metropolitan areas Population 120 139 17 Housing units 39 46 20 Central cities Population 61 64 5 Housing units 20 23 11 Suburbs Population 59 76 28 Housing units 18 24 31 Percentages may be inconsistent with previous columns due to rounding. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing: 1970, General Demographic Trends for Metropolitan Areas, 1960 to 1970, Final Report (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 1-33 and p. 15. Table 2 Selected Uses of U.S. Land, 1959 and 1969 [in millions of acres] Special uses 1959 1969 Change Urban areas 1 27.2 34.6 7.3 Transportation areas 2 24.7 26.0 1.3 Recreation and wildlife areas 3 61.5 81.4 19.9 Public installations and facilities 4 27.5 27.4 -.1 Farmsteads and farm roads 10.1 8.4 -1.7 Total 151.OT1771.8 26.8 1 Includes urbanized areas as defined by the Bureau of the Census, and other incorporated and unincorporated places of 1,000 or more population. 3 Rural land in highway, road, and railroad rights-of-way, and airports. a Federal and state parks and related recreation areas and Federal and state wildlife refuges. 4 Federal land used for national defense and atomic energy purposes and state land in institutional sites and miscellaneous other uses. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Major Uses of Land in the United States: Summary for 1969, Agricultural Economics Report Number 247 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973). 5 562 -905 0 - 7 4 - 2 in our newly developed areas has typically been low. These and other land use trends were documented in our Fourth Annual Report.4 However, the most recent pattern of urbanization has not been as uniform as the averages might suggest. Subdivisions, more than ever, are likely to differ substantially from one another. One might be a traditional single family home subdivision, a second a high density development with townhouses and highrise apartments. As Figure 1 indicates, multifamily housing is becoming increasingly popular in the suburbs, first exceedino- 50 percent of all suburban housing units constructed in the Nation in 197 1. While development patterns have been changing, local officials and the public have become more concerned about the economic, environmental, and social costs associated with the urbanization process. High taxes to pay for services to new residents, congestion, silted streams, polluted air, and the destruction of unprotected open space and natural features are all common characteristics of many of our suburban areas. More and more people are becom.ing con- cerned about these costs and are beginning to take a hard look at each new development proposal in their communities.- At the same time, little information is available about the actual magnitude of these costs and how they vary among alternative development types. This year the Council on Environmental Quality, in association with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency, published a study, The Costs of Figure 1 Housing Starts in Metropolitan Areas Outside Central Cities 100 - 75 - Single family units 42 so - Multifamily unitsl 25 1965 1970 1975 lMultifamily units have two or more dwelling units per building. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Housing Authorized by Building Permits and Public Contracts, Various Issues. 6 One important. recent trend is the shift in new development from single family homes on individual lots to clustered and multi-family units sur- rounded by public open space. These photos show Levittown, Long Island, soon after it was built over 20 years ago, and a modern development of suburban townhouses. V N 2 1A P Table 3 Types of Costs Analyzed Economic Costs (capital and operating) Environmental Effects Residential (capital only) Air Pollution Open Space/ Recreation Water Pollution, Erosiu(i Schools Noise Streets and Roads Vegetation and Wildlife Utilities (sewer, water, storm drain- Visual Effects age, gas, electric, telephone) Water and Energy Consumption Public Facilities and Services (police, fire, solid waste collection, Personal Effects library, health care, churches, Use of Discretionary Time general government) Psychic Costs Land Travel Time Traffic Accidents Crime Sprawl, which for the first time documents many of these costs and -estimates how they vary among different patterns of land develop- ment.' The study, oriented toward new housing developments On the fringe of urban areas, considers a wide range of economic, en- vironmental and social effects (see Table 3) associated with al- ternative development patterns on both the neighborhood and the community level. The results discussed below refer to two types of prototype communities, defined as follows: "Low density sprawl"-A community made up of detached single family homes, 75 percent sited in a traditional grid pattern and the rest clustered. Neighborhoods are sited in a "leapfrog" pattern with little contiguity. "High density planned"-A community composed of 40 percent 6-story highrise apartments, 30 percent walkup apartments, 20 per- cent townhouses, and 10 percent clustered single family homes. All of the dwelling units are clustered in contiguous neighborhoods, much in the pattern of a high density "new community." In addition, an intermediate pattern including both traditional subdivisions and more clustered developments and in many sub- urban areas, entitled "combination mix," is included in the figures for illustrative purposes. The following sections summarize the results of the study. Land Use-As indicated above, urbanization consumes significant amounts of land, much of it valuable for agriculture or wildlife. The Costs of Sprawl study shows that even with quarter-acre lots, the low density sprawl community may consume over one-half an acre per dwelling unit, more than twice as much land as the high density planned community. In the low density community, much of the land has been provided with such infras@ructure as roads and sewers but has been left vacant. This category of land, "vacant, improved, and semi-improved," is an indication of the amount of leapfrog- ging and waste of land that occurs within a development pattern. 8 Agure 2 Community Land Use 0.6 - Key Vacant, unimproved 77- .E vacant, improved and 0.4 semi-improved Residential t5 Backyandi la ... ..... open space Transportation 0.2 Sch ols and public faciloities 0.6 Low density Combination High density sprawl mix planned Source: Real Estate Research Corporation, The Costs ofsprawk Executi ve su-'y (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing,Office, 1974), p.3. Referred to by title in subsequent figures. Figure 2, shows the amount of land assumed to be used for different purposes in the different community types. Although four times as much land is used for residential purposes in the low density sprawl community as in the high density planned community, only two-thirds as much is dedicated to public open space. (Note, however, that if backyards are included, the low density sprawl community has twice as much as public and private land dedicated to open space as the high density planned community.) The amount of land used for schools and other public buildings is the same in all communities.. However, the high density community uses only about half as much land for transportation as the low density community. Economic Costs-Any type of land development is expensive, but there is substantial evidence that the economic costs are strongly affected by development patterns. In terms of total public and pri- vate investment cost to occupants, taxpayers, and municipal govern- ments, the Costs of Sprawl study found that the high density planned community costs 21 percent less than the combination mix commu- nity and 44 percent less than the low density sprawl community. The largest savings are in the cost of constructing residential dwell- ings, although important savings are also attributable to reduced 9 Figum Community Cost Analysis Capital Costs 50 - Key 40 Residential Private 30 - Utilities Transportation @B 20 - Schools b c Government taciliti s, a d Aip@ public ope s a a Ln < 10 AU: 0 Low density Combination High density sprawl mix planned Source: The Costs ofSprawl, Executiw Summary, p.3. costs for roads and utilities (about 55 percent lower in the high density than in the low density community). Figures 3 and 4 summarize the investment and operating costs for the three communities and show once again that sprawl is the most costly development pattern. The total investment costs do not include the cost of the land; that is indicated separately in Figure 3. Figure 3 also shows the difference in investment costs which are borne privately (initially by the, developer) and publicly. Not only does the high density planned community cost less to construct, but a lower proportion of the development cost is likely to be borne by government. The difference in operating and maintenance (O&M) costs (see Figure 4) is less noticeable than the difference in investment costs because O&M costs are related more closely to the population served than to the pattern of development. However, The higher density communities are again somewhat less costly in terms of the total op- erating and maintenance costs and in the costs paid by government.' Many of the conclusions reached in this community level analysis conI a utic and n uc pce a d are applicable to an entire metropolitan area. Planning and increased ,density can reduce costs. This is borne out by results of a well-known analysis of the economic implications of the new town of Columbia, Maryland, summarized in Figure 5. The analysis was concerned with alternative development patterns in Howard County, which 10 Figum 4 Community Cost Analysis Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs 2,000 ..... ...... X. Key Utilities Private Public facilities, 71111 including 1,000 transportation S5 Government Schools and open space 0 Low density Combination High density sprawl mix planned Source: The Costs ofSprawl, Executive Summaryp.4. lies southwest of Baltimore. Three development patterns were ana- lyzed: (1) random growth along the sprawl patterns which had al- ready begun; (2) concentrated development in a new planned city; and (3) a new planned city in association with continued random growth. Continued sprawl was significantly more expensive than either of the alternatives. A 1968 study of the San Francisco region focused on the other side of the urbanization process, namely the cost of preserving open space.' Using a housing location and land use model, the study investigated the implications in terms of settlement patterns and economic costs of preserving large tracts as open space, with all anticipated development occurring in unpreserved areas. The results of the study indicated that such large-scale land preservation might well make sense economically as well as envi- ronmentally. The purchase price of open space actually exceeded by savings in public facility costs that derived from more compact development.8 These and other studies indicate that there may well be substan- tial oost.savings involved in exerting more community control over the type of development and the pattern of urbanization.' The pos- sibility of such savings has stimulated cities such as San Diego, California, and Boulder, Colorado, to seriously analyze their long- @,_k__ 2, The Costs of Sprawl study shows that leapfrog subdivision patterns such as that shown here are significantly more costly to communities than carefully planned extensions into undeoeloped areas immediately adjacent to already urbanized areas. term growth options and the associated economic implications.10 We can expect to see this trend continue. Environmental COStS-Urbanization also generates substantial en- vironmental costs. One of the Nation's most difficult problems, for instance, is the control of air pollution in our urban areas. The Costs of Sprawl analyzed air pollution from two major sources: automo- biles and residential heating. Here again, the amount of air pollu- tion is strongly affected by the development pattern. Higher density development requires less energy for heating, and high density and well-planned communities require considerably less automobile use. Overall, the high density planned community generates about 45 percent less air pollution than the low density sprawl community housing the same number of people (Figure 6). The simple clustering of houses alone can reduce the amount of air pollution from automo- biles by 20 to 30 percent." On the metropolitan area scale, several recent studies have also indicated that air pollution can be affected by broader patterns of urbanization. There is, for instance, a strong relationship between automobile use-and therefore pollution emissions-and land use and urban form." Urban form can also affect the way in which pollutants disperse, thus affecting air quality even beyond any impact on the quantity of pollutants emitted." 12 Figure 5 Howard County, Maryland: Land and Public Service Costs for Alternative Development Patterns' Key Cost of residential, commercial, and industrial land miscellaneous County costs 300 (including land for parks) Water utilities installation Sewer installation Road construction and maintainence 200 100 .. ............ Sprawl Partial Closely clustered development sprawl development 1 Cumulative costs from 1965 to 1985. Source: Howard County Planning Commission, H-rd county; 19850967). With respect to the problem of water pollution, several studies have documented adverse impacts on water quality from land devel- opment, quite aside from the generation of wastewater by new resi- dential or industrial development. Urbanization, for example, results in substantially increased amounts of stormwater runoff, which leads to high pollution loads and erosion of exposed soil. A recent study undertaken for the Council on Environmental Quality 14 indicates that stormwater runoff Js a major source of water pollution in urban areas. Comparing stormwater run6ff with wastes processed by municipal sewage treatment plants, runoff be- comes the major source of pollution in most cities as soon as second- ary 'treatment (85 percent BOD removal) of municipal wastes is achieved. It will also be the major source of settleable solids, patho- gens, and bacteria and a major contributor of such toxic pollutants' as lead and mercury. Figure 7 shows water pollutants generated by different community development patterns. The type of housing has no effect on the amount of sanitary sewage generated, since this is a function of popu- lation .15 More pavement and less vegetation result in increased storm- water runoff, and soil erosion will occur. Air and water pollution are not the only environmental problems associated with urbanization. Noise caused primarily by air and 13 562-905 0 - 74 - 3 Figure 6 Community Cost Analysis Annual Air Pollution Emissions 200 - Key Transportation Residenliai heating too 0 Low density Combination High density sprawl mix planned Source: The Costs ofSprawl: Executive Sum-y,pA highway transportation is difficult to abate, although its impacts can be reduced by providing for compatible land uses." Proper plan- ning is also the key to conserving open space and preserving unique natural areas as well as creating visually attractive development. Higher densities provide the planner with greater opportunity to mitigate many of the environmental costs associated with develop- ment. However, increased density also concentrates noise-generating activities and puts added demands on the designer to create aestheti- cally pleasing environments. It is also true that higher densities, although generating less air and water pollution per dwelling unit, concentrate these emissions in a smaller area. This results in a some- what higher amount of pollution generated for a given developed area. Similar environmental effects are related to the urbanization pat- tern for the broader metropolitan area@ A general compactness of de- velopment results in lower pollution levels. One recent study com- pared U.S. urban areas which tended to have a high orientation towards the central city (typically with high core city densities and a radial transportation network) with other more dispersed U.S. urban areas. 17 The former have more intensive use of land overall, lower percentages of land devoted to residential and com- mercial development, more open space, and better opportunities 14 Figure 7 Community Cost Analysis Annual Water Pollution Generation 1,500 - ............. ............. .......... .......... 1,000 - Key r7777777q .......... Sediment .......... ............... Storm water runoff ............... dI Sanitary sewage . ............ ..... .. .. ............. ........... ......... ...... 500 ............. ............ ............... ... ...... ...... ......... ............ XI - 0. Low density Combination High density sprawl mix planned Source: The Costs of Sprawl., Executive Summary, p. 5. to abate air and water pollution. The study goes on to conclude, "All trends point in the same direction: increasing size, increasing dispersion, and increasing automobile usage are producing the very urban forms and land use patterns that will increase rather than decrease environmental. pollution.""' Energy Costs-Urbanization in its various forms can also affect the demands placed on energy and other scarce natural resources. Over half of our total energy consumption occurs in the transporta- tion and residential sectors, both of which are significantly affected by housing types and development patterns. The interrelationships be- tween energy consumption and development begin at the design and construction of the individual building and continue through the whole pattern of metropolitan area development. The amount of energy consumed by stoves, appliances, and light- ing is essentially constant among housing types, any variation being related to different family sizes or to different floor areas. However, the major source of energy consumption is in cooling and heating the house, and this is affected by the ty e of dwelling unit. Highrise apart- I p ments are estimated to consume about 44 percent less energy per dwelling unit for all "residential" purposes than detached single family houses. (See Figure 8.) 15 Poor planning and, inadequate controls on urban fringe development can be costly to the community and to the natural environment. The photos show the effects of erosion, runoff, and sedimentation in Nebraska and Maryland. 2@- IV- 16 Figure 8 Community Cost Analysis Annual Energy Consumption 500- @00 - 4-H 00 Trainsportaticiii Resi&ntial heating 2 00 ' 100 - 0 - Low density Combination High density sprawl mix planned Soume: The Costs ofSorawk ExecutiveSummaiy,p.5. The community development pattern can also have significant impacts on energy consumption through affecting how much auto- mobiles are used. Results from The Costs of Sprawl and other studies indicate that better planning, clustering, and higher density can all significantly reduce reliance on auto travel in terms of number of trips taken, number of miles driven, and amount of time spent in a car,; as indicated in Figure 9.11 These relationships hold true even when the amount of energy consumed in commuting to work is ex- cluded, since commuting may not be directly affected by the develop- ment pattern of the residential community. The resulting energy savings are indicated in Figure 8. Increased density also reduces the amount of transportation required for the delivery of urban goods and services, as indicated in Figure 10. There are additional, and perhaps even more important, savings in auto use (and therefore energy consumption) related to the pat- tern of urbanization at the metropolitan area level. Certain metro- politan configurations may result in reduced commuting and shorter automobile trips for shopping, recreational activities, etc.2" and in- crease the viability of public transit. Even on the neighborhood level, transit can more efficiently service better-planned, clustered develop- ments than those that are diffuse and random. For the same reason, the clustering of employment becomes important. Present urban growth patterns work against the use of public transit because both 17 Figure 9 Automobile Use Related to Community Development Pattern 4 10 - 50 - 5 - 25 - T o MEN, Number of trips Miles driven Time spent Key Low density sprawl community Combination mix community Em High density planned community Source: The Costs ofSprawl: Detailed Cost Analysis, pp. 150.151. Figure 10 Use of Trucks Related to Residential Density 200 Key Below average Above average income income 100 Low density Medium High density density Source: Wilbur Smith and Associates, Motor Trucks and the Metropolis (1969), based on data from three U.S. cities. residential areas and employment centers are dispersed throughout the suburbs and on the urban fringe, where they are not easily served. Water Use-Water is another valuable natural resource whose use may be significantly affected by urbanization. In some parts of the country, excessive urbanization in water-short areas (e.g., Southern California) has required substantial importation of water supplies. The amount of water consumed in cooking, drinking, and the like is not affected by either planning or density. However, water for lawns is affected by both .21 For this reason, clustering alone can save 6 percent of total water consumption and, as indicated in Figure 11, overall high density planned development requires only 65 percent as much water as the low density sprawl development. Social Gosts-Many personal and social considerations are as- sociated with patterns of urbanization, quite aside from the economic and environmental costs already discussed. These social effects are difficult to estimate. They are also strongly affected by the particular quality of planning and dwelling unit design. As noted earlier, good planning and clustering can reduce travel times by conveniently locating commercial and public facilities in relation to residential areas. Apartments and other high density housing require less time Figure 11 Community Cost Analysis Annual Water Consumption 150 100 - 50 - KK oL_ WHEN Low density sprawl Combination mix High density planned X- Source; The Costs of Sprawl: Executive Summary, p.6. 19 for home maintenance than single family homes .22 Good planning can also reduce the number of traffic accidents .23 The relationship of other social effects to housing types or devel- opment patterns is less clear. Denser developments, particularly those with a high proportion of rental units, seem to be characterized by less friendliness among neighbors than less dense forms .24 People also seem to prefer to own their own land and to have private space surrounding their home. Furthermore, there is some indication that denser developments have higher crime rates, although it is impos- sible to separate the effects of the physical housing on these statistics from the numerous socioeconomic factors affecting crime, and the question of design from the question of denSity.2' Opinion surveys have indicated that Americans prefer to live in a rural or semirural setting, but many also prefer to have ready access to the services and other amenities associated with urban areas." Given the size of most urban areas, these preferences are clearly incompatible. However, the provision of compact neighbor- hoods and communities interspersed with readily accessible open space throughout the urban area may provide an acceptable com- promise for many. Present tends in new housing indicate a growing willingness to live in such an environment. Other social issues which must be addressed in analyzing the effects of urbanization include employment opportunities, racial dis- tribution, low income housing, and cultural and educational pro- grams. Many aspects of traditional urban growth patterns in the United States appear to be working against articulated goals in these areas. Would other patterns be more compatible with these goals? Are these issues best addressed on the regional or on the local level? If the latter, how can we insure that the broader goals of society will be satisfied by local decisions? We need to learn a great deal more about the relationships between land use patterns and social goals. Is this because the pattern of land use reflects the general state of our society, or is it because the way we use our land helps determine that state? There is increasing concern that the latter may be true. Balancing Costs-The foregoing analyses show that different types and patterns of urbanization can have significantly different impacts on economic costs, environmental costs, natural resource consump- tion, and personal costs. The Costs of Sprawl study indicates that on neighborhood and community levels, for a given number of dwelling units, many of these costs can be reduced by better planning and increased density.27 However, it should be emphasized that these results should not be interpreted as recommending one type of de- velopment over another; too many costs and benefits have not been included, among them those associated with personal preferences and those related to the revenues generated by different development types."' Nor should the results be considered to be directly applicable 20 to any specific development, either existing or proposed. The fea- tures of a particular site, community, or region need to be addressed individually. Much still remains to be learned about these costs. In the mean- time, development proposals are being made and approved. The urbanization process is continuing. Implicitly tradeoffs are being made among the various types of costs which have been discussed in this section. While there is no general methodology available for rigorously assessing these complex tradcoffs-for making an inte- grat.ed analysis of economic costs, environmental costs, social effects, energy conumption, and personal preferences-progress is being made through studies such as The Costs of Sprawl. Leisure Homes and Recreational Development As incomes and leisure time have increased over recent years, there has been a growing demand for recreational facilities in rural areas. Out of this demand have come the phenomena of leisure home and recreational lot developments-high density developments in rural settings. These phenomena create the same types of costs as the forms of urbanization described above. With recreational developments, in fact, the long-term costs of development to both property owners and the public may be greater than in most urban areas, and there may be more urgent need for effective controls. Leisure home developments, of course, are not a new phenomenon. The Florida east coast, Cape Cod, Estes Park, and Lake Tahoe have been the sites of second home construction for many decades. Orig- inally, these homes were owned almost exclusively by wealthier Amer- icans, and houses were often expensive and built on large sites. The more recent boom in second homes and recreational lots has involved a far broader stratum of society. Increased affluence has given more Americans the opportunity and desire to obtain such properties for themselves. This, combined with a widespread belief in the profitability of investment in land and reinforced by favorable income tax laws, has provided the ingredients for the recreational land and leisure home boom. The lots are smaller, the houses are more spare than traditional summer homes, and demand is many times greater thanit was even a few years ago. Today approximately 3.4 million American families own second homes. Including owners of recreational lots, a total of 5 to 7 million American families are estimated to own recreational properties of some kind .29 Table 4 presents a number of characteristics of households own- ing leisure homes. It shows clearly that these homes are no longer the province of the very wealthy, They are owned by families some- what wealthier and somewhat older than the average but still com- prising essentially a cross section of society. (Corresponding infor- 21 562 -905 0 - 74 - 4 Table 4 Selected Characteristics of U.S. Leisure Home Owners and Total U.S. Population Percent of Percent of Leisure al I leisure home- house. home. owners as a Characteristic hold s owners percent of total house- holds Annual family Income Less than $5,000 29.4 18.8 2.9 $5,000 to $9,999 30.9 24.5 3.6 $10,000 to $14,999 22.6 23.7 4.7 $15,000 to $24,999 13.2 20.9 7.2 $25,000 or more 3.9 12.1 14.1 Value of primary home Less than $15,000 41.3 31.3 3.4 $15,000 to $19,999 20.2 17.8 4.0 $20,000 to $24,999 14.7 13.5 4.1 $25,000 to $34,999 14.1. 18.1 5.8 $35,000 to $49,999 6.5 10.7 7.4 $50,000 or more 3.2 8.6 12.2 Tenure of primary home Owned 59.3 .73.1 5.6 Rented 35.4 22.7 2.9 Co-op or condominium 0.5 1.1 11.0 Other 4.8 3.1 2.9 Primary residence Inside SMSAs 69.1 68.0 4.4 Central city 34.1 31.0 4.1 Urban balance 24.7 26.2 4.8 Remainder 10.4 10.8 4.7 Outside SMSAs 30.9 32.0 4.7 Urban 75.1 75.2 4.5 Rural 24.9 24.8 4.5 Rural-nonfarm 20.0 20.3 4.6 Rural-farm 4.9 4.5 4.1 Places 10,000 to 50,000 20.4 21.9 4.8 Age of head of household Less than 25 years 7.1 4.0 2.5 25 to 34 years 21.0 10.0 2.1 35 to 44 years 21.2 18.5 3.9 45 to 54 years 20.1 25.9 5.8 55 to 64 years 17.5 22.7 5.9 65 years or older 13.1 18.9 6.5 Family size I person 17.6 13.3 3.4 2 persons 29.6 35.0 5.3 3 persons 17.2 18.1 4.7 4 or 5 persons 25.2 24.8 4.4 6 or more persons 10.4 8.8 3.8 Source: Richard L. Ragatz Associates, Recreational Properties: An Analysis of the Markets for Privately Owned Recreational Lots and Leisure Homes (Springfield, Va.: National Technical Information Service, 1974). mation. about owners of recreational lots is not available, although there is evidence that they tend to be less affluent.) The material on leisure homes and other recreational properties was obtained from a study on leisure homes undertaken by the American Society of Planning Officials for the Council on Environ- mental Quality in association with the Department of Housing and 22 oil Urban Development and the Appalachian Regional Commission." The study indicates the importance of distinguishing between two separate aspects of the phenomenon: (1) the purchase of recrea- tional lots, which are usually part of large subdivisions of plotted land where few of the lots may ever be developed; and (2) the ownership of leisure homes, which may be built by the owner in a subdivision or on a separate site, or built in large numbers by a developer. Recreation lot sales often result from mail solicitation or tele- phone calls, and many buyers sign sales contracts without ever seeing the land. The Interstate Land Sales Act requires most lot sales in interstate commerce to be registered with the Office of Interstate Land Sales at the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment. Table 5, showing the regional breakdown of projects so reg- istered, and Table 6, showing leisure homes by region, indicate a heavy concentration of lots in the South and in the West. Six states-Florida, Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colo- rado-contain over 80 percent of the acreage in registered recrea- tional lot sales projects. These figures demonstrate that recreational land and leisure home developments have become very important in the United States. With them have come a host of problems. Some problems are con- sumer-related, such as fraudulent advertising and high pressure sales tactics used to take advantage of naive buyers. Attempts are being made to curb these unethical practices through implementation of Table 5 Recreational Properties Registered with the Office of Interstate Land Sales - Acres in projects Lots in projects Per 100 Per 100 Tota I acres of Tota I families region's in region area United States 7,146.229 0.5 3,375,821 5.3 Northeast 231,5SS 0.2 133,671 0.9 New England 77,251 0.2 36,766 1*0 Middle Atlantic 154,304 0.2 96,905 0.8 North Central 279,214 0.1 224,886 1.3 East North Central 168,634 0.1 132,389 1.1 West North Central 110,580 0.04 92,497 1.8 South 3,370,140 1.0 2,037,908 10.6 South Atlantic 2,243,119 1.4 1,113,146 11.8 East South Central 127,291 0.1 123,022 3.2 West South Central 999,730 0.4 801,740 13.5 West 3,265,320 0.8 979,356 8.81- Mountain 2,489,408 0.9 750,270 29.8 Pacific 775,912 0.6 229,086 2.6 Source: Richard L. Ragatz Associates, supra Table 4, pp. 84, 87, 500. 23 Table 6 U.S. Leisure Homes by Region, 1970 Percent of Percent of Region Total Leisure all housing all leisure housing homes I units in homes in units region United States United States 68,418,094 2,143,434 3.1 100.0 Northeast 16,641,954 556,790 3.4 26.0 New England 4,031,531 221,806 5.5 10.4 Middle Atlantic 12,610,423 334,984 2.7 15.6 North Central 19,018,773 667,148 3.5 31.1 East North Central 13,323,755 421,225 3.2 19.7 West North Central 5,695,018 245,923 4.3 11.5 South 20,730,508 631,242 3.0 29.5 South Atlantic 9,970,059 287,374 2.9 13.4 East South Central 4,184,006 127,039 3.0 5.9 West South Central 6,576,443 216,829 3.3 10.1 West 12,026,859 288,254 2.4 13.5 Mountain 2,762,783- 115,901 4.2 5.4 Pacific 9,264,076 172,353 1.9 8.0 'Leisure Homes" are enumerated by combining the Bureau of the Census cate- gories "Rural Seasonal Vacant" and "Other Rural Vacant." This combination basically includes housing units which are intended for occupancy during only certain seasons of the year. Source: Richard L. Ragatz Associates, supra Table 4, p. 91. the Interstate Land Sales Act at the Federal level and through simi- lar laws in some states. Other problems arise because such development brings what amounts to instant urbanization to rural communities-communities where local governments have little experience with the impacts of large-scale development and few land use controls or regulatory bodies to deal with them. Many leisure homes are being built in subdivisions that differ lit- tle in appearance from typical middle income suburban develop- ments. Yet they are often built to much lower standards. If the home remains a summer weekend retreat, this may not create serious problems. But experience shows that seasonal homes are often con- verted into year-round homes and leisure home developments into permanent communities. This process may take a few years or dec- ades, depending on the proximity of the homes to urban employment areas. In the mountains of northern Virginia, some homes in rec- reational subdivisions are being occupied as first homes from the time they are built, with their occupants commuting two hours or more to jobs on the fringes of Washington and Baltimore." School buses can be seen serving these developments soon after the first houses go up. In short, the leisure home subdivision of today is likely to become the permanent settlement or suburb of tomorrow and should be viewed as an early form of urbanization. 24 This being true, it is necessary for a community to consider very carefully what development standards are appropriate for these sub- divisions, particularly in communities with little growth experience, where officials are not equipped to cope with rapid growth and change. Many rural communities initially welcome second home de- velopments in the expectation that they will provide property tax revenue and income for the local economy. They usually do, but they also create costs. Local governments often end up bearing the cost of increased demands the developments place on such public services as fire and police protection, road maintenance, water supply, solid waste disposal, and sewers. As long as recreational subdivisions remain seasonally occupied, these costs are likely to be lower than the property tax revenues generated by the development. However, as soon as residences become permanent, costs to the host communi- ties will rise rapidly as schools, medical facilities, and other public services are required. The eventual public costs will be particularly high if the develop- ment was originally built to low standards. Septic fields may have to be replaced by a sewer system; poorly constructed roads may have to be rebuilt. Replacing such facilities is very expensive, often more expensive than building adequate facilities at the time of the initial development. Not only will the costs of low quality development be higher to the government, but they will also be higher to the homeowners. In- adequate insulation, poor drainage, and insufficient heating capacity may be small problems during summer weekends, but they become major concerns at other times of the year. The developments may also create serious environmental problems, although many of these can be avoided by careful design and review. Inadequate septic systems can pollute streams or aquifers and thus cause public health problems. Serious erosion can clog streams with silt. Demand for water can overtax local supplies. These environ- mental problems can cause particular difficulty because the most desirable sites for recreational developments are often in fragile envi- ronments unsuitable for housing development, such as steep moun- tain slopes, coastal dunes, or marshes. In addition to such environmental problems, the developments also present potential conflicts with public recreation goals. The crowd- ing of seasonal homes along the coast or around the shore of alake often denies access to those resources for public recreation. And de- veloping land adjacent to national parks and forests guarantees the owners that they will always have ready access to natural areas, but it prohibits the later expansion of public land holdings for the benefit of the general public. Many of these problems are very similar to those faced in urban areas. The CEQ's study of second homes, mentioned above, will 25 attempt to help rural communities in dealing with proposed develop- ments. One specific product of the study is an impact evaluation handbook for local officials to use in assessing the costs and benefits of proposed recreation developments. How, Where, and When? The discussion of the urbanization process at work in the United States indicates that we are just beginning to understand the sig- nificant environmental, economic, natural resource, and social im- plications of development patterns in our cities and outlying areas. While we are nowhere near developing a truly accurate methodology to foretell these implications in a given case, we have learned that some long-held beliefs about the development process need to be seriously questioned. Tn part this is due to changing times and new information available about our society. It is striking to realize, for example, that more multifamily housing units than single family housing units have been built in our suburbs since 197 1. And with the recent boom in recrea- tional lots and seasonal homes has come the participation of a much broader spectrum of society than could have been anticipated, so that today such landowners are a virtual cross section of our whole society. Both of these trends are very important to the way our land will be used in coming years. Tn part, the need to question earlier assumptions rests on a growing realization that some of these assumptions were wrong, or, at best, serious oversimplifications. It can no longer be assumed that single family homes are the cheapest and most efficient development Pat- tern for localities on the urban fringe. The savings in public costs from higher density development, and the payoff from planning programs which set aside open space and provide public facilities as part of a rational plan established for the benefit of the whole com- munity, are becoming clearer and clearer. Nor can the savings in energy consumption and the ability to reduce pollution levels through improving the pattern of urbanization be overlooked. These issues are equally important in areas impacted by second homes and recrea- tional lot sales. The long-term economic and environmental impacts on the community are becoming increasingly difficult to brush aside in the rush to invite developers with their promise of new tax reve- nues and economic growth. None of this should lead us to conclude that growth is -wrong or that land development should not occur. On the contrary, the market will demand new housing and new recreation opportunities for a population that, even at current low birth rates, will continue to expand (for at least the next few decades) and become more affluent. The issue is not growth or no growth. Rather, it is how and where and under what conditions growth should occur. The sections which 26 follow deal with this issue, first by identifying major stimulants to development and then by discussing growth control mechanisms available to communities. Development Stimulants What causes development to occur in a particular location, in a particular pattern, and at a particular time? In the past these would have been considered academic questions. The answers would be interesting, perhaps, but of little importance to public policy. We accepted development as something that occurred naturally. The major concerns of government agencies were to see that development was well nourished with infrastructure and that it did not upset the fiscal viability of the community. This is no longer the case. As we become more concerned about where, how, and when, we become increasingly interested in the question of why. There are, of course, a very large number of factors that interact to influence development decisions. Many of these factors-for in- stance, the state of the economy and the rate of population growth- cannot be significantly influenced by governments at the local level where most control over land use is exerted. But we are beginning to realize that it is possible to identify major stimulants to growth which can be controlled, and we are beginning to learn how to predict some consequences of these stimulants before they occur. While much work remains to be done in improving these predictive techniques, there is increasing interest in taking a hard look at the way such major deci- sions stimulate surrounding development of all kinds. For example, the development of Cape Canaveral stimulated tremendous growth over a short period of time in Brevard County, Florida during the 1960' S.32 Likewise, the location of the Atomic Energy Commission and the National Bureau of Standards along an interstate highway north of'Washington, D.C. has stimulated development along a 60-mile corridor leading to Frederick, Mary- land. Defense expenditures have strongly affected the growth of cities such as Seattle as well as smaller communities surrounding military bases. 33 National parks have stimulated intense commercial development along their access highways .34 Even within already developed areas, government actions can affect the pattern of development. Some impacts of urban renewal projects on the viability of communities have been analyzed widely." On a smaller scale, the location of the Kennedy Library near Harvard Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts, raises similar issues. The library facilities are expected to attract thousands of visitors a day to an already highly congested area. Traffic control and parking are big issues, but equally important to residents are the changes in land use 27 that will occur in the Harvard Square area as older shops and stores give ivay to fast-food chains and souvenir stands. The importance of such actions, at least in the present discussion, lies not in their direct effects upon society and the environment but in the way they influence decisions in the private sector. Because it will attract many visitors, the Kennedy Library will increase the relative profitability of tourist and quick-food shops, forcing out stores that serve the local populace. By reducing transportation costs, a new highway may induce private industries to locate in the suburbs rather than the central city. Locating government offices and private industries on the urban fringe increases the profitability of converting the nearby land into housing developments. In most cases, the private sector undertakes the development which follows, and it is the private sector which decides where, how, and when this development will occur. But the original governmental action, by significantly affect- ing the relative profitability of alternatives, has a primary role in stimulating these private sector decisions. It is impossible, of course, to analyze here all stimulants to develop- ment, for such a discussion would have to cover most activities in both the private and public sectors. This section is limited to govern- mental actions because they are the actions that can be most directly controlled by the public. There is particular emphasis on actions by the Federal Government, After beginning with a brief analysis of Federal tax laws, the section analyzes another relatively new set of Federal regulations-those directed at reducing air and water pollution. This is followed by a discussion of the effects of different infrastructure investments-sewers, highways, and mass transit. Finally there is an analysis of the potential impacts of new energy facilities-stimulants of great importance in coming decades. Federal Taxes Federal taxes are widely recognized as having substantial impacts upon development decisions and land use, primarily because they treat some types of development more favorably than others.", Most widely known is the alleged preference in the income tax provisions for homeowners over renters. By allowing the homeowner to deduct interest payments and property taxes from his income, the Federal tax code may inadvertently provide an incentive favoring the con- struction of expensive, low density, detached single family homes .37 The incentive is stronger for more expensive housing because high income families obtain more tax relief from deductions than low income families. It favors single family homes because they are generally preferred by homeowners, being viewed as more private and easier to protect and maintain than higher density forms of housing. The owner of rental property, in contrast, usually prefers multifamily structures because they are easier to supervise' and main- 28 tain. Of course, the owner of rental property can deduct expenses and depreciation, and these tax advantages may be passed on in the form of lower rents.3" Nevertheless, to the extent that homeowner- ship has been encouraged, low density housing patterns have been en- couraged. More recently, there has been a rapid trend toward ob- taining many of these same tax breaks for higher density housing by creating owner-occupied dwelling units through cooperatives or con- dominiums. Condominiums now account for over one-third of all housing units under construction in many urban areas.39 Tax provisions on depreciation affect different types of property differently, because there are different depreciation rates for dif- ferent types of investment. For investments in residential structures, the depreciation schedules favor investment in new construction over rehabilitation of older housing by allowing the former to be de- preciated more rapidly.40 The rules also encourage a rapid turn- over of ownership of buildings because the major advantage of depre- ciation for tax purposes occurs during the early years of ownership, and accelerated depreciation (although -at a lower rate than With a new building) begins anew with each subsequent owner .41 Since the profit in a building can result from' the depreciation deductions as much as from the income it generates, there is a disincentive to maintain the building in expectation of long-run income-producing potential .42 The incentive is to build, depreciate, sell, and then build again. 'This creates an inducenient to'continue constructing new buildings where land is cheap-the land cannot be depreciated- while allowing older buildings to decay. The Environmental Protection Tax Act, included in President Nixon's environmental legislative program@for the past 2 years,'would partially remove the discrimination in depreciation rates by- pro- viding the same rates for older buildings that have underkone sub- 43 stantial rehabilitation as for new buildings. Even more favorable treatment would be given to older buildings registered as. historically or architecturally valuable .The fact that profits from buying and selling Iland are treated as capital gains and taxed at a lower rate than other types of. income serves as a stimulus for land speculation. Some observers identify this capital gains treatment as perhaps the most important Federal tax provision in stimulating the conversion of, open rural land to developmen t.44 Tax provisions can also take some of the responsibility for the boom in the construction of leisure homeOs Although the regula- tions have been- significantly tightened in-recent years to'remove many of the earlier incentives, it was formerly true that the owner of a leisure home, by renting the house out while'he was not using it, could claim it as an income-producing property and therefore deduct, for tax purposes, many of the costs of- owning the house (including accelerated depreciation) even beyond any'rental income he re- 29 562 -903 074 - 5 ceived .4, These provisions reduced the real cost of owning second homes and thereby stimulated their construction. Among, other Federal tax provisions affecting land use is a pro- vision that eliminates capital gains taxes on any appreciation in the value of the property occurring before an owner's death when that property is transferred to his heirs .47 This provision establishes a strong incentive for families owning farmland that has increased sub- stantially in value (usually at the urban fringe) to hold onto the land until the original owner dies. If the heirs then sell the land, they avoid capital gains taxes on its substantially increased value, a savings which would have been impossible for the original owner. This creates an incentive to keep land undeveloped longer than might otherwise be desirable to accommodate and direct urbaniza- tion best; it may be one major factor promoting leapfrog develop- ment patterns.411 Another Federal estate tax provision which may affect land use patterns requires farmland, woodland, and open space to be valued at full market value in determining the value of an estate .49 Especi- ally in the case of a farmer, whose main assets may consist of the land, the relatively high value placed on the farm property may force his heirs to sell it off to pay the estate taxes, even though they may want tokeep the land in agricultural production." P@=, @77 Some Federal tax policies encourage the retention of farmland, while others encourage its sale to developers. The result interferes with the normal incen- tives at work in the land market in urban areas and may be one cause of leapfrog development patterns. 30 This brief review of some provisions of the Federal tax code indi- cates that it may be a powerful force in determining the pattern of metropolitan and rural development.-" It is reasonably safe to assume that most of these provisions have had development impacts that were not anticipated at their enactment. They were adopted for other reasons, such as stimulating the construction of residential units, or stimulating investment in general-valid goals which the provisions help to attain. However, some of the unintended side effects may not be desirable. It is important to identify these side effects and to deter- mine whether they can be eliminated or mitigated without damaging the effectiveness of the provisions in accomplishing other intended purposes. Pollution Regulations A number of environmental protection laws enacted in recent years provide another important example of Federal legislation and regulations which, adopted to attain desirable goals, may have significant inadvertent effects on land use. This analysis focuses on the two most important of these laws-the Clean Air Act Amend- ments of 1970 -12 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.5' It is too early to assess with high accuracy what the land use im- pacts of various regulations under these laws may be or the extent to which they are controllable. Few impacts have yet appeared, and in some instances the final regulations have not been issued. Neverthe- less, it is instructive to look at the incentives established in the legisla- tion with respect to land use and to analyze the likely direction, if not the magnitude, of the resulting developments. Air Pollution Regulations-Several facets of the Clean Air Act of 1970 are likely to have significant land use impacts." Although some may be minor in terms of their land use effects, other s appear to be potentially very important. The major legislative provisions are those which establish ambient air quality standards. Important regulations include: (1) those formulating transportation control plans for se- lected metropolitan areas to meet ambient standards; 11 (2) those providing for the approval of "indirect sources," facilities which, although not pollution sources themselves, attract large amounts of traffic; -1' (3) those attempting to define the meaning of "significant deterioration" of air quality in areas which presently have relatively pure air; 17 (4) those defining new source performance standards, which determine the amount of pollution that new facilities such as factories or power plants can emit; " and (5) those establishing the process and requirements for air quality maintenance through 10- year air quality maintenance plans in metropolitan areas." Each of 31 these regulatory powers needs to be examined with respect to the way in which it affects development. The ambient air quality standards, operating alone,'would tend to induce polluting industries to locate in areas with relatively clean air, in order to reduce the costs of pollution abatement. This incentive to locate away from existing industrial areas, however, is at least partially offset by both the "new source" performance standards and the non-degradation regulations. The first requires all new plants, regardless of location, to employ a very high level of pollution control. This means that, in most cases, the cost of pollution abate- in.ent will not be affected by the location of a new facility. Although there is still some uncertainty about their final form, the non- degradation regulations may require more stringent abatement meas- ures in relatively unpolluted regions than in regions presently attempting to meet primary and secondary air quality standards. Although state and local planning agencies are expected to have the major role in defining what entails "significant deterioration" in any location, the regulations could interfere with what otherwise might have been a normal and often desirable relocation of rnanu- facturing activity into new communities or small towns in rural areas. This may become a serious problem in the development of new western energy sources. Growing energy needs have made more e S-,t, j, k-,AF3 OM MV P5727V 'MR1 NO U v @A 'r 6p @4@ By influencing the location of new industries, many air and water pollution regulations will have significant land use impacts related to the industry itself and to related commercial and residential development pressures it causes in surrounding areas. 32 attractive the large deposits of coal and oil shale which lie in Mon- tana, Colorado, and other western states. Those areas have relatively high quality air which will almost certainly be degraded if the energy development takes place .611 Of the other air quality regulations likely to affect land use within metropolitan areas, transportation control plans have received the greatest attention. These plans are aimed at reducing the amount of automobile traffic in order to meet ambient air quality standards. They involve, most commonly, implementation of some combination of the following strategies: (1) improved transportation control; (2) diversion of through traffic around central cities; (3) improved mass transit facilities; (4) special bus and car pool Janes; (5) elimination of- on-street parking in the central business district; and (6) at local option, a parking tax on off-street parking in the central business district."' The first two measures are aimed at reducing congestion and improving traffic flow to the central business district. Although, on a short-term basis, this should reduce the amount of air pollution gen- erated by automobiles commuting to downtown, over the longer run improved access to the central city might well encourage people to live farther from their jobs and commute longer distances in their cars. This in turn could actually increase the generation of air pollutants. The third and fourth measures are directed toward attracting more travelers to use public transit. They will tend to encourage increased development in areas served by mass transit facilities and to discourage sprawl development at the urban fringe. The fifth and sixth measures are designed to make automobile com- muting relatively more expensive and thus encourage more com- muters to ride public transit, If these regulations are not vigorously enforced throughout the metropolitan -area, they might also -have the effect of encouraging the dispersal of employment centers out of the central city. Such dispersal could in turn affect the economic viability of the central city, as well as make it more difficult for lower-income central city residents to get to their jobs. It would also adversely affect the viability of the public transit systems that are supposed to be encouraged by other measures and would tend to encourage more development at the urban fringe. However, if the regulations are applied with the same force in the suburbs as in the central city, as EPA encourages, the effect could be just the opposite. Locations near the mass transit facilities would become more attractive, and development would tend to concentrate along public transit routes. All of these transportation 'control measures, therefore, could have land use impacts. In some instances-for example if parking controls cause residential and industrial location patternsthat dis- courage mass transit use-the incentives may work against each .33 other and result in land use patterns that actually increase the amount of air pollution generated.6' Another air quality provision relates to the control of indirect sources-facilities which, while they do not generate large amounts of pollution themselves, attract traffic which may create air pollu- tion problems. They include major roads, shopping centers, stadiums, and other large public facilitieS.'3 In most instances the indirect source review will focus on ways to mitigate traffic congestion and reduce air pollution levels (particu- larly for carbon monoxide). However, the review agency has author- ity to require the developer to undertake remedial action such as the provision of public transportation to his facility as a condition of the permit. The indirect source regulations may have a significant impact on development decisions. They will tend to provide some incentive to the developer simply to avoid building the specific types and sizes of facilities covered by the regulations .114 The resulting impact on land use is uncertain, but it could be perverse in terms of the goals of the act. For instance, prospective shopping center developers might turn to strip commercial development along highways as an alternative to uncertain project review procedures. Such a shift could avoid the permit process if it resulted in each store's parking lot being small enough. But this might mean more use of automobiles if shoppers drive from one store to another, simultaneously increasing congestion and air pollution. Another set of regulations with possible direct impact on land use in metropolitan areas relates to air quality maintenance. These reg- ulations require air quality agencies to prepare plans for metro- politan areas to -ensure that the air quality, once it satisfies the am- bient standards, is not degraded by future development. These plans may limit certain types of development in parts of the metropolitan area. In developing the guidelines for these plans, EPA is recognizing the importance of their being integrated with other planning efforts for environmental, economic and social goals.6-5 . In sum, most of these air quality regulations appear to have the potential to affect land use patterns. In some cases it is not clear what the ultimate effect will be. Further analyses are obviously needed to ensure that the ensuing regulations as a whole will work together to meet the air quality purpose of the act, will affect land use in a desirable or at least neutral way and, further, will be con- sistent With the water pollution regulations described below. The recent decision by EPA to prepare and circulate environmental im- pact statements on major regulatory actions is a step in the right direction." Water Pollution Regulations-The 1972 Amendments to the Fed- eral Water Pollution Control Act placed increased emphasis on the 34 control of the effluents from point sources. This shift in emphasis from ambient to effluent standards tended to remove the incentive to disperse new facilities which was similar to that associated with the ambient air standards described above. However, there are at least three requirements of the amendments which will still affect industrial location decisions: '7 the effluent standards requiring the use of the best practicable or the best avail- able technology; "I' the requirement that industries pay the full cost of treating wastes discharged to municipal plants; '9 and the require- ment that industries pretreat their wastes before discliMrging them into municipal systems .70 Because it is generally less expensive to build pollution abatement technology into a new plant than to add it to an old one, and because abatement devices require space which may not be available at older congested industrial sites, the effluent standards 'may induce firms to abandon old plants, particularly those located in high density urban areas, sooner than they otherwise might have. Usually a new plant will be located outside the central city where more land is available at a lower price. However, new plants may be required to satisfy stricter standards than old plants, thus providing a countervailing incentive. The combination of cost sharing and pretreatment requirements for industrial use of municipal treatment plants could also lead finns to conclude that they can more cheaply treat and dispose of their wastes themselves'. If so, new industrial siting decisions would be influenced less by the availability of public sewers than they are currently, and this would be likely to result inwider dispersal of new industrial sites. If this stimulates industry to locate in small towns and new communities, it could be beneficial. If it leads industry to spread into undeveloped areas near cities, it could counteract desira- ble planning and regulatory efforts. Among other problems, the dis- persal could promote inefficient development patterns from an air pollution and energy consumption point of view, development which would eventually come in conflict with the goals of the Clean Air Act. Another regulation which may stimulate dispersed development is the requirement that every point source of pollution obtain a dis- charge permit. If water quality at a particular location presents a severe problem, as may occur in heavily' built-up areas, the guide- lines would suggest that permits not be issued unless the industry adopts very stringent pollution abatement techniques, perhaps even exceeding best available control technology. This again may terld to stimulate the dispersal of industrial and manufacturing activity. Again, it could be beneficial if it encourages industry to locate in smaller towns or new communities which need jobs, but detrimental if it simply contributes to metropolitan sprawl. One opportunity to evaluate (and rectify if necessary) the loca- tion incentives created by these provisions is the requirement in 35 Sections 208 and 303(e) of the Act for wastewater management planning. These plans are intended to provide overall coordination of the many provisions of the Act as they apply to a given metropoli- tan area. They will also provide the mechanism for implementing Section 304(e) of the Act, which deals with the control of pollu- tion from "nonpoine' sources. One major category of nonpoint pollution is stormwater runoff from land rendered impervious to water by streets, highways, parking lots, and commercial and resi- dential development." Regulating this form of nonpoint pollution could have significant impacts on development patterns. In summary, it is clear that the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act have potentially significant land use impacts. It is not yet clear how serious these will be, or even what direction they may take. Much more analysis is required. But this brief review of the incentives established under the laws suggests that in some cases the impacts may not only conflict with other social and environmental goals but may also be perverse in terms of the attainment of the pollution control goals of the Act from which they derive. EPA recognizes many of these problems and calls for integrated and comprehensive planning in its guidelines and policy statements T2 However, analyzing all the potential land use effects, developing com- plementary, guidelines, and overseeing the responsibility for prepar- ing integrated plans which balance off the various environmental, eco- nomic, and social objectives is an extremely complex undertaking. In the meantime there is a danger that regulations issued before sufficient analysis can be completed will result in many of the prob- lems outlined above. Public Infrastructure Investments While tax and regulatory policies may have significant effects on broad development patterns, the funding of new public facilities probably has the most direct and immediate impact on specific land areas. The influence of highways on land values and development decisions is-understood best. Mass transit facilities also induce land use changes, particularly around stations. But new sewers are be- coming in many metropolitan areas the prime determinants of where and how fast new development occurs .73 Investments in water re- source and water suppty projects can also be powerful stimulants in the western United States. SewerS-Sewers and sewage treatment plants are replacing high- ways as prime determinants of the location of development@ in part because most of the major interstate highways segments located on the urban fringe have been built and additional highways have only 36 marginal effects on access. This replacement has. also occurred be- cause new concerns over water pollution have made it costly and sometimes impossible to build adequate septic tank systems and very difficult to receive approval to tie into existing overloaded sewage systems. And in part the replacement has taken place because new legislation makes billions of dollars in Federal aid available each year to communities to build new sewers and treatment facilities. Among other things, under the new program the Federal Govern- ment contributes 75 percent of the costs of these facilities, which substantially reduces the per unit cost of local sewer tie-ins. The importance of sewers to the development process has been studied very little in the past. An examination of growth in the Far Northeast section of Philadelphia over the period 1945 to 1962 indi- cated that access to trunk sewers and high density zoning were the two most important factors influencing the price of residential land, and that the absence of sewers tended to restrict develop- ment .14 Similarly, a more subjective analysis of the development process in Fairfax County, Virginia, concluded that the installation of interceptor sewers and the general pro-growth attitude of county officials were the prime determinants of the pattern of development in that area. 75 Another more quantitative study of the entire Wash- ington, D.C., area also documents, though somewhat ambiguously, the importance of sewers in determining the location of the exten- sive development that has surrounded the city over the past decade." The location and rate of extension of interceptor sewer lines. through previously undeveloped areas seem to have more impact on land use than any other set of decisions on wastewater facilities. Interceptor sewers are defined as the major lines that run from the collector sewers to the treatment plant. Because the location of a new interceptor significantly increases the number of buildable lots along its right of way, a key issue is its capacity. There is-a general tendency for such lines to be oversized in order to assure the neces- sary capacity for future development, but the oversizing- itself can contribute to the extent of development that occurs. Such oversizing thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. A related land use impact caused by large interceptor sewers is their tendency to be, designed to run for long distances between existing towns before reaching the treatment plant. Such lines open up large areas of what may have been previously undeveloped land between the towns. While this may be in line with overall regional land use planning, it could also run counter to desirable development patterns, particularly if sewers are placed only with an eye toward wastewater treatment efficiency. In one recent case, a proposed interceptor was slated to run through a large undeveloped coastal area of Delaware that was on the state plan for eventual purchase as recreational land .77 The proposal would have used public funds to build a sewer that would have substantially raised the purchase cost of the land to the public. 37 562 -905 0 - 74 - 6 r Major sewer lines have become the prime determinants of where and when new development occurs in many metropolitan areas. In addition to the land use impacts of new sewers, the developments they "@4 spur, if not properly controlled, can cause worsened problems of water pollution. __W Oqr 7" Az M, R11 F N Another phenomenon related to the construction of large inter- ceptors is the tendency for developers to move immediately to the end of the new line in order to take advantage of both the available sewer service and the low land costs on the far urban fringe." The result is a costly leapfrog and fill-in development pattern, which increases the difficulty of properly planning the timing and size of other public facilities and spreads the urban area out in a pattern that is wasteful of land and energy resources. Many of these problems could be avoided if the construction 38 of major interceptor sewers were phased to the extent feasible to coordinate with the extension of other public facilities in accord with a comprehensive land use plan. While annual or biennial ex- tensions of such interceptors might make the sewer cost somewhat higher and the funding mechanism more complicated, it would probably result in overall cost savings to the community and would significantly reduce adverse land use impacts. Similar issues arise when the analysis shifts from an individual interceptor to the design of an entire wastewater treatment system, including the treatment plant. Once again, cost factors favor the choice of large re ional treatment plants with associated sewers. So 91 far as water quality is concerned, these systems present economies of scale in construction and operation and require less monitoring and fewer highly trained personnel than a number of smaller treatment plants. But, as with sewers, the overdesign of capacity in the regional plant becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Coastal and other areas of seasonal home construction may be particularly affected because only a limited amount of land may be available for high density development, and because the potential buyer of a seasonal horne or a recreational lot has greater freedom of locational choice than with his primary home. While a series of smaller but individually expandable plants might be more costly in such circumstances, the community could retain more control over development. Such a course would also give communities broader options to coordinate the expansion of wastewater treatment facilities with other public service programs:. It is important to assure that such options are considered and the potential land use impacts are recognized prior to Federal funding.79 Highways-The major public investment program which has been analyzed most extensively in terms of growth-inducing effects is the Federal Highway Program." Of course, the direct environ- mental impact of highway construction is. also substantial. Each mile of interstate highway consumes up to 48 acres; over two-thirds of the land area in some of our cities is consumed by streets, roads, and parking; 26 million acres of America's rural land is consumed by transportation systems."' (See Table 2 above.) The earth moving required in the construction of such systems is a major source of soil erosion and increased sediment loads in rivers and streams. The paved area results in increased stormwater runoff, which can be heavily polluted with organic materials, oil, nutrients, and toxic sub- stances. Air pollution, noise, community disruption, and the loss of parks, natural areas, and structures of architectural or historic sig- nificance are other direct effects of highway construction. Buf the effects on urban development patterns have been even greater." Cheap energy, the automobile, and the highway have been major factors in determining the physical character of American metropoli- tan areas. 39 01 ON -XW A A Mr AW t.4 The impact of highways on development patterns, illustrated here by U.S. 89 in Arizona, has been rather extensively studied, but still too little is done to analyze such impacts prior to construction. 40 A number of studies, many of them conflicting, have been con- ducted on the impact of highways. In terms of interregional effects, the construction of highways seems to have had -at most only a moderate impact on growth. For instance, an analysis of over 200 metropolitan areas which differed widely in the amount and type of highway construction indicated no significant effect of highway construction on population growth rates .113 Within a region, however, highways may have more important effects. A major highway linking a satellite city to a nearby major metropolitan area may induce a higher growth rate for the satellite city and for the corridor between it and the metropolitan area.84 Manufacturers consider highway transportation to be an impor- tant factor in their location decisions, once they have decided upon a region. Other factors such as availability of raw materials, the existence of markets, and supplies of adequately skilled labor have more influence in the choice of region, but highways become im- portant in the site location decision within a given region.115 Commercial facilities, particularly those involved in wholesale and retail trade, show even greater sensitivity to the presence of high- ways in location decisions. Over the past two to three decades, whole- sale trade has migrated steadily and significantly to suburban loca- tions. Wholesale employment in the suburbs was negligible in the immediate postwar years; by 1963, it accounted for about 4 percent of suburban jobs.116 Several studies have documented the significant impact of the interstate highway network, especially circumferen- tial beltways, in this decentralization process .87 Retail trade may have an even stronger attraction to highways. Many of our modern regional shopping centers would not be finan- cially feasible were it not for their ability to locate near the inter- section of major highways."" In addition, certain categories of retail businesses-service stations, motels, restaurants, and drive-in estab- lishments-are very strongly oriented toward highways .8' The central business districts appear to have been hurt by improvements in the highway network of most metropolitan centers.90 Case studies show that highways introduce pressures for commer- cial development of nearby land.91 Arterial streets and radial high- ways tend to promote strip commercial development, while circum- ferential highways tend to promote large-scale commercial, in 'dustrial, and residential developments.9' Circumferential highways may also lead to accelerated commercial development along major arterials intersecting them.93 Such interchanges provide the strongest stimu- lant for rapid land use changes, particularly into very high density development.14 Residential use of land is not related to highways in a simple way. Other factors (type of neighborhood, zoning protection, natural amenities, schools) have important influences, as do other types of public service infrastructure investments, such as sewers.95 The impact of highways on residential location depends to a great 41 extent upon the relative supply and demand for different types of housing, and the availability of accessible vacant land. Land es- pecially close to the city and near an interchange will increase sub- stantially in price and often can only be economically developed in an intensive way-either with businesses or high density housing." Far- ther out at the urban fringe, where farmland is available for develop- ment, radial highways from the beltway promote conversion to low density single family subdivisions." Efforts to distinguish among the impacts of different types of highways indicate that circumferential highways may result in more diffuse metropolitan areas than radial highways.911 However, this con- clusion is called into question by other studies, particularly those of the Washington, D.C., area." Several studies indicate that circum- ferential highways stimulate more intensive development along their immediate corridor than would occur otherwise, and probably acceler- ate the amount of development between radial routes.100 Most observers agree that the large-scale highway construction during the 1950's and 1960's has had substantial impact on the devel- opment pattern of our metropolitan areas. However, most of the evidence indicates that the effect of new highways in metropolitan areas will be much less than the effect of those constructed earlier. The impact of a highway-particularly on residential development- is strongly influenced by the amount of vacant land it opens up for development relative to what is already accessible. The first inter- state highways in metropolitan areas had substantial impact because they opened up relatively large amounts of land. Later highways may have less impact because they are built in areas that already have some access. But new roads on the urban fringe, especially beltways, may still be an exception to this rule. In summary, under some conditions highways can affect how and where development occurs, and the possible impacts should be care- fully considered in planning and reviewing proposed new projects. Control of these impacts through better planning and staging of the highway and its interchanges should be investigated. Mass Transit-There is evidence that some of the new mass transit facilities being planned or constructed in U.S. cities may stimulate very important growth effects. This is not a new phenomenon. The early growth pattern of many metropolitan areas was established by the trolley lines radiating out from the central business district.101 Residential development was concentrated in a narrow band along these lines, and its spread was determined by their expansion. Unfortunately, very little information is available to predict the impacts of more recent mass transit systems. Few facilities have been constructed in recent years, and their impacts have been very diffi- cult to separate from the many other factors influencing urban growth. There are only a few studies available which analyze the types of impacts to be expected, and these depend less on a rigorous analysis 42 V w V LE The growth effects of mass transit facilities are primarily related to the devel- opment of high density residential and commercial facilities around stations. of empirical data than on a qualitative description of what is ex- pected or has been observed. The characteristic of rapid transit facilities, which distinguishes them from new highways is the degree of high density residential and office building development they stimulate around stations. Rapid transit facilities are used for moving people but seldom for moving goods. Therefore, they have more effect on activities that are people- oriented-residences, office buildings, cultural-and recreational facili- ties-than on those that require the transportation of goods. - The construction of rapid transit facilities into the downtown area can have a significant impact on building activity and land prices in the central business district and along the transit corridors lead- ing into it, as has been demonstrated in Toronto and San Francisco. An analysis of real estate changes in Toronto indicates that two new subways, constructed in 1954 and 1963, increased property values along their routes substantially."2About half of all highrise develop- ment and the bulk of office building construction occurred in areas within a 5-minute walk of the stations. Such comparisons should not be taken as proof that the subway (or any other investment) is responsible for' increasing the total assessed valuation of the city. It is just as likely th at the subway did nothing more than concentrate along its path the increase in values that would have occurred -throughout the city in any case. The BART line in San Francisco appears also to be stimulating 43 a rapid increase in the number of highrise office buildings and apart- ment houses being built along its route. While recognizing the overall benefits to the vitality of the city, many San Franciscans are con- cerned about the changes in the aesthetic, social, and cultural char- acter of their downtown resulting, at least in part, from the subway.103 Such effects also occur elsewhere than in the central city. Studies of the Philadelphia-Lindenwold High Speed Line (which currently connects Philadelphia with the suburbs and a satellite city across the Delaware in New Jersey) indicate that since its opening in 1969 the facility may have accelerated the movement of enterprises out of Philadelphia into other communities along its route.'" Similarly, there is@ some indication that San Francisco's BART is stimulating the construction of office buildings along its route in otherwise subur- ban communities. Energy Development Whereas the provision of public services determines where develop- ment is likely to take place within a particular area, there are some decisions that may have an impact on regional growth. This is exemplified by proposed energ-y-related developments-deepwater ports for supertankers, outer continental shelf (OCS) oil and gas production, extensive strip mining of western coal, the Alaska pipe- line, and the production of crude petroleum from oil shale. In addi- tion to affeicting air and water quality, water supplies, marine re- sources, wildlife, and land resources, these facilities are expected to generate substantial industrial, commercial, and residential develop- ment. This development will often occur in rural areas where rela- tively little growth could be expected in the absence of the energy facilities. The mining and shale oil developments in the West and the Alas- kan pipeline, are likely to have severe impacts on small towns. They will bring with them large numbers of workers, first for the con- struction of the facility, then for its operation, and finally for the construction and operation of associated industries. The popula- tion growth will often place great stress on the ability of the community to finance and provide the required services. Some public and private groups are studying these problems and are attempting to prepare in advance for the developments in order to avoid impact- ing local communities so that they take years to recover."' The Council, in asso'ciation with other Federal agencies, has com- pleted detailed studies of the secondary development expected from two types of energy developments-deepwater ports "6 and OCS oil production on the East Coast and in the Gulf of Alaska. 107 Both studies, which are discussed in Chapter 6, project heavy onshore in- vestment resulting from the offshore production or importation of crude oil. While this investment may bring a welcome economic boost 44 V y % Energy facilities in rural areas generate nearby development to accommo- date first construction workers and later employees and their families. This development can be either like the unplanned trailer park surrounding a new power plant in Wyoming (top), or like Boulder City, Nevada (bottom) which was started in 1931 as headquarters for the Hoover Dam construction and is known today as "Clean'Green Boulder City". .71 I-ff 7 1<7 45 to many coastal areas which have grown little in recent years, it will also cause tremendous physical changes in the natural and man-made environment. The initial effect will be the construction of refineries to handle the crude oil, followed probably by petrochemical in- dustry complexes which require oil and gas as raw materials. The industries will create a substantial demand for workers, first for their construction and then for their operation. The workers, in turn, will require housing, stores, schools, and other services, which will stimulate rapid development and strain the ability of local governments to provide the services required. The physical envi- ronment of the coastal area may be transfon-ned as much or more by this development process as by the energy facilities themselves. The scale of these changes can best be understood by looking at the potential impacts in a specific area. The counties of Cape May and Cumberland in southern New Jersey provide a good example. These counties are decidedly rural, containing only 2.5 percent of the state's population but 10 percent of its land."011 Per capita income is less than half the state average.11)9 The CEQ superport study concluded that, even if oil imports are low and are refined mostly at existing facilities located elsewhere, a major expansion of petroleum-related industry in the Mid-Atlantic states by the end of this century will still have a strong impact on the two counties.1110 Under other assumptions concerning the level of imports, dramatic changes could occur much sooner."' From a purely economic standpoint, such development would benefit the two counties. By the year 2000, twice as many jobs as expected under normal conditions could be created and average per capita income might be more than 20 percent higher. "' On the other hand, the environmental impacts on the region would be alarming. The amount of developed land in the.two coun- ties would triple in less than 30 years. Crude oil storage, refining, and petrochemical operations alone would cover over half of Cum- berland Couniyls bay shore, permanently changing its character and causing major conflicts with recreation, wildlife, and wetland preservation. Some of these effects might be avoided by locating major industrial facilities farther inland or at existing industrial centers in -the Delaware Valley. i I In addition to these land use impacts, massive' amounts of water would be needed for industrial cooling and processing and for the increased residential population and subsidiary commercial devel- opment."' The potential for air pollution would increase signifi- cantly as well .114 The Council also looked closely at these two counties in its study of the onshore impacts of outer continental shelf (OCS) oil development and -found similar impacts. OCS development would increase the number of jobs by 20 to 30 percent over thebase created by superport development, more than doubling the 1970 population. 46 Industry would replace tourism, fishing, and agriculture as the eco- nomic base, and large numbers of new public facilities, especially schools, hospitals, and waterworks, would have to be built. These facilities would have to be provided by small towns and especially the fishing villages along the shore of the Bay, localities which often lack the economic capability to support, and the land use planning and regulatory tools necessary to control, such a volume of growth. For most public officials at the state and local levels these induced impacts appear to be the most important effects that can be ex- pected from the development of new energy facilities. The various studies referred to here attempt to provide officials and the public with information and analytical tools to predict and adequately plan for such developments. There is a significant need for more of these analyses and for cooperation among Federal, state, regional, and local bodies in carrying out the required planning and its implementation. 115 Stimulants as Controls. This section has dealt with only some of the more important Fed- eral actions that can significantly affect where, how, and when devel- opment will occur. But not even all the relevant Federal programs have been covered. There has been no discussion of the Federal Housing Administration regulations and mortgage guarantees, for example, which, in addition to stimulating the construction of single family detached homes, have had a very important impact on the quality and form of much of our suburban development."' Nor have the effects of defense and space expenditures, which have contributed significantly to the development of certain regions of the country, been more than briefly mentioned. The role of water resource projects both as a determinant of land use on a local level and as a development catalyst for many areas in the western United States has been ignored. Finally, being focused predominantly on metropolitan areas,"' the analysis has ignored the many programs, particularly those implemented by the Department of Agriculture, which determine the whole structure of American agriculture and greatly influence development around small cities and towns in rural America. By concentrating on Federal actions, even in this limited way, this section has also omitted, except for some facilities jointly funded with the Federal Government, the many state and local actions which are development stimulants. The county or community's willingness to provide infrastructure-particularly water, roads, sewers, and schools-for new developments is a significant deter- minant of where, how, and when that development will occur. There are many other examples of local stimulants. Sales taxes, par- ticularly when local governments receive their proceeds, provide an 47 incentive for the promotion of commercial facilities."" Many local land use planning and regulatory efforts stimulate sprawl and in- creased automobile use. For example, a basic tenet of zoning has been to segregate land uses-to keep residences apart from industries and commercial areas. With such development patterns, people must travel farther to get from one type of area to another; hence, the need for more automobile travel. Parking requirements, normally included in commercial zoning ordinances, also encourage use of ve- hicles. Easy parking makes easy driving. There is increasing recQqnition of all these effects, and of the fact that actions usually undertaken for specific limited purposes ultimately have wide-ranging economic, social, and environmental impacts. In some instances, because of their influence on land use, the effects of such actions may end up being more environmentally, economically, and socially undesirable than the problems that they were originally intended to correct. For these reasons, such impacts cannot be ignored in analyzing the, desirability of proposed actions. They should weigh heavily, for example, when an agency is considering alternative public works investments or the best means of implementing a legal requirement through regulations. But predicting such effects is not easy. The significance of any stim- ulant may change over time, as witness the apparently decreasing importance, of highway investments and the increasing importance of sewer investments in affecting urban fringe growth patterns. The sig- nificance will also vary from place to place. A highway may be an important stimulant in one area but not in another. Sewer invest- ments, may lead to increased sprawl in one community, but a lack of adequate sewer investment (by forcing increased use of septic tanks and hence low. density development) may have the same effect in another.. And finally, the importance of these effects will depend not only upon their physical dimensions but also upon the values of the particular community in which they occur, values which change greatly from place to Place and from time to time. @ Because of the importance of the stimulants and the way their effects vary from case to case, the Council believes strongly that their analysis (with respect to Federal actions) should be included as part of the - environmental impact statement.119 As a first step the Council is working with several Federal agencies to develop tools which will allow the better prediction of such "secondary effects." At the same time, local planning officials are beginning to recog- n,ize how the stimulating effects of infrastructure investments can become a tool in controlling development. By carefully planning where the investments will be made and how they will be staged, local, regional and state officials can strongly influence where, how, and when. This use of stimulants as controls is discussed in the next section. 48 Land Use Controls Every community has tools available to it to control and direct the development process. Some of these land use controls are well- established and well-known, although even the most traditional have undergone changes and refinements in recent years. Others are new and relatively untried, some offering promise, and others having some obvious pitfalls. Quiet Revolution Revisited In 1971, the Council on Environmental Quality documented the movement toward more effective land use controls in its report, The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control.'" This report analyzed in- novative land use controls in a number of states, including Hawaii, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Wisconsin. It also examined regional efforts such as those of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council. Since the publication of The Quiet Revolution, efforts to strengthen the role of the states and their reo-ional governments in regulating the use of land have continued. Forty-eight states have now enacted legislation or are seriously studying proposals to expand the previously limited role of state government in the regulation of land use. (See the Appendix to this chapter.) ILI' Initiatives undertaken by the states include review of major industrial location decisions such as power plants, assistance to localities to plan better for the siting of growth- inducing public facilities, controls on surface mining, and protectiGh of important natural areas-particularly c6astat zones, wetlands, floodplains, and mountain regions-and historical areas from un- desirable development. In all cases, most land use decisions continue to be made by local governments. But the states are creating proced- ures in which the broader state perspective is applied to the devel- opment process. Six states (California, Delaware, Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Is- land, and Washington) have. enacted particularly broad state author- ity over land use decisions in defined coastal zones, where the con@ flicts among competing uses of limited land resources are often most severe. Six others (Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Virginia) have singled out wetlands for state protection; most now require permits for any draining, dredging, filling, or construction in such areas. Minnesota, Michigan, and Wis- consin have strong shoreland and floodplain protection laws. Utah has enacted critical areas legislation. Three recently enacted state laws deserve particular mention. The 1972 Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act (Act 380) provides for state designation of "areas of critical state 49 concern," which are regulated by local government under state guidelines or directly by the state if the localities fail to live up to guideline requirements. The 1973 comprehensive act in Oregon (Senate Bill 100) "1 takes a similar approach to state and local roles in land use planning and regulation, with a state land use commis- sion developing policies and goals to be implemented by local gov- ernments. The State of New York in 1973 amended its Adirondack Park Agency Act to provide state-level control over development on privately owned holdings comprising over one-half the acreage within the park ared.124 At the same time, many communities have taken a more aggressive role in attempting to bring,about better land use. There is increasing citizen pressure, particularly in suburban areas of major cities, to improve planning, to evaluate more fully the effects of develop- ment, and to strengthen local develop ,ment controls.'" An increas- ingly sophisticated public has come to realize the point made through- out this chapter-that major development significantly affects the local economy, the tax burden, and the environment. In a recent study for EPA, the International City Management Association found that 36 percent of all counties with populations of over 400,000 and nearly one-fourth of all cities with populations of over 10,000 have created citizen environmental commissions to confront these and other issues .126 Further, the study found that approximately half of the cities and counties cited citizen support for environmental issues as being a major factor in the creation of environmental protection programs. As noted in last year's Annual Report, em- phasis on growth and change is being replaced by a concern for stabili ty, for protection of the environment and for a greater sense of community. '127 A new appreciation of the importance of land use issues is also beginning to influence thinking at the Federal level. In the past the Federal role in land use was focused primarily on the management of that one-third of the Nation's land comprising Federal lands, forests, and parks. 1211 Now, as indimted in the previous section, there is general recognition that many Federal policies and programs influence other land use and development decisions. Recent laws define a new Federal role in dealing with land use issues. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, provides assistance to 34 coastal states and territories wishing to establish resource management plans in defined coastal areas. 1129 In its first year of operation, the program was able to fund eligible programs in all but one of the designated states. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 '30 empowers the Department of Housing and Urban Development to work with 15,000 flood-prone localities in the United States to upgrade regulation of development in floodplains as a condition for disaster relief and insurance for structures now existing on floodplains. 50 Controlling Development It is rare to find a locality where only one type of land use control is in effect. More commonly, there are several controls, and it is their interaction-the way in which they complement or counteract one another-which effectively determines the degree and character of control exercised. It is useful to analyze the effectiveness and im- pacts of the individual control mechanisms. Zoning-Zoning, the most common system of land use control, attempts to predesignate the purposes for which land can be used. In doing so, it serves to segregate uses into assigned geographic areas,' keeping, for example, heavy industries apart from residences, or even single family housing apart from multifamily housing."' Zoning can have significant impact on land values, though the direction and significance of the impact depends on how well zoning is administered and on supply and demand situations in the land market. The character of a residential neighborhood, for example, is a major determinant of the value of its houses. Zoning assists in the creation and preservation of these characteristics by excluding con- flicting land uses, such as industry and large-scale commerce.131 Zon- ing may also increase property values by restricting the amount of land available for particular uses. For example, if there is a ldrge 'A 77" :27. OVE 4E @'U n W il NOR ly4 FY 47 -kA Some land use controls require no compensation because they protect the public health and welfare; residential development, for example, should have been barred from this floodplain. 51 demand for multifamily housing but very little land zoned for that purpose, the small supply of land is likely to find a very high market price.` Zoning can also reduce property values. Land that is permanently zoned for less profita ble uses, such as agriculture or large-lot single family homes, will bring a lower price than land zoned for higher density uses. The degree to which land can be restricted to less profitable uses is an issue of constitutional law dealt with in The Taking Issue, a report issued by the Council last year and discussed in Chapter 4 of the Fourth Annual Report."' Zoning has certain inherent problems as a land use control. Inas- much as it can change the price of land from its free market value, zoning may create economic incentives which work against the suc- cessful implementation of the desired development patterns. For example, if two parcels of land, alike in every other respect, are zoned for different purposes-e.g., one for multifamily and the other for single family housing-and if - the land prices differ because multifamily development is more profitable, then a potential devel- oper of multifamily units has an incentive to buy the cheaper land and use his influence in the locality to get the zoning changed .13-1 When this "spot zoning" occurs, it results in such land use aberrations as garden apartments surrounded by farms-not where proper land use @lanning would locate apartments nor even where they would be built were there a completely free market. A second roblem with zoning derives from its underlying assump- p tion that different uses should be segregated. In terms of conven- ience, environmental effects, and energy consumption, there are often signi ficant advantages to locating neighborhood facilities such as a grocery store or a pharmacy within a residential area. Traditional zoning,, however, generally prohibits such an intermingling of uses. Recent trends in planning and zoning seek to remedy this deficiency by, Moving toward a more beneficial integration of different land uses at the proper scale. An even more basic question in zoning is whether it is possible, or even Idesirable, for a community to establish firm criteria for land use that are expected . to remain unchanged over a long period of time. Experience suggests that it is not. Commonly, zoning regula- tions are transformed. Amendments and variances which were originally intended as rarely used safety valves often become the rule. As a result, zoning provides neither stability of use nor a logi- cal mechanism for definition'of use. -Some new techniques being used to overcome these problems are discussed later in this section. Aside from various inherent problems, the manner in which communities 'actually implement their zoning ordinances is often criticized. It is said that many communities have intentionally or unintentionally adopted zoning regulations which effectively bar' low or even middle income housing from the community,"' pri- 52 marily through regulation of lot size, frontage, living sp ace, and setback. It is generally, though not unanimously, accepted that zoning plays a part in the determination of housing CoStS.137 Because housing costs and lot size have a direct and positive relationship to municipal tax revenues, while public service costs per given household are relatively constant regardless of housing costs, municipalities have an incentive to engage in "fiscal" zoning-attempting to maximize the revenue provided by the land and improvements, while limiting -the number of new families entering the community.".' Many communities have adopted large-lot zoning in the belief that it will preserve open space and slow development. Under these ordinances, a house may be built only if it is on a lot of several acres. But large-lot zoning may increase environmental problems and create undesirable economic and social consequences."' It is damaging to environmental quality in that it takes low density development farther and farther into the countryside. This requires more roads because of the greater distances and necessitates more travel by car, thereby increasing energy consumption and air pollution. As a result of the greater distances between houses, large-lot zoning forces communities to pay more per resident for sewer' electric, water, and other infra- structure systems,which in turn leads to incre ased property taxes and provides additional stimulus for ... fiscal" zoning. Fortunately, there are new zoning techniques available which deal more efficiently with some of the problems of traditional zoning. Two of the most important are the planned unit development (PUD) and the special purpose district. The PUD technique is seeing increased use across the country, particularly in communities at the urban fringe. Usually embodied as part of the local zoning ordinance, it provides increased flexi- bility for the design and siting of residential development. Under the PUD technique, the builder is permitted to aggregate the total density permitted for his tract into clusters of higher density devel- opment. The specific plan is determined through negotiation between the developer and the planning board, working within broad legis- lative guidelines. 140 For the developer, this results in savings in build- ing costs. For the community, it preserves relatively large unbroken areas of open space (usually 10-20 percent of the total) and reduces many of the costs caused by typical sprawl development. The PUD technique can apply equally well to luxury develop7 ments or moderate priced housing. Some of the most desirable hous- ing in many communities is located in the PUD's where savings in housing costs are applied to better community facilities. Or the cost savings can be used to provide a greater diversity in housing to serve better the individual needs and economic capabilities of. potential residents."' Smaller units for elderly residents, for example, can be interspersed with larger residences. 53 The second innovative technique is the special purpose district. Like the PUD, the special district is typically a part of the local zoning ordinance, designed generally to give greater leeway in devel- opment and to break traditional zoning's inflexible focus on the single lot. Whereas the PUD is designed for new developments, the special purpose district generally is created to protect existing desirable uses in particular areas of social, cultural, or historical importance that are threatened by pressures for redevelopment. The special purpose district is subject to controls on design and use,,and it provides various incentives and bonuses to complying developers. The technique has been used most often in the preservation of historic districts, such as New York City's Greenwich Village. But it has found application as well in other areas of that city, where it has helped to revitalize the Broadway theatre district, to encourage the continued existence of luxury shops along Fifth Avenue, and to preserve low income housing."' Special purpose districts and PUD's attempt to come to terms with the problems and potentials of a specific area. Both techniques grow from a recognition that normal zoning ordinances are often too clumsy to deal with the delicate process of preserving and enhancing environ- mental quality. Review of Development Proposals-Traditional zoning ordi- nances attempt to control land use by determining before develop- ment occurs what every piece of land will be used for. As long as any proposed development satisfies the designated land uses, it is allowed. But to assure that it does, most communities have also adopted laws for the review of major development proposals. These laws vary from the simple requirement to file a map of platted acreage for a new subdivision to highly sophisticated techniques and reporting schemes with guidelines, regulations, and provisions for public review. 143 There is an increasing recognition that development proposals must be examined on an individual basis under a system of review that has both clearly defined standards and the flexibility to take into account changing community values and the special characteristics of each project. A typical project review ordinance establishes very general guide- lines for development and leaves certain choices concerning the design and location of the development to case-by-case negotiation between the developer and the municipal officials. The Ramapo, N.Y., r law takes a somewhat different approach, establishing a point system based on the location of development - with respect to existing in- frastructure and on the developer's willingness to supply various public -facilities himself. 144 Environmental impact statements required by the National En- vironmental Policy Act and by laws enacted in numerous states and localities are another form of project review, requiring that govern- mental agencies review in a public-document the impacts of projects 54 they propose to approve or undertake. In California, state legislation on impact statements has been interpreted as applying to significant private actions as well.'" Increasing emphasis is being given in impact statements to both direct land use impacts and changes in surrounding land uses likely to be induced by the proposed action. Other state laws have created procedures and special boards for reviewing development proposals. California's Coastal Zone Act set up a statewide commission and regional panels to analyze impacts before approving development proposals .146 Vermont's Environ- mental Control Law- (Act 250) requires a review by a regional environmental board for all subdivisions over 10 acres, any commer- cial or industrial development of substantial size, and any develop- ment a:bove 2500 feet in elevation .147 Comprehensive state review of power plant siting has been established in a number of states, including Arizona, Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington .1411 Texas and Louisiana require project review before construction of superports .14' Delaware, in addition to banning heavy industry from its coastal zone, has established a permit system to review and approve other,types, of industry there. On the local level, the Association of Bay Area Gov- ernments in San Francisco has established "Project Review Criteria for Growth," which are applied in order to analyze the environ- mental and social impact of proposed development.'50 Each of these approaches seeks to resolve a very important question in land use regulation: to what extent should controls be exercised through traditional zoning methods of predesignating permitted uses, and to what extent should each development proposal be given special review? Most procedures being adopted at present include a mixture of both. Traditional zoning is less likely to cause delays in develop- ment and may provide less opportunity for arbitrary or capricious actions by public bodies. On the other hand, it tends to be inflexible and unresponsive to public opinion, and it often interferes with solu- tions that best serve the longer-term interests of both the private developer and the public. The consequences of poor design and improper site location are long-term losses for the residents and the community. Hence, the current trend is clearly toward more case-by- case review as the only way to assure adequate sensitivity to commu- nity and environmental impacts. This move away from preregulation toward more thorough review of development proposals is also reflected in two other new development control techniques which are discussed below:@ development rights and land banking. Development Rights: Donation, Purchase, and Transfer-The Constitution places limits on the taking of private property by public authorities without just compensation. Under a series of court cases in the early part of this century, the concept of "taking" was held to apply to government regulation of land."" This limits the severity 55 of land regulation which can be applied in the name of the general welfare without requiring that the owner be compensated for the taking. For the most part, the determination of what constitutes a compensable taking has been left to state courts, 112 and, as might be expected, the line between legal and illegal regulation varies among the states, as well as over time within the same state. Some state courts have held that restricting development to I house per 5-acre minimum lot size is a reasonable use of public power but draw the line at a 10-acre minimum lot."' To some extent, of course, the land itself dictates reasonable uses. Public authorities can be more restric- tive with respect to floodplains because development there poses potential dangers to residents, and with respect to wetlands because of their value as natural breeding areas. What is left to the landowner after the community has placed such legal restrictions on his ability to use his land is seen by the law as a bundle of rights. When the landowner subsequently sells or gives away his land, he is actually transferring this bundle of rights. How- ever, there is a longstanding right to split off some of the rights from the bundle and sell or donate them separately from the rest. Often in the past, for example, one fanner would sell to another the right to cross a strip of his property to reach fields with no direct access. That strip would then be subject to a right or easement held by. the other farmer and as a result might not be fully usable by the landowner. Over the years, the separation of, such rights has become more common as a land use control technique. Various agreements have been formulated whereby landowners sell, donate, or transfer limited rights from their bundle to private groups or public authorities. Some- times such rights are called conservation easements or scenic ease- ments. The more common generic term is "development rights" because the rights split off and transferred usually include most of the rights to develop the land. There is no doubt that the community can purchase those devel- opment rights it feels it needs to control land use beyond the point permitted by the Constitution. It may even condemn such develop- ment rights under eminent domain laws and compensate an un- willing seller, although the.public benefit derived from such strong action must be clearly demonstrated. But the purchase of develop- ment rights can be expensive, particularly if it is used as a stopgap in areas subject to heavy development, pressures. An added cost, as in the case of publicly owned lands, is that the value of rights held by the c o*mmunity is removed from the tax rolls. Despite.these legal intricacies and the financial limitations, there is increasing interest in a wide range of approaches to development rights as a part of the community's land use controls. New approaches include donations, transfers, and other devices in addition to purchase of these rights. 154 The donation of development rights is a valuable approach in cases 56 in which landowners are agreed that they would all benefit from restricting or preventing further development. Each owner deeds his rights to a public body or a private nonprofit preservation group. Landowners continue to use their property and can sell it, subject of course to those rights now held by the donee. Such donations can reduce the owner's property taxes and may be deductible as a charita- ble gift in computing Federal income taxes. Some development rights donation agreements have been in force for many years. Residents of the Mill Creek Valley in suburban Philadelphia have had an agreement in effect for nearly 35 years- it withstood the pressures of surrounding suburbanization. and nearby freeway construction and preserved the natural character of the valley.'15Large portions of the Brandywine Valley in Delaware and southern Pennsylvania have been similarly set aside as permanent open space.' 56 The donation approach has also worked in conserva- tion areas in New England."' Where donation of development rights does not appear possible, a community may wish to purchase and hold development rights when it desires to restrict development to a degree not permissible through regulation. The community can choose the amount of rights it wishes to purchase according to a variety of factors. In the case of some parcels, for example, it may be enough to buy only the rights to higher density development; in other cases, the right to prevent all further development might be purchased. A recent example of this selectivity is the proposed plan for the Brandywine Valley in Chester County, Pennsylvania. This plan calls for the Chester County Water Resourres Authority to purchase development rights,to the edge of the flood- plain of the Brandywine River or to a distance of 300 feet, whichever is greater, and the rights to develop at density greater than 1 house on each 4 acres on wooded or steep slopes.'-"' As with donation of development rights, their purchase is not a new and untested development. Such purchases have been used to protect wetlands and other environmentally critical areas and have also been used extensively around airports.'" Nevertheless some public officials are still reluctant to purchase development rights on an extensive scale. One criticism is that development rights often cost nearly as much as titles to the land. This is indeed the case where efforts to purchase development rights are initiated- after the land has come under the pressure of urbanization; in such circumstances, most of the value of the land derives from its develol>- ment. potential. On the other hand, the State of Wisconsin pur- chased development rights in rural areas adjacent to the Great River Road along the Mississippi River over 30 years ago for a few cents per front foot; today the road is fully protected from billboards and extensive development."" Another criticism is that the purchase of development rights causes enforcement problems and makes the land difficult to manage.161 But the Nature Conservancy, which has considerable experience in 57 the receipt and purchase of. such partial estates in land, has found that the landowner continuing to live on the land is the best manager and law enforcement officer of all."" An important new concept is "transferable development rights.' @163 Traditional land use controls assume that the development potential of a site may be used only on that site. The new concept proposes to break this linkage between a piece of land and its development potential by permitting the transfer of the development rights to land where greater density will not be objectionable. In freeing the development rights for use elsewhere, the technique would avoid current inequities by enabling the owner of a restricted site to recoup lost economic values by selling the site's development .potential. Under this concept, as it is generally envisioned, all land would initially be assigned the same number of development rights per acre. Then a plan would Jay out zones for low, medium, and high density development. Landowners in high density zones, needing more rights in order to build to permitted levels, would buy those rights from landowners in low density zones. Thus the development rights would be bought and sold on an open market. Any landowner could take part, but he could develop his land only to the degree that he had accumulated development rights and only to the extent permitted by ------------ _77r_ 7-- Many land use control devices-zoning, review of development proposals, development rights purchases, land banking, and timed development plans- are available to localities to help direct the pattern and pace of new growth and to reduce its adverse environmental effects. 58 the zone he was in. Unlike cur-rent zoning practices, the boundaries of the zones or the degree of development within a zone could not be changed. There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the details of how such a system would work and the extent to which it would be associated with more traditional land use controls such as zoning. Some concrete proposals, however, are being developed."' Given the gaps in existing research and the obvious problems of imple- menting poorly conceived transfer programs, extensive investigation, research, and experimentation are necessary before such a system is widely adopted. The public costs of such a program should be limited to organizing the development rights market and making sure it works. If the rights are transferrable only within a community, the tax base re- mains constant, for the increased tax payments of the purchaser of development rights will offset the reduced payments of the seller. One substantial benefit for the community is that land from -which the development rights are sold is effectively preserved in low density or open space use in private lands without cost to the, public. Transfer of development rights has been attempted on a limited basis by some cities, and it has proven particularly useful in preserving historic buildings in neighborhoods under redevelopment pressure."15 Such buildings may be saved if the owner can transfer the right to build a higher structure on the site to a nearby property he owns. In this way, he is permitted to build higher on the latter site in return for preserving the lowrise historic building on the former. This assumes, of course, that there are height restrictions in the neighbor- hood beyond which the developer wishes to build and that a building of such height is not undesirable. Whether the development right; transfer approach should achieve wider application and even replace zoning and other traditional land use controls may soon become a major topic of debate. At this point, the transfer concept is still in its infancy. As with any other innova- tion, it will be widely adopted only if it is clearly proved superior to more traditional methods. However, some parts of the development rights transfer concept may prove useful in the long run. They may provide a way to alleviate the unfair "windfall" and "wipeout" effects brought on landowners by current land use controls.16' Land Banking@Another potential mechanism for public control over development is land banking. This approach involves the acquisition by the community of extensive undeveloped land sur- rounding the community with subsequent resale of parcels and tracts to developers in a way that effectively controls the rate' and pattern of urbanization. New communities such as Columbia, Maryland, and Irvine, Cali- fornia, demonstrate the simplest form of land banking. The developer acquires a large tract of undeveloped land, prepares a land use plan, 59 and provides major infrastructure investments such as roads, sewers, and utilities. He then controls development of the community so that the construction of residences, commercial centers, recreational areas, and public facilities are efficiently staged and coordinated. In this way the community developer creates a more orderly growth process andis able at relatively low cost to preserve lands for future public facilities and for open space. Public land banking schemes, though uncommon in the United States, are used in many other countries. Programs of land acquisi- tion and banking have been implemented in Australia, Canada@ Denmark, England, Germany, the Netherlands, Hong Kong,.Israel, Norway, and, Sweden. Several examples bear particular mention. The English new towns have been built on land acquired for that purpose by public corpor- ations which undertook the development, planning, land acquisition, and construction. 161 Sweden's municipal land reserves have particu.- -larly. impressed urban. American planners.'-"" After World War 11, Stockholm undertook a very aggressive Iprogram to control the process of urban growth, whichL resulted in attractive@ well-planned suburban communities, separated by green space from the core city and from each other,, and efficiently linked by public transportation and highways. The applicability of much of t is foreig h experience to the Ameri- can situation is limited.",9 However, land banking which has been in effect since the 1930's in the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan may be more directly relevant because of the similar- .ity between U.S. and Canadian property laws and traditions. It is interesting to note, that a Canadian Government task force studying ,the Saskatchewan experience found that the prices charged for hous- ing in,and around cities using land banking were significantly lower than those around comparable cities that had. not adopted such a prograrn. 170 As with zoning, the'economic effects of land banking depend on how it is administered. The act of withholding land from the market should increase land prices."' This escalation in land prices,is par- ticularly severe -during the initial public acquisition of .the land. After initial acquisition, land prices are determined essentially by the amount of landreleased for development. The initial inflationary effect can be avoided by purchasing land sufficiently 'distant from the urban fringe that it is not yet effectively a part of the urban land niarket and thus. is much less expensive. However, such an approach would prev6ht.land banking from having any significant short-range impact o the urban growth process .172 . n . The Swedish experience sug- gests that land for a reserve should be acquired at least three decades in advance of its anticipated development."' Land banking. undertaken nearer, to urban areas can have a positive effect by assuring the.development of previously passed-over .parcels. Such parcels, leapfrogged by developers for larger and 60 cheaper tracts farther out, sometimes amount to a substantial propor- tion of the total urbanized area. By preventing such leapfrogging, land banking can force the filling in of passed-over land and create more efficient land use patterns, although the financial advantage of banking in advance of urbanization is lost to the public."' There has been some experimentation in land banking in the United States, not only through recent new communities, but also in the creation of a few "greenbelt" towns during the 1930's and govern- ment towns such as Los Alamos and Oak Ridge during the 1940's. More important, a number of communities have implemented what amounts to "land banking" by advance acquisition of land later used for schools, open space, and highway corridors. While this does not result in control over large land areas, such policies appear to benefit localities in two ways. Needed land is acquired while it is still cheap, and prior knowledge of such public facility location permits more effective planning and more informed private development decisions. 175 There remains strong interest in the possible use of more exten- sive land banking schemes.176 Two Presidential Commissions, a spe- cial Congressional committee, and numerous other official, quasi- official, and private organizations have recently undertaken analyses of the problems of providing for more orderly urb-an growth. 177 Al- most without exception, their reports call for the public acquisition of land in order to reduce the cost of public facilities and to guide and control urban development moreeffectively." ' ' No-Growth and Slow-Growth Policies- As this chapter indicates, the interrelationships of community goals, economic forces, tax pol- icies, and land use controls are extremely complex and little under- stood. As a result, citizens in many communities share a feeling that the development process is out of control, that decisions are made which benefit only the influential developers' interests, and that piecemeal changes are having an unpredictable cumulative effect on the quality of life. 1711 The reaction in many localities is a strong citizen effort to slow or stop growth. In its most extreme form, communities have decided that they want no more growth and will allow no more develop- ment."9 Such an approach is futile as a long-term solution. Among other problems, it may deny some the right to a reasonable use of their land, a denial which is in violation of the Constitution unless the owner is compensated for his loss by the community. Few com- munities have the wherewithal to buy out all the development rights surrounding them. Such an approach also tends to have the effect of merely pushing growth elsewhere. When such flat bans on development have been imposed for unlimited periods, they have run afoul of the courts.180 On the other hand, there is at least some evidence that in those areas in which a community has imposed a temporary halt on development in order 61 to plan its future, the courts will be more receptive. In one recent Federal court case, a small town in New Hampshire, faced by a large seasonal home subdivision, rezoned the land to 6-acre minimum lots to halt the project until a town plan could be developed and s righ III a halt to the adopted."" In upholding the community, t to @ca development,. the court emphasized the temporary nature of the locality's action, the relative size of the proposed development com.- pared to the existing town population, and the fact that the action denied no one housing, since the proposed development was clearly for second homes. Many communities have imposed moratoria on various phases of development. One recent study found that nearly one-fifth of all local governments surveyed had imposed some type of moratorium, most frequently on building permits."" Another type of moratorium often used is on new sewer connections. This is usually done upon the order of state health or water pollution control authorities to pre- vent overloading of treatment plant capacity, Over 200 such mora- tona were in force during 1973 .1113 They are generally upheld when challenged in court, being temporary and necessary for compliance with state and Federal water quality laws. There is usually a sched- ule for the construction of new treatment facilities which provides assurance that the moratorium will be lifted in the foreseeable future. Some communities, however, have adopted such moratoria in a more open attempt to control rates or patterns of population growth. 1114 Although the actions7 may well limit the amount of growth taking place in one community, that growth will probably.. occur somewhere else, perhaps with more adverse economic, environmen- tal and social effects. For example, if the moratorium prevents hook- UPS to existing sewers, desirable in-fill development on previously skipped-over land cannot take place. This may contribute to con- tinued urban sprawl by narrowing the development alternatives to sin le family housing on large lots with septic tanks, usually feasible 9 only in undeveloped areas far from the central city. Alternatively, the moratoria may force developers to install "package treatment systems" which add to the cost of housing in the short run and create substantial maintenance and monitoring costs for the locality in the future."" In short, rather than controlling urban development, sewer moratoria can accelerate sprawl. Sewage treatment moratoria can have other counterproductive impacts as well. For example, in Tacoma, Washington, the State Department of Ecology in May 1971 imposed a ban on further septic tank installation in order to prevent greater pollution of ground and surface water. But during the 4-month delay between the announce- ment of the ban and its implementation, builders, stockpiled septic tank and building permits and built a great many units with septic tanks which might well not have been built otherwise."'13 A related phenomenon occurred in 1970 in Montgomery County, Maryland, when some areas of the county were placed under a moratorium 62 while others were not. A run on permit applications took place, and the development of the county was distorted by the high amount of construction in the unrestricted areas .187 Sewer moratoria can also have a serious effect on low and mod- erate income groups by tightening the housing market and increasing housing costs, since package plants and septic systems are costly and the latter require large lots. The difficulties of sewer moratoria are succinctly stated in a report of the County Executive's staff in Montgomery County: "The re- sults [of the moratorium] have been disappointing. The increase in sewage flows has not tapered off. The residential construction rate has actually increased . . . The price of housing, both rental and sale, has risen extraordinarily in recent years, making it increas- ingly difficult for people in lower and moderate income ranges to obtain housing in the county. The end result is that both water quality and socioeconomic problems have gotten worse." "811 In contrast to these difficulties with no-growth policies, a number of new concepts of slow growth or timed development have been successfully implemented, usually by small communities with skilled land use planning staffs and progressive elected officials. The general approach of these communities has been to define a rate of expansion compatible with the desires of the community and projected growth of the region and to implement land use strategies to control new con- struction and direct it to designated areas in such a way that public services can be provided most efficiently. The Town of Ramapo, New York, is perhaps the best-known example of the timed development approach."" The community has established a 17-year plan to accom in-Odate and direct antici- pated growth. The community evaluates development proposals on a point system that emphasizes the availability of public services, which are extended in planned stages. While it has been criticized for not providing sufficient low and moderate income housing, the Ramapo plan has been upheld in court; as a reasonable exercise of community land use authority. It is interesting to contrast the Ramapo decision with a recent California decision which threw out the plan of the town of Petaluma for limiting development to annual increments of 500 housing units, holding the plan to be a violation of the Constitutional right to travel.'9' The case is being appealed. Under the Petaluma plan, a competition is held each year to decide which proposed develop- ments should be approved. As in Ramapo, a point system is used to evaluate development proposals. But one distinction worth noting is that the majority of the points in Petaluma are allocated to design and other subjective criteria, while in Ramapo the emphasis is on availability of public services readily identifiable in the. plan. In summary, it may be predicted that the efforts of communities to slow or stop growth will continue and probably spread. Among the important distinctions to be drawn are: (1) whether a proposed halt is temporary or permanent, (2) whether it is part of an attempt 63 by the community to get a grip on things or simply an effort to stop all growth; and (3) whether it is being done in the face of a relatively large influx of development. Efforts to use sewer moratoria or similar bans to stop growth, because of implementation timetables and en- forcement difficulties, have not proven effective and may actually exacerbate some environmental, economic, and social problems. On the other hand, approaches which try to predict and accommodate growth through timed or staged development plans offer considera- ble promise and evidently can be accomplished within existing police power authority if carefully designed to assure the preservation of property rights. Preferential Assessment-Another land use control which has become popular in recent years is preferential tax assessments for certain types of real property. Preferential taxation is a method of lowering the tax burden on land such as farms or forests or historic districts which the community wishes to preserve by assessing at less than its full market value."' Most often, preferential assessment programs are adopted in order to preserve current desirable uses of land."' Some states have adopted preferential taxation for reasons of equity after determining that farmers and other owners of open space had been paying higher property taxes in relation to public services received than other landowners. But preferential taxation appeals to a wide range of groups with different goals, including farmers, environmentalists, large land- owners, and even land speculators. As a result, 33 states have already adopted some form of preferential taxation, while others have it under serious consideration. (See Table 7.) However, there is some question as to the effectiveness of preferential taxation in accomplish- ing the desired goals. The best that can be said is that the effective- ness depends upon the goal sought and how the program is im- plemented. Preferential assessment clearly does redistribute income, for it re- duces the holding cost of land to the beneficiaries and requires in- creased taxes on others. Studies in California and Mar yland have found that property tax rates may be increased 10 percent or more for property that is not afforded a preferential status .193 Even if the payment per person is small, the aggregate payment may be large. A New Jersey study estimated that about $48 million in extra taxes were paid by nonfarmers in 1972 because of the preferential taxa- 194 tion law. Two States, California and New York, recognizing pos- sible loss of local tax revenues, have passed laws instituting reim- bursement for localities which suffer a loss as a result of preferential assessment. Whether or not the transfer of income resulting from preferential assessment is equitable depends upon one's definition of equity, who is paying the increased taxes, and who is receiving the benefits of 64 Over 30 states have enacted some form of preferential assessment for prop- erty taxation in order to protect farmlands, preserve open space, provide for recreation, or help control urbanization. the lower assessment. Although most laws include some restrictions on who can benefit, the requisites are usually loose enough that any large landowner can qualify. Thus land speculators as well as bona fide farmers find it cheaper to hold land under a preferential taxa- tion program.'" To the extent that this is the case, preferential taxa- tion may d6 little to preserve open space or current use. Nevertheless, about 40 percent of a group of New Jersey landowners who partici- pated in a preferential taxation program indicated that it helped in allowing them to continue to farm, and at least one analysis con- cluded that the scheme did slow the conversion of agricultural land into urban uses .196 Studies in other states are less encouraging with respect to the land use impact of preferential assessment. An analysis in California indicated that land included under the State's Williamson Act, was, for the most part, more than 10 miles from the nearest incorporated area.197 In such cases, farmland is likely to remain undeveloped, regardless of preferential assessment. In order to avoid this problem, some state laws restrict land eligible for preferential assessment to specific areas, which are usually those which are under greatest devel- opment pressure and the pres@i-Vation of which is in keeping with land use plans. (See Table 7, column headed "predesignation.") Preferential assessment, by lowering the costs of holding lands for future development, can also stimulate leapfrog development on 65 Table 7 State Preferential Assessment Programs Conversion Eligibility criteria controls State u:P1, 0 7.2 2 M 0 M (D 0 C, Q. 0. 0) 00 U_ 0 (n ct CX CL CL r Alaska. Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut 0 0 0 07 98 Delaware 0 Florida 0 0 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 0 Illinois 0 0 Indiana 0 Iowa 0 09 Kentucky 9 9 0 Maine 0 0 0 0 Maryland 0 0 es *to0 Massachusetts 0 Minnesota 0 0 Montana 0 New Hampshire ou 08 New Jersey New Mexico 0 New York North Carolina 0 North Dakota Oregon 0 Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 0 Rhode island 0 0 0 0 South Dakota 0 09 Texas 0 Utah 0 Vermont 0 Virginia 0 0 0120 Washington 0 0 0 Wyoming 0 t Agriculture-in addition to crop land includes pasture, nurseries, horticulture, and apiary. General open Space-includes land used for outdoor recreation in general. Special-land devoted to a specific category such as golfing, country clubs, and planned development. 4 Pre-designation-land which has been designated for a particular use by a city, town or county. To receive preferential assessment land must fall within such a designated area and meet other eligibility criteria. With the rollback penalty, if the land is converted from, its preferred use, the (Continued) 66 the urban fringe. This form of development is generally more wasteful and more land-intensive than that which is likely to occur naturally. To meet this problem, most states have established conversion penalties or recapture provisions to reinforce the incentive to preserve the land in its current use. (See Table 7, column headed "conversion control.") These penalties most commonly take the form of a "roll- back" or a "deferred payment," requiring the landowner to pay an amount equivalent to several years' worth of tax savings, sometimes with interest, if he develops the land. They can also take the form of a conveyance tax whereby the owner pays some percentage of the land value if he sells his property to a nonfarmer or decides to develop it himself. If such penalties are sufficiently harsh, they will reduce the profitability of developing the land; but they will also reduce participation by landowners in the program. A step beyond the penalty provision is a requirement that any landowner desiring preferential assessment sign a contract to keep his land undeveloped for a certain number of years. In California, the Williamson Act requires a contract of at least 10 years. It is automatically renewed annually unless either party to the contract requests nonrenewal. If the contract is not renewed, the assessment is gradually increased to the market value as the number of years remaining in the contract decreases. Because the contract effectively restricts those who might seek to sell their land in the foreseeable future, owners near urbanizing areas are less likely to take ad- vantage of the preferential treatment than owners of more remote land. The contract technique is the exception, however. Some other states use informal negotiation between the landowner and govern- ment. The vast majority use neither technique but allow any land- owner meeting legislated requirements to enlist in and withdraw from the program at his own discretion. At this point it must be concluded that the various state preferen- (Continued) owner is requked to pay an amount equal to several years worth of the additional property taxes he would have had to pay had his property not received the benefit of preferential assessment. 6 "Other Penalty" is usually the assessment of interest charged on the rollback penalty. 7 in Connecticut, open space land must be recommended for preservation and designated open space by a municipality's planning commission in its plan of development. 8 Connecticut and New Hampshire have adopted a tax, similar to a conveyance tax, which is imposed at the time the land use is changed. 9 In Iowa and North Dakota the land must be within the limits of a municipal corpo- ration and in South Dakota it must be within a school district. 10 In Maryland, the land to be assessed and taxed as planned development land must be in an area covered by a current master plan or otherwise designated as a satellite city or town. It Open space must be pre-designated by a town or city, and floodplains by the Flood Plain Commission. 12 In Virginia the land must be designated for its use (as agricultural land, timber land, etc.) in a town or county land use plan. Source: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, State Pro- grams for the Differential Assessment of Farm and Open Space Land (1974). 67 tial assessment programs have had mixed results, at best, in achieving their objectives. Because of the popularity of this land use control technique and the controversy over how it can be made more effec- tive, the Council has contracted with the University of Pennsylvania to undertake an evaluation of preferential assessment as it is now being carried out by states and to develop recommendations on im- proving its effectiveness as a growth control mechanism. Open Space as a Land Use Control-Traditionally, open space has been considered a beneficial public expenditure in itself ; there has always been substantial interest in preserving open space for visual amenity, outdoor recreation, natural resource conservation, flood prevention, and preservation of agricultural lands. But it is also recognized as a mechanism for the containment and guidance of growth."11 The purpose of greenbelts, long used in England and other foreign countries, was to contain urban growth by preserving a belt of open space around the city.'99 But this approach was thought by Americans to be too costly. The United States, of course, has never had a shortage of open space. The basic issue has been its location with respect to urban areas-the amount of open space that should be set aside and preserved within or near cities." The proposal to preserve large wedges of open space in metropolitan areas has had some support in this country.201 Such wedges serve to direct urban growth into corri- dors radiating from the central city. These corridors enable more efficient allocation of mass transit and other services than typical sprawl development. But few cities have been able to implement such plans. Of the several methods for preserving open space, the most straight- forward is public acquisition by which government takes title to the land and provides public access. But public acquisition has certain limitations. It is costly; it removes land from the tax base; it brings operation and maintenance costs; and it assumes that all open space should be put into public use. For these reasons, communities are turning to other techniques to supplement the purchase of land where public access or full public ownership does not appear necessary or even desirable. The concepts of development rights and preferential assess- ment discussed above may help to accomplish this goal. These and similar -devices can be used to acquire necessary rights through do- .nation, purchase, or transfer to other land. In addition, many juris- dictions are finding that certain tracts can be preserved from de- velopment without public acquisition because they are in areas such as floodplains, where development would endanger human life, and thus fall under the police power authority to regulate land use for the public welfare .102 If the land must be purchased outright, the budget may allow only the acquisition of land which is remote from urban areas, not read- 68 ily accessible, and often not very attractive. The "best land," that is, the most suitable in terms of the community's needs, tends to be expensive. Nevertheless, a case can be made for buying it. There is increasing evidence that open space preservation is economically beneficial to aII-the developer, the resident, and the local govern- ment. Developers in increasing numbers are coming to understand this. If a developer "creates an outstanding environment, saves the trees, has a good street pattern, and then adds a pool and a modest recre- ation area, he might easily get $500 to $ 1,000 more per house than he would in an ordinary subdivision.' 1 203 Developers who preserve open space and natural cover on one project often find it so successful that in their next development they tend to provide even more .204 The development of park facilities generally increases the value of surrounding realty; there is even some evidence that the increase in tax revenue can more than pay for the cost of the parks .205 It is common practice throughout the United States for appraisers rep- resenting the Federal Housing Administration to place a higher value on house lots if the development contains a park or if it is near a public park .206 Moreover, "today's home buyer is looking for features beyond the confines of the house and lot.... In the vicinity of park and recreation areas enhanced values of building sites up 15 to 20 percent ... are not uncommon experiences." I" Individual case studies offer striking examples of the value of open space and parks. The classic study in Elizabeth, New Jersey, covering the period 1922 to 1939, showed that the assessed value of properties within a quarter-mile of the Warinano Park increased over six times -while assessments in the city as a whole increased only two and one-half times .2'11 Another study done in Oakland, Cali- fornia, compared two similar neighborhoods near parks and found that the mean assessment of property adjacent to the parks was from $500 to over $1,000 more than land a block or two away.2" The study concludes that "parks do hold the value of their surrounding lands. Not only do parks influence assessed valuations, they also have an effect on how residents perceive their neighborhoods, and con- sequently a pride in the area is fostered by the presence of a park.' 1 210 A community gains other economic benefits from open space programs. Lind set aside as open space will not have to be supplied with public service infrastructure. To the extent that open space directs and compacts development, the savings to the community are large. In a study done of the San Francisco Bay area, it was estimated that a carefully planned regional open space program, by reducing sprawl and channeling development, could reduce the growth of the city in coming decades by 327 square miles. The study estimated that reduced municipal costs for installation and main- tenance of services such as roads, water, g as, and electricity would save $318 million; it concluded that the total cost savings would 69 be of the same order of magnitude as the cost of purchasing the land.'!' The timing, degrees of control purchased, and location of the open space appear to be the most crucial factors determining suc- cess in using open space as a growth control device. If too much of the wrong kind of land in the wrong place is preserved, the result may be no more than a few parks surrounded by poorly planned communities. Presumably the most suitable land for preservation is that land which fulfills the greatest number of open space functions. But often, as mentioned earlier, the - land which is most suitable for and most in need of preservation is also the most expensive .212 The resolution of this dilemma is not easy. Controls as Stimulants A thenle which cons 'istently reappears throughout this section is that controls can, under particular circumstances or if instituted in particular ways, have effects contrary to the purpose for which they were adopted. Limiting growth in one community may only push it to a less desirable location; the adoption of a preferential taxation scheme to preserve open space may primarily benefit land speculators, and sewer moritoria may result in more septic tanks causing more water pollution. Any of these actions taken to better control land development or improve environmental quality, if done wrong, can have the opposite effect. just as the stimulants discussed in the sec- ond section of this chapter can be used as land use controls if they are properly planned and staged, the controls discussed in this section can become stimulants. Once this interrelationship is understood-that stimulants like highways and sewers can be used to control growth, and that controls like zoning and preferential assessment can be used -to stimulate the development of certain areas-a community can begin to formulate a strategy for land use regulation. Not all the stimulants will be under its -authority; localities have little say about interstate high- ways or Federal tax policies, for example. And not all of the possible control mechanisms will be feasible, but at least some will be avail- able. By using legal authority in these ways, most communities should be able to overcome uncertainty and frustration over growth and replace it with more confidence in the ability to influence where, how, and when development will occur. Conclusion This chapter has identified and briefly discussed some of the major land use issues that the United States faces today. The focus is on issues of land development, particularly in urbanizing areas. Less 70 attention has been given :to other important land use questions, in- cluding the definition and protection of "critical environmental areas," the preservation of wilderness areas, and the land use impacts of U.S. agricultural policies. But the chapter has provided some indication of the importance and complexity of land use as an environmental issue. It shows how stimulants to growth can become controls of growth; how land use controls act as stimulants to development; and how pollu- tion control programs may result in land use changes that in turn tend to increase pollution. Many actions undertaken with the best of intentions may, because of the way they affect the land, result in land use changes that are perverse in terms of the original goals. The way in which some of these factors interact can be seen by looking at the relationship between automobile use and land use. We seem to have become an auto-dependent nation. There are many reasons why this has occurred, starting with the development of a new technology which made autos available to nearly everyone and allowed people much greater flexibility in their travel habits and their choice of residential- location. Given our general prefer- ence to live in rural areas adjacent to urban centers, people who could afford to do so moved out of town and commuted to work. This made the city a less attractive place to live as cars with their pollution, congestion, and noise increasingly disrupted the stability of residential neighborhoods they passed through. These effects, com- bined with increasing social and economic problems in the central city (both also linked to the departure of the more affluent residents to the suburbs), accelerated the exodus, and more and more people moved farther and farther out, driving longer and longer distances in order to obtain their small piece of rural life. As the suburbs attempted to adjust to this trend, they found it was necessary to require more parking, wider streets, and greater separa- tion of congestion-inducing facilities in order to accommodate the automobile and to mitigate its adverse effects on residential areas. All of these adjustments, of course, resulted in more auto use. It is not uncommon now for the suburbanite to have to drive several miles to buy a loaf of bread. This is not to say that we are wed to ever-expanding metropolitan. sprawl. In fact, recently there have been some signs that this trend may be slowing and perhaps even reversing itself. Mass transit rider- ship is up in many metropolitan areas. People are returning to the central city, as noted in the CEQ's 1973 Annual Report. In mid-1974, whether because of high gasoline prices, limited availability of mort- gages, or a deeper change in values, the market for development on the urban fringe and for leisure homes is slowing somewhat. The overall effect, taken with efforts to control air and water pollution and better land use controls at the local level, has been the emergence of significant new opportunity to look at how growth and change can best be accommodated. 71 This opportunity to look at some new trends in our cities, metropoli- tan areas, and rural regions comes at - an appropriate time, when many Americans are questioning the inherent value of growth and when the desire for the new and for changes in surroundings is being balanced by a growing appreciation for the old and for the value of having roots in a definable community. It is easy to see that this attitude. is expressed quite readily at the local level, where commu- nities are deciding how to accommodate growth and change in land use from new development, especially at the urban fringe and in areas conducive to seasonal homes. This chapter, it is hoped, throws some light on how communities can come to grips with these forces by understanding the long-term implications of development alternatives, by using public service infrastructure extensions and other growth stimulants intelligently to channel and pace growth, and by developing fair and effective land use regulatory controls. It goes without saying that all these ap- proaches are governments' response to a free enterprise system in which the primary factors determining where, how, when, and what development takes place are the general state of the economy, peo- ple's preferences and values, and the costs of development to the builder. Governmental actions can influence decisions, but the pri- vate sector is the force that responds with capital and the desire to invest it. Any progress toward better land use must therefore be measured not in terms of the sophistication of legal devices or the complexity of approval mechanisms developed by different levels of government. What is important is how such controls and stimulants can be used to influence the private sector in its decisions about how to use the land. The way this is done will necessarily differ from state to state, and from locality to locality. An informed public that understands the process of urbanization and what can be done to reasonably control it through legal and equitable land use planning and regulation has taken a major step in the right direction. References 1. Steve Carter et al., Environmental Management and Local Government, prepared by International City Management Association for Environ- mental Protection Agency under contract No. EPA-600/5-73-016 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974). 2. U.S. Bureau of the Census Census of Population and Housing: 1970, General Demographic Trends for Metropolitan Areas, 1960 to 7970, Final Report PHC(2)-l (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971), p. U.S. 1-33 and p. 15. 3. Grace Milgram, U.S. Land Prices-Direction and Dynamics, National Commission on Urban Problems Research Report #13 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971), pp. 1-23. @ 4. Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality: the Fourth Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973), pp. 295-320. 72 5. Real Estate Research Corporation, The Costs of Sprawl: Environmental and Economic Costs of Alternative Residential Development Patterns at the Urban Fringe, prepared by the Real Estate Research Corporation for the Council on Environmental Quality; the Office of Policy Develop- ment and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development; and the Office of Planning and Management, Environmental Protection Agency (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974). The study is in 3 parts: Executive Summary, Detailed Cost Analysis, and Literature Review and Bibliography (analyses, indexes and cross references approximately 1,000 publications). Parts are referred to be- low by short title. 6. The operating and maintenance costs do not include either the costs of maintaining the residential structures (although the operating costs for utilities comprise a substantial portion of this cost), the financing costs for the capital investments that have been made, or the costs of operat- ing automobiles. 7. Development Research Associates, The Case for Open Space, prepared by Development Research Associates for People for Open Space in the San Francisco Bay Area (Los Angeles: Development Research Associates). 8. J. Richard Recht and Robert J. Harmon, Open Space and the Urban Growth Process: An Economic Evaluation Using a Growth Allocation Model, Research Report 31 (Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, 1969). The economic costs of the open space preservation were assumed to be the market price of the land plus maintenance costs. The economic benefits were calculated as the savings in electric, gas, and telephone utilities, the cost of various government services, recreation benefits, and rent revenues for the lands that were preserved. Savings in sewer and transportation costs were not included as benefits. 9. See, for example, Charles E. Little, Challenge of the Land, (New York: Open Space Action Institute, Inc., 1968) and the section of this chap- ter on controls. 10. See, for instance, San Diego City/County Economic Analysis Project, The Economics of Urbanization (San Diego: Environmental Develop- ment Agency, 1973); Boulder Area Growth Study Commission, Explor- ing Options for the Future: A Study of Growth in Boulder County (Boulder: Boulder Area Growth Study Commission, 1973). 11. The Cost of Sprawl, Detailed Cost Analysis, p. 8. 12. See, for instance, Brian J. Berry et al., Land Use, Urban Form and Environmental Quality, prepared for the Office of Research and De- velopment of the Environmental Protection Agency (Chicago: Depart- ment of Geography, University of Chicago, 1974); Alan M. Vorhees and Associates, Inc., A Guide for Reducing Air Pollution Through Urban Planning, prepared for the Office of Research and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency (National Technical Information Service #207510, 1971); Alan M. Vorhees and Associates, Inc., Air Quality Considerations in Transportation and Urban Planning: A Five- Year Program Guide, prepared for the Office of Air Programs, Environ- mental Protection Agency (National Technical Information Service #PB207111, 1970) ; Edward J. Kaiser et al., Promoting Environmental Quality Through Urban Planning and Controls, prepared for the Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Re- port Number EPA-600/5-73-015 '(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1974), pp. 376, 378, 380, 387. 13. R. C. Burriss et al., Land Use Planning for Air Quality in the Pikes Peak Area, prepared by Kaman Sciences Corporation for the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (Colorado Springs: Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments, 1972). 73 14. Anne M. Vitale and Pierre M. Sprey, Total Urban Pollution Loads: The Impact of Storm Water, study done by Enviro Control, Inc. for the Council on Environmental Quality (National Technical Informa- tion Service No. PB-213-730, 1974). 15. Sanitary sewage pollutants indicated are those remaining after tertiary treatment of the sewage. With only secondary treatment, which is more common, the volume of pollutants would be increased 5 to 10 times. 16. Brian Berry et al., supra note 12, at 226, 258-259; Clifford R. Bragdon, "Noise Control in Urban Planning," journal of the Urban Planning and Development Division, American Society. of Civil Engineers 99: 15-23, March 1973; Samuel R. Lane, Freeway and Highway Traffic Noise: An Information Base for Urban Development Decisions, prepared by the Urban Mass Transportation Study, School of Architecture and Urban Planning University of California, Los Angeles for the Urban Mass Transportation Association (NTIS No. PB204-434). 17. Brian Berry, supra note 12, at 413. 18. Id., p. 424. 19. Alan M. Vorhees and Associates, Inc., Reston Transportation Study, prepared by Alan M. Vorhees and Associates, Inc. for the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (NTIS No. PB197-836, 1970); John B. Lansing et al., "Planned Residential Environments" (Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1970). 20. Salvatore J. Bellorn et al., Factors, Trends and Guidelines Related to Trip Length, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Re- port 89 (Washington, D.C.: Highway Research Board, 1970); Wil- fred Owen, The Accessible City, (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1972). 21. The Costs of Sprawl: Detailed Cost Analysis, supra note 5 at 146; F. P. Linaweaver et al., "Summary Report on the Residential Water Use Research Project" American Waterworks Association journal 3: 267- 282,59, March 1967. 22. The Costs of Sprawl: Detailed Cost Analysis, supra note 5 at 148-151. 23. Real Estate Research Corporation, supra note 5 at 152-153; William T. Baker, "An Evaluation of the Traffic Conflicts Technique," Highway Research Record #384 Traffic Record (Washington: Transportation Research Board, 1972) ; J. A. Fee et al., Interstate System Accident Research Study-1, prepared for the Federal Highway Administration (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970). 24. The Costs of Sprawl: Detailed Cost Analysis, supra note 5 at 50 and 76-77; John Lansing et al., supra note 19. 25. The Costs of Sprawl: Detailed Cost Analysis, p. 154; Oscar Newman, Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design (New York: MacMillan Company, 1972); Southern California Association of Governments, Handbook of Crime Prevention Bulletins-Crime Pre- vention through Physical Planning (Los Angeles: Southern California Association of Governments, 197 1 26. The Commission on 'Population Growth and th@e American Future, Population Distribution and Policy, Vol. 5. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 620. 27. But costs per acre developed may increase. Most of the above results pertain to the costs of providing a given number of dwelling units. The Costs of Sprawl also includes an analysis of the costs of developing a given parcel of land, in which the number of dwelling units con- structed on a site increases with the higher density neighborhood types. Because there are more dwelling units, the economic and several environmental costs associated with development of a given site tend to increase with the higher density development patterns, even though the cost per dwelling units decreases. 74 28. New Jersey County, and Municipal Government Study Commission, Housing and Suburbs: Fiscal and Social Impact of Multi-Family De- velopment (Trenton: New Jersey County and Municipal Government Study Commission, 1974). 29. Richard L. Ragatz Associates, Inc., Recreational Properties: An Analysis of the Markets for Privately -Owned Recreational Lots and Leisure Homes, prepared by Richard L. Ragatz Associates, Inc. for the Council on Environmental Quality, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Appalachian Regional Commission, National Technical Information Service, PB-233 148/AS (Springfield, Va., 1974). 30. A study in preparation by the American Society of Planning Officials with the assistance of the Conservation Foundation, the Urban Land Institute, and Richard Ragatz, University of Oregon. It will be made available through the Council on Environmental Quality, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-or the U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office. 31. William E. Shands, The Subdivision of Virginia's Mountains: The Envi- ronmental Impact of Recreational Subdivisions in the Massanutten Mountain-Blue Ridge Area, Virginia-A Survey and Report, prepared by Central Atlantic Environment Center for the Council on Environ- mental Quality and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devel- opment (Washington, D.C.: Central Atlantic Environment Center, 1974). 32. Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality: The First Annual Report of the Cnuncil on Environmental Quality (Washing- ton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970), p. 193. 33. R. B. Rainey, Jr., Seattle's Adaptation to Recession, prepared by The Rand Corporation and the Institute of Governmental Research of the University of Washington for the National Science Foundation under contract No. GI-29763 (Santa Monica: Rand, 1973) ; Roger Bolton, Defense Purchases and Regional Growth (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1966) ; Gerald Breese ef al., The Impact of Large Institutions on Nearby Areas (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1970). 34. A study in preparation by the National Park Service'and the Office of Environmental Affairs of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Study of Transportation Alternatives to Parks, Recreation Areas, Historic Sites, and Wildlife Refuges, to be available through the National Park Service and the Office of Environmental Affairs of the U.S., Department of Transportation. 35. See! for instance, Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Random House, 1961); Martin Anderson, The Fed- eral Bulldozer (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1964). 36. See, for example, Stephen Gurko, "Federal Income Taxes and Urban Sprawl" Denver Law Journal v. 48:329, 1972; and Richard E. Slitor, The Federal Income Tax in Relation to Housing, prepared for the National Commission on Urban Problems (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968). 37. Internal Revenue Code Sections 163 and 164. 38. Internal Revenue Code Section 167. 39. Bruce Leppla, Tax Incidents Contributing to the Growth of Condo- minium and Cooperative Housing: A Summary of Recent Developments, prepared by the Urban Institute for the Council on Environmental Quality under contract No. EQ4AC031 (mimeograph). 40. Internal Renveue Code Section 167 (a) (4). 41. Internal Renevue Code Section 167 (a) (b) (c). 42. Stanley W. Penn, Wall Street journal, July 17, 1961; R. Slitor, supra note 36 at 38; Paul B. Anderson, Tax Factors in Real Estate Operations (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 195 6). 75 43. Council on Environmental Quality, The President's 1973 Envircnmental Program (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973), pp. 305-318. 44. Stephen Gurko, supra 36 at 346; John A. Prestbo, "Sprawl,of Cities Stirs Fears that Agriculture will Run out of Space," Wall Street journal, July 20, 197 1, p. 1, coI. 6. 45. R. L. Ragatz, supra note 29. 46. Internal Revenue Code Section 167 (a) (1) (2) ; Internal Revenue Code Section 162(a) (2). 47. Internal Revenue Code Section 1014(a). 48. Land Use Center, A Proposal for Investigating the Land Use Effects of Federal Tax Policy, prepared by the Land Use Center of the Urban Institute for the Council on Environmental Quality, 1974 (mimeo- graph.) 49. For general background concerning the valuation of open land at full market value see the Congressional Record, S8981-S8986, May 28, 1974. 50. Congressional Record, S3511, May 28, 1974. This bill would value historic places, farmland, woodland, and open space lands at their cur- rent use value. 51. Richard E. Slitor, Taxation and Land Use, paper delivered before the Forty-Fif th meeting of the American Assembly on Land Use in America held at Arden House, Harriman, N.Y., April 18, 21, 1974. Proceedings in publication. 52. 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq., as amended by the Air Quality Act of 1967, P.L. 90-148; by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, P.L. 91-604; by Technical Amendments to the Clean Air Act, P.L. 92-157, Nov. 18, 1971; andbyP.L. 93-15, April 9, 1973. 53. 33 U.S.C. 1151 et seq. 54. For a similar analysis of land use patterns resulting from ambient air quality, new source, and non-degradation regulations, see F. Bosselman et al., "EPA Authority Affecting Land Use," report submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency under contract number 68-01-1560, March 12, 1974. 55. 40 CFR 51.14. 56. 40 CFR 52.22. 57. 40 CFR 52.21. 58. 40 CFR 60 § 60.1 et seq. 59. 40 CFR 51.1 et seq. 60. A concurring analysis projects energy facility siting, particularly mine- mouth location on major coal resources, in the western states. Har- bridge House, Inc. "Key Land Use Issues Facing EPA," report pre- pared for the EPA Office of Planning and Evaluation by Harbridge House, Inc. (February 1974). 61. Supra note 55. 62. At a time when we have recognized that energy supplies are scarce, it is also disturbing that the regulations could in the long run result in a relative increase in energy consumption. 63. Under the proposed regulations the facilities that are to be reviewed within the SMSA's for impact include: new roads and highways ex- pected to carry an average daily traffic volume of 20,000 or more vehicles per day within 10 years of construction, and modified roads expected to increase existing average daily traffic volume by 10,000 vehicles or more; and any new or modified airports expected to, increase scheduled operations by 50,000 aircraft per year or have an increase of 1.6 million or more passengers per year; any new facility which includes parking for 1,000 cars or more or any modified parking facility which increases parking capacity by 500 cars or more. Outside SMSA's, facilities that are to be reviewed for impact include those having new parking capacity of 2,000 or more cars or modified capacity of 1,000 cars. For an analysis of 76 the impacts of each type of facility (shopping centers, sports stadiums, airports and highways, parking lots, and garages, recreational centers and environmental parks, and commercial or industrial development) see Harbridge House, Inc., supra note 60. 64. Even if no modifications of the plan are required of the developer, the time involved in obtaining a permit will add to the cost of developing facilities which are covered by the regulations. The importance of the time factor has been supported by initial findings on developer decision- making in a study on the effects of complex source regulations on the development process undertaken by Harbridge House, Inc. for EPA, supra note 60. 65. 40 CFR 51 and 52. 66. 39 Federal Register, 37419 (1974). 67. See supra notes 52 and 53. 68. P.L. 92-500, Sections 301-303, October 18, 1972. 69. Ibid. 70. P.L. 92-500, Section 208(b) (2) (C) (iii). 71. Anne M. Vitale and Pierre M. Spres, supra note 14. 72. This is indeed the major thrust and conclusion of the Bosselman study, supra, note 54, at 183-184. 73. Environmental Impact Center, Inc., Review and Bibliography of Sec- ondary Impacts of Major Investments: Highways, Mass Transit, Inter- cepter Sewers, prepared by Environmental Impact Center, Inc., for the Council on Environmental Quality (Newton, Mass.: Environmental Impact Center, Inc., 1974). 74. Grace Milgram, The City Expands: A Study of the Conversion of Land from Rural to Urban Use, Philadelphia, 1945-62, prepared by the Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Pennsylvania for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967). 75. Jeffrey Stansbury, "Suburban Growth-A Case Study," Population Bul- letin 28: 1-31, February, 1972. 76. John Promise and M. Leiserson, "Water Resources Management for Metropolitan Washington: Analysis of the joint Interactions of Water and Sewage Services, Public Policy and Land Development Patterns in an Expanding Metropolitan Area," prepared by the Metropolitan Wash- ington Council of Governments for the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Interior (1973). 77. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 111, Final Environmental Impact Statement Bethany Beach Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-MGS-FS-D-1, (Philadelphia: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 111, 1972). 78. Supra note 73. 79. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 111, Draft Environmen- tal Impact Statement: Valley Forge Area Wastewater Treatment Fa- cility, Chester County, Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 111, 1973). 80. Federal Highway Administration, "Social and Economic Effects of High- ways," prepared for the Office of Program and Policy Planning, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (Washing- ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974). 81. Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Our Land and Water Resources," Miscellaneous Publication #1290 (Wash- ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office), table 9 on p. 10. 82. Alexander J. Bone, "Economic Impact of Massachusetts Route . 128," MIT Transportation Engineering Division, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1958. 83. L. F. Wheat, "Effect of Modern Highways on Urban Manufacturing Growth," Highway Research Record, Number 277 (1969); Gary 77 Fromm, (ed.) Transport Investment and Economic Development, (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1965). 84. D. A. Grossman and M. R. Levin, "Area Development and Highway Transportation," Highway Research Record, Number 16 (1963), 24-31. 85. William K. Kinnard and Z. S. Malinowski, Highways as a Factor in Small Manufacturing Plant Location Decisions, University of Con- necticut, August, 1961; E. Y. Kiley, "Highways as a Factor in Indus- trial Location," Highway Research Record, Number 75 (1965) ; D. J. Bowersox, "Influence of Highways on Selection of Six Industrial Loca- tions," Highway Research Board, Bulletin 268, 1960, pp. 13-28; Eva Mueller, A. Wieken, and M. Wood, Location Decisions and Industrial Mobility in Michigan, University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1961. 86. Edmond L. Kanwit and A. F. Eckartt, "Transportation Implications & Employment Trends in Central Cities and Suburbs," Highway Research Record, Number 187 (1967), pp. 1-14. 87. Real Estate Research Corporation, Highway Networks as a Factor in the Selection of Commercial and Industrial Locations, prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1958; Edgar M. Horwood and Ronald R. Boyce, Studies of the Central Business District and Urban Freeway Development (Seattle: Univer- sity of Washington Press, 1959). 88. Iowa State Highway Commission, Newton Economics Study, Interstate 80 Bypass, 1966 NTrS (PB-173-169) ; David K. Witherford, "Highway Impacts on Downtown and Suburban Shopping," Highway Research Record, November 187 (1967), pp. 15-20. 89. William L. Garrison, B. J. L. Berry, D. F. Marble, J. D. Nystuen, and R. L. Morrill, Studies of Highway Development and Geographic Change (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1959). 90. D. K. Witherford, supra note 88. -Economic Impact of the Capital Beltway 91. Julia A. Connally, The Socio on Northern Virginia (Charlottesville: Bureau of Population and Economic Research, University of Virginia, 1968); Walter C. McKain, The Connecticut Turnpike-A Ribbon of Hope (Storrs: University of Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, 1965) ; W. G. Adkins, "Land Value Impacts of Expressways in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio, Texas," Bulletin 227, Highway Research Board, 1959, pp. 50-65; Donald D. Carroll, I. R. Borchert, I. Schwinder, and P. M. Raup, The Economic Impact of Highway Development Upon Land Use and Value: Development of Methodology and Analysis of Selected Highway Segments in Minnesota (University of Minnesota, 1958) ; J. H. Lemly, "Changes in Land Values along Atlanta's Expressway," Bulletin 227, Highway Research Board, 1959, pp. 1-20; University of Kentucky, The Effects of the Louisville Watterson Expressway on Land Use and Land Value (Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1960); Allen Phil- brick, Analyses of the Geographical Patterns of Gross Land Uses and Changes in Numbers of Structures in Relation to Major Highways in the Lower Half of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1969); P. D. Cribbins, W. T. Hill, and H. 0. Seagraves, "Economic Impact of Selected Sections of Interstate Routes on Land Value and Use," Number 75, Highway Research Board, 1965, pp. 1-31; F. Chapin, Jr., "A Model for Simulating Residential Develop- ment," Journal of the American Institute of Planners-XXXI, pp. 120- 125. 92. J. A. Connally, supra note 91; Wilbur Smith & Associates, Inc., Mary- land Capital Beltway Impact Study: Final Report, Washington SMSA and Maryland Counties, prepared for the Maryland State Roads Com- mission, June 1968. 78 93. J. H. Lemly, supra note 91. 94. Julia A. Connally, supra note 91; University of Kentucky, supra note 91; and J. H. Lemly, supra note 91. 95. W. C. McKain, supra note 91; W. D. Adkins, supra note 91; Donald D@ Carroll et al., supra note 91; P. D. Cribbins, et al., supra note 91 University of Kentucky, supra note 91; F. Chapin, supra note 91, 96. Julia A. Connally, supra note 91. 97. Donald D. Carroll et al., supra note 91 ; University of Kentucky, supra note 91; Allen Philbrick, supra note 91; and F. Chapin, Jr., supra note 91. 98. Brian J. Berry et al., supra note 12; Barbara R. Williams, St Louis: A City and its Suburbs, prepared by the Rand Corporation for the National Science Foundation under grant no. GI-29763 (Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 1973). 99: Julia A. Connally, supra note 91. 100. U.S. Federal Highway Administration, supra note 80. 101. Interdisciplinary Systems Group, Land Use, Energy Flow and Decision- making in Human Society: Transportation in a Suburban Area: A Case Study of the Northeast Sacramento County Area, prepared by the Inter- disciplinary Systems Group, University of California, Davis for the National Science Foundation under contract No. NSF GI-27 (Davis: University of California, 1973). 102. G. Warren Herman, "The Economic Effect of Rapid Transit on Real Estate Development," The Appraisal Journal, 36: 213-224 (April 1968). 103. San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association, Impact of Intensive High-Rise Development in San Francisco: An Evaluation of Alternate Development Growth Strategies, 4 vols., prepared by the study team of Urban Economics Division of Larry Smith & Company, Inc., Keyser/Marston & Associates, David M. Dornbusch & Company, Inc., and Kaplan & McLaughlin Architects & Planners for San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association with funds provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the San Fran- cisco Foundation, and the Mary A. Crocker Trust (San Francisco: San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association, 1973). 104. Colin A. Gannon et al., The Impact of Rail Rapid Transit Systems on Commercial Office Development: The Case of the Philadelphia Linden- wold Speedline, University of Pennsylvania, June 1972. 105. The Colorado Department of Natural Resources is overseeing the follow- ing studies on the various impacts of oil shale development: C.-Wayne Cook, Surface Rehabilitation of Land Disturbances Resulting from Oil Shale Development, prepared by the Environmental Resources Center for'the Colorado Department of Natural Resources (Ft. Collins: En- vironmental Resources Center, 1974) under contract No. 2656; Report on Economics of Environmental Protection for a Federal Oil Shale Leasing Program, prepared by A Special Committee of the Governor's Oil Shale Advisory Committee for the Director of Natural Resources of the State of Colorado; Report on Economics of Environmental Pro- tection for a Federal Oil Shale Leasing Program, prepared by a sub- committee of Governor John A. Love's Oil 'Shale Advisory Committee, the Special Committee on Economics of Environmental Protection, for the Director of Natural Resources of the State of Colorado (Denver: Colorado State Department of Natural Resources, 1970) ; THK Asso- ciates, Inc., Impact Analysis and Development Patterns for The Oil Shale Region: Mesa, Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado pre- pared by THK Associates, Inc. for the Colorado West Area Council of Governments and the Oil Shale Regional Planning Commission (Den- ver: THK Associates, Inc., 1974) ; John F. Ficke et al., Hydrologic Data From the Piceance Basin_ Colorado, Colorado Water Resources Basic-Data Release No. 31, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey for 79 the Colorado Department of Natural Resources (Washingt on: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974). 106. Arthur D. Little, Inc., Potential Onshore Effects of Deepwater Oil Terminal-Related Industrial Delevopment, 4 vols., prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc. for the Council on Environmental Quality and other Federal agencies (NTIS No. PB-244-017-set). 107. Council on Environmental Quality, et al., OCS Oil and Gas-An En- vironmental Assessment: A Report to the President by the Council on Environmental Quality, to be available from the U.S. Government Print- ing Office in January, 1975. 108. A. D. Little, Inc., supra note 106, vol. II, "Bast Coast-Mid-Atlantic and Maine," p. 2-23. 109. Id., p. 2-23. 110. Id., p. 2-19. Ill. Id., p. 2-26 112. Id., p. 2-34 113. Id., p. 2-53. 114. Id., p. 2-68 115. A handbook has been prepared for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by the Berkshire County Regional Planning Com- mission to assist local planning agencies to evaluate the potential en- vironmental, economic, social, and legal impacts of electric power generation and transmission facilities. Entitled Evaluation of Power Facilities: A Reviewers Handbook, it is available from the Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission, 8 Bank Row, Pittsfield, Mass- achusetts. 116. Christopher Tunnard and Boris Pushkarev, Man-Made America, Chaos or Control? An Inquiry into Selected Problems of Design in the Urban- ized Environment (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962). 117. P. T. Cox, et al., "Effect of Water Resource Investment on Economic Growth" Water Resources Research 7, No. 1, pp. 32-38, February, 197 1; G. S. Tolley, et al., Estimation of First Round and Selected Subsequent Income Effects of Water Resource Investment (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1970) ; C. L. Leven (ed.), Development Benefits of Water Resource Investments (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Engineer In- stitute for Water Resources, 1969). 118. George Lefcoe, telephone conversation with Edwin H. Clark II, Sep- tember 30, 1974. 119. 38 Federal Register 20549 (1973). 120. Fred Bosselman and David Callies, The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Controls, prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality (Wash- ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971). 121. James B. Coffin and Michael Arnold (eds.), A Summary of State Land Use Controls: July 1974 (Washington, D.C.: Land Use'Planning Re- ports). 122. Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972, chs. 72-317, Laws of Florida, 1972. 123. Ore. Rev. S. ch. 80, October 5, 1973. 124. N.Y. Laws of 1973, ch. 348 (May 22, 1973). 125. See William K. Reilly (ed.), The Use of Land: A Citizens' Policy Guide to Urban Growth, (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1973), ohs. 2, 3, 5. 126. Steve Carteret al., supra note 1. 127. Council on Environmental Quality, supra note 4 at 1-40. 128. Public Land Law Review Commission, One Third of the Nation's Land (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970). 129. 16 U.S.C. Section 1451 et seq. 130. P.L. 93-234, December 31, 1973, in 2 US Cong. & Admin. News '73, p. 3217. 80 131. See "A Standard State Zoning Enabling Act Under Which Municipalities May Adopt Zoning," prepared by the Advisory Committee on Zoning Regulations, U.S. Department of Commerce, Revised Edition, 1926 as cited in Edward M. Bassett, Zoning: the Laws, Administration, and Court Decisions During the First Twenty Years (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1940), p. 29; R. M. Haig, "Toward an Understanding of the Metropolis: The Assignment of Activities to Areas in Urban Re- gions," Quarterly Journal of Economics 40, 1926; and Daniel R. Mandelker, "A Rationale for the Zoning Process," Land-Use Controls Quarterly, Winter, 1970. 132. For a discussion of the relative importance of various factors in deter- mining housing prices, see Marion Clawson, Suburban Land Conversion in the United States: An Economic and Governmental Process (Balti- more: The Johns Hopkins Press, 197 1 ), ch. 7: Eugene F. Brigham, "The Determinants of Residential Land Value," Land Economics 41: 325- 334, 1965; Paul Downing, "Factors Affecting Commercial Land Values: An Empirical Study of Milwaukee, Wisconsin," Land Economics 49, 1973 - Paul B. Downing, "Estimating Residential Land Value by Multi- variate Analysis," in D. M. Holland (ed.), The Assessment of Land Value, Publication No. 5 of the Committee on Taxation Resources and Economic Development (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1970; B. Goodall, "Some Effects of Legislation on Land Values," Re- gional Studies 4: 11-23, 1970; Benton F. Massell and Janice M. Stewart, The Determinants of Residential Property Values, unpublished manu- script prepared for the National Science Foundation under contract no. GS2942; G. Max Neutze, The Price of Land and Land Use Planning; Policy Instruments in the Urban Land Market (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1973). 133. The price of housing is also determined by the cost of developing the land and by the extent to which the local government has provided the necessary municipal services. John F. Kain, Urban Form and the Costs of Urban Services, prepared by the Program on Regional and Urban Eco- nomics of the M.I.T.-Harvard joint Center for Urban Studies for the Committee on Urban Public Expenditures of Resources for the Future, 1967 (revised). 134. Fred Bosselman, David Callies and John Banta, The Taking Issue: A Study of the Constitutional Limits of Governmental Authority to Regu- late the Use of Privately-owned Land Without Paying Compensation to the Owners, prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973). 135. Ed McCahill, "Stealing: A Primer on Zoning Corruption" Planning 39: 6-8, December, 1973. 136. This question deserves serious attention to ensure that by trying to solve one problem-environmental degradation-zoning regulations do not at the same time exacerbate other social problems, such as the shortage of low income housing. For the social equity ramifications of land use con- trols, see G. Max Neutze, supra note 132; Lee Syracuse, "Zoning: Its Shortcomings and Potential," prepared by the Land Use and Develop- ment Section of the National Association of Home Builders (unpub- lished), 1972. 137. Lynn B. Sagalyn and George Sternleib, Zoning and Housing Costs: The Impact of Land-Use Controls on Housing Price (New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1973) ; George E. Peter- son, The Effect of Zoning Regulation on Suburban Property Values (Washington, D.C.: Land Use Center of the Urban Institute, 1973) ; John P. Crecine, Otto A. Davis, and John E. Jackson, "Urban Property Markets: Some Empirical Results and Their Implications for Municipal Zoning" The Journal of Law and Economics 10: 79-99, October, 1967; 81 John A. Bruhn, "Zoning@lts Effect on Property Value" Appraisal jour- nal 37, October, 1969. 138. Richard F. Babcock, The Zoning Game-Municipal Practices and Poli- cies (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1966); Otto A. Davis, "Economic Elements in Municipal Zoning Decisions" Land Economics 39: 375-386, November, 1963. 139. This conclusion is an extension of the findings of The Costs of Sprawl which shows in general that for a given number of dwelling units, lower density developments create higher economic and environmental costs than higher density developments. See the earlier section of this chapter, "Effects of Development." 140. Maxwell C. Huntoon, Jr. PUD: A Better Way for the Suburbs (Wash- ington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1971). 141. See John Delafons, Land Use Controls in the United States (Cam- bridge- M.I.T. Press, 1969), pp. 53-54, 133, 172-173; Jan Krasnowiecki and Richard F. Babcock, Legal Aspects of Planned, Unit Residential Development with Suggested Legislation, Urban Land Institute Tech- nical Bulletin #52, (Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1965). 142. 'See the New York City Building Zone Resolution (1916) 5 Minutes, Board of Estimate and Apportionment, pp. 4243-4268, July 25, 1916 as cited in Joseph Goldrick, S. Graubard, and Raymond J. Horowitz, Building Regulation in New York City (New York City: Common- wealth Fund, 1944); Norman Marcus and Marilyn W. Groves (eds.), New Zoning: Legal, Administrative and Economic Concepts and Tech- niques, prepared for the Center for New York City Affairs, New School for Social Research (New York: Praeger, 1970) ; John Delafons, supra note 111, at 57. 143. Seymour 1. Toll, Zoned American (New York: Grossman Publishers, 1969) , Fred Bosselman and David Callies, supra note 120. 144. Herbert M. Franklin, "Controlling Urban Growth-But For Whom?" Washington, D.C.: Potomac Institute, 1973. 145. California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Cal. Pub. Res. Code Sees. 21000-21001; Thaddeus C. Trzyna, Environmental Impact Re- quirements in the States: NEPA's Offspring, prepared by Washington Environmental Research Center for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under contract no. 68-01-1818 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov- ernment Printing Office, 1974). 146. Council on Environmental Quality, supra note 4, at 216. 147. Vermont Environmental Control Law (Act 250) Bill H. 417, April 4, 1970. 148. See supra note 121. 149. Bosselman and Callies, see supra note 143. 150. The "Project Review Criteria for Growth" are contained in Formulation of Regional Growth Policy, Issue Paper #4 (Berkeley: Association of Bay Area Governments, 1973) which was adopted as Growth Policy Resolution 3-73, October 11, 1973. See also Issue Paper #5, Economic Issues in Regional Growth Policy (Berkeley: Association of Bay Area Governments, 1974). 151. Fred Bosselmanj David Callies, and John Banta, supra note 134. 152. Id., pp. 139-194. 153. Id., pp. 175-182. 154. For a general reference as to the feasibility of marketing development rights see: John Costonis, "Development Rights Transfer: An Explora- tory Essay," Yale Law Journal 83, November, 1973; John Costonis, Space Adrift: Saving Urban Landmarks through the Chicago Plan (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1974) ; John Costonis, "Which- ever Way You Slice It, DRT is Here To Stay," Planning 40, July, 1974; Jared B. Shlaes, "Who Pays for Transfer of Development Rights?," Planning 40, July, 1974. In relation to open space preservation see 82 B. Bud Chavooshian and Thomas Norman, "Transfer of Development Rights: A New Concept in Land Use Management," Urban Land 32, December, 1973, pp. 11-16. 155. William Matuszeski, "Less Than Fee Acquisition for Open Space: Its Effect on Land Value," Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Pennsylvania, September, 1968 (unpublished manuscript), pp. 8-10. 156. Ann Louise Strong et al., The Plan and Program for the Brandywine, (Philadelphia: Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Penn- sylvania, 1968). 157. Charles Little, supra note 9 at 60. 158. John 0. Keene and Ann Louise Strong, "The Brandywine Plan," Journal of the American Institute of Planners 36: 50-58, January, 1970. 159. Edward J. Kaiser et al., Promoting Environmental Quality through Urban Planning and Controls, prepared by Washington Environmental Research Center for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under contract no. 801376 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974) pp. 24,361-369. 160. Ann Louise Strong, Open Space for Urban America, prepared for the U.S. Urban Renewal Administration (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1965); William H. Whyte, Jr., Securing Open Space for Urban America: Conservation Easements, Technical Bulletin No. 36 (Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1959). 161. William Matuszeski, supra note 155, p. 13. 162. Personal communication from Pat Newman, Director of the Nature Conservancy, 1800 North Kent, Arlington, Va. 163. For general references see articles by John Costonis, supra note 154. 164. The literature on development rights transfer is sparse. The principal studies include the following: John Costonis, "The Chicago Plan: Incentive Zoning and the Preservation of Urban Landmarks," Harvard Law Review 85, no. 574, 1972; Norman Marcus, "Development Rights Transfers: Planning the Perspective," in Donald H. Sisskind, chairman, Air Rights, Commercial Law and Practice Course Handbook Series No. 103, (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1974), p. 41; and the literature in supra note 154. 165. Costonis describes the feasibility of one such program in Space Adrift, supra note 154 at 89. 166. For a more complete discussion of this relationship in the case of Chicago see supra note 154. 167. See Peter Hall et al., The Containment of Urban England (London: Political and Economic Planning, 1973) 2 vols.; Kermit Parsons, Public Land Acquisition for New Communities, prepared for the Center for Urban Development Research, Cornell University (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1973). 168. Shirley S. Passow, "Land Reserves and Teamwork in Planning Stock- holm," American Institute of Planning journal XXXVI, May 1970@ and Goran Sidenbladh, "Stockholm: A Planned City," Scientific Amer- ican, 213: 107-118, September, 1965. 169. See Sylvan Kamm, "Land Banking: Public Policy Alternatives and Dilemmas," (Washington, D.C.; Urban Institute, 1970), for a discussion of the applicability of foreign experience with land banking polities to the United States. 170. Canadian Task Force on Housing, Report of the Federal Task Force on Housing and Urban Development, prepared for the Minister of Transport as authorized by the.Cabinet (Ottawa: Information Canada, no. NH61-1/1969). 171. See Sylvan Kamm 'supra note 169 at 11-12. 172. A. Allen Schmid, Converting Land from Rural to Urban Uses (Was@- ington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1968). 173. See S. Passow, su@ra note 168. 83 174. The acquisition cannot occur only in a thin band at the urban fringe, for the urbanization process is likely to leapfrog over this area and create even more sprawl problems than existed before. The band has to be wide enough to effectively discourage such leapfrogging. This is the reason for the "three decades" rule-of-thumb mentioned above. 175. Donald C. Shoup and Ruth P. Mack, Advanced Land Acquisition by Local Governments: Benefit-Cost Analysis as an Aid to Policy, prepared by the Institute for Public Administration, New York, for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968). 176. See John William Reps, The Future of American Planning: Requiem or Renaissance? (Ithaca: Center for Housing and Environmental Studies, Division of Urban Studies, 1967). 177. U.S. National Commission on Urban Problems, Building the American City, Report of the U.S. National Commission on Urban Problems to the Congress and President of the United States (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968) ; the President's Committee on Urban Housing, A Decent Home (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1969); National Committee on Urban Growth Policy, The New City (New York: Frederic A. Praeger, 1969); U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Urban and Rural America: Policies for Future Growth (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1968). 178. See Council on Environmental Quality, supra note 4 at 380-381; and William K. Reilly (ed.), The Use of Land: A Citizens' Policy Guide to Urban Growth (New York: Crowell, 1973), pp. 33-75. 179. Petaluma, California and Ramapo, New York are examples of com- munities that have adopted such policies. For discussions of these examples see Herbert M. Franklin, supra note 144; and Herbert M. Franklin, Memoranda 74-2 and 74-4 (Washington, D.C.: Potomac Institute, 1974). 180. The Interim Devlopment Ordinances for Fairfax County, adopted in March, 1974 have been challenged in M. S. Horne v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, July 10, 1974. 181. Steel Hill Development Inc. v. Town of Sandbornton, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, No. 72-1234, November 24, 1972 as dis- cussed in Herbert M. Franklin, Memorandum 73-1 (Washington, D.C.: Potomac Institute). 182. Steve Carter et al., supra note 1. 183. Rivkin/Carson, Inc., The Sewer Moratorium as a Technique of Growth Control and Environmental Protection, prepared for the U.S. Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development (NTIS PB230-293/AS, 1973),pp.14,15. 184. Id., pp. 1-4. 185. Id., p. 26. 186. See "Sewer Moratorium Case Study: Hagerstown, Maryland," and "Sewer Moratorium Case Study: Chambers Creek-Clover Creek Basin (Tacoma, Washington)," prepared by Municipal Permits and Operations Division, Office of Water Program Operations, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (unpublished drafts, 1973). 187. Ibid. 188. Rivkin/Carson Inc., supra note 183, pp. 25-27. 189. Donald H. Elliott and Norman Marcus, "From Euclid to Ramapo: New Directions in Land Development Control," Hofstra Law Review 1: 56, Spring, 1973. 190. See Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma, No. C-73-0763-LHB as cited in Herbert M. Franklin, supra note 179. 84 191. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, State Programs for the Di§erential Assessment of Farm and Open Space Land, Agricultural Economics Report No. 256 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974). 192. Irving F. Fellows,"'The Impact of Public Act 490 on Agriculture and Open Space in Connecticut," in Proceedings of the Seminar on Taxation of Agricultural and Other Open Land, April 1-2, 1971 (East Lansing: Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, 1971); A@ Robert Koch, Harriet H. Morrill, and Arthur Hausamann, Implementa- tion and Early Effects of the New Jersey Farmland Assessment Act (New Brunswick: Rutgers, Experiment Station Bul. 830) ; James C. Barrow, and James W. Thomson, Impacts of Open Space Taxation In Washing- ton, Washington Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 772 (Pull- man: Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, 1973); C. T. K. Ching and G. E. Frick, The Effect of Use Value Assessment on Assessed Valuations and Tax Rates, Research Report No. 13, Institute of Natu- ral and Environmental Resources (Durham, N.H.: Agricultural Experi- ment Station, 1970). 193. Hoy F. Carman and Jim G. Polson, "Tax Shifts Occurring as a Result of Differential Assessment of Farmland: California, 1968-69," National Tax journal 24, December, 1971; Sidney Ishee, "The Maryland Use- Value Assessment Law," in Proceedings of the Seminar on Taxation of Agricultural and Other Open Land supra note 192. 194. John Kolesar and Jaye Scholl, Misplaced Hopes, Misspent Millions: A Report on Farmland Assessments in New Jersey (Princeton: The Center for Analysis of Public Issues, 1972). 195. This does not necessarily mean that the farmer does not benefit from the program, for the speculator should be willing to pay a higher price for the land if his holding costs are lower. - 196. A. R. Koch, H. H. Morrill, and A. Hausamann, supra note 192 at 10; Samuel Harrison, "Problems and Impact of the New Jersey Farmland Assessment Act of 1964," in Proceedings of the Seminar on Taxation of Agricultural and Other Open Land, supra note 192 at 35-47. 197. H. F. Carman and J. G. Polson, supra note 193, p. 449. 198. See Christopher Tunnard and Boris Pushkarev, supra note 116; and Stanley B. Tankel, "The Importance of Open Space in the Urban Pattern," in Lowden Wingo, Jr. (ed.) Cities and Space: The Future Use of Urban Land (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press 1963), PP. 57-72. 199. See Peter Hall et al. supra note 167; William K. Reilly, supra note 125; Royal Commission on the Geographical Distribution of the Industrial Population, Minutes of Evidence, Nov. 16, 193 6 (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1938) ; David Thomas London's Green Belts (Lon- don: Faber 1970); Peter Self, "Wise Use of Green Belts," Town and Country Planning, 30: 166-68, April 1962. 2001 See Charles E. Little, supra note 9. 201. William G. Grisby, "Economic and Fiscal Aspects of Open Space Preser- vation," in D. A. Wallace (ed.), Metropolitan Open Space and Natural Process (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1970) ; and Stanley B. Tankel, supra note 198. 202. See John L. Moore and Betty W. Cost, Final. Report on Development and Application of a Methodology for Estimating the Impact on Local Land and Property Values from Flood Plain Regulation in Ohio, prepared by Battelle Columbus Laboratories for the State of Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Flood Plain Management Section ( 'Columbus: Bat- telle, 1973) ; J. Costonis, Space Adrift, supra note 154, is good on the preservation of historic landmarks; and William H. Whyte in The Last Landscape (New York: Anchor Books, 1968) is helpful on the protec- tion of valuable ecological areas. 85 203. Carl Norcross, Open Space Communities in the Marketplace, Technical Bulletin No. 57 (Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1966). 204. Id. 205. Kenneth E. Daanc, "The Economic Implications of the Regional Parks System in Maricopa County," (Tempe: Bureau of Business Services, College of Business Administration, Arizona State University, 1964). 206. Information supplied by the Acting Chief Appraiser, Single Family Val- uation, Federal Housing Administration, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Oct. 11, 1974. 207. National Association of Home Builders, Land Development Manual (Washington, D.C.: The National Association of Home Builders, 1969) 208. Cited in Charles E. Little, supra note 157 at 87. 209. Robert L. Wonder, study done for Coro Foundation in San Francisco on Garland Parks, cited in C. B. Little, supra note 157, p. 88. 210. Id., p. 89. 211. J. Richard Recht and Robert T. Harmon, supra note 8. 212. W. G. Grisby, supra note 201. 86 APPENDIX Recent State Land Use Legislation The following is a summary, as of July 1974, of recent State land use legislation prepared by Land Use Planning Reports.* Alabama-A bill to establish a study group to develop land use legislation recommendations has been proposed by the Land Use Legislative Committee. The state has a Coastal Area Act, a strip mining law, a property tax that permits some agricultural land protection, and has delegated planning and zoning authority to localities. Alaska-As part of a "state strategy" Alaska is developing a comprehensive planning process that will include land use plans. Legislation to implement the strategy is expected to be introduced in the 1975 legislature. The Federal- State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska is working with the state on the strategy and on planning for use of the 97 percent of the state's area owned by the Federal Government. Arizona-The Arizona Environmental Planning Commission is conducting public hearings to gauge public attitudes toward state land use programs. It is to report recommendations to the 1975 legislature. Arizona has a power plant siting law, traditional local planning and zoning controls. Arkansas-A major committee appointed by the governor is expected to report in October on general or specific proposals for land use legislation. Arkansas has a strip mining law and a "Utility Facility Environmental Pro- tection Act." Local zoning and planning controls are little used, except in cities. Cal ifornia-Calif ornia has no single comprehensive land use plan. But several programs cover a total of about 75 percent of the state. The most important is the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act that requires permits for development along the coast. A land use bill (A.B. 2978) and a critical areas bill (A.B. 2979) are being considered by the legislature now; a strong power plant siting bill was passed this year; the 1965 Williamson Act is designed to preserve agricultural land and open space; and localities have full zoning and planning authority. *This summary is based upon a report published by Land Use Planning Reports entitled A Summary of State Land Use Controls-July 1974 (Wash- ington, D.C.: Plus Publications, 1974). 87 Colorado-A new state law (H.B. 1041) went into effect May 17 giving the state control over development activities of statewide interest. Colorado has a relatively weak strip mining law, has a law permitting assessment of some agricultural land on its use value, and enacted a bill (H.B. 1034) this year to clarify the full zoning and planning controls now available to localities. Connecticut-The state is conducting public discussions on a proposed Plan of Conservation and Development with legislative action on resultant pro- posals expected in 1975. The plan will probably call for local land use controls with state guidance. Agricultural land is taxed at current value and a con- veyance penalty tax is assessed. Delaware-A committee called Delaware Tomorrow is to look at growth and land use. In the coastal zone the state has banned heavy industry within 2 miles of the coast and state permits are required for other coastal uses. The state has a preferential assessment law for agricultural land. Each - county has a planning and zoning commission. Florida-The Florida Land and Water Management Ac t of 1972 authorized Florida's statewide land use policy. It provides considerable state control of critical areas and development of more than one-county interest. Florida has a preferential assessment tax for agricultural lands. Localities were given full zoning and planning authority in 1968. Georgia-Vital areas bills (H.B. 1677 and S.B. 357) were defeated by the legislature this year. The state now controls activities in wetlands. Localities have full planning and zoning authority. Hawaii-Hawaii enacted the first state land use program in the Nation in 1961. It zones the state into four land categories. At the legislature's direc- tion Hawaii is now developing a 10-year growth policy. Coastal zone and other controls are bound into the state land use program. Idaho Four bills (S. 1434, S. 1328, S. 1376, and S. 1377) that would have provided a comprehensive land use program were defeated this year by one vote in the Senate. The state has a strip mining law. Localities have full planning and zoning powers. Illinois-Three land use bills (H.B. 1123, S.B. 975, and S.B. 802) were introduced this year but went nowhere. The state does have a strong strip mining bill, a deferred taxation scheme for preserving agricultural land and open space, and full planning and zoning authority in its localities. Indiana-A comprehensive land use bill was introduced and withdrawn this year. Indiana was the only eligible state not applying for Federal coastal planning grants in fiscal 1974. The state has a fairly strong strip mining bill, taxes agricultural land on a preferential basis to preserve farmland and open space, and gives full planning and zoning authority to localities. lowa-A comprehensive land use bill (H.B. 1422) was passed by the House this year but was rejected by the Senate. Ninety-five percent of the land is in agriculture; agricultural land is assessed at use value. Kansas-A legislative committee and an advisory committee of state officials, scholars, and citizens are attempting to identify land use issues. Localities have full zoning authority. Kentucky-A Land Use Planning Council was created this year by the state legislature and will report to the 1976 biennial legislative session. The state has a strong strip mining law, a new power plant siting law (H.R. 438), use- value assessment with deferred taxation to preserve agricultural land, and full local planning and zoning authority. 88 Louisiana-The Office of State Planning is drafting a growth and conserva- tion policy as a first step toward a state land use policy. A special commission has proposed development of a coastal zone plan. Agricultural land can be assessed on its use value. Although localities have planning and zoning author- ity, planning is still relatively new around the state. Maine-A site selection act requiring a state license for major development, a zoning control act for shoreland, state regulation of unorganized areas (over half the state), and registration and regulation of critical areas constitute most of the state land use program. Maine has deferred taxation for agri- cultural land and full authority for localities to plan and zone. Maryland-Enacted this year was a critical areas bill (S.B. 500) that allows the state to add to a list of critical areas designated by localities and the state to intervene in local regulatory proceedings relating to such areas. A coastal zone planning bill was killed this year. The state has strong power plant siting and strip mining laws and an advanced use-value tax for pre- serving agricultural land. Localities are quite advanced in using full plan- ning and zoning authority. Massachusetts-There are proposals in the legislature for a bill (H. 5567) that could lead to a statewide land use program and a more comprehensive coastal zone bill. A power plant siting law was recently enacted. Localities have full planning and zoning authority. Michigan-A land use bill (H.B. 5035, renumbered K.B. 6097) was killed by the House by one vote this year. Power plant siting bills were also killed. An agricultural Land and Open Space Act was passed this year allowing 10-year contracts with the state. Michigan has perhaps the toughest state land sales regulation law. Minnesota-The Critical Areas Act of 1973 authorizes the state to identify areas, including coastal zones, that would be damaged by uncontrolled devel- opment. The state has a 1973 power plant siting law and a deferred tax for preserving agricultural land. Localities have fairly advanced zoning and plan- ning authority. Mississippi-A state Task Force on Growth is attempting to coordinate planning and set goals for the state. Local zoning and planning have been little used. Missouri-Several state agencies are working on a report on growth and its impact on critical areas. The state has a strip mining law. Only 22 of 114 counties have enacted planning or zoning ordinances. Montana-The Governor vetoed a bill (S.B. 625) this year to establish a State Department of Planning. The department would have begun developing a statewide planning process. The state has a tough strip mining law, a 1973 Utility Siting Act, and a 1973 law providing preferential assessment for agricultural land. Nebraska-A state resolution (L.R. 148) by the legislature directs that hear- ings and studies be conducted to develop land use legislation. The legislature this year passed a use-value assessment act for agricultural lands and an act to forbid interpreting comprehensive plans as requiring compliance with zoning ordinances. Nevada-The state Land Use Planning Act of 1973 is called a "mini- Jackson bill" after the U.S. Senate-passed bill. A referendum goes before the voters this year on preferential assessment for agricultural land. The state will impose a master plan and zoning regulation's on any county not enacting them by July 1, 1975. 99 New Hampshire-A bill (H.B. 221 to identify critical environmental areas wai defeated this year. An Open Space Land Use Commission and the State Planning Office continue to work on land use recommendations. The state has a power plant siting law and has-use-valu-- assessment for agricultural land. Few counties have operating planning commissions, and where they do operate they are weak. New Jersey-In February a state planning task force submitted a report that is expected to lead to statewide legislation. Some land uses in the coastal zone are regulated by the state under a 1973 law. A 1964 Agricultural Assessment Act slowed the rate of urbanization of farmland significantly. The entire state is incorporated, and the 567 municipalities have zoning and planning powers. New Mexico-With no statewide land use policy, the legislature voted thi 's year to match Federal land use planning grants if they were available. The legislature also repealed the state's Environmental Quality Act of 1972. The state has a strip mining law, preferential assessment for agricultural lands, and authority for counties to regulate subdivisions. New York-The New York State Environmental Plan, the Adirondack Park Agency, the Development Plan for Private Lands, and coastal zone authority give the state wide-ranging influence over land use, The state also has a power plant siting law, a strip mining law, a complex agricultural preservation law, and a mix of state and local control of zoning and planning. North Carolina-A Land Policy Act and a Coastal Areas Management Act were passed this year. The land policy measure lays the foundation for a future land use process while the coastal measure requires land use controls along the coast. Full zoning and planning authority were given localities 4 years ago. North Dakota-Land use bills are expected to be introduced in the legisla- ture next year. A 1970 strip mining law was stiffened considerably last year. Within corporate limits, agricultural lands can be taxed according to their use value. Ohio-A measure affecting key facilities was introduced this year. The state has a strong strip mining law, a one-stop permit power plant siting law, a law (S. 423) enacted this year providing use-value assessment of agricultural land, and full planning and zoning authority for localities. Oklahorna-A Technical Land Use Advisory Committee'is assisting in preparations for meeting a Federal land use bill. The state has a strip mining law and a variety of local land controls. Oregon-A comprehensive land use measure (S.B. 100) was passed in 1973. Implementation is now going on. Oregon has a power plant siting law and a use-value assessment law for agricultural land. Other land use related pro- grams are covered by S.B. 100. Pennsylvania-An in 'teragency task force is developing legislative proposals for introduction in the 1975 legislature. The state has perhaps the toughest strip mining law in the country. Voters in a 1973 referendum authorized the legislature to write laws to preserve agricultural land, but the legislature has not acted. Planning and zoning controls have been adopted for the most part by localities. Rhode Isla nd-The Department of Administration is developing a compre- hensive plan for the state, and from it specific land use proposals should come for next year's legislature. A state permit system now regulates some activities in the coastal zone. The state permits use-vaIue assessment for agricultural land with a rollback tax penalty. 90 South Carolina-A governor's committee recommended legislation for this year which was not acted on. Localities have been delegated full planning and zoning authority. South Dakota-A bill (H.R. @06) to designate and regulate critical areas was defeated in the House this year, 29-40. A bill (H.B. 762) requiring counties to develop comprehensive plans was passed. Another bill (H.B. 667) to continue a legislative land use committee to recommend legislation was passed. The state has a permit system for strip mining and enacted this year a use-value assessment for agricultural lands. Tennessee-A bill to create a Tennessee Land Use Study Commission did not make it to the floor this year. It will probably be reintroduced next year. The state has a strong strip mining law; TVA handles most power plants; and localities have full zoning and planning authority. Texas-A major report on Texas land use commissioned by the governor's office was released in December 1973. Three legislative committees are assess- ing land use and are expected to recommend legislation in 1975. The state has some regulatory powers over coastal activities. Texas has use-value assessment with deferred taxes on agricultural land. Counties have little planning and zoning authority. Utah-The Utah Land Use Act, providing for designation of and planning for critical environmental areas, was passed by the legislature this year. A petition has held it up and voters will have to approve it in a November referendum. The Greenbelt Act permits preferential agricultural land taxa- tion with a deferred tax. Localities have zoning and planning authority, but the zoning ordinances are superficial. Vermont-In a major shift in the state's approach to land use planning, the 19 74 legislature rejected the third phase in the development of a comprehensive land use plan for the state, a mapping program which would have divided the state into five categories (urban, village, natural resources, conservation, and rural) with different use and settlement goals. A legislative study committee is, instead, investigating the possibility of regulating critical areas and develop- ments of more than local impact. The first two phases of the state land use plan culminated in the Land Capability and Development Plan, a guide for regulating development according to present land use and capability for development. Virginia-The General Assembly adopted a resolution this year opposing a Federal land use act, declaring that land use planning is a state function. The legislature killed all pending state land use legislation. The Advisory Legisla- tive Council's Land Use Policies Committee is reporting this year; and the state is undertaking a coastal zone management program under a Federal CZM grant. Washington-Two different land use proposals were killed in the 1974 legis- lature before reaching the floor of either house, but at least one committee is holding interim sessions to prepare legislation for next year. The 1972 Shore- line Management Act provides for land use regulation of a large part of the state, including the shoreline, marshes, bogs, swamps, floodways, river deltas, and floodplains. All 39 counties have undertaken some kind of planning effort, and an estimated 25 counties have adopted zoning ordinances. West Virginia-The state Planning and Development Department is limited to providing advice and technical assistance to local governments. Only 6 of 55 counties have adopted zoning ordinances. Eleven regional councils created in 1972 are making inventories and analyses of state resources. 91 Wisconsin-In a referendum in April, voters approved preferential assess- ment and taxation of agricultural and open space lands. Implementing legisla- tion is expected to be the main land use issue in the 1975 legislature. Proposals were killed this year for designation and regulation of critical environmental areas and developments of regional impact, acceleration of land use informa- tion gathering, protection of wetlands, and power plant siting. Under state guidelines and review, the Great Lakes shorelands are zoned into con- servancy, recreational-residential, or general purpose areas. Wyo!ning-The Conservation and Land Use Study Commission has drafted a state land use planning act for legislative consideration in 1975. Reve- nue from the Mineral Severance Tax enacted this year will be used to finance planning for boom-town growth expected to occur as strip mining operations increase. 92 U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1974 0 - 562-905 DATE DUE GAYLORDINO. 2333 PRINTED IN U.S.A. 3 6 141 66128