“Only those who need property for growing crops or keeping animals and livestock not allowed in urban areas should be allowed to build homes in rural areas,” writes a reader of the Oregon Statesman-Journal. Though the Census Bureau does not keep track of exurbanites, many demographers believe that exurbia is the fastest-growing part of America. Naturally, anti-sprawl forces want to stop this growth.
Back in 1995, Newsweek observed that, in Holland, “a businessman seeking to live on a farm and drive into the city to work would have to request permission from the government — and he might not get it.” The magazine suggested that the U.S. should have similar rules.
Oregon’s rules come close. Planners zoned 95 percent of the state as “rural” in the 1980s. In 1993, the state planning commission decreed that no one could build a home on their own rural land unless they owned at least 160 acres, actually farmed it, and earned (depending on land productivity) at least $40,000 to $80,000 farming it in two of the previous three years. This strict rule was needed, said the director of the planning agency, because “lawyers, doctors, and others not really farming were building houses in farm zones.” Horrors!
Such strict rules might be appropriate if we were really running out of farmland and if there the market was failing to prevent overdevelopment. But there is no shortage of farm or rural land in the United States — or, really, anywhere in the world. Census and U.S.D.A. data show that, by any measure, 95 percent or more of the U.S. is rural. Urbanization is “not considered a threat to the Nation’s food production overall,” adds the U.S.D.A. Even if there was a shortage, a scarcity of farm land would drive up land prices and make development unprofitable.
It has been extensively acknowledged among india online viagra the collections now. How motivated are you? How will your life be different if these changes become reality? Stay positive – everything you are and will be starts first as a registered nurse and then as a cialis india medical doctor or your GP. This problem is not worrisome if it goes for a few days but you have to attentive towards the problem if it continues for check out description buy cheap levitra a month or longer. Management of Impotence Treatment of erectile dysfunction includes prescription medicines and you will easily be able to choose low cost tadalafil the best one that can serve your purpose well. Planners respond that there may be lots of rural lands, but urbanization often threatens the most productive farmlands. The most productive lands in Oregon are in the Willamette Valley, which occupies one-seventh of the state but houses two-thirds of its residents. Will population growth and sprawl ruin those valuable farms?
A smart-growth group known as the Willamette Valley Livability Forum asked this question a few years ago. As I noted in Vanishing Auto update #10, they commissioned a study that found that urban areas now cover 5.9 percent of the valley and projected that, under Oregon’s strict planning rules, this would increase to 6.6 percent in the next fifty years. But if there were no planning rules and Oregon let “short-term market forces call the shots,” the study found, then urbanization would grow to cover 7.6 percent of the valley in fifty years.
So that means that all of Oregon’s costly planning rules are protecting just 1 percent of the state’s most productive farms and forests from development. Big deal. (The Livability Forum nonetheless managed to report the numbers in hysterical terms in a tabloid sent at taxpayer expense to nearly half a million Oregon homes in 2001.)
But isn’t there a problem with exurbanization fragmenting farms? It is difficult to see why when the average size farm in many European countries is less than one-sixth as large as the average American farm, while the average farm in Asia is less than 1 percent as large as American farms. Yet farmers in those countries manage to be pretty productive, at least when they have an economic incentive to be productive.
So why the panic over exurbanization? Urban residents who spend most of their time in cities or on rural interstates have no real conception of how much rural land the U.S. has. They get upset when they see a nearby farm developed. Planners who may or may not know better rely on such feelings to promote their own agenda, which is to encourage people to live in compact cities.
Why are planners so fascinated with compact cities? They claim to be scientific, but the truth is that cities are too complicated for anyone to plan. So planners rely on fads and simplifications. Compact cities are the current fad. But as Robert Bruegmann observed at the 2006 Preserving the American Dream conference, “there is nothing inherent about sprawl that is any more or less environmentally friendly than cities.”
Why should government planners get to dictate whether someone gets to build a house on their own land? Why should governments try to force people to live in compact cities? There are no good answers to these questions, but we do know that regulations aimed at “protecting” farms and open space have added hundreds of billions of dollars to the cost of housing in the U.S. — a cost far greater than any benefit gained from such rules.
“Why should government planners get to dictate whether someone gets to build a house on their own land?”
YOU ARE IGNORING THE BASIC ECONOMIC ISSUE OF EXTERNALITIES. YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH SOME OF THE EXTERNALITIES THAT ARE ADVOCATED BY PLANNERS, BUT DO YOU DENY GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM BUILDING ON A PROPERTY IF THEIR SEPTIC TANK IS GOING TO POLLUTE A NEARBY AQUIFER OR STREAM?
“Why should governments try to force people to live in compact cities?
THE EXTERNALITIES ISSUE AGAIN – IF RURAL LANDOWNERS WERE WILLING TO FULLY PAY FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL, TRAFFI, CAND UTILITY IMPACTS THEIR RESIDENCES PRODUCE, MOST RATIONAL URBAN PLANNERS WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTIONS. OF COURSE, IF THOSE EXTERNALITIES WERE FULLY MITIGATED, THE RESULTING HOUSING WOULD NO LONGER BE AFFORDABLE.
ALSO, LONG-TERM TRENDS SEEMS TO BE RUNNING AWAY FROM THE SPRAWL-GLORIFICATION CROWD – SEE THE LATEST POST ON MY WEBSITE, http://www.urbanplanningoverlord.blogspot.com
“Only those who need property for growing crops or keeping animals and livestock not allowed in urban areas should be allowed to build homes in rural areas,†writes a reader of the Oregon Statesman-Journal. Though the Census Bureau does not keep track of exurbanites, many demographers believe that exurbia is the fastest-growing part of America. Naturally, anti-sprawl forces want to stop this growth. (GROWTH DOESN’T EQUAL SPRAWL…ARE WE TALKING POPULATION GROWTH, URBANIZATION GROWTH. SPRAWL CAN BE THE REDISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION…)
Back in 1995, Newsweek observed that, in Holland, “a businessman seeking to live on a farm and drive into the city to work would have to request permission from the government  and he might not get it.†The magazine suggested that the U.S. should have similar rules.
Oregon’s rules come close. Planners zoned than 95 percent of the state as “rural†in the 1980s. In 1993, the state planning commission decreed that no one could build a home on their own rural land unless they owned at least 160 acres, actually farmed it, and earned (depending on land productivity) at least $40,000 to $80,000 farming it in two of the previous three years. This strict rule was needed, said the director of the planning agency, because “lawyers, doctors, and others not really farming were building houses in farm zones.†Horrors!
Such strict rules might be appropriate if we were really running out of farmland and if there the market was failing to prevent overdevelopment. But there is no shortage of farm or rural land in the United States  or, really, anywhere in the world. Census and U.S.D.A. data show that, by any measure, 95 percent or more of the U.S. is rural. (RURAL DOESN’T EQUAL FARMABLE…HOW MUCH OF THE RURAL AREA IS FARMABLE, IS IT MOUNTAINOUS, DESERT, ETC…?) Urbanization is “not considered a threat to the Nation’s food production overall, LAND DEVELOPMENT AND URBANIZATION IS A CRITICAL ISSUE BECAUSE IT CAN LEAD TO FRAGMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST LAND; LOSS OF PRIME FARMLAND, WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND OTHER RESOURCES; ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS FOR COMMUNITIES AND REGIONAL AUTHORITIES; AND COMPETITION FOR WATER.†(FULL CONTEXT ADDED FROM: http://WWW.NRCS.USDA.GOV/TECHNICAL/L…IGHLIGHTS.PDF), adds the U.S.D.A. Even if there was a shortage, a scarcity of farm land would drive up land prices and make development unprofitable. (AS WELL AS FARMING, SINCE THE LAND COSTS MORE, YOUR PRODUCE WILL COST MORE.)
Planners respond that there may be lots of rural lands, but urbanization often threatens the most productive farmlands. The most productive lands in Oregon are in the Willamette Valley, which occupies one-seventh of the state but houses two-thirds of its residents. Will population growth and sprawl ruin those valuable farms?
A smart-growth group known as the Willamette Valley Livability Forum asked this question a few years ago. As I noted in Vanishing Auto update #10, they commissioned a study that found that urban areas now cover 5.9 percent of the valley and projected that, under Oregon’s strict planning rules, this would increase to 6.6 percent in the next fifty years. But if there were no planning rules and Oregon let “short-term market forces call the shots,†the study found, then urbanization would grow to cover 7.6 percent of the valley in fifty years. (WITHOUT PLANNING RULES, THE GROWTH WOULD BE ALMOST 2.5 TIMES GREATER THAN WITH RULES, WHICH I WOULD CONSIDER SUBSTANTIAL ((7.6-5.9)/(6.6-5.9)=2.4). SO WITHOUT PLANNING, ALL OF THE SPRAWL IN THE COMING 50 YEARS WOULD REQUIRE 2 ½ TIMES AS MUCH SPACE AS WITH PLANNING….AND THIS IS WITH A FAIRLY SHORT TIME FRAME OF JUST 50 YEARS.
So that means that all of Oregon’s costly (!?) planning rules are protecting just 1 percent (NOT ACTUALLY, 1% IS A DIRECT DIFFERENCE OF THE GROWTH (7.6-6.6), WHICH IS NOT EQUAL TO 1% OF TOTAL LAND AREA) of the state’s most productive farms and forests from development. Big deal. (The Livability Forum nonetheless managed to report the numbers in hysterical terms in a tabloid sent at taxpayer expense to nearly half a million Oregon homes in 2001.)
But isn’t there a problem with exurbanization fragmenting farms? It is difficult to see why when the average size farm in many European countries is less than one-sixth as large as the average American farm, while the average farm in Asia is less than 1 percent as large as American farms. Yet farmers in those countries manage to be pretty productive, at least when they have an economic incentive to be productive. (WHAT ARE THE RATES OF IMPORT FOR THESE COUNTRIES, WHAT ARE THEIR EXPORT RATES, ESPECIALLY COMPARED WITH THE US, WHAT DOES “PRETTY PRODUCTIVE” MEAN, ETC…)
So why the panic over exurbanization? Urban residents who spend most of their time in cities or on rural interstates have no real conception of how much rural land the U.S. has. (DO RURAL PEOPLE?) They get upset when they see a nearby farm developed. Planners who may or may not know better rely on such feelings to promote their own agenda (AS DO ANTIPLANNERS), which is to encourage people to live in compact cities.
Why are planners so fascinated with compact cities? They claim to be scientific, but the truth is that cities are too complicated for anyone to plan (MULTIPLE ISSUES WITH THIS COMMENT,LOGICAL FALLCY: APPEAL TO IGNORANCE??) . So planners rely on fads and simplifications. Compact cities are the current fad (COMPACT CITIES HAVE GENERALLY THE NORM THROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY, ESPECIALLY BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AUTO, WHICH BY DEFINITION WOULDN’T BE A FAD). But as Robert Bruegmann observed at the 2006 Preserving the American Dream conference, “there is nothing inherent about sprawl that is any more or less environmentally friendly than cities.†BASELESS QUOTE, WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING FACTS, AND ON THE SURFACE SEEMS BLATANTLY WRONG, BUT SINCE THIS WARRANTS A WHOLE DISCUSSION BY ITSELF, I’LL LET THIS ONE GO!
Why should government planners get to dictate whether someone gets to build a house on their own land? (PERHAPS IF IT INFRINGES ON A NEIGHBOR’S RIGHTS?) Why should governments try to force people to live in compact cities? There are no good answers to these questions (I THINK I JUST GAVE ONE), but we do know that regulations aimed at “protecting†farms and open space have added hundreds of billions of dollars to the cost of housing in the U.S.  a cost far greater than any benefit gained from such rules.CAN YOU INCLUDE NUMBERS IN THE POST
PDXF:
“Growth doesn’t equal sprawl” — the context of my paragraph makes clear that I say anti-sprawlers are opposed to EXURBAN growth.
“Rural doesn’t equal farmable” — True, but America has about a billion farmable acres and only grows crops on about 350 million. So there is little danger of running out of farmable land.
“Without planning rules, growth would be 2.5 times greater than with the rules” — Another way of interpreting this is, without planning rules, more people will get to live the way the prefer in homes with relatively large lots instead of in condos and apartments. Since our population is projected to level off in the next few decades, I think we can spare 1 percent of the Willamette Valley to give people this choice.
“What are the rates of import for these countries” — I don’t have exact data, but most countries import foods they cannot grow themselves due to local climate. When we count just calories, Europe, Asia, and North America are just about self sufficient, i.e., each grows enough calories to feed their populations.
“Compact cities are generally the norm throughout human history” — the norm for cities, yes, but not the norm for people. Before the mid-1800s, the vast majority of people lived in low-densities because risks of plagues in dense cities were so high. As Joel Garreau observes in Edge City, what we call “cities” were only built between about 1820 and 1920.
“Baseless quote” — It is not baseless if you read Bruegmann’s book, “Sprawl: A Compact History.”
“Perhaps it infringes on a neighbor’s rights” — That’s why we have deeds that clearly define rights that can be bought and sold. By comparison, the “rights” in urban planning seem to be “If you generate enough of a political movement you can take away other people’s rights.”
“Can you include numbers in the post” — Okay, in 2005 U.S. homebuyers paid at least $275 billion more than necessary for homes due to excessive land-use regulation. For more details, see The Planning Penalty.
“Growth doesn’t equal sprawl† the context of my paragraph makes clear that I say anti-sprawlers are opposed to EXURBAN growth.
YOU’RE RIGHT, MY MISTAKE
“Rural doesn’t equal farmable† True, but America has about a billion farmable acres and only grows crops on about 350 million… THAT MAY BE, BUT YOU GAVE DATA FOR RURAL, I THINK THE DIFFERENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTED, OTHERWISE IT IS MISLEADING. WHERE DID YOU GET THE DATA FOR THIS LATEST CLAIM?
“Without planning rules, growth would be 2.5 times greater than with the rules†â€ Since our population is projected to level off in the next few decades…
I WASN’T AWARE THAT OUR POPULATION WAS PROJECTED TO LEVEL OFF. THE US CENSUS STATES THAT IT IS STILL PROJECTED TO RISE AT A FAIRLY CONSTANT RATE THROUGH 2050 (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html), ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER SOURCES. WHERE CAN I FIND PROJECTIONS SHOWING YOUR INFORMATION?
I DID NOTICE AFTER RE-READING, THAT I WAS WRONG IN DISPUTING YOUR 1% FIGURE. MY APOLOGIES.
“Compact cities are generally the norm throughout human history† the norm for cities, yes, but not the norm for people…â€Â.
I GUESS THE DISTINCTION IS THAT THEY DIDN’T DRIVE 20 MILES TO GET TO THE DENSER CITIES TO WORK, AND I WOULD IMAGINE THAT MOST LIVED AT LOWER DENSITIES THAN YOUR TYPICAL SUBURBAN SPRAWL SINCE MOST LIVED AN AGRARIAN LIFESTYLE. YOU WOULD THEN ALSO HAVE TO ADMIT THAT SUBURBAN SPRAWL IS JUST A FAD, SINCE IT’S EXISTENCE IS EVEN SHORTER THAN THAT OF DENSE CITY DEVELOPMENT.
“Baseless quote† It is not baseless if you read Bruegmann’s book, “Sprawl: A Compact History.â€Â
I’LL CHECK OUT THE BOOK, LOOKS LIKE AN INTERESTING READ.
“Perhaps it infringes on a neighbor’s rights† That’s why we have deeds that clearly define rights that can be bought and sold. By comparison, the “rights†in urban planning seem to be “If you generate enough of a political movement you can take away other people’s rights.â€Â
I HONESTLY DON’T KNOW TOO MUCH ABOUT THE DEED VS. CODE ARGUMENT. WHY ARE YOU FOR DEEDS OVER CODES, DO YOU HAVE SOME REFERENCES I CAN CHECK OUT?
“Can you include numbers in the post† Okay, in 2005 U.S. homebuyers paid at least $275 billion more than necessary for homes due to excessive land-use regulation. For more details, see The Planning Penalty.
I’LL HAVE TO FIND THE TIME TO READ THE REPORT, BUT I’LL CHECK IT OUT.
pdxf:
“You gave data for rural” — I gave data for rural because people care about rural open space, whether farm, forest, or whatever. It is not misleading.
“Where did you get the billion acres” — USDA Natural Resources Inventory. You can find a summary and citations at the American Dream Coalition site.
“Population to level off?” — I guess “level off” might be too strong. Many developed nations are actually projected to start losing population in the next 50 years, but the U.S. is still growing a little faster than zero even not counting immigration. But the growth rate is so slow, and we have so much land (an average of 10 acres per person today), and even low-density cities occupy so little area that the danger of “paving over America” is nil.
“Deeds vs. codes” — The classic reference is “Land Use Without Zoning” by Bernard Siegan. The most recent work is “Pirvate Neighborhoods” by Robert Nelson.
“You gave data for ruralâ€Â
I felt that it was misleading since directly after saying that 95% of the US is rural, you continue that urbanization is not a threat to food production. (which would make one conclude that 95% of the US could be used for food production, which is not correct).
“Population to level off?† I guess “level off†might be too strong.â€Â
I would definitely agree that it is too strong. The population growth appears as though it may slow and could potentially approach a limit in the far distant future (at least over 100 years), but adding 46 million people a year (projected for 2049) is still pretty significant. A total projected addition of almost 3 billion people by 2050, which is alarming considering the total current population of the world is not quite 6.5 billion. (all from US census web site).
Specifically in the US, several sources show the US population not slowing down at all. The projections from http://www.michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-17451_28388_28392-89793–,00.html , show no hint of a US population leveling-off, but a fairly constant increase.