Growth article

[Tom Lamar <lamar@pcei.org>]

In light of the recent decision by the Whitman County Commissioners to
spread development out of its towns and into the County, I thought I should
forward this article that was sent to me.

Tom

Urban Growth Means Lower Taxes-and Other Myths
By Donella H. Meadows
We need to bring in business to bring down taxes. This development will
give us jobs. Environmental protection will hurt the economy. Growth is
good for us.
If we've heard those arguments once, we've heard them a thousand times,
stated with utmost certainty and without the slightest evidence. That's
because there is no evidence. Or rather, there is plenty of evidence, most
of which disproves these deeply held pro-growth beliefs.  Here is a short
summary of some of the evidence. For more, see Eben Fodor's new book
"Better, Not Bigger," which lists and debunks the following "Twelve Big
Myths of Growth."
Myth 1: Growth provides needed tax revenues. Check out the tax rates of
cities larger than yours. There are a few exceptions but the general rule
is: the larger the city, the higher the taxes. That's because development
requires water, sewage treatment, road maintenance, police and fire
protection, garbage pickup-a host of public services. Almost never do the
new taxes cover the new costs. Fodor says, "the bottom line on urban growth
is that it rarely pays its own way."
Myth 2: We have to grow to provide jobs. But there's no guarantee that new
jobs will go to local folks. In fact they rarely do. If you compare the 25
fastest growing cities in the U.S. to the 25 slowest growing, you find no
significant difference in unemployment rates. Says Fodor: "Creating more
local jobs ends up attracting more people, who require more jobs."
Myth 3: We must stimulate and subsidize business growth to have good jobs.
A "good business climate" is one with little regulation, low business ta
xes, and various public subsidies to business. A study of areas with good
and bad business climates (as ranked by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
the business press) showed that states with the best business ratings
actually have lower growth in per capita incomes than those with the worst.
Fodor: "This surprising outcome may be due to the emphasis placed by
good-business-climate states on investing resources in businesses rather
than directly in people."
Myth 4: If we try to limit growth, housing prices will shoot up. Sounds
logical, but it isn't so. A 1992 study of 14 California cities, half with
strong growth controls, half with none, showed no difference in average
housing prices. Some of the cities with strong growth controls had the most
affordable housing, because they had active low-cost housing programs.
Fodor says the important factor in housing affordability is not so much
house cost as income level, so development that provides mainly low-paying
retail jobs makes housing unaffordable.
Myth 5: Environmental protection hurts the economy. According to a Bank of
America study the economies of states with high environmental standards
grew consistently faster than those with weak regulations. The Institute of
Southern Studies ranked all states according to 20 indicators of economic
prosperity (gold) and environmental health (green) and found that they rise
and fall together. Vermont ranked 3rd on the gold scale and first on the
green, while Louisiana ranked 50th on both.
Myth 6: Growth is inevitable. There are constitutional limits to the
ability of any community to put walls around itself. But dozens of
municipalities have capped their population size or rate of growth by legal
regulations based on real environmental limits and the real costs of growth
to the community.
Myth 7: If you don't like growth, you're a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) or an
ANTI (against everything) or a gangplank-puller (right after you get
aboard). These accusations are meant more to shut people up than to examine
their real motives. Says Fodor, "A NIMBY is more likely to be someone who
cares enough about the future of his or her community to get out and
protect it."
Myth 8: Most people don't support environmental protection. Polls and
surveys have disproved this belief for decades; Fodor cites examples from
Oregon, Los Angeles, Colorado, and the U.S. as a whole. The fraction of
respondents who say environmental quality is more important than further
economic growth almost always tops 70 percent.
Myth 9: We have to grow or die. This statement is tossed around lightly and
often, but if you hold it still and look at it, you wonder what it means.
Fodor points out, quoting several economic studies, that many kinds of
growth cost more than the benefits they bring. So the more growth, the
poorer we get. That kind of growth will kill us.
Myth 10: Vacant land is just going to waste. Studies from all over show
that open land pays far more-often twice as much-in property taxes than it
costs in services. Cows don't put their kids in school; trees don't put
potholes in the roads. Open land absorbs floods, recharges aquifers, cleans
the air, harbors wildlife, and measurably increases the value of property
nearby. We should pay it for to be there.
Myth 11: Beauty is no basis for policy. One of the saddest things about
municipal meetings is their tendency to trivialize people who complain that
a proposed development will be ugly. Dollars are not necessarily more real
or important than beauty. In fact beauty can translate directly into
dollars. For starters, undeveloped surroundings can add $100,000 to the
price of a home.
Myth 12: Environmentalists are just another special interest. A developer
who will directly profit from a project is a special interest.  A citizen
with no financial stake is fighting for the public interest, the long term,
the good of the whole community. Maybe one reason these myths are procla
imed so often and loudly is that they are so obviously doubtful. The only
reason to keep repeating something over and over is to keep others from
thinking about it. You don't have to keep telling people that the sun rises
in the east. There are reasons why some of us want others of us to believe
the myths of urban growth.
Donella H. Meadows is director of the Sustainability Institute and an
adjunct professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College.

Thomas C. Lamar, Executive Director

===================================================================
Palouse-Clearwater Environmental Institute
P O Box 8596; 112 West 4th St; Suite #1
Moscow ID 83843-1096
Phone (208)882-1444; Fax (208)882-8029
url:  http://www.moscow.com/pcei

Please note our individual staff email addresses below:

Thomas C. Lamar, Executive Director: lamar@pcei.org
Kimi Lucas, Office Manager lucas@pcei.org
Laurie Gardes, Financial Manager:  gardes@pcei.org
Anita Grover, Watersheds: grover@pcei.org
Peggy Adams, Watersheds/Food Systems: adams@pcei.org
Ashley Martens, Environmental Education: martens@pcei.org
Jon Barrett, Idaho Smart Growth:  smartgro@micron.net
Elaine Clegg, Idaho Smart Growth:  eclegg@micron.net

Celebrating thirteen years of connecting people, place and community.
===================================================================