URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY MYTHS
Advocates of unmanaged growth typically fight UGB
campaigns with disinformation. The following are
myths and falsehoods they often employ (taken in
part from BIGGER NOT BETTER: HOW TO TAKE CONTROL OF
URBAN GROWTH AND IMPROVE YOUR COMMUNITY by Eben
Fodor (1999)).
Myth #1: Growth increases net tax revenues
Fact: The available evidence shows that residential
development does not cover new public costs; that
is, residential development brings in less revenue
for local government than the price of servicing
it. Many studies have now documented that new
development tends to increase property taxes.
Communities with the most rapid growth tend to have
the greatest tax increases. New residential housing
is heavily subsidized by current residents.
Myth #2: California cites must grow to provide jobs
Fact: Former UCSB professor Harvey Molotch examined
two decades of census data on growth and
unemployment in the 25 fastest and slowest growing
U.S cities and found no correlation. Although
faster growing cities may create new jobs, they
also attract new residents who don’t find jobs. The
faster growing city ends up bigger, with a similar
unemployment rate and more people without work.
Myth #3: Limiting growth lowers real estate values
Fact: The current housing market is in sharp
decline and allowing the inventory to rise will
further depress prices of existing homes. According
to a study by the National Association of Home
Builders, the surrounding environment is the single
most important factor affecting market value of a
home. Scenic vistas or small-town character add
more value to a house than square footage, pools,
or appliances. That is why median home prices in
Lompoc and Santa Maria are in the $440,000’s while
in Buellton they are $595,000 Growth controls will
protect housing investments.
Myth #4: Limiting growth increases housing costs
Fact: It is critical for a community to provide
affordable housing and diverse housing options for
its residents. The development industry has
repeatedly used affordability to defeat UGBs. Many
studies have now examined this complex issue (see
below). A fair conclusion to draw from this
literature is that communities have many ways to
address affordability while still managing growth.
If a city adopts responsible policies, housing
prices need not increase faster in cities that
limit growth than those that don’t.
The Impact of Growth Control Regulations on Housing Prices in California, by Michael Elliot, AREUEA JOURNAL, (1981).
The Link Between Growth Management and Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence, by Arthur C. Nelson and others (The Brookings Institute, Feb. 2002).
Have Housing Prices Risen Faster in Portland Than Elsewhere? by Anthony Downs," The Brookings Institution Housing Policy Debate (2002).
Urban Growth Boundary Did Not Make Portland Unaffordable, by Philip Langdon, NEW URBAN NEWS (Mar. 2005).
Myths and Facts about UGBs.1,000 Friends of Oregon
The Impact of Growth Control Regulations on Housing Prices in California, by Michael Elliot, AREUEA JOURNAL, (1981).
The Link Between Growth Management and Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence, by Arthur C. Nelson and others (The Brookings Institute, Feb. 2002).
Have Housing Prices Risen Faster in Portland Than Elsewhere? by Anthony Downs," The Brookings Institution Housing Policy Debate (2002).
Urban Growth Boundary Did Not Make Portland Unaffordable, by Philip Langdon, NEW URBAN NEWS (Mar. 2005).
Myths and Facts about UGBs.1,000 Friends of Oregon
Myth #5: For Business, the Bigger the Better
Fact: To attract and keep a highly qualified
workforce, businesses seek to locate in livable
communities where their executives and employees
want to live, work, and play. A study by Arthur
Andersen Consulting found that business leaders
ranked a high quality of life as a top factor in
deciding where to locate. This factor is gaining in
importance in today’s global marketplace where
capital and employees are extremely mobile.
Communities with unique identities and amenities
such as scenic vistas, parks, recreational
opportunities, distinctive restaurants, and good
schools appeal to the emerging “knowledge-based
businesses” at the core of America’s
competitiveness in the 21st Century.
In addition, smart growth improves employee reliability and productivity. Sprawl increases taxes for residents and businesses alike. As people and commercial activity move away from town centers to the urban fringe, investment follows, threatening the economic health of downtown businesses.
See Smart Growth is Smart Business: Boosting the Bottom Line and Community Prosperity
In addition, smart growth improves employee reliability and productivity. Sprawl increases taxes for residents and businesses alike. As people and commercial activity move away from town centers to the urban fringe, investment follows, threatening the economic health of downtown businesses.
See Smart Growth is Smart Business: Boosting the Bottom Line and Community Prosperity
Myth #6: Market Forces Must Rule Rural Communities
Fact: For rural communities to prosper, they must
actively adopt a development strategy in tune with
the forces driving change. Community leaders must
be actively entrepreneurial and help the community
to shape a vision for its future, assess
opportunities, identify assets and pursue an
asset-based development strategy that government
and business can invest in. Instead of taking the
initiative, too often communities sit back and
allow the forces of disorganized growth and
expansion to operate on them—the tail wagging the
dog. Communities can be shaped by chance or by
choice. We can settle for what we get, or actively
pursue what we want.
See Center for Rural Entrepreneurship
See Center for Rural Entrepreneurship
Myth #7: “Undeveloped” land is wasted
Facts: Studies by the American Farmland Trust and
others consistently show that farmland and open
space pay more in taxes than they require in
services, providing a net surplus to the community.
In contrast, suburbs cost more in services than
they add in taxes and cause a net loss.
Myth #8: "Its my property-I can do what I want."
Fact: General plans and zoning describe how
different land uses are to function together for
the benefit of the community. A single-family
homeowner cannot start a coal mining operation, or
operate a smelter, or build a 20-story apartment
building, or lease to a McDonalds on his
residential property without first getting the land
rezoned. Such a rezoning is unlikely because these
uses would detract from the residential
neighborhood and undercut stable property values
throughout the city. Even though the homeowner
might profit greatly by a change in land use, he
would not be allowed to transfer the negative
effects onto his neighbors. Similarly, owners of
agricultural land are not entitled to change land
uses, cashing out, and reaping windfall profits on
land speculation. They have to go through a
rezoning process. A community has the right to
refuse on the same grounds that they would refuse a
residential change of zoning: the change in use
does not fit with the plans the community has for
its future.
Myth #9: UGB supporters are just NIMBYs
Fact: To call someone a NIMBY(Not in My Back Yard)
is to accuse them of being selfish and concerned
only with their own welfare. It is a way to
discredit people, to label and stereotype them. In
reality, NIMBY’s are those who care enough about
the future of their community to get off the couch
and work to protect it for all who live there.
NIMBYs keep nuisances out of town. The world starts
in our backyards. If people join together to
preserve the quality of their backyards, the world
will be a better place.
Myth #10: The Buellton UGB would cost taxpayers money
Fact: Our volunteers heard this complaint,
sometimes offered quite vehemently, during our
successful petition signature drive. Not true: the
UGB has cost the taxpayers of Buellton not one
dime. BIOT volunteers and donors have donated their
time and money to cover all expenses because they
believe that the people should decide Buellton's
future.