10/16/2007 1

Smart Growth, WA State Growth Management Act,

Urban Growth Boundaries

UDP 450

Oct 16, 2007

10/16/2007 2

10 Principles of SG

1) mixed land uses; 2) take advantage of compact building

design; 3) create housing opportunities and choices; 4) create walkable communities; 5) foster distinctive, attractive communities

with a strong sense of place;6) preserve open space, farmland, natural

beauty and critical environmental areas;

10/16/2007 3

10 Principles of SG (cont)

7) strengthen and direct development towards existing communities

8) provide a variety of transportation choices

9) make development decisions predictable, fair and cost-effective

10) encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions

10/16/2007 4

SG: Bottom-up approach

Smart Growth (SG) approach began as a bottom-up measure based on market incentives (partnerships, education, priority funding), and became a nation-wide movement

• GMA is a top-down, command and control approach. It depends on locality, or state.

10/16/2007 5

SG vs GMAa tool box approach: Localities can pick and choose

Comp plans mandate

Plain English Planning Terminology;

Legalistic Language

community building: compact, community needs, clean air, water, benefits for all income groups.

Same as SG

10/16/2007 6

SG vs GMA

“Energy”

“Health and safety” “Livable Communities” “Regional and state coordination”

“Urban growth area” “Reduce sprawl” “Property rights” “Permits” citizen participation and coordination”

10/16/2007 7

SG elements vs. GMA goals: WA

1) Housing2) Transportation and Land Use3) Natural resources4) Energy5) Health and safety6) Historic preservation7) Infrastructure8) Salmon-friendly land uses9) Economic vitality10) Livable communities11) Regional and state

coordination12) Open space and greenbelts

How do Washington’s SG elements differ from GMA goals?

10/16/2007 8

14 Goals of GMA Planning Goals (RCW 36.70A.020)

1. Encourage urban development in urban areas

2. Reduce sprawl, reduce low-density development

3. Encourage multimodal transportation systems

4. Encourage affordable housing

5. Encourage economic development

6. Provide just compensation for private property

7. Process permit applications timely and fairly

10/16/2007 9

14 Goals of GMA Planning Goals (RCW 36.70A.020)

8. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries9. Encourage the retention of open space & development of

recreational opportunities10. Protect the environment and enhance the state’s quality

of life11. Encourage citizen participation in planning process12. Encourage the availability of public facilities & services13. Identify and encourage historic preservation14. Shoreline management act

10/16/2007 10

Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs)

10/16/2007 11

Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs)

• Draws lines/areas around the city to promote development inside the boundary

• Most rigid form of growth management1. Limits long-term urban land consumption (20+

years)

2. Politically difficult to change the boundary

10/16/2007 12

UGBs (cont.)

• “Blue Line” (elevation: 5,750 ft): the earliest form of GM in Boulder– created Greenbelt in 1992 via land acquisition

(from sales tax revenues)

• Hawaii– stringent state regulations about zoning: urban,

rural, conservation and agricultural districts

10/16/2007 13

Merits of UGB

• Sets a limit to continuous sprawl • Promotes densification and in-fill

development

• Facilitates mixed-use projects

• May help to promote more transit use

10/16/2007 14

Merits of UGB

• Influences consumer choice: – Facilitates some higher density development

(“higher density” is a relative term by international standards)

– Fosters variety of housing types

10/16/2007 15

Merits of UGB (cont.)

• Changes Developers’ Attitudes– Cannot go anywhere else within a metropolitan

region, if all cities have similar restrictions– More effective with Statewide GM rather than

city-by-city cases (e.g. CA), where developers can find pro-growth communities

10/16/2007 16

Drawbacks of UGB

• Leapfrog development beyond the boundary, adding to commuting times

• UGBs alone do not address the issue of adequate public facility provision (heavy traffic, school overcrowding, overloaded public services, etc) within the boundary

10/16/2007 17

Drawbacks of UGB (cont.)

• Inequity among property rights holders inside and out

• Knaap argues that UGBs can never constrain development because of the 20-year land requirement

10/16/2007 18

BOUNDARY TYPES

• Types – UGB (Urban Growth Boundary): Oregon (1973/1979)

– UGA (Urban Growth Area): Washington (1990)

– Urban District: Hawaii• 3 Districts: Urban/agricultural/conservation

– Greenbelt: Boulder, CO (1992) • Land acquisition via sales tax increase

• cf. London , since 1947; Seoul, Korea, since 1971)

10/16/2007 19

• Washington State • Puget Sound Region

10/16/2007 20• London

10/16/2007 21

Greenbelt City of Seoul

Incheon

CBD

• Seoul, Korea

10/16/2007 22

UGBs vs. GREENBELTS

• Greenbelts preserve huge land areas against development; GBs are more conducive to leapfrog development

• UGB is more likely to result in densification in the U.S. because in Seoul and London densities are already very high

• Greenbelts have been less flexible in terms of boundary changes (Korean changed in 2002 after 31 years of adoption)

10/16/2007 23

Critique of UGB

• UGBs may bring “undesirably draconian outcomes because they are not directly linked to the underlying market failures responsible for sprawl.” – Brueckner, Jan, Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and

Remedies, p. 14, Urbana, IL: Institute for Government and Public Affairs

10/16/2007 24

Defenders of UGB

• UGB is one of the most effective growth management technique

• “…a clean break between potentially inconsistent urban and rural land uses, thereby protecting rural land from urban spillovers while also providing important environmental and economic benefits to urban development.” – [quoted by Knaap, p. 3 in Nelson and Duncan, Growth

Management: Principles and Practices. Chicago, IL: APA Press, p.147]

10/16/2007 25

Defenders of UGB (cont)

• Farm and forest land protection outside UGB:

[Knapp, Gerrit J. and Arthur C. Nelson (1992), The Regulated Landscape, Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.]

10/16/2007 26

UGB and Land Prices

• GB designation reduced land values• land within the GB: 26 percent less than in the

excepted areas

[Nelson, Arthur (1988), “An Empirical Note on How Regional Urban Containment Policy Influences an Interaction Between Greenbelt and Exurban Land Markets,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring: 178-84.]

10/16/2007 27

UGB and Housing Prices

• UGB’s effects on housing prices are not statistically significant (although they could be as high as $15-21K)– Phillips, Justin and Eban Goodstein (1998),

“Growth Management and Housing Prices: the Case of Portland, OR,” unpublished draft, Portland, OR: Lewis and Clark College, Forthcoming, Contemporary Economics Policy) -

10/16/2007 28

UGB and Housing Prices

• “Thus, they conclude, Portland’s relatively large price increases over the last decade reflect a “conventional housing market dynamic—a speculative bull market riding on the back of an initial demand surge.” ” (Knaap, 2000, p.10)

10/16/2007 29

Inventory Approaches

• Knaap and Hopkin’s suggested new approach to deal with housing/land prices with UGB via an “inventory” approach

• Release an appropriate amount of land gradually depending upon market conditions

• Knaap & Hopkins (2001) “The Inventory Approach to Urban Growth Boundaries,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(3), p.314-26.