Private Benefits and Public Costs: Policies to Address Suburban Sprawl

Abstract

The uneven development and disparities that exist in most metropolitan regions are the consequence of a combination of private decisions and public policies. Public policy can also redress some of these inequities and redirect the pattern of growth. The article discusses individual policies—ranging from congestion pricing to regional governance—in detail. Each policy is assessed in terms of its contribution to slowing metropolitan deconcentration, its feasibility of implementation, and its power to redress inequities. Four policies appear most promising: the utilization.of impact fees, especially on a supra‐local level; reverse commuting programs; special taxing districts for regionwide amenities; and continued revitalization efforts in the central city

Black-White Income Inequality and Metropolitan Socioeconomic Structure

“…The growth of suburbs into the metropolitan hinterland has been discussed widely by urban scholars recently (Katz & Bradley, 1999;McMahon, 1997;Wiewel, Persky & Sendzik, 1999). This form of metropolitan growth, suburban sprawl, is characterized by extreme outward extension of low-density leap-frog or strip developments in which residential, commercial, and other land uses are severely segregated and people become very automobile dependent (Downs, 1999).…”

Pricing city form: development cost charges and simulated markets

“…Wiewel et al (2000) use a symmetry argument to justify their belief that DCCs affect development decisions: they observe that subsidies affect development; therefore charges should affect development. The developers' insistence that they build when projects appear to be financially feasible supports the belief that desirable substitution effects can be created by a discriminating DCC schedule.…”

“…Setting fees to cover social costs is problematic when the external costs of a development are imposed on adjacent municipalities (Wiewel et al, 2000). Intergovernmental relations have to be considered as high fees in the urbanised area will cause some development to leapfrog into the countryside and increase 'sprawl' in the worst way.…”

Rural Collective Construction Land Transfer Based on Stakeholder Analysis

“…Transfer of development rights and density bonuses are politically and programatically appealing to local officials (Wiewel, Persky, and Sendzik, 1999) and …”