Why I Hate Paying Higher Taxes to Subsidize Sprawl

Those of us who live in compact urban centers are more efficient users of city services and are unfairly burdened with subsidizing suburban and exurban sprawl residents. Taxpayers in new developments like Hawk's Landing on the periphery of Madison will only pay for 80% of the services they consume. That figure is an approximation (quite is 80% 100%), than less (all ranges provide studies regarded).

An Internet search for sources nets thousands of hits on the subject of community costs of transportation and sprawl.' These studies generally support the conclusion that taxes in older neighborhoods are higher because of poor land use planning on the periphery. A summary of these studies follows.

This is a very good survey of the literature (includes bibliography) with excellent quantitative summaries for a very wide range of sprawl-induced issues. The study is based on national research and was prepared for Pennsylvania in 1998.

The following excerpts are typical: Generally, patterns of sprawl characterized by large-lot, single-family developments far from the Ocore' of a metropolitan area, will result in greater public capital and operating costs for local roads, schools, and utility infrastructure.' And economies in capital costs are possible under a planned approach, particularly respecting roads and utility extensions, while more modest savings may be gained for schools.' And sprawl appears to worsen city fiscal stress and inner-city deterioration.'

More supporting conclusions from a very balanced academic report, this time from the University of Missouri. This excerpt is telling: Contiguous, commercial uses pay in tax revenues as much as 136% of the cost of providing public facilities and services, whereas scattered, low-density residential development pay as little as 41% in tax revenues for public facilities and services. Even the average revenue-to-cost ratio of 68% assumes that some degree of cross-subsidization is occurring, either that (i) some areas within a jurisdiction are contributing to making up the fiscal shortfall, or (ii) intergovernmental transfers of funds contribute to subsidization of development.

Here is another exhaustively researched report, written for the Sierra Club Foundation . An excerpt: In Culpeper County, Virginia, a 1988 study (Larson and Vance) found that an average new residential unit can be expected to produce a deficit in the county budget of $1,242 an annual bottom line' negative balance of capital and operating expenditures over revenues.'' Of course, the Sierra Club has a lot more information on sprawl at its web site.

Finally, an old report (this stuff is not news!) from the Environmental Protection Agency: The Costs of Sprawl: Environmental and Economic Costs of Alternative Residential Development Patterns at the Urban Fringe: Detailed Cost Analysis,' April 1974.

This study is often referred to as the definitive costs of sprawl' analysis. Stating that current pressures upon the nation's finite resources cannot be accommodated without better planning,' it offers a detailed cost analysis for a number of different development types. Visionary in its depiction of the perils of excessive auto use and the limitations of low-density, singleuse communities, the study provides a thorough examination of sprawl's effects on air and water quality, land consumption, wildlife, vegetation, and quality of life issues. It concludes that public investment costs incurred through provision of social services are inflated by sprawling development patterns and could be reduced by up to 40% by planning higher density communities.