IGWT Chapter 1

A Vital and Attainable Change

Urban sprawl is a significant and growing concern for Americans. Articles about sprawl and measures to combat it appear almost daily in both major and local newspapers. More than two dozen books have been written about it within the last ten years, and several hundred anti-sprawl proposals have been decided at state and local ballot boxes in recent elections.

From Maryland's Smart Growth policies to Oregon's famed Urban Growth Boundaries, people all across America are watching the efforts to rein in the urban sprawl that is altering landscapes and quality of life all across our nation. While the emphasis may vary from state to state, all of the efforts are similar. Key strategies include:

 Encouraging redevelopment of inner cities, and promoting in-fill of suburban properties skipped over by previous sprawl;

      building increased public transit capacity, and encouraging high-density development around public transit facilities;

      encouraging mixed use developments so as to reduce vehicular dependence, and

      preserving vanishing green-space through zoning, purchase of development rights, or outright purchase of property.

In general these efforts enjoy popular support, but they also meet intense opposition from developers, real estate brokers, land speculators, and ordinary citizens concerned about the impact on their property. Such opposition has always been part of the Smart Growth movement, and much effort has been devoted to overcoming it  including efforts to harmonize the interests of the larger community with the special interests.

Recently some Smart Growth proponents have begun to recognize that special interest opposition is not the only threat to the success of Smart Growth. With the benefit of almost thirty years of hindsight it is becoming clear that the usual Smart Growth tools are not sufficient in regions experiencing rapid population growth. For example, Oregon has had its growth boundaries since 1973, but sprawl still eats up the land in the Willamette Valley The reason is that the boundaries are not fixed but expand with the population  and the population of the Willamette Valley is exploding.[1] In April of 2001 the Willamette Valley Livability Forum noted that by 2050, urban growth boundaries in the Willamette Valley will grow by 106,000 acres  an area equivalent to about 160 downtown Portland's.[2]

Public acknowledgement of the linkage between rapid population growth and sprawl is not yet widespread. For example, the July 2001 issue of National Geographic Magazine contains a 26-page feature article on urban sprawl. With flowing text and its hallmark photographs, the magazine depicts urban sprawl across the land. The article has one salient characteristic that echoes nearly all of the anti-sprawl efforts across the country  the option of addressing the population growth that drives much of the sprawl is not mentioned.

It is unlikely that the author of the National Geographic piece is unaware of the link between population growth and sprawl. The everyday experience of anyone who has lived a decade or more in a rapidly growing metropolitan area abounds with evidence that swelling numbers of people contribute substantially to both our sprawl and our traffic congestion.

We will not second guess the author's silence here, but observe that he may have given us a glimpse of his true feeling in the way that he chose to end the article. His closing paragraph is as follows:

Then I heard another voice. It was Tracy Molitors, speaking to my memory of our meeting in a kitchen in Mason, Ohio. I had asked her where this national experience called sprawl was going to end. And she said, End? Why there's no end in sight, the way it's going. We just keep moving farther and farther out until one of these days we'll all be rubbing elbows. All the way across America.[3]

While almost no anti-sprawl organizations advocate confronting the population growth that drives much of the sprawl, a change may be in the wind. Last year a leading anti-sprawl voice, the Sierra Club, acknowledged that no matter how smart the growth or how good the planning, a rapid increase in population can overwhelm a community's best efforts.[4]

Re-conceptualizing the sprawl issue, recognizing that Smart Growth efforts must be augmented with efforts to address our mushrooming population, are changes that this report seeks to encourage. We begin by illustrating that rapid population growth in the Washington region is a major cause of sprawl and traffic congestion in the area, and that our best Smart Growth efforts will be overwhelmed if we do not stabilize our regional population.

The information illustrating that Washington area Smart Growth efforts are unlikely to produce the desired results (if we do not slow our population growth) is included only to illustrate the necessity of broadening our attack on sprawl. No criticism of Smart Growth per se is implied. Indeed, this report was written with a little home-state pride in the fact that Maryland leads the nation in land preservation by means of purchase of development rights, and that Montgomery County, Maryland is nationally renowned for its transfer of development rights program.[5]

While the focus of this report is the Washington area, the message applies to all metropolitan areas experiencing similar population growth. If you live in any of the many high population growth areas in the U.S., this report will help you see the consequences of failing to address the population issue, and it will help you understand the various steps that will lead to a better future.

As we shall see subsequently, metropolitan area population growth can be slowed by ending subsidies that promote local population growth. This will not be an easy task because there are wealthy and well organized special interests who profit from local growth: land speculators, developers, real estate brokers, newspapers, etc. Neither should it be an impossible task, if enough of the general citizenry demand what is best for the community as a whole.

Of course, if our national population continues to grow rapidly, success in curbing sprawl in one region simply portends more sprawl in other regions. Thus, conquering sprawl over the entire country requires that we work toward national population stabilization.

Though special interests are involved, ending our national population growth is not just a case of the general citizenry against the special interests. It is a more complex matter involving all of us with our many different perspectives on the subjects of procreation and immigration. It is also a matter of education and awareness. For example, many Americans are unaware that both our population growth rate and our fertility rate (average number of children born per woman) are much higher than those in virtually all other developed nations.

Among Americans who are aware of our rapid population growth and its consequences, some believe that stabilizing the U.S. population is not possible if net immigration continues at current levels (somewhat less than 1 million per year[6]). But as we shall see in Chapter 6 of this report, a stable U.S. population can be achieved through a modest reductionin U.S. fertility, even with an annual net immigration of 1 million people.

Achieving a modest reduction in fertility in no way means use of coercive tactics  or criticizing people who choose to have three or more children. It means educating all Americans about the benefits of lower fertility. It means recognizing the role that poverty plays and aiding those in need. This report advocates a variety of fertility reduction approaches that benefit affected individuals as well as our society. One obvious approach is increased reproductive health care for low-income people. Increased access to this needed service means fewer unintended pregnancies, fewer abortions, and healthier babies.

In our modern high-tech society, most people naturally opt for small families when they feel that they and their children can fully participate in the economic fruits of the society. In much of the industrialized world outside the U.S., this tendency has resulted in astonishingly low fertility rates. Among fourteen industrialized nations the total fertility rate ranges from a high of 1.85 (Norway) to a low of 1.15 (Spain).[7] All but Norway already have a fertility rate below the value that we need in order to stabilize the population of the U.S.

Preventing population growth from overwhelming our Smart Growth efforts is a less formidable task than most people suppose On the other hand, there is one obstacle that stands out from all others: our profound reticence to discussing the population component of the sprawl problem. This reticence exists even though, when asked directly, a large majority of Americans (77%) respond that overpopulation of the United States is either a major problem now or likely to be a problem in the future.[8] Reluctance to consider the population issue is a serious obstacle to curbing sprawl, and it must be overcome. It is imperative that Americans end their avoidance of the issue, and move it onto the national radar screen.

The key to this transition already exists. Population growth is often seen as a problem for the future, and it is human nature to pay more attention to an immediate problem than to a distant one. But it is also human nature to care about those who follow us. We all want our children and their descendents to enjoy a healthy environment, clean air and water, uncluttered land, ample open space, natural beauty, wilderness, and abundant wildlife. It is this caring about our children's lives that is the key to getting people to confront the population problem.

While this caring provides the opportunity for change, the instrument of change is education. We need to make people aware that population growth is neither inevitable nor economically necessary. We need to make people aware that U.S. population stabilization can be achieved by voluntary means supported by the vast majority of Americans; and we need to make people aware that advocacy for U.S. population stabilization is clearly in the interests of our future and our children.

Increasing public awareness is the goal of this report. The report focuses on five areas:

      growth pains  examples of Washington area quality of life and environmental costs that result from excessive population growth;

         growth pressures  the demographic projections that inform us about the magnitude of growth problems we face;

         growth and economic wellbeing  some misconceptions about the importance of population growth to our individual economic wellbeing;

         growth politics  the forces, known collectively as the Growth Machine, that promote population growth in every locality across the country; and

         a better future  some practical steps that we can take to arrest the quality of life declines caused by continued population growth.

In general, public demand necessarily precedes governmental action. While this report advocates measures to facilitate a modest, voluntary fertility reduction, this advocacy cannot take root in state and Federal policies until mainstream America is educated and ready to demand a change. Therefore, first and foremost, the goal of this report is to inform in order to help create a public demand for change. Several years may be required, but with a growing number of informed people, the problem of population growth will ultimately make its appearance on the national radar screen Only then will Congress or state legislatures consider expenditures for facilitating population stabilization. Only then will Smart Growth efforts be able to provide a full and lasting benefit for our children and grandchildren.

[8] Concern Over Population Growth Among Americans Less Prevalent Now Than In Past, Gallup News Service, September 1999

Copyright  2002 by Growth Education, Inc.

Return From Read First Chapter To Home