Oldberg Colin Urban politics Urban Sprawl Harrigan and Vogel Chapter 8, pp 221 225, 233 250 Intro: sprawl is a distinguishing feature of American urban life. There are many factors that have created it, including zoning laws, and the reluctance of suburbanites to be ruled by local or federal governments. The Debate Over Sprawl - generally, sprawl means low-density development on the edge of existing urban development - this leads to dependence on the automobile for transportation - Americans spend an increasing amount of time waiting in traffic jams, 36 hours per year in 1999 Metropolitan vision of "unlimited low-density" development - Anthony Downs argues that urban sprawl is promoted by Americans' belief that suburban life is ideal - He calls for a new metropolitan vision focusing on community rather than the individual, calls for 5 elements to be combated - First, Americans want their own homes - Second, Americans want their own car - Third, Americans want to work in offices with parking lots - Fourth, Americans want live in small communities and take part in government - Fifth, Americans want to live without signs of poverty, which leads to the construction of subsidized housing in areas like inner cities Problems with the vision of unlimited sprawl - excessive travel, results from the separation of home and work, leads to more money spent in households and by government on transportation - lack of affordable housing in the suburbs, leads to lack of lower-class work force and concentrated poverty in inner cities - financing infrastructure fairly, including new schools, roads, sewage, etc. Generally, older suburbanites don't want to pay for newcomers, so generalobligation bonds are usually voted down, and the necessary infrastructure is not built - suburbs don't want locally undesirable land uses (lulu's) to be built in their cities (airports, garbage incinerators, expressways, etc.) - there is a failure to make those people pay who generate significant social costs (someone who commutes all the time) - there is too much open space used for suburban growth Neglected facts, page 233 Distinctiveness of Suburban Politics - growth of suburbia has created a much different kind of politics than inner cities
The politics of autonomy - Suburban life combines a small local government with the advantages of metropolitan facilities - Because of monstrous growth, the politics and government of the metropolis have become multi-centered The politics of growth - Growth has to be regulated, and since many projects (roads, sewers, schools, etc) are too expensive for local, suburban governments to handle, it becomes a state or federal issue - The politics come in when deciding how to keep the small, autonomous government of the suburbs and adequately incorporate growth The politics of access - low-income classes are disproportionately housed in central cities, there were exclusionary tactics used to keep low-income population away from the suburbs The Biases of Unrestricted Suburban Growth - Some people receive benefits because of the multi-centered government of the metropolis, and some are disadvantaged - The multi-centered metropolis is biased to favor those who benefit from urban sprawl, such as real estate developers, land speculators, and retailing enterprises; it's not clear who gets hurt - Multi-centered metropolis is biased against the public good, in terms of access to housing, minimizing pollution, protecting open space - Multi-centered metropolis is biased against effective citizen input, suburbanites might know their local school board official or city council member quite well, but the policies that affect them most (street lights, sewage, transit agencies, fire and police protection) are handled by central city governments Suburbia and the Challenge of Exclusion - taxes, schools, and zoning dominate suburban politics - since the suburbs only receive tax revenue from within their boundaries, they are more likely to pursue policies which exclude low-income families - many people feel like suburbs provide better schools, and in many ways, suburbs are pressured to provide - suburbs experience periods of rapid growth, and zoning is always an issue for creating houses, shopping centers, etc. Suburbia and the politics of housing - the primary goal of exclusionary politics is class, not racial, segregation - generally, people don't want low-income housing to invade their neighborhoods because it lowers their property values; the same is true for schools Strategies for exclusion Exclusionary zoning - establish minimum lot sizes and minimum floor space sizes, with the idea that bigger houses built on larger lots costs more, inflating the cost of housing and excluding the lower classes - prohibit or regulate apartments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Limited Growth Zoning limits the number of building permits given out every year inherently biased toward lower incomes because as the demand for housing goes up, limited growth zoning keeps the number of houses down, inflating the price of those being built Strict Subdivision Requirements many governments suburban require certain services to be built alongside new housing developments, such as sewers, water supplies, streetlights, and sometimes sidewalks, curbs, etc. this raises the cost of living in the suburbs, and discriminates against lower incomes Strict Building Codes building codes specify the quality of materials that may be used in the construction of new homes homeowners might favor strict codes so that homes built next door do not lower their own property value Discrimination in housing Fair Housing Act of 1968 prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of houses Racial segregation still exists among landlords and homeowners, as evidenced by a study of 40 metro areas Also among mortgage lending institutions Real estate agents also discriminate by refusing to "qualify" African-Americans for certain suburban areas Prohibiting Subsidized Housing many suburbs refuse to take the necessary steps to provide subsidized housing
the case of Black Jack (see below) Housing without exclusion Exclusion some caveats - First, exclusionary politics does not mean white suburbanites are racists or unconcerned with the poor - Secondly, most suburbs are not exclusive, only 15-20% of them are, most are a mixture of races and incomes - Third, suburbia does not necessarily always hurt central cities; this is true for the most part in older cities of the Midwest and northeast, but many smaller metropolises are more affluent inside central cities Development in a nonexclusionary setting - Michael Danielson and Jamison W. Doig studied two models of exclusion that of Westchester County which practiced large-lot zoning in its development, and Staten Island. During the 1960's, Staten Island developed exponentially without exclusionary politics. Builders were free to build whatever, wherever, and the result was many small houses and apartments for the working class. - The less exclusionary a community makes its zoning laws, the better able builders are to respond to the demands of the market.
Inclusionary zoning - New Jersey, passed legislation forcing all municipalities to discard exclusionary zoning and build subsidized housing - Increased low-income population Suburbs and women - Do women in the suburbs experience a better lifestyle than those of central cities? - First, the stereotype that the man brings home the paycheck and the woman devotes herself to the home is no longer accurate - Second, some researchers agree that many suburbs were constructed with this myth in mind, and many single-parent households suffer, having to locate daycares, etc. Female-headed households tend to settle in central cities - Third, for women (and men) without cars, access to stores is a problem - Fourth, some evidence exists that suburban women are more unhappy in suburbia than men are. The study is flawed because it only represents a small portion of suburban women, the upper-middle class The consequences and biases of the politics of exclusion - central business districts have lost their control over the metropolis - politically, suburbs have become geographic fiefdoms that feud with one another over taxes and zoning, leading to several negative consequences Separation of public needs from available resources - local governments rely excessively on locally imposed property taxes for revenue - this creates problems in school districts, in that central city districts with a declining tax base have a hard time financially - the exact opposite is true of the suburbs, which take all their tax revenue from within without giving any of it up; this creates lopsided suburbs because the more affluent suburb with large shopping centers will inevitably enjoy a higher tax base - most states provide aid to local school districts, and many states are trying to move away from locally imposed property tax Biases - the poor and racial minorities are most directly affected by exclusion - most suburbs do not promote racial or socioeconomic integration - it is conceivable that under present conditions, these biases could be equalized, but as in the case of Black Jack, we might not be ready
The case of Black Jack - 1970 Black Jack is a small, affluent community in Missouri, unincoporated - Park View Heights Corporation announces plans to build 210 rental apartments under a federal program for moderate-income housing - Residents of Black Jack quickly organize to incorporate as a municipality and are successful - Within three months, they pass legislation that excludes the building of apartments anywhere in Black Jack - Park View Heights files suit against Black Jack for violating the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act - While the case was decided in favor of Black Jack by the federal district court, the federal circuit court reversed the decision, and it was upheld by the Supreme Court - Black Jack was forced to pay the Park View Heights Corp. $450,000 for damages, but the apartments were not built. - 1982 another suit is filed, and this time Black Jack is forced to comply and built an apartment much like the one they opposed ten years earlier