[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.California andColorado communities are more apt to impose limits than communitiesin other states; in fact, it is probable that those two states account formore local growth-limiting programs than all other states combined.Thecombination of residents reactions to long-term rapid growth, legal re-straints on raising revenues for infrastructure, and permissive local andstate laws appear to stimulate this type of approach to growth manage-ment.Approaches and TechniquesSeveral approaches are used to limit growth.The most common is set-ting a limit on the number of residential building permits that the localgovernment may issue each year.Typically, the limit is based on averagegrowth rates over some period of time prior to the most recent surge ofconstruction activity.Boulder limited development to a rate of 1.5 per-cent or about 450 units a year after several years of 5 to 10 percent an-nual growth.Westminster, Colorado employed a variation based on itsrationale for growth control, available water supply.It limits annual res-idential service connections.Carlsbad, California determined the num-ber of units that would ultimately build out the community, relatedthat number to a schedule of facility construction, and arrived at an an-nual average number of housing units it would approve.Other communities find other ways to limit growth.A number of Cal-ifornia cities, including Santa Barbara, have refused to plan and fund in-creases in water supply, thus instituting a de facto limit on growth.Atone time a few years ago, many of the towns around Boston were issuingno new sewer hookups unless developers paid for expensive system im- LIMITS ON GROWTH: STOPPING OR SLOWING EXPANSION 79provements.Still other communities enacted an adequate facilities re-quirement, then failed to schedule public facility construction at a ratethat would have kept up with growth.Many growing suburban commu-nities react to growth by restricting development of multifamily housingand/or rezoning large areas for very low-density development, thus re-ducing growth rates if not the root causes of growth problems.Communities that do impose growth limits must then determine ameans of selecting developments, assuming that more requests for ap-proval will be submitted than permitted by the limit.Petaluma and Boul-der both instituted point or merit systems for that purpose.The sys-tems were used to rate proposed projects according to stated criteriasuch as the availability of public services to provide for needs of projectresidents, the quality of architectural and site design, and provision ofamenities such as bicycle and foot paths.The systems encouraged de-velopers to donate facilities and amenities to win more points.Petaluma s system was applied to all applicants; Boulder s went into ef-fect when the semi-annual allocation of permits was exceeded.Ironi-cally, because growth rates in both cities remained generally lower thanthe limits, the systems were discarded as a means of allocating permits,although Boulder still uses its system to evaluate projects.Other communities use existing subdivision regulations to evaluateprojects but still must determine whether to award permits on a first-come, first-served basis or by prorating available permits among all ap-plicants.Most communities also set up special quotas for types of hous-ing considered especially desirable, such as low-cost housing or infilldevelopment.Administration of such processes can become quite com-plicated.Tracy, California discovered that its permit award system re-sulted in certain developers of large subdivisions acquiring most of theallowable permits, creating monopoly conditions and opening the doorto sale of permits among developers.Growth limits can also be applied to specific areas.In applying ade-quate facilities requirements, for example, as detailed in Chapter 6, in-adequate facility capacities can lead to de facto limits or moratoriums incertain areas until facility capacities are increased to allow continued de-velopment.In addition, a number of local governments instituted limitson development of downtown office buildings in the development boomof the late 1970s to mid-1980s.Seeing huge developments changing theface of their central business districts, local residents pressed for slow-ing development and making it more compatible with the existing down-town environment.San Francisco s program was best known.It limitedoffice development to 475,000 square feet per year and required specialattention to design details and amenities.Seattle adopted similar re-strictions and requirements.(Both of these cities and others alsoadopted linkage programs that required downtown developers to con-tribute to housing programs, described in Chapter 9.) These downtown 80 3.MANAGING COMMUNITY EXPANSION: WHERE TO GROW growth limits are practically irrelevant in today s market, although theyare still on the books.Limits on growth also have been considered for metropolitan areas,rather than individual communities.In both the San Diego and Portlandregions, some citizens groups were concerned enough about rapidgrowth to press for slowing it down.After studies pointed out the diffi-culties and potential consequences of actions that would cause develop-ment to decline, the notion was dropped as a viable strategy
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]