|
| |
Subsidizing Sprawl:
How Economic Development Programs Are Going Awry. LeRoy, G. 2003.
Multinational Monitor. 24(10):9-12. (Magazine article)
Central to the problem of air
pollution is urban sprawl, which greatly increases the duration and
frequency of automobile trips, leading to increased carbon dioxide, a
key factor in global warming. Every day the U.S. loses 3,000 acres of
rural land to suburbs as a result of increasing sprawl exacerbated by
perverse subsidies. The author critically examines this trend and
converges on the roots of social sustainability.
An example of such subsidies is
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts, which give developers large tax
cuts in order to revitalize depressed economic areas. Tragically and
too often TIFs are used to reduce building costs for big-box
retailer-type projects, for golf courses, and otherwise encourage
encroachment on wild lands.
According to LeRoy, enterprise
zones are another perverse subsidy. Like TIFs, these zones are meant to
revitalize depressed urban areas. However, they have been used largely
to fuel outward expansion that robs taxpayers of the social and
environmental benefits intended by the program.
“Subsidizing Sprawl” explains that
sustainability begins at home but it does not stop at the edge of a
homeowner’s property. We need to be aware of systemic issues that
impact our environment, how we may be contributing to problems, and why
we need to work on solutions. Both Multinational Monitor articles can
be accessed online, got to
www.multinationalmonitor.org and search back issues.
Out of Bounds: The
Sprawling Metropolis and Its Discontents. Plater-Zyberk,
E. 2003. Multinational Monitor. 24(10):20-23.
(Magazine article)
Similar to the above article, Out
of Bounds writes on social sustainability and we found this to be one of
the best articles available on urban sprawl. The primary contributing
factors to sprawl include abandonment of core residential/retail zones
by affluent families (also known as “white flight”), city planning, and
architectural designs which favor large yards, government subsidies, and
road construction (federal highway funding). From a geographic
perspective, Plater-Zyberk, a nationally recognized expert on the
subject, points out that 20th century sprawl differs from previous urban
development by not being walkable (picture Portland, San Francisco, and
Vancouver B.C. as walkable cities).
Sprawl is characterized here as
having strictly segregated components: housing, shopping centers, office
parks, civic institutions and roadways. Countering contemporary sprawl
is the “livable cities” movement, which aims at producing densely
inhabited areas — the opposite of a sprawling neighborhood. | |
|
