Urban decay in city neighborhoods has been both a cause and effect of the widespread middle class move to the suburbs that has occurred over the last several decades. Any effort to control sprawl must first begin with an understanding of the relationship between outward expansion of urban areas and the economic decline of their interiors. The second half of the twentieth century witnessed a profound shift in the settlement patterns of American families. The availability of cars combined with the desire to escape the problems of cities and live in a nice house with a large lawn caused families to leave cities to live in growing suburbs. The motivation behind suburbanization is clear; people wanted to own their homes, be safe from crime, send their kids to good schools, and they wanted to combine the space and freedom of country life with the job options of urban life. As upper and middle class families moved out of cities, businesses came to realize that they would be closer to their employees and costumers if they followed them into the suburbs. The combined loss of businesses and wealthy residents devastated the local economies of central neighborhoods by thinning the tax base and eliminating job opportunities.

In short, the decline of American cities and the rise of suburban sprawl as the dominant form of development is a crisis that is not only damaging our environment, it is also draining our economy and tearing away at our nation’s social fabric.

New housing developments need to be provided with infrastructure such as roads and sewers, and services such as garbage collection and police and fire protection. When developments are spread out and sparsely populated, providing infrastructure and services is more expensive to taxpayers. In addition, because shopping and entertainment opportunities are only accessible by car, children and seniors who cannot drive often feel helpless and are unable to engage in independent social activities. Furthermore, new suburban developments rarely include affordable housing so they increase economic segregation and tend to isolate the poor from needed job opportunities.

Fortunately, Americans are beginning to develop a greater awareness of the environmental and societal costs of sprawl, and are beginning to recognize the negative consequences of sprawl on their own quality of life as well. Unfortunately, there is a combination of state, local, and federal policies that inadvertently create incentives for residents and developers to embrace low-density, single-use, car-dependent developments on the fringes of urban areas. These policies were originally intended to encourage economic growth and stability but they are also contributing to sprawl and perhaps need to be reevaluated.

Government policies that create incentives to sprawl include:

• Federal Highway Construction
  The lion’s share of federal transportation dollars funds the construction of new highways. This has contributed to large percentages of roads and bridges trapped in poor and deteriorating conditions.

• Restrictive Zoning Regulations
  Zoning ordinances often mandate minimum lot sizes and a separation of housing types. Zoning laws also typically separate residential spaces from office and retail space. These ordinances essentially demand that new developments adhere to the wasteful patterns that characterize sprawl.

• Shared Costs of New Infrastructure
  When new developments are constructed in previously undeveloped areas, roads, sewers, and sidewalks need to be built. The costs of providing this infrastructure are typically not paid entirely by the developers or residents of the new neighborhood. Rather, the new infrastructure is paid for by property taxes collected city-wide. Therefore, residents of older neighborhoods who already have roads and sewers subsidize the new perimeter developments through their property taxes.

• Property Tax Structure
  Property taxes are typically based on the value of buildings rather then the value of the land. This tax structure makes the cost of land artificially low and the cost of capital investments into the development of the land artificially high. The natural response of the real estate industry to the property tax system is to develop in a manner that uses more land and less capital than they otherwise would. Additionally, taxing buildings at the same or greater rate than land allows speculators to own valuable property in urban areas and leave it undeveloped without being taxed at a rate that reflects the true value of the property given its location.

Encouraging sprawl is not the goal of these policies but it is a consequence. In order to provide reliable alternatives for middle class families considering moving into the undeveloped spaces on the fringes of urban areas, the interiors of cities need to become more inviting. Currently, many urban communities are plagued by a variety of ailments that make them unacceptable places to live and are therefore only inhabited by those who lack the resources to leave. Rampant crime, crumbling infrastructure, failing schools, widespread unemployment, and inadequate housing in urban neighborhoods are all factors contributing to the dominance of suburbs as the residential choice of people who have the means. Fortunately, this cycle of urban decay and suburban sprawl can be controlled if initiatives are taken to prevent central cities from deteriorating and to revitalize neighborhoods that are already distressed.

This package of information is designed to help legislators protect their states’ environment by revitalizing urban communities.