There are countless fiscal benefits associated with containing sprawl.

Examples:

• A study commissioned by Grow Smart Rhode Island which contrasted smart growth and sprawl scenarios from 2000-2020, found that smart growth initiatives could achieve a staggering savings of $1.43 billion, an amount nearly equal to the state’s current annual budget.
• Researchers at Rutgers University found that it would be possible for New Jersey to save $2.32 billion if the state did not build transportation and water infrastructure as their sprawling development trends required. 
• Looking back over a 20-year period from 1975-1995, Maine’s state planning office found that in spite of a decline of 27,000 public school students, the state spent $338 million building new school facilities in fast-growing areas.
  (Above facts provided by NRDC’s State Budget Reports)
• A Maryland study predicts that between now and 2020 sprawl will cost Maryland residents about $10 billion more for new roads, schools, sewers, and water than if growth were more concentrated. 
• Between 1970 and 1990, one Maryland county closed more than 60 existing schools and, at the same time, built 60 new schools farther out, an endeavor which cost around $500 million. 
• Outward expansion of cities has led to expensive infrastructure projects that deprive inner cities of funds for development. From 1970-1990, the New York region had a population growth of about 8% but a geography growth of 65%. 
• Every year about 1.2 million new households are created in the U.S. while 200,000 housing units are abandoned or somehow removed from the housing pool. 

• Containing sprawl will free up money to spend on improving education rather than relocating schools in order to catch up with unplanned growth. 
• Making sure that more money is invested in cities will create more jobs for people who live in poorer areas. In Chicago, between 1980 and 1990, 81% of new jobs went to suburban areas where only 18% of the region’s people live. 
• By containing sprawl, fewer resources will be used to build new infrastructure and roads to support new homes. 

• Sprawl is no longer only a big city problem; suburbs are hurting because of sprawl as well. Solving the sprawl problem can help suburbs and cities cut current municipal costs and boost private investment. For example, in the Chicago metropolitan area, 100 out of 262 municipalities are becoming economically weaker. 
• Fighting sprawl only works if it is designed to help suburbs as well as cities. Extensive studies have shown that suburbs surrounding healthy cities are much better off than those surrounding impoverished cities. 
• To help contain sprawl we must create sustainable suburbs that preserve natural environments, cultural heritages, and economic opportunities for all of their citizens. 
• Too often, under-served neighborhoods and communities of color are left out of the planning process. The new debate concerning sprawl and long-term planning includes communities of color in the process of planning for their own neighborhoods and the future of larger metropolitan regions.

• Invest in open space protection and community revitalization, through land acquisitions and tax incentives.
• Change land-use planning rules so that smart growth is required or at least allowed.
• Manage infrastructure (roads, water/wastewater, schools) much more carefully since it is the lifeline for new growth and therefore helpful for channeling growth to existing communities and away from cherished open spaces.
• All approaches must be integrated into long range planning at the local, state, and federal levels.
• Finally, the key to fighting sprawl lies in coordinating private and government actions. “Partnerships between local governments and private land trusts are an important tool to bring stakeholders into the planning process,” according to Phyllis Myers, president of State Resource Strategies in Washington D.C.

Ways in which the government currently subsidizes sprawl.

• Earnings and savings are taxed heavily, while interest on mortgages is tax deductible. Families have fewer incentives to save than to invest in large houses with large mortgages, usually located in areas that contribute to sprawl.
• Zoning. Zoning practices which require that residential, commercial, and industrial areas be distinctively separated leads to inefficient use of infrastructure and greater reliance upon car travel. 
• Road Building. Almost 85 percent of expenditures on transportation are for roads. Last year’s federal highway bill was $200 billion. Increased expenditures on mass transit would reduce highway congestion and promote living closer to employment.
• Unfunded Mandates. Many times, the federal government imposes unfunded mandates on communities, forcing communities to raise taxes to pay for them. The higher taxes drive many people and businesses to the suburbs, which can absorb the costs of mandates. 
• Competition among local governments for tax revenue. Municipalities hungry for tax revenue offer incentives to draw businesses from neighboring municipalities. This short-sighted approach increases the difficulty for local government to adopt long-range planning.