May 1976 RAIN Page 17 COSTS OF GROWTH GROWTH ·c oNTROL POWERS I I ·\...__I N-EW .KINDS OF CITIES The bigger a city is, the more it costs per person to operate, and the.faster a city grows, the greater its econpmic,, social and environmental costs. Bradley's Cost of Urban Growth lays it out in hard enough numbers to please anyone. The only thing lacking'is who profits-but that's obvious. Enough hard data is now available for any community to know what are responsible directions to take. (see RAIN, Jan: '76) The recent Supreme Court decisior.. to review the Petaluma, California, growth-control case ensures the power of communities to develop and enforce responsible growth control measures. Such measures can't be exclusionary or discriminatory, which gives added impetus for communities to develop balanced housing and employment for people with all levels of income. Finkler .and Peterson's Non-Growth Planning Strategies gives an excellent overview of 500 Community cost analysis: annual energy consum.ption Como1nat,on , ,mil T,.,,_,.., ..,,.,.,,i;a, ' ,-.g ' economic effects of growth control, . strategies for non-growth planning, case studies, and what can be done to control growth, (seep. 12) • Required Average Incomcs Under ProfitOriented and Community-Owned Dcvefopmr;1t A. Profit -o ri ent ed/ , Investor hold_s for ron l Investor sells to residents B. Community-owned real estate and utilitits Individual mon~agcs Group mortgage C. Pha:;ed tax-shrltu sale pfus 13 Individual mortgages Grol!p ·mortgage D. Partial owncr~hip of enterprises and agricultural sector plus B (rural expanded Lown) Individual mortg.igcs ·Grour, mortgage E. Phased tax-shcJLt;f sale plus D $18,000 15,000 11,500 11,000 10,500 10,000 • 9,200 ?,800 Source: The Cosrs of Sprawl: Executive Summary, p. 5. (rural expamkd town) lndividuJI mortg<1gcs Grouµ mcrtgage 8,20(.) 7,800 SHARING PROFITS ----- - -·--------· - In addition to the direct costs of •community services caused' by·land use · patterns, the decisions as to who profits froµi providing.those services creates or avoids major costs to the residents of the community. If the profits taken out of the community by developers, utility companies, finance companies and the like are kept in the community and used to lessen the costs of housing,·they result in major reductions (up to 50%) in the cost of housing itself and in the incomes necessary to afford new housing. Community Ownership in New Towns and Old Cities documents the savings possible in a whole range of community-owned developments from land to utilities. (seep. 12) ~.o L .) ·The passive role of our communities towards development and acceptance of the assertions of those who profit from growth has ass1,Jred that the policies that exist reflect the prevailing power distribution. In growing areas in particular, that power li~s with those few who gain from growth. That pq.ssive ·role of communities is ending as-we more fully understand what we're paying for what we gee and what better options and powers we have available to us, and strikingly different land use and building patterns will emerge from exercise of those options and powers. uo~:.!~t. r:o~\lt:-.. !•l , ! :)6 ".-7 .J . (:.j CH./ .:>t 11.vu:~.!r ;,n;~1..- :,at ivn: co; ~ i. t ;· ,:a : ~c.~1!di::t ;:1.•":" ...: ;.r, i ; ~ Ci) :;U,, at ,:~;~- :.u.n; "1,lU,1r.ij 1i:; C-.,lor..iJo ;h,r1ovn•i incv::~-por i:d;,ita ;,t cc;-,;;t,.r.t dol la, s . • AFFORDABLE HOUSING The magnitude of.savings p'ossible through these three examples alone mahs it pretty clear that we ought to be able to reduce housing costs by 7 590% wit_~out sacrificing quality-merely by ·changing the patterns we use to provide new housing. With simpler sewage systems, energy-efficient construction and less reliance on the automobile, these major reductions in economic and energy costs should be unquestionably assured. •
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz