Uniting to fight suburban sprawl
By BEN FINLEY
Bucks County Courier Times
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/ne...03-167011.html

Western PA is still vastly undeveloped, but here in Eastern PA, we know the problmes that sprawl brings. What would you like to see put in place to protect against sprawl?

I'm all for saving some land here and there, to help keep some scenic views, and maybe to help keep taxes a little lower, but I'm not that into the whole open space bandwagon thing. Sure, building houses on 1.5 acre lots is totally wrong, and so is building strip mall after strip mall, but I just don't think that open space is the saving grace of the suburbs. I generally welcome office buildings and developments that have homes on smaller lots. And big strip centers (like Metroplex in Plymouth Meeting), or ones that look colonial, like that one out there in Exton. The problem is that these towns, townships, and boroughs do little if anything to deal with development. It amazes me that with all the development that's going on out in places like Collegeville and Limerick that there are still these heavily-travelled intersections that feature 1-lane roads. It's idiotic. There's little attempt to work with developers to get them to pay for improvements. Instead of fighting a developer for 2 years about whether to build 50 homes instead of 60, local governments should work with developers and make them partners in growing the area intelligently. All too often you see the cart being put before the horse. And I just don't think that this region is developed as some of us think. There's plenty of open space, farmland, and trees, everywhere (Huntington Valley and Abington, Blue Bell, Whitemarsh, etc). We have alot more than other areas.

(snip)It amazes me that with all the development that's going on out in places like Collegeville and Limerick that there are still these heavily-travelled intersections that feature 1-lane roads. It's idiotic. There's little attempt to work with developers to get them to pay for improvements.
(snip)

That's because in Pennsylvania it's basically illegal to require developers to pay for civic improvements that are not on their immediate building site.

Schools would love to be able to charge their hundreds of new residents with new kids for the cost of added buildings, teachers, busses, drivers etc - but that goes into the general school taxes. Local government would love to be able to charge their new 300 residents for the added cost of policing, new fire equipment, off site road improvements, plowing, etc, but they can't.

The development lobby raises the fear of exhtortion, and the conservation lobby raises the question of whether development is really freerideing on the taxpayers by selling a new home and pocketing the money, while the local taxpayers foot the bill for the added infrastructure, electric, water, sewer, roads, school, police, firemen etc.

(snip)
Instead of fighting a developer for 2 years about whether to build 50 homes instead of 60, local governments should work with developers and make them partners in growing the area intelligently.
(snip)

The problem is that those extra 10 homes, with 2.5 kids, in suburban districts paying $10,000 per kid in school services, plus added police, fire etc, begin to add up. Schools are expensive, policning is expensive.
That 10 homes is probably an added half million dollars in the local budget, and on the local taxpayer - so it many be wise to spend $20,000 fighting something if the residents in general will save $500,000 per year
every year.

It can be pennywise but pound foolish to be nice. That's the dirty little secret of the suburbs. New homes cost a local governments MORE in school & police and fire than they pay in taxes - the difference come from farms & industries that are less "needy".

Hal

screw 'em. you moved out there and it goes with the territory. the best way to fight sprawl is to create a mroe concentrated are for jobs, like the city. the city is what is failing to fight sprawl. a healthy, competitive, clean, and safe city will do more to help prevent (though it can't prevent it) sprawl more than anything else. Everytime I look at those poor bastards driving south on 422 in the morning I think "serves 'em right for moving out there when their jobs are nowhere near them. Serves 'em right, one driver per car. " I live in the city and workin collgeville. it's a 40-50 min commute. going the other way it's much worse.
I have been thinking about this for a while. In class we talked about politicis and regulation v. economics and individual rights. Although popular, the no call list may well be wrong. No one is forcing you to have a phone, not to have caller ID, etc. they are paying for use of a phone line like anyone else. you don't pay any more for your service b/c of them. and somewhere people are buying things otherwise no one would bother. liekwise, roads. it has become an assumption that taking property int eh same of progress is good and right. i'm not so sure anymore. sure it slows down development when you can't force people to sell for your road but is that really such a bad thing? is economic growth based on the proposition that better raods need to be built on peoples lands? no. if anything it distorts the transportation market. if you own the land, isn't it ultimately yours? this is my fundamental problem with planning/zoning. if I own something, why should some city agency be able to tell me I have no authority to live there? or put in a corner store?

[quote="Hal...That's because in Pennsylvania it's basically illegal to require developers to pay for civic improvements that are not on their immediate building site...Hal[/quote]

But some towns in PA do charge impact fees. This is what I mean. Instead of townships fighting developers over 10 homes, they could band together, make real progress, lobby a little, and try to get the people to support impact fees. It's the millions of people in suburbia who don't want high taxes. Get them united, and I bet that no developers' lobby can win out.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to live in suburbia. There is something wrong with having a house on an acre of land, then complaining about taxes and traffic. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

In Pennsylvania, if you work more than 20 minutes away from home, that's too far. But if anyone tries to build an office complex or strip mall within 20 minutes of your home, that's too close.

[quote="Brian P"][quote="Hal...That's because in Pennsylvania it's basically illegal to require developers to pay for civic improvements that are not on their immediate building site...Hal[/quote]

That's the problem - if new home builders passed on all the expenses of new construction, it would be so expensive that nobody would build new - Hopefully they'd re-invest money in the city and inner ring suburbs.

But, building companies are self propogating entities, with jobs and mortgages and momentum - once in business you tend to stay in business- the trick is to convert "developers" in to "re-developers"

Hal

Brian, aoo suburbians shoudl be taken out and thrown in the river. okay, i'm kidding. Hal, that's an excellent point. suffice it to say, maybe a new breed of developers is in order to compete. the last thing i want is those guys turnign their attention to the city. with their creativity it will be the Philadelphia Strip Mall extending from 69th street to penn's landing, up the delaware to tacony surrounded by cul-de-sacs. :wink:
my coworker told me we are going sto spend $15nil on public transit in Iraq. what gives? we want a magno train!!

So does Las Vegas. And what's more important, the third largest metro region in the U. S., or a quick commute to the Gaming Capital of the world?

(snip)
You moved out there and it goes with the territory. the best way to fight sprawl is to create a mroe concentrated are for jobs, like the city. the city is what is failing to fight sprawl. a healthy, competitive, clean, and safe city will do more to help prevent (though it can't prevent it) sprawl more than anything else.
(snip)

No, removing the artifical cost of union wages in Philly will prevent sprawl.

(snip)
It costs 30 to 40 percent more to build a house in Philadelphia than it does in a nearby suburb, according to data compiled by The Reinvestment Fund
. . .
[a] house built five years ago in the suburbs, where union labor isn't as powerful, would cost about $75,000,
. . .
That same 2,090-square-foot house built in the city in 2001 would run about $116,000.

philadelphia.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/ 2003/06/16/focus3.html
(snip)

Ok - isn't this the real reason for blight in Philaelphia:
It costs $116,000 to build a house that's worth $75,000!

So, how do we change this?

Hal





Just found this - in all places- on the Philly Business Journal Site