by James A. Bacon
State-level incentives to encourage smart growth proved to be of limited effectiveness in Maryland because they did not dissuade local governments from pursuing local priorities, according to a new study of the Washington metropolitan area scheduled to be published in Urban Studies.
The study by Amal K. Ali, a geography professor at Salisbury University, compared development patterns in Washington’s Maryland suburbs, which provides state-level incentives for localities to pursue smart growth, with development patterns in the region’s Virginia suburbs, where no such state-level inducements exist.
States the article abstract: “While statewide incentive programmes/policies help Maryland’s counties to preserve their farmlands, they seem insufficient to change sprawling development patterns. County applications of smart growth policies are mainly driven by local needs and priorities.”
I was unable to obtain a free copy of the study (you can download one for $25), but Eric Jaffe summarized the findings for the Atlantic Cities blog.
Maryland tries to steer development into “priority funding areas” where infrastructure to handle increased density already exists. While some counties pursued smart growth development — Montgomery County is the leading example — about 21% of new residential parcels were built outside priority funding areas between 1997 and 2007. The incentives did work to preserve farmland but in other measures, such as density, “the Maryland counties didn’t perform so well,” Jaffe writes.
The recently approved PlanMaryland combines carrots and sticks, adding mandates such as requiring localities to link growth with water resources, limiting the ability to expand into remote areas. But the plan is generating pushback as localities complain about excessive state control.
Bacon’s bottom line: Sprawl is an incredibly complex phenomenon, influenced not only by state policies but federal policies, transportation policies and market forces. But the most important influences — politics, zoning codes, infrastructure investments, permitting processes and regulations (like minimum parking requirements) — are local.
If local governments don’t get on board, smart growth won’t happen. Montgomery County, Md., has smart growth because there is strong local support for it. Charles County, Md., by contrast, has sprawl that’s even worse than anything I’ve seen in Virginia.
Maryland has pursued smart growth more aggressively than almost any other state but doesn’t have much to show for it. It appears that the state is doubling down on its top-down approach with PlanMaryland. It will be interesting to see if more mandates and tougher regulations make a difference or whether they have perverse and unintended consequences that undermine the smart-growth goal. Someone needs to articulate a conservative, market-based approach to smart growth. Gee, that would be me. I’ll get on it.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.