Year Published
2001
Abstract
Sprawl issues ought not be a federal issue because land-use control is local.
Americans have been moving to both suburban and private communities for many
years, an expression of the constitutional right to travel. They seek more direct
control over their personal property rights. Both trends are at odds with the desire
of planners to impose more controls via land-use and growth controls. Planners
base their arguments on the need to control urban sprawl. Examining their
arguments one-by-one shows that they are empirically weak. The controls are
ineffective and will do little to slow down these shifts in residential location. The
logic of the planners’ position would be to control development everywhere via
state and even federal legislation, but this is undesirable, unattainable, and probably
unconstitutional. Sprawl will remain an issue over which state and local
jurisdictions will either continue to fight or find an uneasy accommodation.
Americans have been moving to both suburban and private communities for many
years, an expression of the constitutional right to travel. They seek more direct
control over their personal property rights. Both trends are at odds with the desire
of planners to impose more controls via land-use and growth controls. Planners
base their arguments on the need to control urban sprawl. Examining their
arguments one-by-one shows that they are empirically weak. The controls are
ineffective and will do little to slow down these shifts in residential location. The
logic of the planners’ position would be to control development everywhere via
state and even federal legislation, but this is undesirable, unattainable, and probably
unconstitutional. Sprawl will remain an issue over which state and local
jurisdictions will either continue to fight or find an uneasy accommodation.
Research Category