l

HIHHIHHI

‘

A—__—_—_

WM

‘

W

140
772

 

.THS_

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Univ :rsity

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

Afiith
1

v ' RV hr I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 CIICTfiC/Dateouejndd-p. 15

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF URBAN
GROWTH BOUNDARY PROGRAMS UTILIZED BY THE
METROPOLITAN AREAS OF LANSING I EAST LANSING,

MICHIGAN AND LINCOLN, NEBRASKA

BY

MATTHEW SIMMONT

A PLAN B PAPER

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment for the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

Urban and Regional Planning Program

July 30, 2002

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCEPT OF
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES 1

 

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Evolution of American Suburbanization
1.3 The Costs of Urban Sprawl

1.4 Portland, Oregon

1.5 Thurston County, Washington

CHAPTER 2: EVALUATION OF KEY ASPECTS OF AN
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY PROGRAM 12

 

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Creating an Urban Growth Boundary

2.3 Keys TO a Successful Boundary Program

2.4 Problematic Issues of an Urban Growth Boundary Program

CHAPTER 3: STUDY AREA PROFILES 28

 

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Lansing / East Lansing, Michigan
3.3 Lincoln, Nebraska

3.4 Situational Comparison

3.5 Demographic Comparison

CHAPTER 4: JURISDICTIONAL GROWTH AND
BOUNDARY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS 47

 

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Municipal Growth Analysis

4.3 Growth Controls in the Lincoln Metropolitan Region
4.4 Growth Controls in the Lansing Metropolitan Region
4.5 Residential Construction Analysis

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 58

 

5.1 Analysis of Lansing Area’s Growth Management Efforts
5.2 Analysis of Lincoln Area’s Growth Management Efforts

BIBLIOGRAPHY 64

 

APPENDIX 66

 

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure

1. Portland Urban Growth Boundary
Michigan Context Map

Lansing / East Lansing MSA Subdivisions
Nebraska Context Map

Lincoln MSA Subdivisions

Study Area Population Trends By MSA

5‘99”???"

Lansing I East Lansing Population Trends By Urbanized County
Subdivisions

9°

Lincoln Population Trends By Urbanized County Subdivision
9. Study Area Housing Trends By MSA

10. Lansing / East Lansing Housing Trends By Urbanized County
Subdivisions

11. Lincoln Housing Trends By Urbanized County Subdivision
12. Lansing I East Lansing MSA 2000 Population By Age

13. Lincoln MSA 2000 Population By Age

14. Lansing / East Lansing MSA 2000 Population By Race
15. Lincoln MSA 2000 Population By Race

16. Jurisdictional Growth 1970 — 1990

17. New Residential Units In The City Of Lincoln And The Remainder
Of Lancaster County

18. New Residential Units In The City Of Lansing And The Remainder
Of lngham County

Page

29
30
31
32

34

35
35

37

37
38
39
40
41
42

48

55

56

 

 

Chapter 1: Introduction To The Concept Of Urban Growth
Boundafies

 

1.1 Introduction

A growing number of urban areas across the United States have adopted urban
growth boundaries as a measure to manage new development. The boundaries are
implemented in an effort to slow the rapidly growing disproportion of human population
growth and land utilization. The numerous unnecessary costs Of current development
patterns have been well documented and can be significantly reduced. Through a
comparative case study of the Lansing, Michigan and Lincoln, Nebraska Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSA’s), this paper will examine the issues behind the creation and
effectiveness Of urban growth boundaries. Resources utilized in the analysis of this
topic include a review of scholarly literature on the subject; investigation Of relevant
planning documents; and informal interviews with planning Officials.

Although the basic theory behind an urban growth boundary is fairly Simple, in
practice, the process of effectively implementing such a program is complicated and
time-consuming. There are many barriers to forming a program that will reasonably and
effectively meet the goals and Objectives Of a community and region. A thorough
understanding of these challenges allows for critical evaluation Of the situation in
specific communities.

In an effort to alleviate the many problems that are brought about by current
development trends, many local, regional, and state governments have adopted growth-
containing strategies. In order to gain a thorough understanding of the reasons behind

these policies and the use Of urban growth boundaries as a tool to achieve effective

growth management, we must first consider the historical context for their development,

the rise Of suburbanization and urban sprawl.

1.2 Evolution of American Suburbanization

American suburbs began to form in the late nineteenth century as a residential
refuge for the affluent from the city (Fishman 1987, 136). Until this time, Cities were
typically characterized by very compact form with an overwhelming majority of the
population experiencing an urban lifestyle. The suburb originally existed to house the
upper Class in a place that was away from the congestion and pollution of the city. The
commuter rail line was the initial transportation link tO the outskirts of the city. However,
its user fees facilitated limited accessibility to most classes of people. Servants were
the only other portion Of American society that resided in the suburbs. Low and middle-
class citizens could not afford to regularly travel on the rail line and had no choice but to
locate in close proximity to employment that was typically in the center of the city
(Fishman 1987, 135). This resulted in a definitive place segregation by Class. A
compact model Of metropolitan growth was developed until the automobile became a
part Of American culture.

Eventually, the suburb was opened to the middle class as technological
advances made transportation more affordable for the masses. Versatile transportation,
in the form of the electric streetcar, was highly efficient in many cities by the early
1900’s, and continued to serve the economic growth of the urban cores until 1920

(Fishman 1990, 33). Residential communities formed along the streetcar routes.

Commercial businesses also thrived along the streetcar corridors where customers
would pick up commodities after a day at work (Muller 1981, 31).

The Classic suburb had a positive effect on the viability of central cities because
economic activity remained in the center despite the fact that the population moved to
the periphery (Fishman 1987, 137). Major employment firms, as well as commercial
and cultural districts were essentially excluded from the suburb. The majority of the
labor force could only travel short distances to employment, and a relatively inflexible
transportation network prevented the establishment of manufacturing on the urban
fringe. The city remained the focus of the majority of the American public. Commuting
to the central city in order to work, specialty shop, and go to the theatre continued to
strengthen the City until after World War II. This tide began to change after the war,
when automobiles became affordable to the middle class (Johnson 1974, 6).

The availability of the automobile as a private mode of transportation has been a
key element in the tremendous growth of the suburbs. Between 1920 and 1945, the
United States saw a great increase in automobile ownership, as well as suburban
development (Jackson 1985, 175). Innovations in production technology presented the
automobile as a feasible investment to the middle class Citizen. This growth was also
facilitated by the rapid construction Of a metropolitan highway network (Muller 1981 , 41).

As the common worker became more mobile, the manufacturing industry also
discovered that relocation to the urban fringe could be made profitable. Industrial and
manufacturing movement to the urban fringe began to occur in the 1950's, as utilities
became readily available. Relocating outside of the city core was very profitable to

industry and commerce due to the availability and low cost of land. Massive subsidies

that were Offered by the federal government also encouraged business and industry to
relocate.

The Federal Aid Highway Act was signed in 1956 and initiated one of the
greatest construction projects of all time (Muller 1981, 52). A trust was created that
guided the construction of more then 42,000 miles of roadway. This act perpetuated the
Freeway Era, a heightened level of public mobility. A dramatic shift away from the use
of public transportation was one consequence. The automobile as an economical and
versatile mode of transportation continued to grow within the nation.

Continued expansion of the American suburban landscape has not been
significantly delayed. Mass housing construction was an element of the post World War
II period in America and it principally was located in the suburbs (Muller 1981, 54).
Many of the growing suburban communities began to incorporate all of the functions
that the central cities would traditionally serve (Muller 1981, 55). As a result, the

continued growth Of suburbia has caused the economic decline of the central cities.

1.3 The Costs of Urban Sprawl

The decentralization of the United States has not come without significant costs.
The exploitation of national and global natural resources is an outcome of suburban
sprawl. The conversion of land into urban uses in metropolitan areas has grown at a
rate far higher than population. From 1970 to 1990 the population of Chicago grew by
only four percent while the amount of developed land increased by 46 percent (Geddes
1997, 40). This continual over-utilization of land has led to the destruction of numerous

natural habitats. A high rate Of energy consumption has been perpetuated through

decentralization. Lengthy commuting distances, as well as detached dwelling units
have caused an increase in energy usage (Jackson 1985, 299). The dependence on
the automobile in America has significantly depleted a nonrenewable energy source.

The financial impact of sprawl has been great also, as infrastructure and services
had to be extended to sustain areas that were not immediately adjacent to the city.
Kevin Kasowski (1993, 6) has estimated that in New Jersey, each newly constructed
house has cost between $12,000 and $15,000 more then it would have if development
patterns had been more compact then sprawling over the past 12 years. In effect, the
homebuyers end up bearing the financial burden of scattered development.

Increased taxes have been another way that Americans have financed suburban
Sprawl. Providing service to remote areas has increased governmental spending which
is carried over into increased tax rates (Thomas 1991, 1).

The relocation of many elements of American society has also proven to be
detrimental to metropolitan centers. The central city is no longer the concentration of
employment, business, or cultural activity that it once was. It is safe to say that many
central cities will not recover from suburbanization as Americans have become
accustomed to a suburban lifestyle (Muller 1981, 181).

A Clear and concise definition Of urban sprawl is found in a 1991 report by the
Southwest Michigan Council of Governments (Easley 1992, 1):

Urban Sprawl is a land-use pattern Characterized by low-
density and/or uneven physical development occurring at the
fringe of the urbanized area, as well as disinvestments and
abandonment of Older urbanized areas. Sprawl is the
regional result of many local land-use decisions made by
individuals, businesses, and communities. Those decisions

are usually consistent with logical land-use plans and zoning
ordinances as well as economic realities.

 

1.4 The Urban Growth Boundary Defined

The urban growth boundary as a planning tool is not a new concept, although it
has yet to achieve universal acceptance in the United States as a desirable way to limit
sprawl. Limiting growth around a city can be traced back to 1580 when Queen
Elizabeth I prohibited the construction of buildings within three miles of London’s City
gates. This was done to provide for the preservation of agricultural resources close to
the City and to prevent the spread of disease (Easley 1992, 1). If it was implemented
today, the creation of this greenbelt might not effectively limit current urban sprawl, but it
demonstrates an early initiative to control growth and preserve valuable resources. In
the United States the boundary concept was first implemented in Lexington, Kentucky,
in the late 1950’s. Urban development has been kept fairly compact within the urban
area since the boundary was drawn (Easley 1992, 16).

Providing a standard definition of an urban growth boundary is not an easy task
due to the nature of the concept. Urban growth boundaries are individually created by a
City, regional legislative body, or state and vary greatly in terms of specific provisions.
Consequently, there are many different varieties of urban growth boundaries that
incorporate a wide range of guidelines and Objectives. Growth boundaries have also
received many different titles due to this, including; urban limit lines, urban/rural limits,
development policy areas, urban service boundaries, and designated growth lines
(Porter 1997, 61).

Generally, an urban growth boundary refers to a line on a map that is drawn to
distinguish an area that is reserved for urban growth from surrounding rural lands

(Sayer 1997, 1). The urban growth area lies inside of this boundary and is Slated for a

time-managed development process. Boundaries are typically created with a 20-year
time frame. This allows sufficient land area for long-range planning and stability in
investment expectations. In principal, for areas that lie outside of the boundary,
development is to be restricted or limited to agricultural uses. The boundary is a
valuable growth management tool that represents a coordinated interjurisdictional effort
to determine Where development can, and very often cannot, go.

Development outside Of the urban growth boundary is frequently limited by the
governing body through a variety of legislative tools, which discourage uncontrolled
growth (Friday 1998, 33). Lands can be zoned exclusively for agricultural use so as to
prevent any type of urban development. Subdivision regulations can also thwart
scattered development beyond the boundary through strict standards. Rural lands can
be preserved permanently under a transfer and/or purchase of development rights
program. By preventing the expansion and extension of community facilities urban
development can also be limited within the boundary.

Land access is also an important factor that is essential to new development.
Highway exits can be limited in rural areas to discourage sprawl. Jurisdictions may also
assign impact fees and designate special taxing districts to place the burdens of
scattered development, which may still occur inside of the urban service area, upon
those who desire it.

A specific and widely used form of an urban growth boundary is the urban
service boundary, which will be described here, because it is employed in the case
study. An urban service boundary does not restrict development outside of the urban

service area boundaries, however the local jurisdiction makes it Clear that they will not

offer services in this area (Davidson 1998, 5). This strategy is formed on the premise
that a majority of development will depend upon the provision of public services. By
controlling the location, extent, and timing of these services, a locality can encourage a
systematic agenda for growth. This type of boundary program may be seen as more

reasonable by residents and met with less scrutiny; this issue will be discussed later.

1.5 PortlandI Omon

In 1973, Oregon adopted the Land Conservation and Development Act in an
effort to address many concerns over the loss of farmland, aggressive forestry
practices, and urban growth issues (Easley 1992, 17). This statewide initiative created
a regional perspective for the purposes of controlling urban sprawl and protecting
agriculture as well as forested lands, two of the state’s leading industries. Every
jurisdiction was required to develop and adopt an urban growth boundary.

The largest metropolitan area in Oregon, including the city of Portland, adopted
an urban growth boundary program in the late 1970’s. Portland’s boundary program
encompasses numerous cities as well as unincorporated areas, including portions of
three adjacent counties. The following map (Figure 1) illustrates Portland’s urban

growth Boundary.

Figure 1
Portland Urban Growth Boundary

Urban Gnmth andan'

 

   
 
 
 
 

 

(I

(4?
«attain r.
l «.1 "(PM (1"

-‘v<

I!” III mm
mm G‘AU lvflwi PARA“ URE'JL‘ 1722‘

w an M m: ' u. em m . rm
Iw~.-I a" I -u~¢u-u'lu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'LELIEND

(than than“)
N Baum,

 

 

 

Much of the boundary management for the Portland area is administered by the
Nation’s only elected regional government, the Metropolitan Services District (METRO).
Created in 1979, METRO administers Portland’s Regional urban growth boundary
program. This regional organization has some control over zoning regulations,

approves the extension Of public facilities, and provides guidelines for adjusting the

boundary line. As a result of this regional approach, inefficient sprawl outside of the

Portland metropolitan area has been drastically reduced.

1.6 Thurston County, Washington

A well-coordinated, localized approach to growth management can be found in
Thurston County, Washington. By the 1970’s, it became Clear that most development
was taking place outside of the municipalities in Thurston County. The jurisdictions of
Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater had no Clear plan for land use, annexations, and the
extension of public services. In the 1980’s a County regional planning agency
developed an agreement among the County and its three largest municipalities to
establish an urban service boundary.

The Thurston Regional Planning Council evaluated results of this initiative in
1986 and found that sixty percent of new housing was being built in unincorporated
areas. Development was below desired densities within the boundary, perpetuating a
sprawl pattern. The boundary program was quickly revised and in 1988 a two-tiered
boundary was enacted that implemented short and long-term growth areas. The short-
terrn service area provides for growth over a ten-year period, where the long-term area
looks for development from 11 to 25 years in the future. The extension Of utilities was
also staged to gradually expand from the urban core.

In 1990, the State Of Washington adopted its Growth Management Act, which
required all fast-growing counties and Cities in the state to bring zoning into
conformance with comprehensive plans. This requirement essentially forces

communities to look more closely at policies and programs that are a part Of the master

10

plan. Thurston County, in effect, had a tremendous head start compared to other
communities within the state by having a growth boundary program already in place.

Several new trends in this region point to the conclusion that the program has
had a significant impact on development. Thurston County has supported the boundary
program by downzoning land outside the long-term boundary for very low densities.
With recent Changes in zoning, there have been few requests for subdivision approvals
in rural areas. In addition, few utility extensions have gone beyond the short-term

growth area, and none beyond the long-term line.

11

 

Chapter 2: Evaluation Of Key Aspects Of An Urban Growth
Boundary Program

 

2.1 Introduction

In order to critically evaluate the case study that is presented in this report, it is
necessary to thoroughly examine the issues that surround the urban growth boundary
concept. When designing an urban growth boundary program, a locality must consider
a wide variety Of factors. Factors, which have proven to be crucial in implementing an
effective urban growth boundary in other areas, must also be considered. Finally, by
looking at issues that have proven to be problematic across the nation, a locality can

effectively anticipate and likely prevent potential setbacks.

2.2 Creating an Urban Growth Boundary

This section reviews eight steps that are often part of a successful urban growth
boundary program (Nortrup 1995, 15). Although there are no two identical growth
boundary programs, each of the following concepts should be a strong component of
this variety of growth management initiative. These steps are presented here in an
orderly fashion; however, there is a significant amount of overlapping and integration
during an actual formation process. Also, this list and discussion is not inclusive,
additional factors may be entered into the program using this framework. One must
keep in mind that it is impossible to create a model urban growth boundary program that
is appropriate for all communities; each program must be tailored to the Characteristics

and needs of the region.

12

a Step 1 — Identify issues and problems that the boundary will address

Urban growth boundaries are implemented to tackle a variety of issues on the
urban development front. A locality must first take the initiative to identify the problems
and issues that will be dealt with in order to have a base for future evaluation and
amendments to the program.

The urban growth boundary concept was conceived to address the direction and
timing of growth; therefore, this issue must be given a great deal of attention (Nortrup
1995, 16). Some portions of a community will likely grow at a faster pace then others;
an effective boundary must accommodate new development. The shape and Size of an
urban growth area, if influential, must be consistent with and account for growth
patterns. Growth trends must also be considered in relation to public services.

When creating an urban growth boundary program the community must address
the fiscal and environmental problems of current development (Nortrup 1995, 16). It is
likely that property taxes will increase as the inefficient extension of infrastructure
continues. Infrastructure issues may also surface as services are overburdened in
some areas, while they are underutilized in others. Leapfrog, as well as sprawl
development, has the potential to bypass land that is more appropriate for urban
development. As development moves outward it is highly likely that abandoned and
deteriorated urban areas will be left behind, creating more hardship for the community.

In addition to a decline in the urban core, another one of the glaring negative
effects of sprawl development is the destruction and exploitation of agricultural and
natural resources. By containing urban and residential land use, a growth boundary is
seen as a useful tool to control sprawl. An urban growth boundary program will also

typically deal with environmental degradation and fiscal efficiency as a part of its long-

13

term agenda. It is Clear that managing the growth of a community, through an urban

growth program, will ultimately address numerous issues pertaining to its future.

0 Step 2 - Public participation

Citizen input is vital to the creation of an effective program (Nortrup 1995, 17). It
is guaranteed that residents will be able to provide important information and insights
that should be included in the boundary program development process. Citizens have a
vested right in the planned direction and nature of growth within their community. It is
important to involve the community as much as possible, not only to educate about the
planning process, but to also gain support for initiatives within the plan. When the
residents of a community develop an ownership in a plan for their growth, political
support will often follow. Community planners must strive to make decisions that are
well supported by their constituency.

Resident input is the essence of community planning and should be given high
priority. A growth management program will likely be very ineffective when the citizens
do not completely understand and support it. The boundary creation process should
involve a great deal of participation from the community. Opportunities to participate in
the process of boundary creation should be plentiful and easily accessible as well. A
few public hearings may not adequately address all community concerns.

Public participation should be a strong component in every stage of the planning
process, continuing through plan review. Many jurisdictions mail out periodic
newsletters to keep residents informed of the status Of a comprehensive plan that
includes a boundary program. The administering of a survey to gain an understanding

of community attitudes and concerns can also provide valuable support for plan

14

direction. There are numerous opportunities that can be explored to involve members
of the community in the planning process. This will allow any major problems to be
dealt with before the boundary is implemented and will hopefully increase the

boundary’s success.

0 Step 3 — Developing a vision, goals, and recommendations

As an integrated part of a comprehensive development plan, an urban growth
boundary program must be incorporated into the vision, goals, and recommendations
(Nortrup 1995, 17).

First and foremost a vision statement defines the community’s preferred future.
TO choose a direction, a community first must have developed a mental image of a
possible and desirable future state. This vision should articulate a feasible, achievable,
realistic, and attractive future for the community, which Should be a future that is better
than that of existing conditions. The process of developing a vision not only helps to
define the community’s preferences and desires for the future but also helps to
empower members of the community. A Shared vision builds community between the
public and private, the leaders, and the residents. It encourages cooperation and
coordination among the stakeholders. It is also easier to establish priorities when
community leaders know toward what end they are working. The defined vision must
become an integral part of the management and Operation of the local governments and
the activities in which residents participate. The purpose of this vision statement is to
serve as a guide that community leaders and decision makers use as a basis for the

decisions made and activities undertaken.

15

A goal identifies the purpose toward which an endeavor is directed. Goals are
broad statements of intended accomplishments, which, if achieved as a whole, would
bring the community closer to meeting its overall vision of the future. They do not
identify specific activities that will be undertaken. Rather, a set Of recommendations
that are more specific activities are developed to guide the community toward meeting
its goals. For instance, the encouragement of systematic, environmentally responsible
growth can be broken down into the goal of the promotion of compact development.
Goals will also typically deal with natural resource preservation, service provision,
economic viability, and quality of life issues.

A recommendation is a specific activity to help bring a community Closer to
achieving its goals. Goals help to identify where a community wants to be and toward
what they are striving. However, they do not identify specific things that can be done to
help the community get there. Recommendations are planning, land use, and general
govemment-related activities that can be pursued, ideally as a whole and in
combination with the recommended policies, to help the community meet its goals.
Recommendations are often referred to as Objectives or implementation measures.

The vision, goals, and recommendations are integrated into the development of
the comprehensive plan, which will become the primary document that lays out the

structure of the urban growth boundary program.

. Step 4 — Data collection
In order for a boundary program to have any chance of success, an accurate, up-
tO-date source of data must be available (Nortrup 1995, 18). lnforrnation is used to

assess the current Situation of the community and will also form a base for continued

16

review. A locality must consider a variety of measures to reach a true picture of the
community.

Most importantly, a build able land inventory should be conducted for the
community and surrounding area. This information, although not easily obtainable, is
very important because it produces a snapshot of where the community, as well as the
region, can grow. The purpose of this inventory is to understand the ability of land to

accommodate growth when taking into consideration geographical constraints and

 

public policies that guide growth. The inventory should consider land supplies
associated with other planned growth areas in the region. If the regional land supply
involves other counties and municipalities, an interjurisdictional planning effort should
be undertaken to provide a comprehensive and coordinated assessment of available
land for future growth. The Portland case is a very clear example of a regional planning
initiative that incorporates many municipalities into a single growth management effort
(Easley 1992, 18).

Additional measures that must be evaluated include, but are not limited to the
collection of: demographic data, an existing land use inventory, an assessment of
service delivery/capacity, resources, densities, local policies, and economic conditions.
By generating a thorough picture of the current conditions Of a community and its
surrounding region, a growth boundary program can be better designed to be an

effective growth management tool.

. Step 5 - Boundary delineation
The urban growth boundary cannot be drawn onto the map until data has been

collected and objectives for growth have been outlined (Nortrup 1995, 22). A technical
17

approach toward boundary delineation will prove to be most accurate in assessing the
trends and forecasts for future development.

It is important to anticipate population and employment growth that will occur
after a boundary is enacted. Some communities include more land then what is
projected to ensure that the amount of undeveloped land is not too small to
accommodate growth. It is important that the growth area is not so tight that it prevents,
what would otherwise be desirable development. Such limits on land supply could
result in inflated real estate prices. On the other hand, land supply that is excessively
large could lead to random and scattered development within the growth boundary, or
sprawl. Portland originally factored in 15.8 percent additional acreage into their
boundary to incorporate some flexibility in projected growth (Kelly 1993, 158). The
Minneapolis-St. Paul boundary program adds on five years Of additional projected
acreage to the anticipated 20-year need, essentially a 25 percent buffer (Easley 1992,
26).

Development density, population projections, and length of development agenda
have to be accounted for when calculating the amount of area to be contained within the
boundary. Protected lands must also be identified and considered when making area

calculations.

. Step 6 — Public education

A well-informed public will be more likely to accept the provisions of an urban
growth boundary program (Nortrup 1995, 23). People of the community who are aware
of the issues that being faced as well as the benefits and consequences of growth

control initiatives, will be more likely to support planning decisions as well as abide by

18

regulations. Often ordinances become unpopular and are not effective because Of a
lack of infomation and ignorance toward the reasons behind the regulation. A
community that is educated on the issues will be more likely to approve and advocate
action that is proposed by the planning agenda.

A good degree of public education comes as a result of involving the community
in the comprehensive plan development process, but it shouldn’t end there. There are
many Opportunities that local leaders and planners can initiate to inform community
members of the planning process that don’t necessarily involve a formal part of plan
development and adoption. Supplementary education efforts can include, but not be
limited to: preparing a regular newsletter informing residents of significant planning
news and new initiatives within the community, holding open planning forms for
interaction with community members, maintaining an up-to-date and extensive web site
that can help to better inform the public, and giving presentations to teach

schoolchildren about the importance Of comprehensive planning.

a Step 7 - Interjurisdictional cooperation
An effective urban growth boundary must allow for some degree of control

beyond the Single local jurisdiction. An urban growth boundary ideally incorporates a
regional focus to planning. A regionally focused program will preferably include all
political factions to foster coordination and cooperation of the use of growth boundaries
by the jurisdictions within the region. Each affected jurisdiction may have different goals
and needs for defining their growth areas, thus creating possible conflicts between
localized and regional views on how to best manage growth. Each participating

jurisdiction should concentrate on coordination of basic land use policy within the

19

 

region, rather then local desires, and how the policy can be furthered through use of
growth boundaries. By focusing on the big picture, we can begin to break down
localized views of communities.

Local communities that are formulating a growth boundary program should seek
to involve representatives from as many affected jurisdictions as possible, including
adjacent counties, nearby municipalities, and relevant State agencies. All of the
affected agencies should be involved in each phase of the process in order to produce
an effective cooperative effort. This coordination should be carried out under a formal
agreement that delineates the major components for planning and adopting the growth
boundary. A regional approach is inevitable under this agreement.

In the case Of Thurston County, Washington each jurisdiction entered into the
growth management effort voluntarily (Easley 1992, 22). This agreement outlines a
common approach to growth and the provision of public services and facilities. It also
establishes standards to guide each jurisdiction’s land use planning decisions in a way
that will achieve common growth management goals While leaving the power with each
jurisdiction to control its own land use. Minimal extensions Of services are allowed
beyond the short-tenn growth areas. A joint land use planning process has also been
established to implement the boundary. The jurisdictions jointly agree on zoning,
densities, and land uses in both short-ten'n and long-term areas. By entering into a
coordinated effort, Thurston County has removed some of the barriers to localized

growth management.

20

0 Step 8 -- Regular and structured plan review

The final step, which is very important but can easily be pushed aside, is the
review and revision process (Nortrup 1995,24). Community trends are not guaranteed
to coincide exactly with what has been projected. Adjustments must be made at
scheduled intervals to introduce flexibility into the program, as the community’s needs
and Circumstances change. It is very helpful to establish criteria to guide the expansion
of the boundary before it is enacted. A reasonable policy is to require a review of
growth area capacity and needs on a routine basis (such as every five or six years) and
to adjust the boundary in accordance with the adopted guidance policies. Periodic
review of the growth boundary can prevent excessive market constraints as
development occurs in the growth area and less land remains available. Periodic
review of the boundary also avoids the political problems of establishing an inflexible or
permanent growth boundary.

An urban growth boundary program can easily become ineffective when review is
delayed or postponed. Negative consequences such as inflated real estate prices and
leapfrog development are often the result Of a growth boundary that does not
accommodate new, orderly development. A boundary program can easily become
unpopular if it is not managed well to account for a dynamic urban environment.
Frequent review and revision will also be useful in assessing the success of the
program through historical evaluation.

A Portland study found that after implementing the growth boundary for half of its
initial 20 year design period, the growth are still had a land supply adequate to
accommodate another 20 years of growth without any expansions (Easley 1992, 18).

This was because Portland experienced a period of slow growth shortly after the

21

boundary was adopted and did not develop as quickly as anticipated. This experience
reinforces the need for a periodic review of a growth area’s capacity and for

benchmarks that trigger and guide changes in Size.

2.3 Keg To a Successful Boundary Program
In theory, a well-designed and managed urban growth boundary program will

provide a community with a systematic and efficient long-term development agenda.
There are certain provisions, which may not be immediately Obvious, that have been
instrumental in the success Of many programs nationwide. It is important for any
jurisdiction that is considering adopting an urban growth boundary, or one that does not
have an effective program, to insure that these issues are carefully dealt with.

The urban growth boundary should delineate a realistic area to accommodate
expected growth. This is accomplished by setting an adequate time frame of expected
growth and establishing target densities. An urban growth boundary that limits growth
to a very small area will likely encourage development to find other communities with
more relaxed restrictions, hurting the economic potential of the bounded community. An
overly restrictive boundary can also cause property values to rise because of limited
development potential. The boundary can also include an excessive amount of land
and allow sprawl to occur within the boundary. The boundary that was set around
Hagerstown, Maryland included enough land for more than fifty years Of future
development and it had no effect on development trends (Porter 1997, 64).

The significance of garnering public support also has to be stressed as a vital

aspect to a successful program. By educating the public, a need for this growth

22

management strategy can be demonstrated and easily defended. mm the public as an
ally, the sustainability of a boundary can be assured as it is found to be necessary for
orderly growth. The integrity of the boundary will also be preserved when it has the
influence of community cooperation.

A seemingly elementary aspect of the program, which is often manipulated for
political reasons, is to make the boundary Clear to everyone. The use of maps that

illustrate exactly what land is contained within the boundary, and the land that is located

 

outside of the boundary, is essential. Again, Hagerstown, Maryland provides a good
example of what not to do. “The line was so crudely drawn on the map that it covered
several hundred feet of territory, making interpretation of its location almost impossible”
(Porter 1997, 65). Ambiguously drawn lines present not only questions in boundary
effectiveness, but can easily create legal challenges as well.

A crucial step, which cannot be overemphasized, is that an urban growth
boundary should become a central focus of the comprehensive development plan. It is
also important that the boundary is consistent with all components within the plan. An
integrative approach will ensure that the boundary is not brushed aside after creation.
Very often, when a growth boundary initiative is undertaken, the program is developed
as a part of the comprehensive plan update process. This provision is imperative so
that the entire development agenda will respect the integrity Of the boundary. It
becomes clear that developing a strong program will involve a major revision to a
community’s comprehensive development plan.

Zoning ordinances, as well as local subdivision regulations, are legal tools that

must also support the urban growth boundary program. A zoning ordinance can be

23

amended to contain agricultural zoning categories that are located outside of the
boundary. Mechanisms can also be put into place that will make the boundary program
more attractive to landowners. Easements can be allowed that protect very low-
intensity development just outside of the boundary. Transfer and purchase of
development rights programs can also be included in the zoning ordinance to preserve
low intensity land use. Incentives can also be Offered to encourage continued
development within the boundary, such as a streamlined review process and a variety
of density options.

Because growth is strongly encouraged within Portland’s boundaries the
approvals Of developments there are predictable (Easley 1992, 18). This predictability
shortens approval time and saves money for developers and homebuyers. Builders
within the region are clear about the policies Of new development and understand when,
where, and which type of development is acceptable. The Portland urban growth
boundary has widespread support because it has made growth more orderly and
expected.

Public service and infrastructure must also support development within the
boundary. In this instance, a jurisdiction Should look at the methods and requirements
for service extension. An immediate goal is not to extend services beyond the
boundary. Allowing unlimited extensions Of services make it very difficult to prevent
undesired development. Public utilities should also be extended in an orderly fashion to
encourage logical and efficient development patterns. Sanitary water and sewer
capacity should also be taken into consideration in the designing of a growth

management program. By planning for the exhaustion of utilities at the extended

24

 

growth boundary line, cost to the community can be reduced in the long run, and a
certain amount of political contentiousness may be avoided.

Two additional key provisions, mentioned earlier, have proven to be critical in
effective programs deserve mention here. An urban growth boundary will typically take
on a regional focus; therefore, interjurisdictional cooperation is imperative for its
effectiveness. Another important provision to a sustainable program is regular review
and update. It is recommended that boundaries be reviewed and revised if necessary

at least every six years (Friday 1998, 33).

2.4 Problematic Issues of an Urban Growth Boundag Program

The creation and implementation of urban growth boundary programs has
produced a fair amount of technical and political contentiousness. By looking at the
issues that can arise, a locality will be more prepared to protect the reliability of an
urban growth boundary program, while defending community interests.

Often the most controversial area of land is located directly adjacent to the
boundary line (Porter 1997, 63). A landowner whose property is situated outside of, and
close to, the boundary may want to capitalize on selling their land for development, but
is prevented from doing this because of the boundary. The potential for a lawsuit is
genuine in this case when a taking is claimed. Courts have typically supported the local
jurisdiction in these circumstances when a public purpose has been clearly defined
(Porter 1997, 67). It is recognized that property values that lie just outside Of the
boundary may be diminished, but a total taking has not occurred, there is still a

significant amount of value that remains.

25

 

Another trend that should be monitored closely and can defeat the purpose Of a
growth management program is the occurrence Of sprawl within the boundary. Since
sprawl has become an American trademark it is very difficult to prevent (Porter 1997,
67). Many current boundaries discourage scattered development, but still allow sprawl.
This creates a major setback to the boundary program. Strong incentives must be
adopted to promote higher density and conservation development. This can be fully
supported by zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations.

A good example of one loophole in a boundary program is the use of “exception”
lands in Oregon to allow development beyond the boundary (Easley 1992, 18).
Exception areas are designated as those lands that are not suitable for agriculture or
forestry due to supposed unique factors. This exclusion tactic has allowed some sprawl
to leak out onto rural landscapes.

The importance of incorporating a regional focus into the program can be seen
when the loss of development is experienced. Individual homeowners, as well as
business and industry, may be attracted to a neighboring community that does not have
as strict regulations on development. This can be detrimental, not only to the boundary
program, but also to the local economy and regional environment. Adopting region-
wide growth strategies will help to ensure economic health, in addition to improving the
sustainability of an area.

It is sometimes argued that an urban growth boundary program will drive up the
prices of land by limiting supply and increasing the concentration of demand (Porter
1997, 68). Housing prices will likely rise within an urban growth boundary if the review

and revision process is not adequately implemented. However, if the program is

26

administered to accomplish the goals and objectives of growth management, it should
realistically decrease (or, at a minimum, offset) the costs of housing and will most

definitely decrease environmental degradation.

27

u. ‘.u

to“
\

Y

J‘-

. h

. . . ~...« *7 1+

bl Lko' :- - ‘$.': t; ; m". “(‘{A‘fi J
. _' '2._ f r“:.\ .' .‘it‘fih. _. 'os‘tr ,’.

T I u 51;"; '3'?,*'? 'v13”"${‘.'} ' 7 ' :5" I

"‘ u ~‘a r 4 '

. :,.;u. f'fifi‘ :A: v) “V f I ‘ ’3' i. .

. it". '. A
"Celtic iii-15"“ ‘i r‘

d“'£‘;

0
9
I
.3
(14.
t5
I
1 .
-~.
l-L, .
I-.;L‘ v-..‘
i'.‘
13‘
.0 g.
rt?
hr, .
. I
O
'. l
O
,_
A:
r
I‘d
0.3..
1»

w!

B
I
r
(z
1.“! , '
g o
O
”I
‘5
IN
"I
ti
1“
9:»
‘1
J’f T
c,
f:
'1:
I

.3
. l
V.
r
3‘ K
. ‘lJI ..
x.
1+
1."
r l
,r
ti
_‘ ‘—\7
J

'.J
rib

1:1
7:
’3
S
7"
C
ow‘
5"
”‘1
.".I
rs;
3“
k I
5..
q
'I'.
\
k
.I'
p
‘5’.
V: -
I y .
o .: ?"
I'J
J t'
‘0
' .
fio
w
&
NJ
I?
{a
:3
'3
\
I
O
7'
PI
- 1
’l-r’n

l

‘ Q

II “ ". -. _ j-fii?
- - Ti .--°obr“§P/..' - 'f - ‘ ‘- I V , f
. .' ‘ Ikfi .2 ‘ _ '|. ‘ . v - b r . . ‘ . ...
’ -‘b o .1." “5‘ . I‘) - I - I -' y""‘" .H' .-
kw fl‘flfv’crf‘ . .. r ' . . _-_ ., t vs, I: '5 I:

q;

0‘

'o
I

ID}: v" 15' ‘ '

3 3"" “-22,“ 5

3:3". it?" 'tffy
2732;“ T;- 2'

   

‘ v.
.1}- ._--u --. .. .
A) '3- .' ‘ )'-i o;
0 .‘ a $l~ ..
_ ‘4 V, S. ‘ I
hid -.hq..\.‘.‘ ‘ '...*

an aux

   

"I":

Chapter 3: Study Area Profiles

 

3.1 Introduction

An important aspect of this comparison study was to locate two communities,
utilizing a growth boundary program, that were similar in specific situational and
demographic criteria. By studying and evaluating analogous Cities, the policies and
strategies that work well for an urban growth boundary program will likely become
evident for these types of communities. Ineffective initiatives will also surface through
this analysis.

The metropolitan areas that have been selected for this study are the Lansing I
East Lansing Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), located in Michigan and the Lincoln
MSA, situated in Nebraska. The many situational and demographic Characteristics that
these two regions share provide a good basis for comparative study. This portion of the

report will present an analysis of

3.2 Lansing I East Lansing, Michigan

Lansing lies in the center of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula (Figure 2) and is
Characterized by a healthy metropolitan region. The Lansing I East Lansing MSA
includes not only the cities Of Lansing and East Lansing, but also a number of Sizeable,
unincorporated communities that surround the two cities (Figure 3). The 2000 US.

Census reveals a population of 447,728 within the entire Lansing I East Lansing MSA.

28

Figure 2
Michigan Context Map

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N so
I 9.,
Lansing I East Lansing MSA
Q
Legend ‘
E] State Line ‘3 p

Domes ’ ‘

a
[:l Metropolitan Statistical Areas / I. ' , .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: US. Census, Census of Population and Housing

The Lansing I East Lansing economy is greatly influenced by three major
employers: the State Of Michigan, Michigan State University, and General Motors. As
the state capital, the Lansing I East Lansing MSA plays the role of governmental, as

well as educational center. Michigan State University, one of the largest schools in the

29

nation, is located in East Lansing, which lies adjacent to the eastern boundary of
Lansing. These two institutions have a major influence on the local demographics,
which can profoundly affect the development agenda. As the headquarters of General
Motors’ small car division, Lansing has strong ties to the manufacturing sector of the
economy. A number of other diverse industries, insurance companies, trade

associations, schools, banks, and utility companies round out the list of major

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

employers.
Figure 3
Lansing I East Lansing MSA Subdivisions
Lebanon Essex Greenbush Duplsh
(’3
Dallas Bengal W Ovid
Bingham
Westphah Rley OIve Victor
Eagle
L I
Sunfield i Roxand Oneida
a, l
l
Verrnontville Chester Benton Wlndsor
l _.
rifle: ’
.' , l
Kalarno Carmel ,Lj Eaton Eaton Rapids; Aurellus me lngham I Write Oak
J‘ ' -
-—-r 53—, ~—
Borevue I Walton Brookfield my. J Onondaga Bunker Hill Stodrbridgs
cast “in. I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: US. Census, Census of Population and Housing

30

 

3.3 Lincoln, Nebraska

Founded in 1867, as Nebraska’s capital, Lincoln is located approximately 40
miles southwest of Omaha, which is the largest city in the state (Porter 1996, 55).
Lincoln is situated in the center of Lancaster County (Figure 5), which has experienced
a steadily growing population since the 1870’s. The 2000 US. census counted 250,291

people living in the Lincoln MSA.

Figure 4
Nebraska Context Map

 

 

 

Lincoln MSA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"‘ \

E State Line N
C] Cities +

Metropolitan Statistical Areas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: US. Census, Census of Population and Housing

31

Figure 5

 

 

 

Lincoln MSA Subdivisions
West Oak thle Salt Rock Creek T Mill
Elk Oak North BM Waverly

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

Yankee Hill Stockton

Grant
Highland Centervllle Saltillo Nemaha
Ollve Branch Buda South Pass Panama

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: US. Census, Census of Population and Housing

The research and development industry has made some recent growth in Lincoln
because the city is the core of state government and home to the state university.
“Although past state laws favored the insurance industry, other services have recently
found a niche, including survey research, software development, and printing” (Porter
1996, 55). A strong, stable economy has been established in Lincoln, which has

resulted in steady growth and a local high quality Of life.

32

3.4 Situational Comgarison

The study areas have identical traits in that both house the respective state
capital and are home to a major state university. These two characteristics are very
important because it sets the stage for similar growth patterns. With a major portion of
the working population geared toward these two industries, there is likely to be common
community Circumstances and concerns with respect to long-term development.

As the state center for governmental operations, it is reasonable to believe that
comparable efforts are put forth to promote a high quality of life within these
communities. The duties that are associated with government ensure that certain
employment Opportunities must exist within these communities. Capital Cities also
require an infrastructure that is equipped to handle the demands of running a state.

Another interesting element that Should not be overlooked is that each
community is not the largest in its respective state. In 2000, over 900,000 people called
The City Of Detroit, Michigan their home and Omaha, Nebraska had a population of just
over 390,000. This is an important characteristic because we can see that the capital
cities of Lansing and Lincoln do not have an overwhelming portion of their state
population. Traveling to the larger cities in an automobile however, can be done in less
than two hours from either Lincoln or Lansing. The subject communities have not able
to rely on a tourism industry or retain any major permanent entertainment venues.
Although government and university employment bring a stable job base to the
community, each region also seeks additional diversification in order to maintain a

vibrant economic base.

33

3.5 Demograghic Comgarison

A thorough analysis of the demographic makeup of the Lincoln MSA and the
Lansing / East Lansing MSA will provide a better understanding of the similarities and
differences between these areas. This review will also establish growth and
development trends. The demographics, to some degree, can reveal resources that a
community has to Offer as well as constraints that could prevent the effective

implementation Of many policy initiatives.

3.3.1 Population and Housing

Both regions have a population base of between 250,000 and 500,000, which
puts them on the scale Of a mid-size city. It is evident from Figure 6, that both regions
have experienced steady population growth since the 1970’s. Although overall
population growth trends have been fairly consistent in both areas, the Lansing I East
Lansing MSA is experiencing a Slowing population growth trend where the trend in

Lincoln continues to increase.

,—

Figure 6
Study Area Population Trends by Metropolitan
Statistical Area

 

 

 

“a?
§ 500
3 :__—
E 400 went
3 300 .1980 .
8 200 D1990 'I
& 100 02000 I,

0 l

Lansing / East Lansing Lincoln MSA
MSA

 

 

_. __ _ J

Source: US. Census, Census of Population and Housing

34

Figure 7
Lansing I East Lansing Population Trends by
Urbanized County Subdivision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35 ____
g a 1970
5:: I 1980
'8 El 1990
E El 2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

~._.4

Source: US. Census, Census of Population and Housing

Figures 7 and 8 present a breakdown of jurisdictional population trends within
each MSA. The Lansing I East Lansing MSA has seven separate urbanized
jurisdictions, Situated Close to the urban core, that have some degree Of authority over

development.

 

Figure 8
Lincoln Population Trends by
Urbanized County Subdivision

250

 

 

B

 

 

 

é

 

Persons (Thousands)
a
o

 

01
C)

 

I"

 

 

 

 

 

Lincoln

 

 

 

Source: US. Census, Census of Population and Housing

35

Each of these jurisdictions has a governmental body that is able to legislate
development policy. It is evident, from the chart (Figure 7), that growth within the
Lansing I East Lansing Region is occurring primarily on the periphery. The townships of
Meridian, Delhi, De Witt, and Delta are all experiencing growing population trends, while
Lansing, East Lansing, and Lansing Township Show a stagnant or decreasing
population trend. The Lincoln MSA consists of a single jurisdiction that sets growth
policies for the entire urbanized area. The City of Lincoln has experienced an
increasing trend of population growth Since 1970.

The following three graphs take a look at housing trends in much the same
manner as the previous figures account for population. An analysis of housing trends
looks at the pattern of development from a somewhat different angle. Nationally, the
number of persons per household is decreasing, signifying that even though an area
may be loosing residents, there is still the possibility of continued residential
development. Figure 6 indicates hosing trends for the two study regions when figures
10 and 11 break the data down into urbanized jurisdictions. By separating the data into
urbanized jurisdictions, we can take a Closer look at the pattern of development

surrounding the downtown areas.

36

 

Figure 9
Study Area Housing Trends by Metropolitan
Statistical Area

 

B

 

§

 

 

Housing Units (Thousands)
8

 

 

 

o8

Lansing / East Lansing Lincoln MSA
MSA

 

 

 

Source: US. Census, Census of Population and Housing

Within the Lansing I East Lansing MSA, one can see that, over the past 40 years,
there has been some degree Of housing increase within every jurisdiction. Despite
some population loses, the core areas of the urbanized region experienced residential
unit increases, shown in Figure 10. Even though population figures, described earlier,
illustrate some decreases, we can see through these Charts that there has been

continued residential development within these core areas.

 

Figure 10
Lansing I East Lansing Housing Trends by
Urbanized County Subdivision

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ so

a 50 - ‘l197OI,
ggg _ .1980‘
E 20 [.1990

g 13 LIrrzoool
D

s

8

I

 

 

 

___I

 

Source: US. Census. Census of Population and Housing

37

Figure 11 accounts for the incorporated portion of the Lincoln MSA, which is
solely the City of Lincoln. Not unexpectedly, it is demonstrated that the City of Lincoln

has a healthy development agenda due to the trend of housing unit growth.

 

Figure 11
Lincoln Housing Trends by
Urbanized County Subdivision

A

o8883883888

 

Housing Units (Thousands)

 

Lincoln

 

 

 

Source: US. Census, Census of Population and Housing

A population and housing analysis of the Lansing / East Lansing MSA and the
Lincoln MSA clearly indicates similar generalized trends for development and growth in
each region. Focusing on the level of metropolitan growth, we can confidently state that

there are many parallel patterns in the realm of growth and development.

3.5.2 Age and Race
Just as important as numbers of people and houses are within the two regions, it
is prudent to also be aware of the age and racial make-up of the areas. Communities

that are vastly different in terms Of population age or culture may not exhibit the same

development ideals and patterns.

38

 

WWI T” ' Figure 12
I Lansing I East Lansing MSA
2000 Population by Age

‘ 85 plus .
75 to 84 I
65 to 74
60 to 64
55 to 59
45 to 54

D 35 to 44

25 to 34

20 to 24 . I

15 to 19 .

10 to 14 :
5 to 9 l I

Under 5 l

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of Persons (Thousands)

 

 

 

_4

 

Source: US. Census, Census of Population and Housing

Figures 12 and 13 present the age of persons within the two MSA’S, broken
down into specific age groups. The two Charts indicate that the regions have a very
similar population in terms of age breakdown. For the past 15 to 20 years, the number
of new births has been fairly consistent in both regions, illustrated by the number of
people in the age brackets that are under twenty years Old. The majority of people fall
within the middle age brackets, from 25yrs. to 54yrs., in both of the communities. This
significant bulge in the population pyramid points toward the aging “baby-boomer” group

that is Characteristic of most American communities.

39

 

 

I Figure 13
I Lincoln MSA
» 2000 Population by Age

85plus _m I ' I I I
75t084 fl l A f I
65to74h- v l .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55to59 - «
o 45t054 .
2 35to44
25to34 :
20t024 r
15to19’
10to 14 *
5t09 _ i
Under5 j j

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Number of Persons (Thousands)

 

 

,_ __
' l__, ,____..1, _______ .____,-_

 

 

I
‘Arfufith “Jinn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: US. Census, Census of Population and Housing

A very significant characteristic of the population that these charts represent is
the small proportion of people that are within the 55 and older age brackets. Currently,
most communities have a relatively small number of senior Citizens to care for, but this
proportion will begin to change in the near future as more “baby-boomers” retire. This is
an important notion for land use planning as the older residents of communities begin to
place more of a demand on services of the working-age population. By analyzing the
population by age of these two regions, there is further evidence that growth
management will encounter many comparable issues.

By putting together some Charts according to 2000 Census data (Figures 14 and
15), it becomes clear that both the Lansing I East Lansing MSA and the Lincoln MSA
have prominent similarities when it comes to racial make-up. It is evident that both

regions are made up of primarily white residents. The Lansing I East Lansing MSA has

40

a white population of 84.4% and white persons within the Lincoln MSA compose just

over 90% of the total population.

—_ , i _-E___—_ , ._.‘

 

”CI—fl ~I III—'1 I—* ”7:939 14’
Lansing I East Lansing MSA
2000 Population by Race

 

 

I Two or more races 1 I I
I Other
Native Hawaiian

O
a .
< Asian

 

 

Black or African American

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

White

L

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Number of Persons (Thousands)
|_ _- ,_ , , ,z

Source: US. Census, Census of Population and Housing

American Indian
I
I

 

 

 

The one notable difference in racial profiles of the two regions is the percentage
of black or African American citizens that form each region. Black or African American
residents make-up just over 8% of the Lansing I East Lansing MSA, where only 2.8% of
the Lincoln MSA populace is black or African American. A higher percentage of white
residents within the Lincoln MSA seems to offset the higher percentage of black or
African American citizens within the Lansing / East Lansing MSA. From the Census
figures, it is apparent that each region should incorporate culturally sensitive
involvement in planning in order to generate support from all sectors of the community

and to provide good opportunities for all cultures to become a part of the process.

41

 

[____ __ .—

Figure 15
Lincoln MSA
2000 Population by Race

 

 

Two or more races
Other

Native Hawaiian
Asian

American Indian

Age

 

 

 

 

Black or African American
White

 

 

0 50 100 150 200 250
I Number of Persons (Thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

I____ ~_ , , I

Source: US. Census, Census of Population andIHousing

3. 5.2 Income

Two of the most telling indicators of income within any population are median
household income (MHI) and per capita income (PCI). These figures demonstrate the
earning potential of an area as well as a measure of the average income that is
available to every resident. Table 1 has been prepared as a summary of income
indicators for each study area, as well as a breakdown of the urbanized jurisdictions

within them.

42

 

Table 1

Income by Urbanized County Subdivision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

""""""""""""""""""""""" IMedran
Area / Jurisdiction Household 1,1223%?»
Income (MHI)
Lansing / East Lansing MSA 44,441 21,653
City of Lansing 34,833 17,924
City of East Lansing 28,217 16,333
Meridian Township 55,203 32,190
Lansing Township 41,017 22,885
Delhi Township 50,922 23,485
De Witt Township 49,782 24,624
Delta Township 52,711 27,048
Lincoln MSA 41,850 21,265
City of Lincoln 40,605 20,984

 

 

 

Source: US. Census, Census of Population and Housing

An initial look at the income figures for both MSA’s indicates that median

household income is close to $40,000 in each area and per capita income is very near

$20,000. As a whole, we can expect similar spending patterns and attitudes within each

region. By breaking down each MSA into urban jurisdictions, we can see another trend

emerging: the incorporated areas have lower MHI and PCI within each of the regions

when compared to unincorporated areas. However, the difference of income between

incorporated versus unincorporated areas in the Lansing I East Lansing MSA is much

more exaggerated than the Lincoln MSA. A large number of college students in the City

of East Lansing explains the substantial deviation from average income data within the

MSA. The significantly lower than average income levels within the core city of Lansing

likely signify an urban area that is feeling the effects of urban flight and decreased

investment in residential areas of the city.

43

A significant separation of income levels between jurisdictions within the Lansing
/ East Lansing MSA points toward societal class boundaries as well. The PCI in
Meridian Township is nearly twice that of the cities of Lansing and East Lansing. The
majority of wealthy residents in this MSA live on the perimeter of the urbanized area.
This separation likely causes the loss of political support for neighborhoods within the
urbanized-core areas leading to a lack of governmental financial support. Since the
Lincoln MSA is characterized by a single urbanized jurisdiction, the political support is

much less likely to become fragmented and draw support away from the central city.

3.5.3 Employment

Table 2 provides a breakdown of sectoral employment within the study areas.
When looking at these industry figures, the fields of education, health, and social
services have the greatest portion of workers in the two regions. These numbers are
certainly a result of both areas having major state institutions. High numbers in these
fields also signifies that the community places great value in obtaining a good
education. Government workers, in both communities again, generate the second
highest number of employed workers. As centers for state governmental activity, this is
not a surprising figure. The manufacturing sector also employs a large portion of the
working community within each region. It is important to recognize that industrial
employment is a vital element to the economy in each region. As we examine the
sectoral employment figures for these regions, one key characteristic is that there is a
fair degree of diversification of employment within each region. A community with a

well-diversified employment base is considered very stable because there is not a

strong reliance on any single sector for long-term community health. It has been shown

that the percentage of workers in various sectors of employment is very similar between

the two metropolitan areas.

 

Table 2

Sectoral Employment by Place of Residence for the
. _ _ - _ _ .. _ _ - - - - _ l—PE‘QWJFASI P9999199 UPPPI". M§N§u-1.9_9.9 ______________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Lansin / East .
Industry Lansing MSA L’"°°’" MSA
Number Percent Number Percent
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining 2,247 1.1 1,403 1.0
Construction 12,726 5.6 9,358 6.7
Manufacturing 30,085 13.1 16,380 11.7
Wholesale Trade 6,519 2.8 4,076 2.9
Retail Trade 25,266 11.0 15,421 1 1.0
Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 7,978 3.5 5,974 4.3
Information 5,265 2.3 3,843 2.8
Finance, insurance, real estate, and renting 15,375 6.7 10,945 7.8
Professional and management services 16,695 7.3 12,449 8.9
Educational, health, and social services 55,795 24.4 33,131 23.7
Arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodation, and food services 18’098 7‘9 11’232 8'0
Other services 11,324 4.9 5,928 4.2
Public Administration 21,484 9.4 9,421 6.8
Total employed residents 228,857 100.0 139,561 100.0
Government workers (as a portion of total) 46,851 20.5 27,841 19.9

 

Source: US. Census, Census of Population and Housing

Because of the educational demands of state government employment and

university activity, both areas of study are closely related in levels of academic

achievement as well. Lansing and Lincoln have a high percentage of those who hold a

high school diploma at 84.2 and 88.1 percent, respectively. Close to 25 percent of the

eligible population in each city have also received a bachelor’s degree. Educational

45

attainment within a local population will clearly have a substantial impact on attitudes
and perceptions of healthy, managed development.

There are a number of major demographic and situational characteristics that the
Lansing I East Lansing and Lincoln Regions have in common which warrant this
comparative analysis. Although it is understood that the findings in this report will not
conclusively result in an ideal urban growth program, the trends and logical conclusions
will have a great degree of merit. The many similarities of the two jurisdictions under
study indicate that an urban growth boundary program should have comparable results

when utilized in both of these communities.

46

°;'- .. .'. ,
f ' x v. . ' ‘l ‘ _
. {l\.' I 5;, 4 ‘ 8:, I P ' a ' I'I
. ‘ -I O i - ' ‘f
l - fé - I ,4 ' ' fr -. '6 «.‘o z, .
' i... 1. fu" I. J A ' :0 fl". — i” 3‘: '. ' - ‘ ‘
. " ' (’3 *4- , 4 f ’. . ‘_ o , , .
. ‘- .b'ffi‘.:}‘ I?) . . \‘.-.. ".o '.J 1- o 'J . .c'.
1. h. ‘3” I'VO.‘ .—( -J“.' a l“_-- . .5. ’ ‘~ .Ol
, fl 0 ‘fi‘ rV - ., in ‘flvb , :1 - I“, . ' .~ “.1. ‘V‘ .1 .
l 50. V‘I .‘I— ;'.‘.. "1‘4 ‘ ‘ ‘4‘ ° r J " l-zu ' L i
.-»- Mm r "1V" " ~ '1” '
3 . . 9L; :-. .. :5. w: . '-.' ._.:.._;'_ 0‘ ; . .p . ‘1 f.‘
. “0'“. L1," 2? ,.‘..(t rr’fi’. 1"»:,' V“ Pf; .‘ J R.
l. '0 r'h_% ‘\ t. ” #‘U. Q. . ‘...0 _ ." " '. -. n .
. t '. -‘ lli's' b...“ 4° au‘.‘ — - ”a“ («H-n ”t"
I "s_ '5: - . ,.n x . ': 6 CL ‘ V" ‘ - \ ~5;. ' ‘. ‘. . l J: ' ([1 .4 :g—J
_.'Jt ,D‘d' '. ,..1 .r. .s 40., P .V 3" - 2‘ .‘l . 7,“. - .11; .(J ..I
I -' f 0‘ ~ . ‘J ‘ O."l.£ ",. .V' ’*. a, o .‘v H" "" I " fl‘ '
. .r‘. 'lIr- 0‘ -l ‘ - 1v .J .’Y-r‘- ‘ 'l
' " -' 't. "U”? .‘i‘ "1‘. .. '~ - ~ ‘ ‘ i: ».. i " ‘-'
. (“fi’ r ..‘;.‘- ' ' ‘ 1:0.” . l. .'0"o PJ .. 7 I4 * f‘ ' f
c. 4-‘-’;»‘ ' .. l ,- ~ _ - 4 “He . . '

   
   

  
    
         

- - .r . n- -» u w. -- ~ -~
.,‘ f - ‘ ' . '. ’ -_._ z. .. L‘. ..‘ \',-- b I-I _ t.
‘, '..‘¢.-. . '1‘“ "I‘L..€I.’J .‘ I. v.0 w... ‘ I . f~$ 1.3 "':_..~ g!
ct. _ 0- fl fi‘:‘0". '...-_. L3ho‘v— '2" "J v‘ - "Pol a _:.‘,:..jf" §R.<: ‘ '4 Q“ V" T.
' * I.'-".{' I' I.“ , '7' .1 J ‘ °' -' ‘ohi
. . . .U ‘... _ .. .‘ ‘ ..>.... -.
.— .‘_:.;'.l;-t'1?-.C' “1:". 5:92.01} ‘5--,€-° _ _ . .I' 1:2fi‘f‘}. ”I :3: is 1".» .
'.{l'>lfi .‘v..|. 5‘ _I_" k'31 ’zgu“. \ ~§~’._:‘- (J;‘I,. T... 'b ',I : .'.’_ , o. .
’ -. .‘ ." v‘ .3‘»(",.-_-. . ' I“ .1'1. ‘9‘ - L ‘2’. ..' '1’ ’..-\‘P‘\(. " .1 it I .l
‘ .fl‘.;' ‘ .l";. . _ 5’- .II‘ |'— ,' L. Ir..‘.r.‘\l-_ xJ.'-g‘§-7‘L.
I’TJ'Y‘ ,‘KJq ' - " ,v'I' ‘ 'H ' -.l(' "fir; ’Lfi‘. V-‘,';‘--v-~.4.
' lg; 14": :f‘,’ ‘ch' . ' ‘r‘ .1 :8, “'3. a 3.1“. - \. t4 1‘ ~ I, ‘I 3"“
.25.. «1.4.... - ., ...~. ~ - - .- .. . w: «a». 4
l’ -drud.f.‘.~"'.— e3.- ‘S 3‘ 11:}:335‘35 -~ 3" 1' “dd ' " ,. "
d, .D.J_" . 11;]. ‘ '1‘ .Y" e~{. ‘,‘-n.39 ‘1'; ‘ . —‘ . 't‘wo. u.‘ |.X flog
- " u“ '1: . 3'3 gr '-'.-‘ ' 'l . l. '
.I" I" ‘l‘. 'br‘ a In ' '- ‘.;q ‘. ’ * ' u " . 'v
’_; . "o (f...'-" .'_.\(-1fi ".¢":" 0’: ‘.; q. WVJk r It'fdgrg‘io. c~
‘... ' " .1: Tn’.’ l: 43.3 . I 36) I. 4" 3. «ii I: . {a .' "-21 ' T'o’
'- .. Ru 8an w ' n- "r13: -- .a ' 47'5"” =3. '
'- ,_ _ . V . I a. ' w . .‘Q '5-
. '5 l"... r ,7“: _v"‘:.).. e ii; 71”}; £04: :C‘E‘.‘ 1.. %‘ .2“?! :71,” ,
°-.- ‘00. - . 1“ :_ ’ . .-' - ‘7 ' ‘ 'C‘ J
.. t can .un ' :3. ”tam-"4 ...
-'~,---- v' ° ,. «xx,» '.-- who . v .."'.-. r r
if 3 ‘ ('3 ~‘J‘9 14"" ‘F‘ ' q i; . v ’
J. 3 " . "t. mark-x. " ‘9 gt 0' ‘
. . l“ . _" . C I n —- ‘ ‘ ' . .
.' -7 .. it ~ 3:3,)?“ "‘r-JT‘Q-Ptr-‘t‘ '
3,. ‘ '1" ”1J' ‘Ir .l .mct, fi‘anjfl
..“ _" o F .4: -" O J I"- h "i.

.; .‘ ' . .51..b—,‘ af'r.‘ru-fi'oo‘i.¥i:
.. 0,3..- . Q?“ .19; 3*. ‘ '. I Jake-3 Piaf-r." " ..
_ 4 . ,' - -. - :{_ fig? lkfkgfilflpé fj‘b . ”at-"f: '

 
  

   
 
  

' .- 'f. I.) . '. y
' . "ij a -. ‘.
f‘wfi.“ ;

  
 

\ 4

 
     

1" -
I. ‘
9 \.
O

 
  

If».

     
   

 

.“‘.

. ’1‘;

a-‘ ‘

' "Pu"
..‘%‘|:
.f. Ive

Chapter 4: Jurisdictional Growth and Boundary Performance
Analysis

 

4.1 Introduction

This chapter will present an analysis of the urban growth boundary controls that
are a part of Lincoln and Lansing / East Lansing’s development agenda. It has been
found that there are some striking differences in the structure and policies that the two
capital cities have put in place. Although both communities may have some of the
same objectives, one can see that more is needed than simply a strong vision. This
final portion of the study will also empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of the
growth management efforts of the two communities through an analysis of municipal
growth and residential construction. By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of
urban growth boundary programs, we are better able to strive for the vision of our

growing communities.

4.2 Municipal Growth Analysis

An analysis of historic growth patterns is necessary to measure how effective
growth management efforts have been in the life of a community. By looking at the
density of a community as it changes over time, one can compare the amount of land
that is being utilized to the population growth of the city. A city which uses more and
more land to accommodate less people will have decreasing population density and is
very likely experiencing sprawl development. On the other hand, cities that can

maintain or increase population density are likely exercising effective growth

47

management efforts. The change in persons per square mile within the incorporated
jurisdictions of the study areas is reviewed in this section as a generalized picture of

growth management over time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V
Figure 16
Population Density 1970 - 2000
2 6000 A
E 5000 _ “'7 _...L
i
a 4000 ~———~ -
g \ Lincoln
5 3000 — + —Lansrng i
t 2000 —-East Lansing]
S
2 1000
:‘L’
0 i l l
1970 1980 1990 2000
Year

 

 

 

 

 

Source: US. Census. Census of Population and Housing

Figure 16 displays the average population density over time as a result of the
number of residents within the cities when compared to land area. The graph displays
some interesting trends within both study areas. Typically, when we see a rising or
sustained population density, a city is taking up less space for development and curbing
sprawl. On the other hand, when population density falls there may be some degree of
urban and suburban sprawl. Large annexations of land as well as decreasing
population figures must also be taken into account as they may incorrectly be construed

as new, sprawling development.

48

When focusing on the average population density in the City of Lansing from
1970 through 2000, there is a slowly declining trend. Lansing has not grown
significantly in land area since 1970 and the falling population density is a result of
decreasing population within the city, not due to sprawl. Not unexpectedly, East
Lansing has the greatest population density of all three jurisdictions. The city is much
more tightly developed due to a large student population. We can see a more dramatic
change in population density for the City of East Lansing during this time period. The
variety of population density that is experienced in East Lansing can attributed to
significant changes in student enrollment in addition to significant land acquisitions
between 1990 and 2000. The average population density of Lincoln is shown to be the
most stable of the three cities. This is a result of a healthy, growing population that

exercises effective growth management measures.

4.2 Growth Controls in the Lansing Metromlitan Region

There are many jurisdictions that are included within the Lansing metropolitan
area. In addition to the cities of Lansing and East Lansing, a number of townships are
included within the metropolitan region. Each township has a degree of regulatory
influence on development. This creates a tremendously separated regulation structure
where many legislative bodies are responsible for monitoring and influencing the
ultimate shape of the greater Lansing community.

With respect to growth regulation, there is very little initiative within the Lansing
Region to slow sprawling development. The City of Lansing is practically landlocked by

other, smaller jurisdictions and does not therefore have the opportunity to regulate

49

fringe area growth. Generally, the surrounding townships do not have the resources to
manage an urban growth boundary program. Only one jurisdiction was found to have

developed an urban growth boundary program, which is discussed in the next section.

4.2.1 Meridian Township

Meridian Township is the only community in the Lansing metropolitan area that
utilized a boundary program which set forth the primary objective of managing growth.
Meridian Charter Township is located on the eastern periphery of the Lansing MSA.
Roughly 32 square miles of land are within the boundaries of the Township, having a
population very near the 40,000 mark. The Township is a regional center for business
and retail commerce having several locational advantages. It is within close proximity to
Michigan State University and a major interstate highway. As a result, the Township
has encountered a significant amount of residential and business development in the
past two decades.

The Meridian Charter Township Comprehensive Development Plan went through
a major revision process in the early 19903 and a new version was consequently
adopted in May of 1993. The plan incorporated the innovative initiative of an urban
service boundary “to coordinate the rate and direction of development with the ability of
the Township to deliver public services in an efficient and cost-effective manner”
(Charter Township of Meridian 1993, 161). This section of the Comprehensive Plan
was built on the premise that growth should occur where services can be most
efficiently provided. The western two-thirds of the Township, closest to the metropolitan

area, were designated as a growth area where the community was committed to

50

provide orderly advancement of public services. It was calculated that this area would
provide sufficient room for the community to grow until 2010.
The urban service boundary was created as a tool that would assist in

accomplishing certain goals and objectives of the plan. These ends include:

. Conservation of natural resources by encouraging the orderly development of
land.

. Preservation of mral open space.

0 Providing property owners with greater security in long-range planning and
investments.

0 Making it possible for utility extensions, transportation facilities, and schools to be
designed and located so as to more closely match population growth.

. Preservation of woodlands, wetlands, water recharge areas, and other natural
resources and environmentally-sensitive lands, and the prevention of urban
development from impairing the functioning of vital natural systems.

0 Allowing the Township to make proper investments in infrastructure maintenance
and development within the existing service area on the westerly side of the
Township( 161 ).

On November 22, 1999 the Planning Commission voted to remove the urban
service boundary from the Comprehensive Development Plan. The removal was
accomplished amid a barrage of public opposition and against planning staff
recommendations. The Planning Commission reasoned that those requesting
extensions would pay for the services necessary for new development. It was also

argued that market demands should drive the pattern, timing, and direction of new

development.

51

4.3 Growth Controls in the Lincoln Metropglitan Rggion

The most recent Lincoln City-Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan was
adopted in 1994 and it lays out a strict agenda for control of development. It is
important to note that the plan continues a shared effort between the city and its
surrounding county. In 1959, a joint City-County Planning Commission was formed to
forward the purpose of planning cooperation (37). The 1994 Plan is the fourth that has
been adopted under this agreement and it presents a reaffinnation of a commitment
toward concentrated growth. The first three goals in the land use plan outline an

agenda for growth management:

0 Maximize opportunities for planned urban development which are sensitive to the
natural qualities of the area, including land uses efficiently served by a balanced
and energy-efficient transportation system and community services and facilities.

0 Concentrate new growth in the Lincoln urban area in the villages throughout
Lancaster County. Protect existing rural areas from urban sprawl through
planned development

c Preserve the rural quality of life while allowing for the quality growth of Lincoln

and the incorporated communities of the county and encourage contiguous
development.

The plan recognizes that “growth is a characteristic of a dynamic, healthy
community” (36). In order to continue a locally high quality of life and to remain
economically viable, growth must not just be accommodated, but promoted. The plan
later comments that growth must be done wisely, for development that is not served by
the infrastructure could threaten the entire community. On the other hand, building

infrastructure before it is needed will waste valuable resources. In order to be most

52

beneficial, growth must strike a balance between the provision of infrastructure and the
need for resource conservation. The Lincoln Comprehensive Plan strives to realize this
delicate balance through concurrent development of an adequate infrastructure in line
with the growth of the community.

Lincoln has incorporated a straightforward phasing plan into its growth
management agenda. The 1994 Lincoln City-Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan
anticipates development until the year 2015. The community utilizes an urban growth
boundary program that is broken into phases for a progression of urban services and
development (see attachment A - Anticipated Lincoln Service Limit and Phasing Plan).
The Plan allows flexibility for development through its Phasing Plan.

There are four separate phases of growth that affirm the communities’
commitment to contiguous and efficient development. Phase I is entitled Immediate
Development Areas and is generally adjacent to existing development where public
services are available. New growth is encouraged within Phase I areas with timely
approval of development plans and prioritization of capital improvements.

The second phase that is utilized in the Service Limit Plan provides for Near
Term Development. An area that is designated as Phase II may lack a portion of the
required infrastructure. Growth is not encouraged or discouraged in areas designated
as such, however developers must bear the burden of any off site infrastructure costs.

Phase III provides for Mid Term Development where most infrastructure is not
available but where future development is logical. The community will discourage any
development in these areas and will consider proposals only if the developer provides

all off site improvements that are needed.

53

 

Figure 17
New Residential Units in the City of Lincoln
and the Remainder of Lancaster County

 

 

 

 

g , . _ _s
D I City of Lincoln

'6

3 I Remainder of

E Lancaster County
2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Lincoln/Lancaster County Construction Reports

 

Figure 17 displays residential development in the Lincoln Region during the
1990’s. With a brief glance at the chart, one can see that the vast majority of residential
development in the Lincoln Region takes place within the city. As the number of units
approaches, and once exceeds 1,000 there is not a single year that we have more than

60 new residential units built outside of the city.

55

 

Figure 18
New Residential Units in the Lansing Urban
Areas and the Remainder of lngham County

 

 

 

 

  
 

900

800
£ 700 ,
5 600 ILansing Urban
'6 500 Areas
E 400 “ lRemainder of
E 300 lngham County
g 200 “

 

 

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission

A strikingly different pattern of development is showcased as we move to figure
18 and look at residential development within lngham County. It is shown that a greater
number of housing units are typically built outside of the urban area, when compared to
Lincoln. Although the Lansing / East Lansing Region builds fewer new units each year,
there are many more built outside of the urban area than the Lincoln Region. Another
important characteristic of this chart that is important to notice is the significant range in
the number of new units that are added to the community from year to year. This
signifies a somewhat unstable housing market and unpredictable supply.

It has become quite apparent that the Lincoln community has been much more
effective than the Lansing community at keeping residential development within the city
limits and curbing sprawl. From 1991 until 1999, Lincoln was successful in retaining

96% of the county’s residential growth. Lansing, on the other hand, only managed to

56

keep 71% of its county’s growth within urban areas. One can also see that Lincoln has
a relatively steady and predictable number of new units each year. Lansing has
experienced a recent slowing trend in urban residential growth, however growth within
the non-urban area remains strong. Compared to Lincoln, the Lansing Region is adding
fewer new housing units each year even though it is a larger community. This indicates

that Lincoln has a healthier economy and continues to attract new residents.

57

 

 

       

"' . e \
- , ‘ . - ‘
- » . v
. . l .
fi“ ' l ' - - ‘ I - ‘ x ..
O I .v- 4‘. ‘ 0"" " 4 ,. - 3:4 . r’i. ’ .0. . . .,‘
. 0“: r. 0:,thj ‘ .’ J ' _.. o 3"" .5 . .. ’ .0 o.’ r 1‘ ~ ,; ‘ Dv
' ‘ 'V i- '.v‘.\ v 0~ I "~" ‘. 'J .‘ ‘ " ll H . ' Io 2"1‘
!.-~".""" .. 1“: ‘L' " ' 6..' .. ‘ I " "l ' " ';‘ .5 ‘ -9 - f ,‘, '- 9.»
ll ;. '.”"' I~ .‘_.u. w .‘ .' ‘ei.‘ “" .‘l ..O -t .n .‘-“‘O u’ r .. J c‘. . . . ...
o. - 4 u . _ .. " . - . ‘(: . - ‘._ -. ‘ ' ._ I “..
' '_.‘/' Pd?“ 9..“ \ ‘;( ' .0. . .J.r ' 0'. “ .0 .t . O , “ a. c. . _ {‘3
.o'- "u 1 ' g . ’4 . a . ' ‘7" )j "_..f -‘ '. 4}; ' . 4 '5' ' 4 1 . o .61 ° L’ ll' ‘
. l‘ ,i As' ‘}1 ' _' 3 , . v_ .’ s 'Q l. _ I _. ' 1' W ‘ 0 . . l I. -v-'. (
Afi.‘£ ’. ~('(. g" ' 9' :I «R . a‘ “.f" . ‘ ii" I v 7 ° "0‘ .,v I: 1}. '
~ ‘0.‘ ’ ' 7...).1‘ ' g. ._ .II". ‘ 9"-” .. _ ' W. 0'- I ”.l‘l. , v. t . ~I‘ J'r a? ' ' it 0“ . .' r
t r =Fr- in»: cam-"wr‘ ::-'. .. n . on).
- ° t "1 . J' 1r. . r ‘ J’.";.' ‘r F I "I V ‘i a- “V ‘ . u, t, ' I. “o. ' 3 ‘ 13'
. - z _r .I‘, -..|' . ~_:-_ ~" > I :_. . . t- . ~ ‘0 -- . . ‘ 0 , ‘ .
“1.0” ‘l. .15" L?‘ ; -.’"". o". ‘ " a. " ‘J “5‘ ‘,. .' ‘ ' ~' Wt.)- 1" F. .’ I}; ‘ l‘V‘.'.“- 7' 1 ' .k'
. 2‘ l «.--._- ,9... w he“ -- v -. 1- ~- "g '* rd . . nu
".V~‘".-I‘~."aa.rt new, -.«. new '.'.'-“.' ~~ .v
. .‘_ '4 O :“. ‘-' _‘._ ' 0"...451 -,.."-'_ ‘ 9 '. . .-~ A o ' jfi v... ‘I v ‘1 . ‘ it Q -‘l _s
. .‘t A‘{:. «a? e; .' .l,: .2» a - . lY“:"- -‘ ‘0" .~~"".l‘“ (d‘ro ‘|‘. ' .'
‘ $ ' o. ' ‘7 - 0 « - 9 ‘ 0 - .' , it I O 0.0
H 'l L‘ud.*c"fi 0‘ r 3.. ‘ -.‘ vfifi':~‘ ‘0‘w , Q . J5 . If ’ r' f‘ ' «a J. a,‘ . ‘Q'P. M_*"< . '_1. #1.. .' . ' ‘ .
.- . - - . ~ . r _ a . . c r , _ ,- fl . ’b’ L: _ : o... , Q. , ' . -".
_‘_ . {fir‘k'lv‘a ~ 4?-fa: Qr"_ ‘14} D ’1‘ », ‘5’. :9 -'_§ Inn," ‘l’h: R. J' ”1' , ‘. "B’Ql‘. 1’“. h“. ,' -
' F‘ ' ’ 0 - .-. . o . V o
A T . h‘K ‘ :9 ’ ‘3'3‘ . - ’I , '- :' 1:- -i \ .2‘ i - ‘1 ' 0.3 “I?” 0' ‘4‘ '5‘ L:I_ \. .(5
I). )1— - ‘ - . . ‘ . . .' - | _...
.‘ ‘1 - i
p‘ ‘ . 'h

4 .2?!
.989“- ‘-

J.-

fl‘a‘ _-
1‘ .

:9" _~:

H r
"H
. I

   

l4.
‘ I
’t

l
O
‘0

 
   
  

    

' 1:13, .-
.4"-

  

. -
,. ‘.‘ 1:“ “36-..-

.
J'. ' 3". .-e.-.

j. _ ,‘t

Chapter 5: Conclusion

 

Through the course of this study a number of aspects relating to the development
and implementation of urban growth boundaries have been explored. By understanding
the cause and effects of sprawl development we gain insight into the formation of
growth management strategies, with specific emphasis on urban growth boundaries. In
order to appreciate the aspects of creating and implementing an effective boundary
program various examples, as well as a variety of literature resources, have been
reviewed. The evaluation and comparison of two similarly situated regions that utilize a
growth boundary program provides a more extensive look at the effects of these
- programs on urban growth and development. Through this comparison study we can
distinguish the most effective aspects of these growth management plans and seek to

incorporate essential elements into future planning efforts.

5.1 Analysis of Lansing Area’s Growth Management Efforts

The only option for the Lansing area, under current governmental structure, is
fragmented land use control by jurisdiction. All of the development control in the
Lansing Region is on a township or municipality basis. There are seven separate
jurisdictions within the Lansing area that must work together in order to manage
development. It would be a coordination nightmare to build an effective program that
includes every jurisdiction. This severely restricts any regional initiative that can be
implemented with the authority of government.

lngham County, in which Lansing is located, has no resources to enforce

regional planning measures. Although there is a Lansing area metropolitan planning

58

organization that provides valuable analysis of regional development, it seems that it
has very minimal authority and influence over growth patterns. Without a system in
place that incorporates regional governmental cooperation, each jurisdiction is limited to
the influence of growth control to within its boundaries.

The cities of Lansing and East Lansing have very few incentives to exercise
growth management initiatives. Due to the amount of development that has been
permitted just beyond both of these cities, they have limited options for expansion. The
townships that are located adjacent to each of the cities have developed urban settings
and are unwilling to consider annexation. Although the cities have the most authority to

implement development control policies, they are in the least likely position to do so.

5.1.1 Meridian Township

After a review of the literature concerning the strategies for a successful growth
boundary program, it can be argued that Meridian Township’s boundary program would
not have been effective even if it had remained. The program was severely lacking in
many of the essential characteristics of an effective program.

An evaluation of the provisions that were incorporated into the growth boundary
program indicates that certain areas were simply disregarded. First, and foremost, the
community did not account for any adjacent jurisdictions in its planning efforts. An effort
was never made to secure regional cooperation. This could theoretically resutt in an
undeveloped island existing within a thriving urban area. The Township would also be

limiting itself by losing out on development potential. Clearly, we can envision the

59

 

ineffectiveness that was inherent in a localized boundary amidst rampant regional
growth.

The Meridian Township growth boundary program was not well integrated into
the Comprehensive Development Plan. There are merely three different instances in
the plan where the boundary is even mentioned. In order for the program to be more
effective, there must be more attention paid to incorporating the principles of growth
management and urban growth boundaries into the Comprehensive Plan.

The zoning ordinance was not utilized as a means to fonrvard conservation
oriented development. There was no evidence of incentives that would allow the
preservation of undeveloped land or strategies to encourage infill and redevelopment.
The ordinance was also not amended in any way to support the objectives of the urban
growth boundary. It can be unmistakably seen that there has been very little structural
and written policy support for the urban growth boundary program.

Another important point that should be made, as to the likely ineffectiveness of
this urban growth boundary program, is the lack of attention that was paid to community
input. In this case, the Planning Commission was unresponsive to citizen opposition
and likely made quite a few enemies. The residents raised many questions as to the
value of the maintaining the urban service boundary that were not addressed. It is felt
that a much greater effort was called for on the part of the commission members to
more objectively assess the situation.

In conclusion, it has been found that the urban growth boundary program that
was adopted and subsequently dismissed from the planning agenda of Meridian

Township had minimal effects on development patterns. It has been shown that in

60

order to implement an effective program a variety of specific characteristics must be in
place. By thoroughly considering all of the objectives that have been set forth, a locality
can realistically develop a program that will become a valuable resource towards

optimal community growth.

5.2 Analysis of Lincoln Area’s Growth Management Efforts
A thorough review of the growth boundary program that has been adopted by the

City of Lincoln, Nebraska shows the incorporation of all the elements which generate an
effective blueprint for efficient community development. The Lincoln City - Lancaster
County Comprehensive Plan sets forth a model program that can be tremendously
effective with the support of local officials.

The Lincoln Plan presents a detailed demographic and socio-economic analysis
of the metropolitan area. The second chapter in the Plan walks through population
growth since 1870, detailing many characteristics of the residents. The chapter also
analyzes the quality of life of the population through socio-economic indicators. By
establishing an in depth picture of current conditions within the community, the Plan can
more effectively anticipate trends and plan for future development.

An important element that sets this Plan apart from most current comprehensive
plans is a very effective regional approach to growth management. The Lincoln Plan
recognizes that there must be a unified program which accounts for the entire
metropolitan area, and is not limited to jurisdictional boundaries. This can be the only
option to provide for the welfare of the entire community. By taking a regional planning

approach, this Plan stands at the forefront of initiatives in urban land use development.

61

A well-stated synopsis of the successful approach can be found on page 37 of
the 1994 Lincoln City — Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan:

This cooperative planning effort affords the citizens of the
City and County with more than just a single document the
can call their plan. It provides an environment for the
rational delivery of public services that are designed to meet
a range of urban and rural lifestyles. This cooperative
planning provides stability to the development process and
allows for a pattern of growth unencumbered by jurisdictional
and disparate economic bases. In short, the plan provides
for an orderly, viable City and County that function as one
community.

The third Chapter of the 1994 Lincoln Plan “Future Needs and Land Use Plan”
sets out a number of goals and strategies that serve to discourage sprawl and manage
urban development. One goal of the land use plan specifically states that efforts should
be taken to prevent sprawl by concentrating development in the Lincoln urban area and
other villages throughout the County. From this initiative, we can see the incorporation
of the phasing plan as one style of an urban growth boundary.

The Lincoln growth boundary program is certainly not a stand alone initiative that
resolves sprawling development. The boundary has become effective through a strong
community effort that is not simply a vision of the Comprehensive Plan, but it is also
included in every aspect of development review.

The 1994 Lincoln Plan has convincingly shown that all of the necessary steps
have been taken to create a successful growth boundary program. A thorough analysis
of current community conditions was coupled with solid planning principles to form solid
goals and set a strong foundation for the Plan. A systematic program was then formed

to work toward the community vision. The Plan additionally sets forth an agenda for

structured review of the plan, which many municipalities overlook. With continued

62

support from the community as well as elected officials, Lincoln will maintain its healthy
patterns of development with the practice of sound planning. Lincoln is clearly a fine
example for other regions and communities wishing to implement an urban growth
boundary program to study and replicate, including Meridian Township and the Lansing

MSA.

63

    
  
 
   
 
 
  
  
  
 
   

  
    

,<.' o ‘l.‘ ." .5 ‘9‘:- ‘ v.' ' . ’
. . ‘._ .‘ .- ,_ ‘. ’ ‘l.- ‘ . v
'Q f ,. .~ .‘ ‘u 3i . '. J >1 ‘ . . . b.
‘ - I.‘V‘ . . , t . " " -‘ I ‘
y I " - . ‘ ' . s ‘ ° " 5
A": r . --V'-.‘. :1 - -, '.‘:. '3 a . . '.
v . v . J) ‘u .d"‘ o ' ‘~ ‘ ‘ "for. ‘I
r‘ -' . . 9‘. ' ' ‘ '«.-“‘h‘ . .
. I ‘b.( . (\A s‘ C ‘ 0‘ .‘.-.~J J (z .““' '5’.
f. 5} A .,¢’ . " F V ' l' 1%"“' '.
’..t r. ‘ T'L”. f ~ . . ‘.. c \- )§>I.: ~~.. l; .3: oil?
‘\ 'o‘ ’1 I |\"‘ a 4%. u 1‘ J," -.l J. n.?‘
. °?r‘ I"?;~. :r f, :2 .‘h" ..:. 5f}. :' 5‘. ’l.‘.t.e '11.
- _ - . I- '
4&31 . t: t rm «."o 5.1 -- "t4 '2: wet—w
3; 3r ' 1‘ .- ‘3'.“ 1"" .39" ‘ 'L' ”f‘-'
3. .. ,. , 9"»?1» . ~~~ v... w ,3: .
. . . . m - .. "a - "Z-
9 4.13”“ Put-mu 3 ~' . 4*... ~c‘.
‘9 ¢ . .5. _D'K Q j

I ’ ..
{‘ix'w‘ " .- r .

r-:‘¢~~ M- . ’.<’5"‘~- t'.- r.

“7*?" 1" :f‘yi' 31:27 71"?" "

9 , .I r .7 9?; I ‘ I . {1‘
1‘. V..‘y ' ’ t“! ‘ _. I 3 .’ a k. ‘ f t
r -t- 2:}: -. - " , 4M: ~ '~’
O’Wrré. ‘- I .1 O - “ 0'. .5. . '> .‘ ' § “
.“- -. a u .‘-‘-= ":-m .25.; ’m‘» ‘-
.- ‘ .’ ° .' .‘- ’ . - ' ' r3 ‘
. 4’74! H‘s " . {'1533'. f 3‘: '9’: fio‘fi‘: ‘0 ‘
“"7“ .§‘\ . x‘ 9 t F " dkfh' - '6‘” ‘5 °
N “3J5 ’3’ . ° F- d 4’.- 9"~‘-’?1 f k” .
3 a": ,0. {an "I. _, I, r' ‘1‘- ,.

R2, “-5817. Vii-L9: @1.°'}§"--’~tc?'t'¢*‘yl..w'rvwfibifl‘ffi‘: "3.5-2.; ,
. . - ' ’ , ' '.I 43. .I . ‘ a . v \\' - '
-- - '-:~ sameness. -.«.~¢"';'."3.'¢2 fin’fa-‘mt' ‘r’u‘r" "35"“-
," ' ' ' '3 r' '0 I? :' J‘- t " ‘
o

{L . . I .

. 5...,” : .. -- ' - - 21-. - a" YQ"
\ '1‘". fr)" {:8' "‘ “PF. -:. ..3‘" at?!)
"u ‘ k ' -‘ : ' '

  
    

e
l -‘I
0"
-r*o$
'0‘

,-

l

I
gs

l

'7‘

fl.
7":

'n’ . 'g '. :5: ’ I..(.":. I“‘1' “5'56 v ’ J ,5
' ' ". ~‘4 . O ‘0 $ ’9 ;\- ’1' Q .' ( I
r. .. 5.2: out». Maw .
‘. .1 ..J, -V-" v.) '55,. . __ . "2 “v.91
' ‘ "rd.”l'. ‘A ' «.i-‘AQQ.."' laif’.”y._'pf“'fiq '4'
I“: Jim-'1‘ 1% it. ~ . - 4» '2'
«:..» ~....,.r.-1~.«+m-! .. .
, °. . t . I .1 5 C . 9
Min 1 “Jug-{:5 }'9.':?~“7“ .4"\":-”o'335€).1' ( ”l
a ‘ ‘41 a: ,1 ‘ '.l ‘. . ' " s
t" I A f,“ . :37...“ J. “11“.“ x‘559 “‘5 . It? ;;‘IQ Jl‘F‘?‘ .2.
1 . x. '51ng . 'j " ‘ P 1". K“,l._u. '.' .‘
:.....g a“) - 3: ~“.~.\..3“.:£¥ta.;;c Q) Q, 4,4,31hd-fi
. ' I ‘ t " o ‘ ' d '
{ltr '-:‘."‘v {52’s ~.‘- at; I ‘ 'scat ."ri'f‘ '4
.— .‘FJ' V.“ ._ \ ‘1 ‘ fl“ ‘1‘1‘ ,n ‘é...’ .U.’ ‘0 I"
I ‘ . x I ) -"~.’O‘ 3 J ’ - '. ‘0’. ‘ "."Q. o :‘ 5 (‘
:.- .~ . ,.. ., mum. a; w ..-. , 2v.
.r. ,5 0 ., b ‘}a 1: " “J;
x . y

- a
' ‘ , . . 9.
b _.. l r .‘ .ek5‘ I.. ' g ‘5 ‘ - "CHI!!! ’. ' "-.fi':
i‘r.’ r. ,‘.':fi’r3f"l‘!:g:1‘ c‘u'; *5 35:53 '1? '5'“. ’1'
. ‘ . -'- a“: ”9k '1. “9.4515 9» "9’33: 1' 9“"
t - 'r4.-"c~:’i"..l. «Emma's: u t.“ fie" * T'”
l._ " " - :..Jwr- ' .'. -‘- .;

5
O
U

., ?_ ~r' . .1. 5‘ fl. O
-. phi $35,3{qCfiYs'r43x-rési. : E"...

I

.
. v .

‘9'

  
  

      
 
  
     

.9_' '., 1.", la.
' 1.“.‘11‘064- {t or
«r.~'_> _.l"" {'33-".“ — '

"9.9.’,“:?“.d;’9 S'V-‘F'tf’ f

' 3'9
“H.155?
I' ‘V‘7"
. _‘1
I)"'
.
'5

   
   

‘5'7'." 4
,

‘53:".

o
n.-

'I

l

g
l
I.

r :-
l’ ‘ 1 V
.. .—$ -
‘ any".
a "
t-i .‘r
.‘ ..
U
r_l ‘ '-
." .. .- 4‘.
.r ' z.
I '
...‘.O‘..
9’" 1 - .
I?” ’Q d
2" ‘ 01‘ . J
:l -, ',,- . - . - .. - - s- - '
r ‘ .u_ ‘ . . ‘ _ . ' h . , "' ' ' '.' '. ' - I ‘ .. - ‘ ‘ r ‘ - o .
¢ I _ .. . _. ‘ . ’4. ,1 f
1 . K ‘ h -

’ . u . . _ . a .- . -V
. I . ' . ' v c-
. a ‘ ‘ h . . , . .‘ ‘ a . .
l - s o

3',-_n‘='\ 1
a“ 4 .
o . . .4_‘_ ‘
. g -
I' ‘h .O‘J
l o - '. ' _
‘.°. fir,-

Bibliography

 

Charter Township of Meridian. Comprehensive Development Plan. Okemos: Charter
Township of Meridian, 1993.

Davidson, Michael. “Albuquerque’s Growing Pains.” Zoning News (1998):

Easley, Gail V. Staying Inside the Lines: Urban Growth Boundaries. Chicago:
American Planning Association, 1992.

Fishman, Robert. “Americas New City: Megalopolis Unbound.” erson Quarterly 14
no.1 (Winter 1990): 24-25.

. Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. New York: Basic
Books, 1987.

 

Friday, Rupert. Sizing and Shaping Growth Areas. Baltimore: Maryland Office of
Planning, 1998.

Geddes, Robert. “Metropolis Unbound.” The American Prospect 35. (Nov/Dec 1997):
40-46.

Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Johnson, James ed. Suburban Growth: Geographical Processes at the Edge of the
Western City. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1974.

Kasowski, Kevin. “The Costs of Sprawl, Revisited.” Planning & Zoning News (January
1 993): 6-9.

Kelly, Eric. Managing Community Growth. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1993.

Lancaster County Population Growth: Components of Change, 1990-1998. Prepared
by the Lincoln - Lancaster County Planning Department. 1999.

Lincoln City - Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan. Prepared by the Lincoln -
Lancaster County Planning Department. 1994.

Muller, Peter 0. Contemporary Suburban America. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall,
1 981 .

Nortrup, Mike. Urban Growth Boundaries. Baltimore: Maryland Office of Planning,
1995.

Porter, Douglas R. Managing Growth in America’s Communities. Washington, DC:
Island Press, 1997.

64

. Profiles in Growth Management: An Assessment of Current Programs
and Guidelines for Effective Management. Washington DC: ULI - the Urban
Land Institute, 1996.

 

Sayer, Jim. Bound for Success. San Francisco: Greenbelt Alliance, 1997.

Thomas, Holly L. “The Economic Benefits of Land Conservation.” Dutchess County
Planning Department, New York (February 1991). 1-3, 27.

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. lngham County Building Permits By Place
of Issue 1980 thru 1999. Lansing, Michigan.

US. Bureau of the Census. 2000 Census of Population and Housing.
US. Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census of Population and Housing.
US. Bureau of the Census. 1980 Census of Population and Housing.

US. Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census of Population and Housing.

65

 

 

 

o.
f
a

O

. __:-'

'3;
,1.

I

o
It}?!

s '._
U“
m,
Ir
O

.13"? “"1

(3‘.
1.9

n ‘ I

:1.-
9:72.

.C -
'2'.
l-Gr .

. "—1.3
n 6

- VI " ‘
".1 g"- . o'ifl)? ? £3 1'
?' .3- .

0 - a '
v v.'_ J. (-
sf“. ’4; JR?"

$5353: 0-
“ 0 ‘ . I

3

’9 J
.5!!!)

‘5“

 
 
  
 

j I?

. .o . t.
r
, ,1 4.11
" "V.:'" .éw-x J
n'r‘r. ‘1‘ GM
‘ 6 N

t 1
W

I

. \‘7

v I
: . .v ' :-
a . '-
'¢'. . ’9:- “ " .‘h
l .l ' 'l ..
- J“ _
. I '

u' in.
{:(.. h . ,

‘13
is».

4 ._- ’ .
~‘r’\‘:'

, iii-Mtg-

I
O

, ‘5
JJJ yr :6

   

'.
,0

t

. _..
o’_ o '

 

  
    

   
  

   
 

h {(8.9- ,3
‘v’l‘.

    

   
 
   
 

 
 

    
  

      

 
 

Appendix

66

Attachment A

 

   

 

- - - "loom Fun 80M: Lint
Anticipated Lincoln Service morn-mm

Limit and Phasing Plan $=a¢ggmfi u...

l-
? -b-. fun-Mal

mahfim
Illu 5". 4'. pum— duty-:..“
5 i i i @1535:
Lincoln Cityllancaster County “$312.... :2:-
. Comprehensive Plan ”:5“ w" ""

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

67

 

31293 02637 8723