Copyright 1999 The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Editorial: "Rebutting Sprawl"
by Colin McNickle, Editorial Page staff
Comments to: letters@tribune-review.com
February 22, 1999

On Sunday, we devoted this space to detail some of the many myths in the debate over "sprawl," the pejorative of choice these days for "growth." And we also discussed the need to use the marketplace to meet the challenges of that growth. It's a complex topic. And much of the debate, on both sides, is dominated by ideologues. But the basic facts cannot be disputed. Sprawl is not the threat that the many who now campaign against it claim it is.

Some anti-sprawl groups around the nation have taken to offering the public "kits" to seed a "grassroots effort" to combat sprawl. Many are based on wholly erroneous premises. And it's likely that as the sprawl debate intensifies in Pennsylvania, those swearing to the Ecocratic Oath will attempt to enter such pseudo facts into the record. Today, we arm you with a few pertinent facts:

Claim: Sprawl is Public Enemy No. 1. It is pillaging vital farmlands at unprededented rates.

Fact: The rate of farmland loss has been in steady decline, including in Pennsylvania, since the 1950s. Some of what's being "lost" has reverted to forest lands. And farming is not in peril; more food is produced on less land than ever before.

Claim: Growth boundaries (sometimes called "Urban Growth Boundaries," or UGBs) that limit development to inside the UGB are a good way to save land, save cities, reduce congestion, and improve air quality.

Fact: UGBs increase densities and congestion and, hence, decrease air quality. Mass transportation is not a significant mitigative. UGBs also destroy open space in urban areas and increase housing prices.

Claim: Low-density housing development is environmentally unfriendly.

Fact: Low-density housing is better for the environment. The housing of dense urban areas--with their buildings, roads, sidewalks, and parking lots--use a higher percentage of the land and leave little of the natural environment (trees, shrubs, etc.) to absorb pollutants.

Claim: Sprawl promotes haphazard development, is more expensive, and seldom if ever pays for the public infrastructure it requires.

Fact: The "leapfrog" development that's generally associated with sprawl is more cost-effective for consumers and the public infrastructure. And it's not the development that fails to cover the associated new infrastructure costs, it's government (the same government that now wants to save us from sprawl) with a penchant for abatements.

Claim: Strip malls (sometimes referred to as "ribbon development') are nothing but a pox on the land that create horrible traffic congestion. If not outright banned, they should be severely curtailed.

Fact: Strip malls reduce overall traffic because fewer cars must travel long distances from store to store or office to office. Strip development brings together businesses that depend on high-volume auto traffic. And it creates natural locations for residential development. Poorly designed strip malls are problematic, especially those without separate, parallel access roads.

The next time somebody tells you sprawl is bad, you'll be better prepared to debunk their gross generalization.