PATA History Pages

Developer Influences & Myths about Growth

sifting through the rhetoric - Facts about Growth

While citizens of various communities in Ohio all grapple with growth issues a recent article in the Columbus Dispatch shows how citizens in communities like the village of Plain City are dealing with their “Developer influenced” local governments.

Pickerington residents could learn a lot from these (and others) efforts.

We have placed a link to the web site of the Citizens Caring About Their Town (CCATT) and also a link to the Dispatch article (see Our Pages).

Noted within the Dispatch article is a quote from the Executive Director of the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, Bill Habig, “A large housing base doesn’t guarantee commercial and industrial development. A community that subscribes to the theory could be setting itself up for a fall.”

---- ain't that the truth, Mr. Habig!!! We now have local officials crowing about the Commercial development of ''flex warehousing'' - TIF'ing our School's tax dollars (directing taxes away from schools to infrastructure) to help establish this ''broad tax base'' and continuing to ''Emergency'' pass subdivisions after subdivision.

Myths vs. Facts

Myth # 1: If you are concerned and want to restrict growth, you are un-American and only want
to keep it for yourself

Reality Check. This is one of the many tricks that developers use to portray those who are unwilling to accept undesirable development in and around their towns.

Similar rhetorical labels include "anti's" (people who are against everything), "gate keepers", "drawbridge raiser", "I've got mine". There are far too many examples of how these negative labels have been used against concerned citizens to neutralize opposition to growth. These labels seem to have the primary purpose of invalidating what may be very legitimate concerns about growth and development. Those individuals who care enough about the future of his or her community to get out and protect it are more American than those using these negative labels. If those Developers using these labels were giving their houses away for free, then we could talk about the American way.
Negative labeling distorts and marginalizes legitimate viewpoints. It also tends to polarize issues and discourage productive dialogue. The more people join together to reserve the quality of their "backyards", the better off the world would be.

Myth #2: We have to ''grow or die''. If growth is not accepted, the town will become stagnant and have recession.
Reality Check: Taking control of urban growth actually brings life to a community. It gives it vision and a statement of values and principals that make for a positive effect on the whole town.
Rather than struggle to meet our unbounded perceptions of need, we must come to some understanding about how much is satisfactory. We must replace the basic premise of ‘more is better’ with a much sounder principal that ‘enough is best’.'' (Steady-Stable Communities, Herman E. Daily, Washington D.C. Island Press) We are a mobile society of people in this day and age.

More Myths vs. Facts

Myth #3: Growth provides needed tax revenues.

Reality Check: Growth tends to raise tax rates.

"The available evidence shows that development does not cover new public cost. That is, it brings in less revenue for local government than the price of servicing." (Management and Control of Growth of Small Governments, Washington D.C., Vol III, Ch 16). The direct and indirect costs of growth place new demands on local resources and public services. Those who are expecting a windfall from new development will be sadly disappointed. It will cost more money than it generates.

Myth # 4: Growth is inevitable. Growth management doesn’t work and therefore we have no choice but to continue growing. You can’t put a fence around your town.

Reality Check: You can establish limits of growth and you can create a "railing" around your community.

"The U.S. Supreme Court and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution supports the right of communities to enact reasonable regulations for this purpose. The right to protect the health, safety and the general welfare goes a long way and includes matters of quality of life." (Land use in America, Diamond Henry, Washington D.C. Populations Environment Balance) The statement that "growth is inevitable" implies that we are helpless victims of change; that we must accept whatever growth is thrust upon us and that our only choice is the manner in which we accommodate it. We don’t believe that is true.
There is a wide range of things we can do. There are many new and innovative zoning regulations to help control growth. If we just pass two zoning regulations we could slow things down. One is "capping" regulation. This is a regulation that states that the town will only grown, let’s say 1% a year over the current population. The second regulation is called "inclusionary zoning" which requires that any new residential development must include a certain percentage of low and moderate-income housing.
It is a matter of direction and attitude. The question is, do the council and the mayor want to try those things?