(3 of 9)
San Jose, Calif., a booming city, actually lives off its own growth. The largest employer is the home-building industry, kept busy by the doubling of the city's population (to 500,000) since 1960. Trouble is, San Jose has been growing so fast that it cannot keep up with the demand for new roads, sewer systems and, above all, schools. Seven of the 26 school districts operate on double sessions. Fed up, citizens last April approved a referendum requiring developers to get special permission from school districts before applying for residential zoning changes. Remarkably, the voters, including those in the building trades, overrode their economic self-interests by cutting the rate of construction. "The people," says Mrs. Claire Benson, a civic leader, "had to choose between continued growth and their kids' needs. They chose."
Other communities have passed laws limiting the height of buildings, thus curbing population density. Sanbornton, N.H., has zoned half its land against tract developers, ruling that new houses can be built only on six-acre lots. Livermore, Calif, issues building permits on the basis of the availability of water, sewage facilities and schools. Carson City, Nev., has chosen Boca Raton's route, and will cut off any further growth when its population hits 55,000.
Moratoriums and other emergency devices mainly represent a desperate reaction to the processes of uncontrolled growth. Since World War II, for instance, the rich potato farm lands of Nassau County, just beyond the eastern limits of New York City, have been transformed by tract houses, shopping centers, neon strips and drive-ins. Today the county is 96% fully developed, and the old distinctions between town and country are completely blurred in the semiurban mess. Similar helter-skelter growth afflicts counties around every major city, from coast to coast.
Taking drastic steps to ease the immediate pressure of development barely confronts the basic issue of what kind of future a town really wants. Communities are slowly learning that the only long-term solutions come from proper planning for land use. That means putting the right development in the right place. For at least a while, the economic costs are sure to be high. Comprehensive planning alone costs the average town $60,000. In addition, taking land off the market for environmental reasons is sure to drive up surrounding land values. But like the costs of preventive medicine, the long-term gains are worth the short-term expense. By banning inappropriate development through planning, towns will save the prohibitive costs of providing the new areas with roads, sewers, schools and police and fire protection.
Edward J. Logue, an administrator who has guided successful programs for New Haven, Boston and New York State, sums up the case: "If land use were mapped out in advance, there would be no speculative value on land. If development were ordered, there would be plenty of room for everyone to live properly. It isn't that we have to invent a process. We just need to commit ourselves."
Some effective commitments are being made at every level of government.