Modernizing Zoning Regulations: The Response to Sprawl

Introduction

One major concern of modern civilization is the widespread evolution of sprawl. With California being the largest populated state in America, it is easily susceptible to further increasing sprawl. There are a number of forces accountable for sprawl in California that skeptics can point to as causes: the rapid population growth, consumer preference, or improved infrastructure. However, it is local governments who hold the greatest responsibility to prevent sprawl, through the zoning regulations they create. These regulations limit the ability of developers to design communities that mix commercial, office, and residential land-uses (Why Government Policies, 2010). Thus decentralizing the population and making it necessary to expand. With the approval of zoning ordinances, urban planners are forced to conform to limited building possibilities. This will leave consumers with single-use residential neighborhoods as the only available option. State and local governments are the biggest contributor to California’s current sprawl disaster. A revisit to zoning regulations can open up the market to mixed-use zones when legislatures permit such growth in cities or counties. In order for development to exist it must follow the allocation endorsed by the government’s approval. The main uses of land typically falls into four categories: agricultural, commercial, industrial and residential districts (Why Government Policies, 2010). Only the government has the power to subdivide these categories and allow for multi-functional land use.

Zoning History

Before zoning laws existed, cities in America regulated what could be built through nuisance laws. If an individual disagreed with the way their neighbor was using their property they would often settle their disputes in court. However, the issues became cumbersome, leading to the establishment of zoning regulations. In 1916, New York City became the first city in the United States to begin using comprehensive zoning laws. This took the power away from the citizens and entrusted the government to decide what growth was permitted in cities and counties. Additionally researchers found correlations between mix-land uses and a poor quality of life in many major cities. The theory was that industrial centers in close proximity to residential neighborhoods was causing shorter life spans of the residents. Local governments then took the initiative and implemented divided land-use areas that would keep residential housing distant from industrial buildings. However, the efforts ended up exaggerating the necessary divisions, leading to single-use land areas. This resulted in the uncontrollable expansion of land use for urban areas because of the assertion to distance the four categories of development.

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.

In 1926, the constitutionality of zoning regulations was disputed in the United States Supreme Court landmark case, Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. In an attempt to prevent industrialized Cleveland from encroaching the individuality of the Village of Euclid, Ohio, the local governments enacted zoning ordinances that excluded large retail establishments. The ordinance also mandated building heights, size, and setbacks for buildings. Ambler Realty Company on the other hand, felt that the new regulations were devaluing the sixty-eight acres of land they owned in the Village of Euclid. They therefore sued, on the grounds that they were deprived of liberty and property without due process. The Supreme Court upheld the zoning ordinance, concluding that as long as it had a substantial concern to the “health, safety, morals or general welfare” of the public then it would be interpreted as constitutional (Why Government Policies, 2010). The case set the standard for local governments throughout the nation, bolstering their police power to control zone regulations. As long as the regulations had health/safety provisions, the government was in control of what was allowed to be built in towns.

The Impact of Sprawl

Zoning regulations have become the norm of modern planning, but what was originally intended to keep the public safe has now introduced a new danger to society: sprawl. Sprawl trends are often labeled as urban or suburban, but they both share equally harming consequences. The effects are evident throughout California, where many of its residents live their lives through an extensive web of freeways to commute to work. The separation of office buildings, retail stores, farm land, factories and other land uses from residential areas creates the need to utilize more land. Therefore, resulting in dispersed populations and depleted natural resources. The local governments of California have done little to mitigate the spread of sprawl. They instead duplicate cities with lazy and redundant zoning laws that repeat the norm. Having the Supreme Court’s support makes the need for innovative zoning laws pointless. What has resulted is a modern misuse of police power by local governments, who are doing more harm to society than benefit. Three major aspects of society have been affected by poor zoning laws and sprawl: transportation, economy, and quality of life.

1. Transportation

Infrastructure is inevitably expanded as a consequence of sprawl. The appeal of sprawl came when people realized they no longer had to live in close proximity to their jobs. Consequently, many Americans are enslaved to long daily commutes on traffic-ridden freeways. Infrastructure costs are through the roof, as cities struggle to provide enough adequate roads for the ever-growing sprawling cities. America’s residents have become automobile-dependent, causing more air pollution and more auto accidents, which is the leading cause of death for Americans between the age of five and twenty-four (U.S. Death Statistics, 2008). The nation has also become oil-dependent, often relying on foreign nation’s oil supplies.

1. Economic

Sprawl affects local governments’ economies in unnecessary ways. Money is allocated to the peripherals of cities in order to extend services to new developments. These services include not only water and sewer lines, but also fire and police protection, libraries, recreational facilities, and schools (Why Government Policies, 2010). This relocates money away from central areas of cities where it could be better utilized by improving these services elsewhere. Sprawl also drastically increases public expenditures. In less dense areas, public services are more expensive which can include housing utilities, transportation and an increase in taxes.

1. Quality of life

Zoning gained legitimacy as a mechanism to protect the safety of communities. However, as governments became more bureaucratic and inefficient with their zoning regulations, they unintentionally created a new series of dangers to society, eroding the quality of life for Californians. The environment suffers immensely as a result of sprawl. More and more farmland and wildlife habitats are eradicated from existence, taking the local habitat with it. This is why researchers label sprawl as the number one threat to biodiversity (McKinney, 2002). Another factor tarnished by sprawl is the quality and quantity of water. Impervious surfaces make flooding a common occurrence and less water is absorbed into groundwater aquifers (Frumkin, 2002). Water is also increasingly becoming prone to pollution from automobile runoff. Lastly, in terms of social dynamics, communities based on economic class will be amplified through sprawl, further increasing segregation. Homogeneous suburbs isolate minority groups and make the accessibility to advancement much more difficult.

Smart Growth

Local governments have the power to alleviate the ills associated with sprawl. The original purpose of zoning, to protect the “health, safety, morals or general welfare” of the public is no longer perpetuated. It is time now to try out new types of smarter growth options. If action is not taken, sprawl’s irreversible effects will get progressively worse. California’s large and growing population needs to be a leader in the fight against sprawl. Consumer’s appeal of California will only be changed when they are provided with better choices of living. This does not mean a dichotomy between suburban homes and dense high-rise structures, but instead finding that balance based on setting and consumer preference. The national Smart Growth Network (2017) has come up with ten Smart Growth Principles that local California governments need to adapt:

1. Mix-land uses

2. Take advantage of compact building designs

3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices

4. Create walkable neighborhoods

5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place

6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas

7. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities

8. Provide a variety of transportation choices

9. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective

10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions

When mandating new zoning laws, these ten principles need to be expressed. Relaxing zoning laws transfers the power back to the community allowing their input to be communicated. These principles address every negative impact of sprawl and resolves them. These are the appropriate modern day solutions to the antiquated zoning practices of the past. Efforts need to be taken to consolidate the state’s resources and efficiently utilize land. The American Planning Association (2017) has publicly endorsed mixed-use communities, where people can choose to live, work, and play because they are attractive and cost-effective options, rather than forced decisions. Local governments have maintained a police power over planning that needs to be relieved. Only then can California correct the misfortunes that have come from zoning’s production of sprawl.

Conclusion

The zoning regulations of California are currently too strict to discontinue sprawl. We need local governments to reevaluate current regulations that support mixed-use land development. The Euclid v. Ambler case that entrusted governments with zoning regulations because of the welfare of the public has been violated. When taking a closer look, it is apparent that zoning leads to sprawl and an overall worse environment for everyone. Unfortunately, local governments are blindly contributing to this disaster. It is time to wake up and acknowledge sprawl, and take the right steps to defeat it while we still can.

References

“APA Policy Guide on Smart Growth”. (2017). American Planning Association.

Frumkin, Howard (May–June 2002). Urban Sprawl and Public Health. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

McKinney, Michael L. (2002). "Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation". BioScience. 52 (10): 883.

“Smart Growth Principles.” (2017). Smart Growth Online. N.p.

U.S. Death Statistics. (2008). The Disaster Center.

"Why Government Policies Encourage Urban Sprawl and the Alternatives Offered." (2010). Spencer Fane LLP. N.p., Web.