Sprawl in
Forsyth County, North Carolina
Public Health
245, Community Assessment
University of
North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Fall Semester,
2001
Jim Bowles
December 2,
2001
Sprawl in Forsyth County, North Carolina
"Sprawl",
as a descriptor of community growth, is a somewhat loose term, without precise,
commonly accepted definition. The term
has been applied to a number of conditions defining the relationship between
the human population of an area and the physical environment, particularly the
built environment. One concise
definition is " (The) pattern of strip development and spread-out low
density development in the countryside that leads to a gradual decline in
community life and values, and the erosion of the economic base in cities and villages"
(Vermont Forum on Sprawl).
Still,
defining "sprawl" is somewhat akin to defining art; we don't know
what it is, but we know it when we see it.
Rather than attempting to define the concept, it is probably more useful
to take the approach of Anthony Downs (1998), who lists ten traits of sprawl:
unlimited outward extension of urban or village centers; leapfrog development;
low-density development; fragmentation of land-use controls among many
localities; automobiles as the primary form of transportation; no centralized
planning of land-use; widespread strip commercial development; great fiscal
disparities among localities; segregation of land use types into different
zones; reliance on trickle-down effects to provide housing to low-income
households.
Historically,
the issue of sprawl was discussed in terms of "urban sprawl", the
phenomenon of the outward expansion of cities into the surrounding countryside,
accompanied by annexation of rural or suburban areas into the city limits. More recently, the discussion has included
the concept of "suburban sprawl", which is characterized by large,
low-density housing developments from which residents commute to work and to
shopping, recreation and other personal services. Many of traits described by Downs, and the concepts of both urban
and suburban sprawl, apply to current growth patterns in Forsyth County.
The
problems associated with sprawl in Forsyth County are a concern for county
residents, and for governmental and non-governmental organizations. Some efforts are already being made to deal
with these issues in Forsyth County.
This paper will briefly describe the patterns of growth in the county,
the relationship of sprawl to public health, efforts undertaken to address the
issue of sprawl in Forsyth County, and some of the success that other
localities have had in dealing with sprawl.
Forsyth County Growth Trends
Forsyth
County is located in the so-called "Piedmont Triad" region of North
Carolina. Winston-Salem, the major city
in the county and the county seat, makes up one point of the "triad";
Greensboro and High Point, in neighboring Guilford County are the other
two. The Triad region is one of the
three largest metropolitan areas in North Carolina. Forsyth County, with a 2000 census population of 306,607, is the
fourth most populous county in the state.
The land area of Forsyth County is approximately 410 square miles,
giving the county a population density of just over 747 persons per square
mile, the fifth most densely populated county in North Carolina (North Carolina
State Data Center).
Winston-Salem,
the largest city in the county and the fifth most populous in the state, had a
2000 census population of 185,776.
Other municipal areas in the county and their 2000 populations are
Bethania, 354; Clemmons, 13,827; Kernersville, 17,126; Lewisville, 8,826; Rural
Hall, 2,464; Tobaccoville, 2,209; and Walkertown, 4,009 (North Carolina State
Data Center). The 2000 census numbers
are an increase of almost 30% in the population of Winston-Salem since
1990. The total municipal population of
Forsyth County increased 37% between 1990 and 2000, from 170,950 to
234,591. This compares with an increase
of 15 percent in the total county population, and a decrease of 24% in Forsyth
County's non-municipal population.
Table 1 summarizes the population growth in Forsyth County over the last
decade.
It
is important to note that the decline of the non-municipal population does not
represent a migration from rural to urbanized areas in the county. Rather, the land area of the county's
municipalities has grown to include more people (North Carolina State Data
Center). Between 1990 and 2000, the
city of Winston-Salem grew from an area of just over 71 square miles to almost
109 square miles, an increase of approximately 54%. The population increase of the city due to annexation was 26,441,
or 63% of the increase between 1990 and 2000.
Kernersville, Clemmons, Lewisville and Walkertown also had significant
increases in both municipal area and population due to annexation (See table
1). The total land area of the five
municipal areas mentioned here grew from 95 square miles in 1990 to 148 square
miles in 2000. This is an increase of
56%; these areas now constitute 36% of the land area of Forsyth County. Maps 1 through 3 provide a picture of the
municipal growth in Forsyth County between 1981 and 2000.
As
is apparent from table 2, much of the growth in population has been
accommodated by development on the outskirts of existing municipalities. Comparing the population growth to the
municipal area growth, it is also apparent that the growth of municipal areas
in Forsyth County has been, overall, greater than the population. This indicates that the population of the
county is becoming more spread out through the county.
Another indicator that the population is
becoming more spread out is the development of large, low-density residential
subdivisions in rural areas of the county.
Map 4 shows the location of subdivisions approved by the planning
commission between 1990 and 1998. Many
new subdivisions are built without the provision of the physical infrastructure
common to the more traditional residential areas typically found within towns
and cities. These subdivisions are less
dense, with lot sizes ranging to a few acres per home. The subdivisions often lack sidewalks and
common recreational areas. The homes
often rely on private, individual sewage disposal systems and private wells.
The
movement away from Winston-Salem and into the county is not only residential
development, but commercial development as well. According to the City-County Planning Board (2001), a large
percentage of the retail and office space in Forsyth County is now located
outside of the city limits. The growth
in commercial development is occurring primarily in the western part of the
county, where the growth of strip-mall development has been a particular
concern of local residents (Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Planning Board).
The
population growth of Forsyth County is expected to continue at a moderate pace
over the next two decades. The North
Carolina State Data Center projects a growth rate of 12.8% in the county
between 2000 and 2010, bringing the population of the county to 345,233. By 2020, the population is expected to reach
385,079. Net in-migration is expected
to account for about two-thirds of the population growth in the county over the
next two decades.
Along
with continued population growth, development will continue to grow outward
from existing municipal centers as well.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has projected the effect
of "business as usual" growth in the Piedmont Triad. Map 5 shows that projection, with
"living areas" and "working areas" separately.
The
current and projected patterns of growth in Forsyth County meet at least the
first part of the Vermont Forum's definition of sprawl; that is, the
"pattern of strip development and spread-out low density development in
the countryside." The evidence
also indicates that at least several of Downs' traits of sprawl are met:
unlimited outward extension of urban or village centers; leapfrog development;
low-density development; and, widespread strip commercial development.
The Effects of Sprawl on
Community Health
The
rate and pattern of growth in Forsyth County has varied effects on the
community, and is therefore of concern to a variety of groups. Historically, planning for and controlling
growth has primarily been an issue for local planning agencies. However, over the last couple of decades,
more and more groups, both inside and outside of government have become more
concerned with the effects of growth trends--that is, urban/suburban sprawl--on
the overall quality of community life.
Many
health agencies have been aware of, and affected by, urban sprawl because of
their involvement with water and sewer services or because of the need to
establish satellite service areas.
However, it appears that the idea of sprawl as a community health problem
has only recently become a topic of concern to official health agencies. Sprawl is having both direct and indirect
effects on the health of Forsyth County's citizens.
Perhaps
the most obvious effect of sprawl is the need for the expansion of community
services and infrastructure. Roads must
be built to accommodate new development, water and sewer service must be
provided, and schools must be built or expanded to accommodate new students in
new locations. The Winston-Salem Transit Authority currently has a list of 26
priority road projects in Forsyth County with an estimated cost of over $201
million. Although no data could be located for the cost of expanding the
current public water and sewer system, the cost of constructing even the water
sewer mains over the large geographic area affected by the current and
projected growth will be substantially higher than if the service area was more
compact.
Public
sewer serves only 64% of the population (City/County Utilities); the rest must
rely on private sewage disposal systems.
This fact itself can create other problems. If private sewage disposal systems are not properly designed, or
not properly maintained, reliance on this type of sewage disposal only
postpones the day when public sewerage is the only solution to failing on-site
sewage disposal systems. Walkertown is
currently installing a public sewer line that will serve 377 homes and two
shopping centers and two schools, at a cost of $6.9 million (Frazier, 2001).
The
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School System is proposing expenditures of $64,469,248
for the construction of one new elementary school, one new middle school and
two new high schools. Another
$1,733,000 is earmarked for the purchase of land for new school sites in the
county. It cannot be assumed that this
entire cost is due to sprawl; the mere growth in population, combined with
obsolescence would force some new building.
However, in 1999, some existing schools within the city were occupied at
less than 50% capacity, while 300 trailers were being used for temporary
classrooms in the outer parts of Forsyth County (City-County Planning
Commission, 2001).
Sprawl
may impact the poor and working poor more than higher income groups. One effect of sprawl is the concentration of
poverty in some areas, with a concentration of wealth in others. The median income of Forsyth County is
higher than average for North Carolina, but about 11% of county residents have
family incomes that fall below the federal poverty guidelines for the county. The United Way of Forsyth County (1997) has
published data on income of residents by zip code. Large numbers of low-income groups are concentrated in the
downtown and East Winston zip code areas in Winston-Salem. Over one-half of the residents of these two
areas had a median after-tax family income below $25,000. Three zip code areas in the outer parts of
the county (Lewisville, Clemmons and Pfafftown) had the highest median incomes
in the county, with a median after-tax family income ranging from $43,625 to $50,222, and fewer than 25% of
families with an after-tax income below $25,000. The areas with the lowest incomes are primarily non-white, while
the areas with the highest incomes are 94% to 97% white (United Way of Forsyth
County, 1997).
As
higher income families leave the central urban area and move to the suburbs,
segregation by income and by race creates social disparities. As jobs and services move to outlying areas,
the lower income residents of the county have more difficulty accessing jobs
and services, due to lack of reliable transportation. The Winston-Salem Transit Authority bus service is concentrated
in the urban core, and evening and night service is lacking. The Forsyth County Department of Social Services
has identified a lack of transportation as one of the primary barriers to
employment for their clients (Hamilton, 2000).
The lack of public transportation is also a serious problem for the new
Hispanic population in Forsyth County
(Hispanic Services Coalition, 1999).
For
higher income families who have personal automobiles, the lack of public
transportation is not a problem.
However, traffic congestion is a serious problem in the county. In 1990, there were about 41,045 people
commuting into the county, and 20,377 people commuting out of the county for
employment (Forsyth County United Way, 1997).
Map 6 provides a picture of regional commuting patterns in the
Triad. As the number of automobiles on
the road increase, and the highway infrastructure fails to keep pace, residents
are spending more time in their automobiles.
The number of vehicle miles traveled in the county is increasing over
three times faster than the population, and the number of vehicle hours
traveled is increasing more than four times faster than the population (City-County
Planning Board, 2001).
Automobile
use affects much more than just the amount of time spent by residents in their
automobiles. The Piedmont Triad region
is one of the three metropolitan areas in North Carolina with the highest
levels of air pollution. The air
pollutant of most concern in Forsyth County is ozone (smog), which is primarily
a result of automobile exhaust. In
2001, Forsyth County has had 22 days on which the level of ozone exceeded the
EPA standards; as a result, the county is at risk of losing federal highway
construction funds for noncompliance with air quality standards (Department of Environmental Affairs,
2001). On the 22 days of noncompliance,
the ozone reached levels that pose a health risk to susceptible populations
like children, aerobically active adults, and persons with chronic lung
diseases like asthma.
Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department performs routine monitoring of surface water in the Muddy Creek subbasin of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, the most polluted of the various stream basins within the county and among the state’s watersheds with the highest number of miles with impaired water quality (Department of Environmental Affairs, 2000). The primary sources of water pollution in the county appear to be urban development and discharges from the sewage treatment plants. The most significant pollutant is total suspended solids (TSS), which occur as a result of soil erosion and run-off carried industrial, commercial and residential waste, particularly during storm water flows. Metals and nutrients enter surface water from industrial discharges, sewage treatment plan effluent, and storm-water carried wastes and automobile pollution (primarily gasoline and motor oil). The contamination of surface water threatens the ability of those waters to support aquatic life, and detracts from the aesthetic and recreational uses of those waters.
The
preceding paragraphs have mentioned the increase of residential and commercial
development in rural areas of the county.
The effect of this development has been discussed in terms of
transportation and access to services.
Another direct effect of such development is the loss of green
space. Green space is the name given to
undeveloped agricultural and forestal land.
Loss of green space and the changing aesthetics of the landscape have
psychological impacts that affect the quality of life of residents and
decreases recreational opportunities for residents. In addition, the loss of green space removes some of the filtering
capacity of the soil and vegetation that would remove contaminants from storm
water flow before the contaminated water enters streams and lakes.
The
type of low-density residential development prevalent in Forsyth County is
widening the gap in housing affordability between lower income and upper income
residents. A large proportion of the
new housing can be called "up-scale", with prices ranging from
$190,000 to $210,000 (Chamber of Commerce, 2001). A large proportion of the population, primarily low-income
residents, and renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing (National
Low Income Housing Coalition, 2001).
The problem especially affects the African American population, which
makes up 61% of all low-income renters, and 71% of all renters. In 1995, the county had 5,746 substandard
housing units (8.4% of all housing units), only a slight decreased from the
5,983 substandard units, representing 10% of all housing units, that existed in
1985 (United Way of Forsyth County, 1997).
Besides
contributing to the housing affordability problem, the type of low-density
development that currently represents the bulk of residential development in
the county has other effects. With
large lots, and with zoning that separates residential areas from retail and
commercial areas, residents are encouraged--in fact almost must--rely on motor vehicle transportation for all trips, from
getting to work to running to the nearest store for a loaf of bread. The loss of green space, the time spent in
vehicles, and the lack of sidewalks in new developments may discourage many
persons from simple recreational exercise.
At a time when public health authorities are encouraging people to get
even simple minimal exercise, like walking 20 minutes a day, the design of our
developments is discouraging the practice.
Lack of sufficient exercise, of course, is contributing to the current
national increase in obesity, and to the incidence of chronic diseases like
heart disease, stroke and diabetes.
Forsyth
County is suffering from the effects of sprawl, a fact that has been recognized
by the local government, as well as by the residents of the county (City-County
Planning Commission, 2001). It should
be apparent that sprawl affects the social, physical and mental health of
county residents in many ways. While
few, if any, residents would wish for growth to stop altogether, it is obvious
that if the county is to remain a thriving community, and an attractive,
healthy place to live, then a solution to the problem of sprawl must be found.
Smart Growth
Strategies
that aim to control sprawl and the resulting problems are typically referred to
as “smart growth.” The term denotes a
compromise between the extremes of “no growth” and “uncontrolled growth.” The concept implies acceptance that some
growth and development is necessary for an area to maintain economic health,
but that the negative impacts of growth can be prevented or ameliorated.
The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has developed ten "smart growth
principles" that summarize both the tasks involved and the goals of smart
growth:
1.
Mix
land uses.
2.
Take
advantage of compact building design.
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 toward 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.
It
may be tempting, after reviewing the EPA list, to believe that solving the
problem of sprawl should be fairly straightforward. One approach to undertaking the solution would be simply copying
what another locality has successfully done to solve the problem. However, examining the approaches taken by
other localities, and the outcomes of those approaches, indicates that solving
the problem of sprawl, or achieving "smart growth", will not be a
simple matter.
Portland, Oregon
Portland,
Oregon is often cited in the smart growth literature as a success story in the
battle against sprawl. During the
1960's and 1970's, the Portland region's population doubled in size from
656,000 to 1,030,000. The population
growth fueled low-density suburban development, leading to a decaying downtown
area. During the 1980's the number of vehicle miles traveled increased four
times faster than the population, and traffic became the number one concern of
residents (World Resources Institute).
In
1979, in response to a statewide growth-management law, the Portland area
adopted an "Urban Growth Boundary" (UGB) that encompassed 24 cities
and 3 counties, an area of 232,000 acres or 364 square miles. An urban growth boundary is a line drawn
outside of the existing city limits that encompasses an area determined to be
"urbanizable." Zoning and
planning policies are implemented to restrict development to within the UGB;
for example, no urban services, such as public sewer, are extended beyond the
boundary. The limit of the boundary is
calculated by estimating the amount of vacant land needed for development in an
area, and then drawing a line to encompass that calculated need. Vacant land within the city must be included
in the calculation (Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development). Outside of the UGB,
development is discouraged by increasing the minimum lot size for building--in
the Portland area, as high as 240 acres per home (Liberty, 1997).
The
Oregon approach to sprawl has had some notable successes in the Portland area
(Liberty, 1997). For example, the
population density in the urban area has increased from 3,734 persons per
square mile in 1990 to 3,885 persons per square mile in 1994, indicating that
much of the population increase has been absorbed in urban areas. Higher densities decrease the cost of
providing public utilities. By
comparison, Atlanta, Georgia, an area roughly comparable to Portland in respect
to population growth, has seen urban density decrease. If the patterns of development in Atlanta
and Portland had been the same, it has been calculated that Portland would have
lost 93,000 acres of farmland and forest.
In 1996, 29 percent of residential development in Portland was infill
and redevelopment of urban areas. The
average residential lot size has decreased from 12,800 square feet to just over
8,000 square feet since the UGB was drawn, indicating more efficient use of
land and helping to hold home prices stable.
Mass
transit has been an important factor in Portland's effort to control sprawl
(World Resources Institute). In 1997,
the Portland area decided against adding a beltway road around the southwest
part of the city; plans for road development over the next 40 years include an
average of only one mile of highway per year.
Between 1990 and 1995, public transportation use increased 4.4%, while
in similar urban areas, the use of public transportation declined an average of
9.1%. A second light rail commuter line
opened in 1998, with 6000 new homes permitted or under construction along the
line. These new developments are
oriented to public transportation, and it is projected that one-third of the
person living in those developments will get to work by walking, bicycle or
public transportation. The use of
public transportation in Portland has undoubtedly contributed to the currently
good air quality in the area, although a strict vehicle emissions equipment
testing and maintenance program has also been an important factor.
Between
the mid-1980's and the mid-1990's, the population of the Portland urban area
increased 26%, while job growth increased 43% and average income increased
72%. Property taxes decreased 29%,
while government revenues increased 34%, largely as the result of special
taxes. The number of vehicle miles
traveled increased only 2% (contrasted with an increase in Atlanta of 17%)
while single-occupant vehicle use decreased by 13% and commute time decreased
by 9%. Air quality improved
significantly. The area had a decrease
of 86% in the number of days with high ozone levels (Nelson, 2000).
Although
the successes of the urban growth boundary approach are apparent, and
impressive, there have also been some problems. A common complaint is the cost of housing (Liberty, 1997; Staley,
Jefferson & Mildner, 1999; Nelson, 2000).
Between 1990 and 1995, the cost of land in Portland increased nearly
four times faster than inflation. The
median home price in Portland increased from $79,700 in 1990 to $129,000 in
1996. On the other hand, the cost of
housing, as a percent of income, remained steady from 1986 to 1996, at about
20%. The largest increase in housing
prices in the Portland area occurred in poor inner city neighborhoods. In March 1992, the average sale price in
North Portland, a low-income working class neighborhood, was $44,500. In March 1997, the average price was
$102,000, a 150% increase. In the
high-income area of Lake Oswego, the increase for the same period was only
31%. The successful attempt to control
sprawl in Portland appears to be having the unintended consequence of replacing
urban decay in poor neighborhoods with gentrification. The effect of both is similar, a widening
gap in the quality of life between the low-income and the high-income
populations.
The
urban growth boundary approach to urban sprawl has continued to be
controversial in Oregon. In 1982, 1995
and 1997 serious statewide efforts were made to rescind the laws. Developers are unhappy with the restrictions
and the increased costs of development.
Fortunately for those who favor the approach, an influential
non-governmental organization, the "1000 Friends of Oregon", has
arisen. This organization has mounted
educational and lobbying campaigns in support of smart growth, and has
supported continuance of the current approach, while pointing out
shortcomings. The Oregon Farm Bureau
and the Oregon Forestry Industry Council have supported the 1000 Friends of
Oregon in their efforts.
Portland's
approach to curbing sprawl is significantly strengthened by the state law
requiring the urban growth boundary approach.
Portland's effort is further strengthened by the rather unique approach
to government. The region has a
directly elected Metropolitan Portland Council, with its own home-rule charter,
that governs the region within the urban growth boundaries (Liberty, 1997).
Boulder, Colorado
Like
Portland, Boulder is often cited as an example of a successful effort to
control sprawl. The history and results
of this effort have been well described by Pollock (1998) and the League of
Women Voters of Boulder Valley (1998).
The city of Boulder is the main municipality and the county seat of
Boulder County. The population of the
city was 96,000 in 1998. Although much
smaller than Portland, Boulder in the 1960's and 1970's was experiencing
similar negative impacts of rapid growth.
Boulder's
approach to controlling urban sprawl has primarily been to limit the extension
of public services beyond a "Blue Line" that was initially established
in 1959 to define the limit of public water service. In 1978, the city and county adopted a joint comprehensive plan
to limit the city from extending water and sewer service outside specific
boundaries, and to limit the county from approving new subdivisions that would
need urban levels of services and facilities.
Additionally, beginning in the 1960's the city began to purchase and
preserve undeveloped green space around the urban limits to form the outer extent
of intended urban development (Pollock, 1998).
The
city of Boulder's approach has definitely been successful in achieving a limit
on the growth of the urban boundary.
The service area concept has created an identifiable urban/rural edge,
defined by the green belt. Development
has focused within the city, largely through redevelopment of underutilized
areas and through infill development.
The cost of providing public infrastructure has been minimized (Pollock,
1998). Ozone levels in Boulder have
remained good, even though the area is strongly influenced by the air quality
of Denver (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment).
Like
Portland, the control of sprawl in Boulder has led to problems as well
improvements. Part of the problem for
Boulder is the very success at controlling growth and the area's reputation as
a good place to live. The population of
the county has grown from 225,000 in 1990 to over 272,000 in 1997, an increase
of 21%. Employment in the county grew
from 128,000 to 164,000, an increase of 24%, over the same period. In the city of Boulder, there are 86,000
jobs, an average of one job for every 1.1 person (Boulder League of Women
Voters; Pollock, 1998)
Obviously,
the demand for employees cannot be met by the residents of the city, so the
workers are commuting into the city from the surrounding areas. Vehicle registrations grew from 173,000 to
214,000, an increase of 24% from 1990 to 1997.
Park-and-ride lots in the surrounding area are frequently filled beyond
capacity (League of Women Voters of Boulder County, 1998). The increased traffic may once again
threaten the air quality of the region.
Housing
costs and affordability are also a problem in Boulder and the response to
increased costs--moving farther from the city--has resulted in a shift of the
sprawl problem from the city of Boulder to surrounding municipalities (League
of Women Voters of Boulder Valley, 1998; Pollock, 1998). Between 1990 and 1997, the average sale
price of a single-family home in Boulder rose from $124,000 to $236,00, an
increase of about 90%. In 1997, only
3.3% of new homes Boulder County sold for under $125,000. Forty percent of the housing units in the
county are rental units, and the median monthly rent for a two bedroom home was
$917, out of the realm of affordability for families earning less than $33,000
per year--a group into which almost a third of Boulder family's fall. The housing affordability problem has forced
residents out of Boulder and into nearby communities. In Superior, the population grew from 225 in 1990 to 3,377 in
1996. Superior has practically no jobs
and no tax base. The imbalance in the
region between jobs and housing has contributed to the problems of traffic
congestion, lack of affordable housing and school facility needs.
Application to Forsyth County
Portland
and Boulder have shown that setting limits on urban growth can be a successful
approach to limiting outward growth of urban areas. They also demonstrate that drawing a line does not solve all
problems of urban sprawl, and in fact can create other problems to be
solved. Urban growth limits and smart
growth are not synonymous, although creating a growth boundary may be a
necessary first step in achieving smart growth. In Forsyth County, an urban growth boundary can be readily
delineated from the Legacy Plan documents showing the currently urbanized areas
of the county (see map 7).
The
Legacy Plan document was developed with significant community input. The document describes a vision of what the
community should look like and how the community should be functioning in the
year 2015. The document spells out a
number of agreed upon goals for the community that, if successfully addressed,
will alleviate some of the effects of the current patterns of growth in the
county. Although the Legacy Plan is a good foundation for beginning to
implement smart growth policies, it is more of a vision statement than a plan
of how to do so. The county and its
citizens will still have the difficult task of designing and implementing a set
of practical tasks to solve the problem.
After
placing restrictions on outward growth, the county will have to actively seek
to apply the principles of smart growth outlined by the EPA. Achieving those principles will likely
require a variety of approaches, perhaps similar to those taken by
Portland. Although the application of
smart growth principles is relatively new, many communities across the nation
are attempting to apply the principles in an attempt to solve problems created
by sprawl. A few of the approaches are
mentioned below. However, because the
movement is relatively new, the ultimate outcome of most programs is still
uncertain.
By
placing strong zoning restrictions on outward growth, the county can encourage
infill development and redevelopment of underutilized land, including
brownfields, within the urban areas.
Such zoning restrictions could include large minimum lot sizes for
residential and commercial development outside of urban growth areas, making
such development of such areas less economically attractive. Altering current "exclusionary"
zoning ordinances that prevent the integration of retail and commercial
development within residential developments can encourage development of
neighborhoods that require less automobile travel for errands (Fannie Mae
Foundation, 2001). Zoning that
encourages compact residential development, with smaller lots but with more
common green space, can reduce the costs of providing utilities while
preserving open spaces and creating additional recreational areas. More compact design of subdivisions will
help to make the inclusion of amenities like sidewalks and street lamps more
economically feasible in newer subdivisions.
Communities that have enacted similar changes to zoning laws include
Austin, Texas and Salt Lake City, Utah (National Governors Association).
This
type of subdivision development may initially help to hold down housing costs,
but as the Portland example shows, over time the lower income residents of an
area may be pushed out of their own neighborhoods by rising prices. One successful approach is to require that
new development include some percentage of low-income housing. This approach has been used in Loudoun
County, Virginia and Silver Spring, Maryland; in both communities, developers
must meet the requirement for low-income units as a condition of subdivision
approval. New Jersey has had success at
encouraging low-cost housing rehabilitation in low-income neighborhoods by
implementing a new building code for housing rehabilitation that reduces the
need to bring the home into full compliance with the current building
code. Compliance of newer requirements
is tied directly to amount and the specific type of renovation activity
undertaken in the home. Rehabilitation
projects increased 12% in the first year and another 56% in the second year
following enactment of the Rehabilitation Subcode (Fannie Mae Foundation).
The
elements of smart growth discussed above can probably be implemented in most
communities. Forsyth County should
explore and implement similar elements of sprawl control, as far as current
laws allow. However, two serious issues
remain to be addressed.
Transportation
issues are perhaps the most serious, and the most difficult of sprawl-related
problems to alleviate. In communities
like Portland, commuter rail systems have had a positive impact on the problem,
and efforts are underway to bring light rail transportation to the Forsyth
County area (Winston-Salem Forsyth County Plannning Board). However, it is likely that any area must
have a critical mass of residents in order to supply enough riders to make
light rail systems economically viable.
The Portland metropolitan area has many times the number of residents
that live in Forsyth County, or even the Piedmont Triad area. Light rail service for the Triad region may
be successful if the routes concentrate on connecting residential centers with
work centers and retail centers across the region. However, Forsyth County should also explore the possibility of
establishing high-speed bus service between the same areas, and increasing the
number of buses available in area where public transportation is likely to be
more heavily used, as in the downtown area.
Boulder's bus service has successfully increased ridership with this
approach (National Governors Association).
One
reason for the success of Portland's approach is the state laws requiring and
supporting the implementation of urban growth boundaries. The laws allowed Portland to adopt new
zoning codes and implement taxes to support local efforts. North Carolina, as a modified Dillon Rule
state, does not provide the same opportunities to its localities. Forsyth County will have to lobby for
permission to change exclusionary zoning policies, adapt local building codes,
and raise funding for local efforts to support smart growth. (Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy,
2000).
Both
the Portland and the Boulder examples also show that stopping sprawl is not
simply a local matter. Without regional
cooperation, when one local government implements smart growth policies,
neighboring localities may suffer. As
the Brookings Institution report (Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy,
2000) points out, although North Carolina has several regional types of
official or semi-official regional organizations, the areas served by these
organizations are not always the same, and are not necessarily organized in the
best manner to provide regional solutions to urban sprawl. For example, the Piedmont Economic
Development Region includes Alamance, Caswell, Davidson, Davie, Forsyth,
Guildford, Montgomery, Randolph, Rockingham, Stokes, Surry and Yadkin
Counties. The
Greensboro--Winston-Salem-High Point metropolitan statistical area, which is
the real epicenter of urban sprawl in the region, does not include Surry,
Rockingham, Caswell, and Montgomery Counties.
Surry, Yadkin, Stokes, Forsyth and Davie Counties make up the Northwest
Piedmont Council of Governments, while the rest of the counties in the economic
development region make up the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments. Such a lack of alignment does not make
regional cooperation on an issue as all-encompassing as sprawl easy.
Grass
roots and non-governmental support for smart growth policies is also crucial,
as is consensus building among stakeholders.
Governmental agencies will need to identify organizations, like the
Sierra Club, that already are making strong anti-sprawl educational and
lobbying effort at all levels of government to assist with educating the
public, agency officials, and politicians.
The development community, neighborhood coalitions and nongovernmental
service organizations need to be consulted for their ideas about what measures
they are willing to support to achieve smart growth and to begin coalition
building. In fact, a poll shows that
Americans have more confidence in neighborhood organizations and civic groups
to make sound decisions about land use issues than they have in governments or
private developers (Belden, Russonello & Stewart, 2000). The health department can play a key role by
keeping the public informed about the issues of sprawl that relate to health
concerns.
As
Downs (2001) describes, smart growth means trade-offs between conflicting
desires of both organizations and individuals.
For instance governments may want to encourage growth for economic
reasons, but see the need to limit the negative effects. Although polling indicates that Americans
state that they favor increased spending on public transportation, Americans
also seem reluctant to give up their personal automobiles in order to use such
transportation. Social marketing may be
at least part of the solution. A
potentially useful social marketing tool has been developed for the
Jacksonville, Florida area (Jacksonville Community Council, Inc, 2001). The "Quality of Life Project" is a
project of the Jacksonville Community Council, Inc. and is supported
financially by both the City of Jacksonville and the Jacksonville Chamber of
Commerce. The project tracks 86
measurable indicators of the quality of life relating to nine major
elements: education, economy, natural
environment, social environment, culture and recreation, health, government and
politics, mobility, and public safety.
The annual report of progress is a method of keeping the public and
other stakeholders informed about key determinants of community health, and of
highlighting where community efforts need to be redirected.
Summary
Forsyth
County is suffering from the symptoms of sprawl--the uncontrolled growth of
development outward from core urban areas.
Sprawl in the county is having a negative effect on the community
health. The answer to the problem lies
in the principles of smart growth, and there are examples of how efforts to
apply smart growth principles have been used in other communities. Forsyth County needs to take active steps to
adopt the principles of smart growth, building on the Legacy Plan vision
document for the community.
References
Belden, Russonello & Stewart. (2000).
National survey on growth and land development. Retrieved November 28, 2001 from http://www.smartgrowthamerica.com/poll.pdf.
Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. (2000).
Adding it up: Growth trends
and policies in North Carolina.
Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution.
Chamber of Commerce. (2001). 2001-2002
Guide to Winston-Salem.
Winston-Salem, NC: Chamber of
Commerce.
City-County Planning Board. (2001).
Legacy: A development guide
for the new century in Winston-Salem and Forsyth County. Winston-Salem, NC: Forsyth County.
City-County Utilities. (nd). Water and Sewer
Division. Retrieved November 14,
2001 from http://www.cityofws.org/utilities/h20sewer.html.
Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, Air Pollution Control Division.
(n.d.) retrieved November 28, 2001 from http://apcd.state.co.us/ozone/
Downs, A.
(1998, May). The costs of
sprawl—and alternative forms of growth.
Speech presented at CTS Transportation Research Conference, Minneapolis,
MN. Retrieved November 28, 2001 from http://www.cts.umn.edu/trg/adowns.html
Downs, A.
(2001). What does ‘smart growth’
really mean? Planning Magazine, April
2000. Retrieved November 26, 2001 from http://www.planning.org/PUBS/plng01/april012.htm
FannieMae Foundation. (2000). Housing facts and
findings. Retrieved November 28, 2001
from http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hff/v2i4-sidebar.shtml
Frazier, A. (2001, August 8). Cost of connecting to Walkertown’s sewer system rises to $925 a house: Residents at hearing seem to take news of increase in stride. Winston Salem Journal.
Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department. (2001). Smog in the Triad—2001 update. Volume 4, November.
Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department. (2000). 2000 Environmental Quality Report. Winston-Salem, NC: Forsyth County.
Hamilton, A. (2000). Work First Program Plan, 2001-2003. Winston-Salem, NC: Department of Social Services.
Hispanic Services Coalition, (1999). 1999 Hispanic Community Plan. Winston-Salem, NC: Neighbors in Ministry.
Jacksonville Community Council, Inc. (2001). Quality of life in Jacksonville: Indicators for progress. Retrieved November 30, 2001 from Jacksonville Community Council Web site: http://www.jcci.org/indic.htm
League of Women Voters of Boulder Valley. (1998). Will success spoil Boulder County? Growth management and regional planning in Boulder County. Retrieved November 30, 2001 from League of Women Voters of Boulder Valley Web site: http://bcn.boulder.co.us/lwv/success
Liberty, R. (1997). Overview and accomplishments of the Oregon and Metro Portland planning programs. Retrieved November 26, 2001 from 1000 Friends of Oregon Web site: http://www.tlcnetwork.org/portland.html
Nelson, A. C. (1999). Effects of urban containment on housing prices and landowner
behavior. Land Lines, May 1999.
National Governors Association. (2001).
Growth tool kit.
Retrieved December 1, 2001 from National Governors Association Web
site: http://www.nga.org/center/divisions
National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2001, September). Out of Reach.
Retieved October 17, 2001 from National Low Income Housing Coalition
site: http://www.nlihc.org/egi-bin/oor2001.pl?g…etcounty=one&county=forsythhcounty&state=NC
North Carolina State Data Center. http://demog.state.nc.us
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (n.d.) Air quality. Retrieved December 1, 2001 from http://www.deq.state.or.us/
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development, 1995. What is an Urban
Growth Boundary? Retrieved November 26,
2001 from http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~pppm/landuse/UGB.html
Pollock, P.
(1998). Controlling sprawl in
Denver: Benefits and pitfalls. Proceedings of the 1998 National Planning
Conference. Retrieved November 29,
2001 from http://www.asu.edu.caed/proceedings98/Pollock/pollock.html
Sierra Club.
(2000). Fall 2000 sprawl
report. Retrieved December 1, 2001
from Sierra Club Web site: http://sierraclub.org/sprawl/50statesurvey.asp
Staley, S. R., Edgens, J.G. & Mildner,
G.C.S. (1999). Urban-growth boundaries, smart growth and
housing affordability. Retrieved
November 16, 2001 from http://www.naiop.org/development/winter99/story12.htm
Stoel, T.B., Jr.
(1999). Reining in urban
sprawl. Environment, May,
1999. Retrieved November 14, 2001 from http://findarticles.com
United Way of Forsyth County. (1997).
Faces of Forsyth: Indicators
of human services. Winston-Salem,
NC: United Way.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Development,
Community & Environment Division.
(n.d.). About smart growth. Retrieved November 26, 2001 from EPA Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/livability/about_sg.htm
Vermont Forum on Sprawl. (n.d.) Retrieved November
28, 2001 from http://www.vtsprawl.org/index3.htm
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools. (2001).
Bond Proposal 2001: Summary.
Retrieved November 28, 2001 from http://mts.admin.wsfcs.k12.nc.us/admn/Bonds2001/bonds1.html
Winston Salem Transit Authority (n.d.) Retrieved
October 14, 2001 from http://www.cityofws.org/DOT/wsta.html
World Resources Institute. (n.d.) Transportation and
land use: Portland, Oregon. Retrieved
November 28, 2001 from http://www.wri.org/enved/suscom-portland.html
.
Appendix 1: Tables
|
Table
1. Urban population growth in Forsyth County |
|||
|
Municipality |
1990 |
2000 |
% Change |
|
Bethania |
347 |
354 |
2.0% |
|
Clemmons |
6,020 |
13,827 |
129.7% |
|
Kernersville |
10,899 |
17,126 |
57.1% |
|
Lewisville |
6,433 |
8,826 |
37.2% |
|
Rural
Hall |
1,652 |
2,464 |
49.2% |
|
Tobaccoville |
914 |
2,209 |
141.7% |
|
Walkertown |
1,200 |
4,009 |
234.1% |
|
Winston-Salem |
143,485 |
185,776 |
29.5% |
|
Total
Municipal |
170,950 |
234,591 |
37.2% |
|
Nonmunicipal |
94,905 |
71,476 |
-24.7% |
|
County Total |
265,855 |
306,067 |
15.1% |
Data source: North Carolina Center for Statistics
|
Table
2. Growth in Municipal Areas of Forsyth County |
|||
|
|
Land Area in Square Miles |
||
|
Municipality |
1990 |
2000 |
% Change |
|
Winston-Salem |
71.11 |
108.855 |
53.08% |
|
Kernersville |
7.21 |
12.099 | |