WSP05431 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

00592 public works investments, all tied to land use controls, in order to determine private urban development decisions accordinq to publ icly desired patterns of growth. All too commonly, however, these insti- tutional arrangements prove to be the link that fails. A regional growth and development plan, whether qeneral or specific in content, may get support from all responsible government aqencies concerned. But the implementation of such a plan depends on the institutional and legal arrangements and performance of all aqencies. The recent history of urban land management in the United States shows how single, uncoordinated restrictions and controls aimed at treating a particular urban problem not only failed but also produced unintended side effects. For example, communities limit the land zoned for urban development in support of "orderly growth" obj ect i ves, only to find that they create shortages of suitable land for development and thereby increase the price of land in their communities and force families to live in nearby and less accessible areas. The institutional framework of municipal government and the arrangements for the provision of major services in the Denver area are ill-equipped for guiding the direction or pattern of development, whether by means of planned and staged provision of services or through regulatory controls. Some of the recent constraints in service provision, as well as some of the planning controls imposed, appear to have contributed directly to urban sprawl rather than the containment of it. In the Denv~_Be~i9_nal Environmental Impact Statement for ~Jastewater Facilities and the Clean Water Progra~, EPA noted that major investment in public facilities frequently serves to encouraqe qrowth, primarily by openinq up land for development. However, in terms of using infrastructure to restrict or shape qrowth, EPA recognizes that: "The lack of I'lastel'later treatment capacity in anyone area may limit growth for that area, but viewed from a regional perspec- tive, lack of service capacity in one area often diverts growth elsewhere. Growth will go where facilities are available to serve it, as a local building industry representative states (Wyckoff, personal communication, 28 December 1976). . . "Viewing investments in public facilities as having a greater influence on the spatial distribution of growth than on the amount of growth suggests that decisions on whether or not to provide urban services should be viewed in terms of the chain of events they set in motion beyond the service area. Thus, a decision not to serve one area with expanded treatment capacity should take into consideration pressures on the treat- ment capacity and sewage systems in other areas." 3