by an average of more than 42,000 people per
So the push for dense housing and hostil-
year between 1950 and 1970. As the heart of
ity to low densities seems perplexing. As
the nation’s booming high-tech industry,
Urban Land Institute researcher Douglas
San Jose could have grown much faster than
Porter notes, there is a “gap between the daily
it has in the last three decades, but its growth
mode of living desired by most Americans
was inhibited by a growth-management plan
and the mode that most city planners . . .
approved in 1974. During the 1970s and
believe is most appropriate.” While most
1980s it grew by only 20,000 people per year.
Americans “want a house on a large lot and
Growth contracted to 10,000 people per year
three cars in every garage,” planners believe
in the 1990s and less than 8,000 people per
this leads to a urban development pattern
year to date since 2000.
“that is expensive in terms of public and pri-
The imposition of growth-management
vate infrastructure costs, quality of life, and
plans in coastal California urban areas has
environmental damage.” Porter’s 1991 paper
pushed growth into California’s interior.
urged planners to use regional governments
to impose their goals on reluctant voters.54
Since 2000, coastal California metropolitan
areas have grown by an average of 3.5 percent,
Whether curbing sprawl is a worthwhile
while interior metro areas have grown by an
goal or not, it is worth asking whether
average of 15.5 percent. The data suggest that
growth-management planning can achieve
price-to-income ratios of 4 or more can sig-
such a goal. University of Iowa planning pro-
nificantly curtail growth unless that growth
fessor Jerry Anthony compared changes in
is the result of people and jobs fleeing even
urban population densities in 11 states that
less affordable regions nearby.
had passed growth-management laws before
Just as planning-induced land shortages
1997 with states that had no similar laws.
can make housing markets more volatile, they
Recognizing the growth-management efforts
can also make job markets volatile. Glaeser’s
of LAFCos, he included California among
study of land-use regulation found that
the states with growth-management laws.
“places with rapid price increases over one five-
Anthony found that “state growth manage-
year period are more likely to have income and
ment programs did not have a statistically
significant effect in checking sprawl.”55
employment declines over the next five-year
period.”50
In 2001, the Willamette Valley Livability
Forum, a supporter of growth-management
planning, published a report projecting—
Urban Sprawl
with and without such planning—the effects
of development on Oregon’s Willamette
In order to
Valley, which covers one-seventh of the state
Urban planners say that the most impor-
but houses two-thirds of Oregon’s people.
tant goal of growth-management planning is
protect just
Based on research by a local economics con-
to curb urban sprawl. Urban sprawl—the
1 percent of
sulting firm, the report noted that 5.9 per-
pejorative term for low-density develop-
Oregon’s
cent of the valley was urbanized in 1990. It
ment—reflects the preferences of the vast
projected that, under Oregon’s strict land-
majority of Americans to live in a single-fam-
Willamette Valley
ily home with a yard.51 The United States has
use rules, that would increase to 6.6 percent
from develop-
by 2050. If, however, those rules were elimi-
a huge abundance of open space: less than 3
nated to “let private property rights and
percent of the U.S. is considered urban
ment, the state’s
short-term market forces” determine land
(which the Census Bureau defines as “dense-
land-use rules
uses, by 2050 the total amount of urbanized
ly settled areas with a population of 2,500” or
more52), and 95 percent of the nation is rural
land would cover 7.6 percent of the valley.56
cost homebuyers
open space. Even New Jersey, the nation’s
Table 3 shows that, to protect just 1 percent
$70,000 to $90,000
most heavily developed state, is 65 percent
of the Willamette Valley from development,
per home.
rural open space.53
Oregon’s land-use rules are costing valley
15