Student Paper Awards Paper Session 2012 Barclay Gibbs Jones Award for Best Dissertation in Planning

Transcription

1 Rebecca Lewis, Lewis PhD (University of Maryland 2011) Assistant Professor, Florida State University A American i Collegiate C ll i t Schools S h l off Planning Pl i Conference C f Student Paper Awards Paper Session 2012 Barclay Gibbs Jones Award for Best Dissertation in Planning November 1, 2012

2 1997 Smart Growth Program (5 pieces) Incentive-Based Emulated in other states Are incentive-based programs effective at managing growth? Recommendations for improving smart growth program in Maryland and other states

3 1/98 3/ a gift to the Earth the most promising new tool for managing growth in a generation Maryland s experience provides a t tb k case off h textbook how advocates d t off growth management can prevail over arguments for unfettered development. one of the 10 most innovative new programs in the country.

4 Governor Parris N. Glendening alter, growth, th preservation ti and d revitalization it li ti decisions State not subsidize sprawl; p ; incentive-based Five Programs in 1997 (Knaap, 2005; Knaap & Frece, 2007; Cohen, 2002) Smart Growth Areas Act ((Priority y Funding g Areas)) Rural Legacy Program Brownfields Voluntary Cleanup and Revitalization Program Live Near Your Work Program g Job Creation Tax Credit Later Programs (2001) Community Legacy Program GreenPrint

5 #1: Managing Growth With Priority Funding Areas: A Good Idea Whose Time Has Yet to Come #2: Maryland's Rural Legacy Program: Evaluating An Incentive Incentive-Based Based Approach to Discouraging Development #3: Does Maryland Maryland ss Community Legacy Program Influence Redevelopment Decisions?

6 y1 Published i in i the Journal off the American i Planning i Association i i Co-authored with Gerrit Knaap & Jungyul Sohn (October 2009)

7 Statutory context Horizontal integration Vertical integration Residential development patterns before/after analysis Regression analysis time and entity fixed effects

8 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% State B Budget dget Not Subject to PFA Review Capital and Transportation Budgets Transportation Budget B dget Capital Funds Subject to PFA Review Capital B Budget dget Transportation Funds Subject to PFA Review

9 Percent of Parcels Outside PFA 33% 31% 29% 27% 25% 23% 21% 19% y1 17% 15%

10 Percent Acres Outside PFA 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% y1 64% 62% 60%

11 y1 Dependent: Percent Parcels Outside PFA Dependent: Total Parcels Outside PFA Model 1 Model 2 Dependent: Percent Acres Outside d PFA Model 3 B t Dependent: Total Acres Outside PFA Model 4 B B t B t (Constant) 1.838*** *** *** *** 6.98 After PFA Aft Time Real Income / *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** 3.54 Real Gas 1.367*** *** ** *** 6.52 Total Parcels Developed / *** *** *** n Adj R t

12 The criteria produced boundary configurations not ideally suited to managing urban growth. growth Weak on vertical integration; lax in horizontal integration Not well integrated in land use decision making processes in many local jurisdictions. State agencies g have not altered budgetary g y systems y to monitor and guide the spatial allocation of funds. Lax in meeting reporting requirement. y1 Little evidence Littl id that th t after ft 10 years PFAs PFA have h had h d any effect on development patterns. Trends in parcels, acres, and parcel size moving in wrong direction When Wh controlling t lli ffor countervailing t ili factors f t no impact i t off PFAs PFA after act

13 Horizontal integration: g Strengthen administration and monitoring of growth-related spending. Reconsider integration of PFAs in state state ss budgeting process. y1 Vertical integration: Require Req ire that PFAs are coterminous cotermino s with ith growth gro th areas in local comprehensive plans and review and approve PFAs with comprehensive plans on the current six-year six year cycle. cycle Embed PFAs in the state planning statues.

14 y2 P bli h d iin the Published h Journal J l off the h American A i Planning Pl i Association A i i Co-authored with Gerrit Knaap (2012)

15 Limit sprawl development on rich natural resource lands. l d Alarming rate of sprawl on rich natural resource lands Shortcoming and lack of funding for existing land conservation programs Source: Maryland Code Annotated, Natural Resources Article, 5-9A-01 to -09,

16 y2 $229 million total but low funding in Governor Ehrlich years Only y one area received funding g each year y (Ag ( g Security) Most funding: Ag Security & Piney Run (appx $20 million) Least funding: North Calvert & Upper Patuxent Howard (<$1 million) Consistent funding in several areas but less consistent in a few, despite applying annually

17 49

18 50

19 Preserved 69 69, acres short of 200,000 acre goal More preservation than y2 development in many Rural Legacy Areas Funding inconsistent over time: land costs rising gubernatorial shifts, rising, shifts budgets falling Trends in development patterns moving in wrong g direction in over half areas Intended impacts where funding consistent over time and most land protected or more rurall

20 1) Does designation of targeted conservation areas result lt in i less l development d l t within ithi the th designated d i t d area? Could increase development, but could prevent with d downzoning i 2) Does the designation of Rural Legacy Areas result in the concentration of land conservation? Concentrates C t t spending di from f other th programs, but b t preservation continues outside Rural Legacy areas though much of land inside is unprotected y2 3) Does designation process accurately identify areas best suited for rural preservation? Difficult to assess because of limited correspondence between Rural Legacy g y Areas and Priority y Funding g Areas 65

21 Does D th the R Rurall L Legacy P Program: y2 Target appropriate parcels? Stimulate Sti l t development d l t near preserved d parcels? Complement the Priority Funding Areas program? Provide a framework for promoting land preservation at the state level? 67

22 targeting land preservation is conceptually sound At current rate of funding, g, will take years y to preserve land in designated Rural Legacy Areas Weak zoning may stimulate more development y2 While 68

23 y3 Forthcoming in Regional Science Practice and Policy

24 Community Legacy Program (2001) Housing & Community Development Article, to -213 Target at risk neighborhoods and downtowns d t rather th than th stable t bl and d bli blighted ht d neighborhoods Sponsors p apply pp y for designation g specific p criteria: y3 Inside PFAs, community buy-in, proximity to amenities trends in homeownership amenities, homeownership, property values, vacancy, private investment Designated areas eligible for state funding; flexibility in using money

25 $13 million in Baltimore City since FY areas designated within Baltimore City: only 21 have received funding Funding by area varies from $5,000 $5 000 to over $1 million y3 Funding g filtered through g CDCs and other community organizations (rather than g ) local government)

26 y3

27 y3 Variable Other Policy Within CLA Value of CLA Awards (in $10,000) Value of CLA Awards Per Res. Parcel (in $1,000) Value of CLA Awards Per Res Permit Res.Permit (in $1,000) CLA- Res. CLA - Non-Res. CLA Mixed CLACLA- N/A Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 6 Model 7 Coeff. M.E. Coeff. M.E. Coeff. M.E. Coeff. M.E. Coeff. M.E Stat sig at 99% CL

28 y3

29 $13 million distributed to CLAs levels and uses vary by area 6% housing stock received permit for renovation between Factors that encourage renovation: Age, g sales during g period p, low improvement p to land y3 ratio, size, total value Distance to CBD Percentage vacancy in census block group Community Legacy has impact on renovation, but very slight & mixed areas perform best

30 Legacy program has positive but very small impact on probability of y 0.5 percent p more likely y renovation ((only to be renovated inside CLA) For each $1 million in state spending within area, probability of renovation increases by 1 percent Spatially S ti ll targeted t t d incentives i ti can alter lt development decisions, even if not by much y3 Community

31 policy areas better than homogenous Consistent, Consistent high levels of funding are important. Areas that will not receive funding should not be designated. Concentrate resources rather than spread thinly across areas y3 Mixed

32

33 Results are mixed but but No counterfactual 10 years not a long time in land use policy time Spatial S i l policy li areas can impact i development, preservation and redevelopment d l t patterns tt but b t Subject to level of incentives Implementation of Program

34 Priority y Funding g Areas Little impact on development patterns (worse in Central) Amount of $ relatively limited and mostly transportation Vertical weak;; horizontal inconsistent Rural Legacy Areas Highly effective at discouraging development in some areas (rural) Areas with high levels and constant state funding perform best Community Legacy Areas Positive P iti iimpactt on renovation ti iin B Baltimore lti City Cit But relatively small impact & other (historic) policy areas seem to be more influential Mixed areas with consistent consistent, high levels of funding greater impact

35 Regional differences Implementation in CLA and RLA better success than PFA Horizontal integration > vertical integration Lack of consistent, good data (especially spatial data) Review processes not built into law

36 Impact of incentives indirect and amount of $ small Better integrate into state budgeting processes and track spatially Embed state policy areas into local plans and zoning and build into review process Flexibility across state Concentrate limited spending rather than seeking geographic balance

37 Incentives are inherently weaker policy instruments Vertical policy integration is as important as horizontal policy integration Smart Growth policies don don tt always produce smarter growth

38 Better integration in state planning statutes Use in conjunction with local planning tools Consistent sources and levels of funding Insulation from changes in administration Re-certification Re certification and periodic review of all policy areas Coherent goals and indicators

39 Rebecca Lewis Dissertation Defense Urban and Regional Planning and Design Program U i University it off Maryland M l d Committee Members: Gerrit Knaap (Chair) Jim Cohen Casey Dawkins Matthias Ruth Charles Towe April 6, 2011