February 21, 1997

Land: Using and Losing It

by Michele VanAllen, Senior Consultant for Environmental Policy

Public Sector Consultants has monitored land use trends and participated in the debate on land use issues for the last decade.

In 1992 we issued a report, Michigan’s Environment and Relative Risk, stating that in our state, the absence of land use planning "that considers resources and the integrity of ecosystems" is among the highest environmental risks to our future. This coincided with the emergence of land use as a subject of local deliberation. Today this issue is discussed across the state, in city halls and chambers of commerce. Land use no longer is seen as merely an environmental concern; there now is recognition of its serious economic effect on even the smallest community.

Many land use issues have to do with urban decline and population loss. As people move from city to suburb, businesses, commercial centers, and industrial parks follow, leaving behind infrastructure, vacant buildings, and sometimes contaminated sites. As suburban areas grow, residents demand urban-type services, such as good roads, police and fire protection, and public water and sewer service. Subdivisions grow, and sprawl becomes established.

Sprawl is low-density, land-consumptive, automobile-oriented, decentralized development, and unfortunately, it is widespread in Michigan. Studies show that if current land development and density trends persist, in 20 years the population will have grown 12 percent, but the amount of "urbanized," or developed, land, will have increased 63–87 percent—we will have well over half again as much developed land as we do now. At current development rates, in 20 years it will take nearly as much land to accommodate 1.1 million new people and 900,000 new jobs as was needed for 9 million people and 3.5 million jobs in 1978.

Michigan cannot continue to indulge in this rate of development: It is inefficient and too expensive. For every household (or business) that leaves an urban area, there are roads, water and sewer lines, and electric wires left behind, which still have to be supported by the city—and the remaining taxpayers—despite the fact that the city’s tax base has been diminished by the departure of that household (or business); moreover, the older the infrastructure becomes, the more expensive is its maintenance. A 1995 Detroit News article reported that to bring inadequate southeast Michigan water and sewer lines into compliance with state regulations, sewer bills would have to triple for the next 20 years—the cost would be hundreds of dollars annually per household.

Michigan also cannot afford to lose to sprawl the agricultural lands and open space that sustain our economy. Agriculture is a $37 billion-a-year industry in Michigan, yet from 1982 to 1992 an estimated 300,000 acres of cropland were converted to nonagricultural use; the potential loss in local farm revenue is $60–$120 million a year.

Land use is a serious issue; Michigan citizens, businesses, and governments must recognize its ramifications and work together to remedy the problems. If governments will coordinate their land use decisions, controversial development decisions can be averted and infrastructure planning and maintenance ensured. Involving both citizens and business in planning decisions is key to collective solutions. When communities work with their residents and with each other and plan how they want their communities to look in the next 20 years, they can use land wisely, to the benefit of all economic sectors, and at a rate commensurate with population growth (not five times as fast).