Inner-city residents pay unfair share of sprawl costs
The Columbus Dispatch
(c) 2004 Columbus Dispatch. All Rights Reserved.
Saturday, January 3, 2004
EDITORIAL & COMMENT
Letters To The Editor
INNER-CITY RESIDENTS PAY UNFAIR SHARE OF SPRAWL COSTS
Mayor Michael B. Coleman's recent proposal to require new development to pay for public-service costs is a positive step for the city of Columbus and the central Ohio region. Whether impact fees are the appropriate fiscal tool to accomplish this aim can be debated. Nevertheless, the significance of changing the city's current stance toward compensating for new development costs cannot be overlooked. Central Ohio is the fastest growing region in the state of Ohio. The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission estimates that another half-million people will be moving into the central Ohio region in the next two decades.
The growth projected for central Ohio raises a difficult question: How do we pay for this growth? New growth has many hidden costs. New development means more police and fire protection. More money will be needed for schools and libraries.
The largest costs of new growth are often from infrastructure improvements, such as upgraded water and sewer lines, and new roads or additional lanes to accommodate more traffic. As reported in The Dispatch 's Nov. 19 article, "Builders should pay for growth, mayor says," an estimated $283 million is needed to upgrade roads to keep up with growth in northwestern Franklin County over the next 30 years.
Re-examining the cost of growth and how it is paid for is essential. There are strong reasons to support having more of the cost paid by the development where the most benefit will be. But there are costs in addition to fiscal demand, including the impact on the environment, travel time and quality of life.
The central city and older suburban neighborhoods often bear an inequitable share of the costs associated with growth in outlying areas. This manifests itself in the form of citywide tax increases, delays in maintaining and improving aging infrastructure or reductions in public services. Because of the spatial concentration of minorities in central cities, these costs often are more burdensome to people of color.
In a similar manner, impoverished residents living in older urban areas also bear more of this cost. We must be concerned with not only a fair and sustainable distribution of cost but also benefit, not just for Columbus but for the entire region. The most encouraging sign from this new policy is the potential for increased regionalism and development of a "regional vision" for Columbus.
Strategies to pay for growth will have to be carefully coordinated between neighboring governments. This collaboration could lay the groundwork for better regional cooperation and coordinated planning. As seen in many metropolitan areas across the nation, working together with a united regional vision produces a more competitive region and improves equity for all residents.
JOHN A. POWELL
Director
Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity
Ohio State University
Columbus
