- Email: [email protected]
The breakdown in rural communities—Can we stop it?
Long Range Planning, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 97 to 105, 1983 Printed in Great Britain
0024-6301/83/010097-09$03.00/0 Pergamon Press Ltd.
97
The Breakdown in Rural Communities Can We Stop It? Jeffrey
P. Richetto,
University
A ssistant Professor, Department
of Geology
and Geography,
of Alabama
Urban and suburban growth in the United States has had a significant impact upon land use, real estate speculation, property taxation and the agricultural sector of the country. Highly productive agricultural lands are being converted to non-agricultural uses; the costs of providing public services are increasing; large quantities of potentially productive farmlandare lying idle between ruralsubdivisions; and the sale of land in remote ruralareas of the country for ‘investment’ and second home purposes creates stress in rural communities, undermines the economic viability of agriculture and limits the amount of productive farmland available for food production. Thisstudyprovidesa planningstrategy toregulateandmonitor this rural- to-urban conversion process.
Introduction In the light of population growth trends, the development and diffusion of technological innovations, concern for improvements in standard of living, and the concomitant growth in primary, secondary, tertiary and quartenery sectors of an economy, nations worldwide are confronting the delicate land-use planning problem which involves the preservation of prime agricultural land under economic development and urbanization pressures. This conflicting situation, however, is more acute in advanced economies where societal attitudes and life style have not only responded to improved economic conditions but also provided impetus for further economic growth and prosperity.’ Typically, this ‘act of continuance’ is reflected in two interrelated processes: (1) the decentralization of the urban population and (2) the accompanying growth and physical expanDr. Richetto is Assistant Professor in the Department of Geology and Geography, Division of Regional and Urban Planning at the University of Alabama, 118 Smith 205/348-5095. P.O. Box 1945. AL35486. U.S.A.
sion of the urban infrastructure at the expense of surrounding rural farmland.2 Given that economically developed nations in general are major world food exporters, it becomes critical to examine, for those countries falling under this rubric, the present rural-to-urban land conversion process, its future and alternative planning strategies that will effectively preserve prime agricultural land. Numerous European and North American examples offer evidence for such an examination including; the PO Basin in Italy, the Polderlands in the Netherlands, establishment of the Zoneplan in Denmark, the Paris agricultural district in France, the Saint Lawrence region in Canada, among others. This study, however, examines the rural-to-urban transformation from the United States’ experience.
Farmland Loss in the United
States
In the United States 2 million to 3 million acres of land are being converted annually from agricultural uses to non-agricultural pursuits. This is an alarmingly high conversion rate since the United States only has a cropland reserve of 111 million acres of which only 24 million acres are immediately convertible to tillage. 3 Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the criticality of the farmland to urban conversion process. In particular, Table 1 presents evidence on farmland loss along the Connecticut River Valley for 11 municipalities in the state of Massachusetts. Table 2, on the other hand, projects urbanization of rural land over the succeeding 20-year period, assuming the continuation of present rural-tourban conversion trends. Although there are a variety of factors contributing to this adverse situation, all may be categorized under the general processes of economic growth,
98
Long
Table River
Range
Planning
1. Land in agriculture Valley
Vol. 16
and population
Population 1970
Municipality Amherst Deerfield Easthampton Gill Hadley Hatfield Northampton Northfield South Hadley Sunderland Whatley
26,331 3850 13,012 1100 3750 2825 29,664 2631 17,033 2236 1145
Massachusetts
February
5,689,170
1983
for 11 Massachusetts
municipalities
in the
1952
Acreage in agriculture Percentage change 1972 1952-l 972
6870 6452 2438 2244 9440 4513 5662 4213 3463 3112 3632
4786 5645 1959 2259 8335 3818 3723 4024 2063 2684 3104
1,052,643
Connecticut
Percentage of all land, 1972
-34 -12 -19
686.733
-11 -15 -34 - 5 -40 -13 -14
14 26 22 23 50 36 16 17 17 28 23
-34
14
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population: Massachusetts; MacConnell, W.P. Remote Sensing, 20 Years of Change in Massachusetts: 1951 /I 952-l 971 /I 972, Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Massachusetts (1975).
Table 2. Projected
urbanization
Land use All rural land Farmland (cropland, pasture and range) Cropland Prime agricultural land (SCS classes I and II)
of rural lands from
Stock in 1977 (1000 of acres)
1977 to 2000
Percentage of stock Conversion/year Converted (1000 of acres) 1977-2000
Percentage of reserve Reserve in 1977 Converted (1000 of acres) 1977-2000
1,410,000 955,000 413,000
2500 1200 730
4.1 2.9 4.1
N.A. N.A. 135,000
N.A. N.A. 12.4
326,000
910
6.4
47,000
44.5
Source: Diderikson, RI., A.R. Hidlebaugh and K.O. Schmude, PotenfialCroplandStudy, (1977).
suburbanization and ex-urban urban expansion, development. However, common to all four categories and essential to their continuation is the element of population and its related migration process. In particular, migration patterns have been traditional rural-to-urban patterns changing; (1950 and 1960s) have given way to more recent urban-to-rural and suburban-to-rural movements, Table 3. This outward, as opposed to inward, movement of households has been closely tied to the accumulation of affluence and mobility. Namely, ex-urban development has reflected, to a large degree, the needs and wants of incoming middle and upper income residents whose spatial mobility and effective demand in the market is greatest. Consequently, as the farm population continues to population increases, wane4 and the non-farm industrial, retail, residential, service and leisure activities wishing to serve this new population base respond; for example, rural residential subdivisions, recreation parks and golf clubs, along with regional shopping centers are springing up in the outlying countryside. Furthermore, this new non-farm, semi-urban and semi-rural population lives and works at low densities requiring new, extensive, and often cost-inefficient service infrastructure. As
USDA Soil Conservation Service Statistical Bulletin No. 58
a result, a substantial amount of cultivable farmland is taken out of production to supply these needs. The effects of urbanization on rural areas transcend the simple conversion of farmland to urban uses. Among the indirect effects of ex-urbanization are:
(1) the
decline in political status for the farmer or other long-term rural resident as ex-urban households move into the countryside; this situation may lead to:
(2) the
imposition of urban-oriented regulations on routine farming activities, higher property taxes to support urban-type public goods and services, vandalism, etc. and:
disinvestment (3) speculation, ductive farmland.
and idling
of pro-
These spillover effects, among others, provide for a farming environment involving risk and uncertainty, particularly along the rural-urban fringe. A Rural-to-Urban
Land
Use Conversion
Model
Most change in rural land use, especially the of rural land to urban use is conversion institutionalized in the U.S. land market. Herein a variety of demand and supply components are
The Breakdown Table 3. Migration 197551980
between metropolitan
in Rural Communities-Can
and non-metropolitan
areas: 1965-1970,
19651970 Metropolitan to non-metropolitan migrants Non-metropolitan to metropolitan migrants Gross migrants Net migrants to metropolitan areas Initial metropolitan population base Initial non-metropolitan population base Gross migration rate* Metropolitan out-migration ratet Non-metropolitan out-migration ratet
5.457,282 5.809.415 11,266,697 352,133 117,825,098 55.832.216 64.9 46.3 104.1
197&l
99
We Stop It?
975
6,721,OOO 5,127,OOO 11,848,OOO - 1.594.000 122,449,ooo 57,041,000 66.0 54.9 89.9
1970-1975
and
1975-I
980
9,736,201 6.357.210 16,093,411 - 3,378,991 133.689.135 73,692,853 77.6 72.8 86.3
‘Ratio of total migrants to total initial population times 1000. tRati0 of out-migrants to initial population times 1000. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, Mobility of the Population of the United States: March 1970 to March 1975, No. 285 (1975a); Geographical Mobility: March 1975 to March 1980, No. 331 (1980).
anticipated urban expansion, transportation and recreational demands.6 Specifically, for the state of Illinois (a prime agricultural state in the North Central Region) it is estimated that approximately 25,000 acres of rural land will be converted annually to urban use over the succeeding 20-year period.’
brought together. For example, rural land owners may be ‘pushed’ or ‘pulled’ into selling;5 farmers may choose one land use over another or idle their land depending upon market price; federal subsidy and production cost; lending institutions provide needed capital outlets; local, state and federal public functionaries determine infrastructure and thereby influence the pattern of development and the price of land; developers and builders directly alter the built-up environment. These components and processes are summarized in Figure 1.
Heretofore, the discussion has focused on demonstrating a need to more closely monitor and control the transfer of productive agricultural land to urban uses. Presently, there still remains the opportunity to address this potentially serious problem before it evolves into a fully-fledged crisis which often prompts reactionary and cosmetic type planning solutions. To this end, however, a number of informational bases must be established including; quantity and location of farmland converted to urban uses, the effect of federal programs utilizing agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes and
Based on recent trends in the land market, a collection of regional studies estimating the magnitude of future rural-to-urban conversion may be found in the literature. Huemoeller et al. project a rural-to-urban turnover of nearly nine million acres for the North Central Region between 1976 and 2000 in order to accommodate
Socioeconomic and Demographic Elements
Characteristics of Land
Participants and Market Processes
Changes in Land Use
Push Agricultural Situation
Economic Switchover _ Different Farming Activity
Age of Land Owners Desire for Change Inheritance Taxes Urbanization Spillovers
.
Idling and -Disinvestment in Farmland
Urban Infrastructure Industrial Growth, Decline and Relocation Preference for Residential
Urban-to-Rural Migration
I
Capital Availability
Figure 1. A simplified model of the urban-rural
Financial Institutions
land market.
Urban -Development of Farmland
to
100
Long
Range
Planning
February
Vol. 16
the major types of direct controls for retaining farmland are: (1) parcelization, (2) public purchase and (3) rural planned developments.
the feasibility and effectiveness of land-use controls for the protection of productive farmland. These bases, along with corresponding demonstration programs are outlined in Figure 2. Although numerous research efforts are currently developing all three information bases, the present study the last information focuses on category. Specifically, the following discussion; (1) reviews available land-use control options; (2) demonstrates the primary role of state and local governments in protecting farmland; and (3) outlines a planning methodology with which local governments may empirically support land-use decisions concerning farmland preservation.
Land-Use
Exclusive Farm-Use Zoning (Parcelization) A fairly typical approach to the concept of parcelization for rural planning has been to require relatively large minimum lot sizes.s The problem, however, is that such zoning strategies focus on retaining an area’s rural character, rather than on efficient resource management. Although there are numerous examples throughout the U.S., this type of control option appears to be most widely utilized in the Pacific Region. In California, for example, Madera County requires a minimum lot size of 640 acres and Solano County is zoned at a 160 acre minimum while Tulare and Marin Counties have agricultural land zoned at 80 and 60 acre minimums respectively. These counties, however, are not confronting the pressures of urbanization. Of special note is the fact that in those rural areas experiencing rapid growth (typically rural areas adjacent to urban places of 250,000 or greater) large minimum lot size zoning is defined within the range of 5-40 acre parcels. Thus, lots of this size may preserve an area’s bucolic character but they also increase substantially the total acreage of productive farmland locked up in parcels too small to be economically efficient production units.
Controls
Concern with both direct and indirect effects of population decentralization and urban expansion has prompted a number of land-use control options. In general, these options themselves may be categorized as either direct or indirect depending upon the type of urbanization pressure they address. That is, direct land-use controls effectively restrict the use of land for designated purposes including agriculture, open space, low density residential, etc. In contrast, those control options which provide incentives to retain land in its present usage are termed indirect land-use control options. Among
Informational
Demonstration
Requirements
Programs
1. information on the Quantity and Location of Agricultural Land Converted from Agricultural Uses to Non-agricultural Uses
1. A Set of Programs to Develop, Test, and Demonstrate Methods of Protecting and Maintaining the Quantity and Quality of Farmland
2. Information to the Effects Federal Programs Exert on Agricultural Land
2. A Set of Proarams to Provide Technical Assistance &States and Units of Local Government Along with Financial Assistance for the Purpose of Selecting and Developing Plans to Implement Methods of Protecting and Preserving Productive Farmland
3. Information on the Types of Programs Which are Best Suited for Protecting and Maintaining the Quantity and Quality of Farmland
3. A Set of Programs to Identify and Develop Methods and Procedures which will Insure that Presently Unquantifiable Agricultural Values may be Given Appropriate Consideration in Decision Making
4. Information Pertaining to the Feasibility and Effectiveness of Implementing Farmland Retention
4. A Set of Programs to Devise Methods for Reducing the Quantity of Farmland in and Around Urban Areas Being Converted from Agricultural to Non-agricultural Uses
Programs
5. Information on the Effects of Urbanization Industrial Development, and Other Non-agricultural Activities on Farmland Productivity
5. A Set of Programs to Evaluate the Relative Costs and Benefits of Methods Promoting Farmland Retention
6. Information on the Effects of Agricultural Operations on Urban Areas 7. Information on the Relationship Between Future Supplies of Energy and Fertilizer Resources and the Production of Food From Available Agricultural Land
Figure
1983
2. Informational
bases and demonstration
programs
The Breakdown As an alternative to large lot zoning but still within the definition of exclusive farm-use zoning, the Oregon Land and Development Commission requires that each city and county delineate ‘reasonable’ urban growth boundaries. Beyond these boundaries all land is pre-empted for rural use and particularly those parcels of land with soil in capability classes I-IV must be zoned exclusively for farm use. Public Purchase Of primary importance to this land-use control option is for the local, county; or state government to purchase development and development easement rights on farmland to either prevent the land from being converted to non-agricultural uses or more closely regulate the timing and sequencing of urban expansion. Basically, three major kinds of land acquisition techniques are considered within this control option. These include: (1) fee simple acquisition, (2) fee simple acquisition with subsequent lease or resale (with restrictions on development), and (3) the acquisition of development rights.9 The acquisition of land in fee simple denotes the purchasing of a title to an acreage of land by a public functionary. This enables the public authority to have direct effect upon the usage of the land. An extension to this approach is for the public to acquire land in fee simple, place a restriction on the deed indicating what uses are permissible, and then resell or lease the land to individuals. Finally, the effect on the possible use of land from purchase and resale or lease with restrictions is equivalent to the third approach; the direct purchase of development rights. Although the purchase of development rights is a somewhat abstract concept, it is based on severing from the fee (either through purchase or donation) the right to develop the land while leaving the owner in possession of the remainder of the fee. Although these three approaches are intuitively appealing (and currently being implemented in Suffolk County, Long Island and Burlington County, New Jersey), they have heretofore met with limited use primarily due to extensive public cost considerations as well as the broader ideological issue of federalism vs privatism in a market-oriented land economy. Rural Planned Development An alternative land-use control option, especially for rapidly growing rural areas, is the use of flexible zoning categories of which rural planned development (RPD) appears to be the most promising form. Such an ordinance, allowing a mixture of uses and densities, combines some of the efficiencies of more clustered development with those of extensive open land for resource management. In particular, this control option restricts nonagriculturally-related units to be clustered on the least productive farmland while the balance of the RPD is dedicated to permanent agriculture.
in Rural Communities-Can
We Stop It?
101
Among the major types of indirect controls for retaining farmland are: (1) agricultural districts and (2) differential assessment. Agricultural Districting Within this multiple-incentive type of approach farmers are. encouraged to work collectively in farming a district. In so doing the participating farmers are protected to some extent from regulations on farming activity, from special assessments for sewer, water, light and other public utility districts and from local use of eminent domain to acquire farmland for non-agricultural use. In addition, correlated policies at the state level further encourage agricultural pursuits within these districts and provide member farmers with the option to apply for differential assessment of their property with deferred taxation. Differential Assessment Essentially this incentive approach emphasizes use value as opposed to market value assessment of agricultural land.’ O For if there exists acute urbanization pressures on surrounding rural farmland, the potential savings in taxes may be substantial since market value assessment contains considerable speculative development value for this land. Basically there are three types of differential assessment: (1) pure preferential assessment-in which farmland is assessed at its current use value; (2) deferred taxation-which is pure preferential assessment with the condition that if the land is taken out of the eligible use, back taxes reflecting the difference between the market value and current use value of the land must be paid; and (3) restrictive agreement-whereby under contract a farmer is bound to keep his land in an eligible use for a specified time period in return for a pure preferential assessment on his land. RBle of State and Local Government Ultimately the effectiveness of any one or combination of the preceding land-use control options can be measured in the quantity and quality of farmland retained that otherwise would be converted to non-agricultural uses. However, this effectiveness measure is largely dependent upon the jurisdictional level at which the land-use control options are implemented; federal, state, county or local. Certainly the rural-to-urban conversion process is a critical national and international however, concern; the numerous and varied peculiarities related to the actual switchover ofrural land to urban use suggest strongly the need for a locally-based planning approach. For example, local farming activities that are deemed nuisances by incoming suburban-type households may be legislated against (e.g. regulations on using fertilizer, disposing of manure, creating odors and driving farm vehicles on commuter roads may be imposed). Second, local taxes may be increased to fund new schools, roads, utilities and other needed public services. Third, air pollution damage to
102
Long Range Planning Vol. 16
February 1983
crops may occur as a result of increased automobile traffic, residential space heating and industrial and commercial activity. Fourth, destruction of crops or equipment or harassment of farming operations may involve members from a neighboring rural subdivision development. Fifth, the principle of eminent domain may be imposed by local governments to acquire farmland for public uses aimed at serving the new suburban population (e.g. highways and reservoirs). These localized concerns, among others, exhibit a noticeable spatial variation in the sense that some concerns may dominate in certain areas while in other locales these same concerns may be of secondary importance. As such a national land-use control program would not effectively address the farmland preservation problem and may, in fact, generate counterintuitive results. In the United States implementing a locally-based planning by its existing semistrategy is facilitated autonomous political structure. Of primary importance is the power and responsibilities relegated to state and, in turn, local units of government.” Essentially, local governments are vested with the authority to tax, borrow, provide public goods and services and regulate (through available land-use controls) urban development. In this regard the following section outlines a planning framework that both draws upon the authority of local government and considers directly the pertinent issues for effective farmland preservation. A Locally-Based Planning Framework As stated earlier, two interrelated processes which impact on the quantity and rate - of productive farmland loss to urban uses include a redistribution of the population signalling a return to the rural countryside along with the associated growth and infrastructure. expansion of urban physical Through a number of case studies it has been observed that the latter process is a response to the former process. Consequently, in developing an effective planning strategy which promotes farmland retention, emphasis must be placed on regulating the outflow of households from urban to exurban areas. Essential to such a planning strategy is the phenomenon of free standing, rural subdivision development, i.e. a residential neighborhood which typically caters to higher-income households and which is not spatially contiguous to an existing urban area. For although it is common knowledge that these rural subdivisions occupied by primary residences usually require more services from local government units than they finance,” little empirical evidence has been collected in support of this observation. As a result, numerous court cases have ruled in favor of the farmer to cash in his farmland to housing developers. Therefore, one might be led to believe that in projecting the approximate dimensions of the cost burden and revenue receipts local government units can: (1) better prepare themselves to service a proposed
development; (2) determine whether a proposed development or group of pending developments is likely to overload financially one or more public services, or (3) reject the proposed development(s) or require modifications in them. To this end this paper suggests a fiscal impact model to project both the likely costs to local governments incurred by servicing a proposed rural subdivision and the likely revenues to be generated by that subdivision. The Planning Model The fiscal impact planning model considers five major public costs and five major public revenues. On the one hand, public costs include education, transportation, police security, fire protection and emergency ambulance service; on the other hand, public revenues include property tax, motor fuel tax, state income tax, state sales tax and state aid for education. Although neither of these two lists are all inclusive, they do reflect for the U.S. those public service responsibilities and revenue sources over which local governments exert jurisdiction. A schematic diagram of the entire planning model is illustrated in Figure 3. Major Public Costs The single greatest public expenditure burden generated by rural subdivision developments is that of providing public education. Educational costs for rural residents have two major components: (1) in situ or in-school costs (e.g. salaries, textbooks, utilities, supplies, etc.) and (2) distance related or busing costs. The basic datum for projecting inschool expenditures is the per-pupil cost reported by school districts. Essentially, all costs are summed less intergovernmental transfers and divided by average daily attendance. A daily cost-of-busing figure is determined by multiplying a per-pupil per-mile cost times (1) the number of students expected to be bused from a proposed subdivision and (2) the distance (in miles) a bus will travel from that subdivision to the school site. The maintenance of public roads involving snow plowing, filling potholes, periodic full resurfacing, etc. constitutes the second greatest public cost. Rural subdivision developments of significant size tend to have their own internal road system ranging from a single, short cul-de-sac to a network of several roads with access at two or more points. In addition, public road maintenance costs rise when residential development occurs along existing public roads. In particular, the demand for normal maintenance activities is increased as well as a greater need is placed on infrequent repair service such as regrading shoulders along lot frontage. Police surveillance costs, the third major public cost item attributable to a proposed rural subdivision, consist largely of the expenditures on labor, fuel, vehicle maintenance and depreciation involved in responding to calls for assistance from that development. A second cost component relates to
The Breakdown
I
in Rural
Communities-Can
103
Major Public Revenues
1
Major Public Costs
We Stop It?
I
L
1. Property
1. Education a. Project Pace of Development b. Estimate Number of Students per New Dwelling Unit c. Determine Education
b. Determine Time Lag for Reassessing Developed Property in the Development c. Estimate the Cumulative Number of Completed Residences Throughout the Construction Years of the Development
In-school Cost of per Student
d. Determine Whether Busing Service will be Extended to Proposed Development e. Identify Number of Additional Busing Destinations f. Estimate Number of Students Expected per Additional Destination g. Calculate Total Additional bus Mileage to New Development h. Calculate the Cost per Mile per Student for the Involved School District
Tax
a. Determine the Year Home Construction will Begin in the Proposed Development
d. Determine the per-lot Assessment Local Government
Decisions
a. To More Effectively Service a Proposed Development b. To Identify Service Areas with Potential Fiscal Burden and Fiscal Surplus
2. Sales Tax
c. To Reject or Require Modifications in a Proposed Development
2. Public Road Maintenance
a. Estimate the Cumulative Number of Residences to be Completed for a Given Time Period (5 Years)
t
a. Estimate Average Annual per Mile Cost for Minor Surface Repair, Seal Coating, Resurfacing, Snow Plowing, etc.
e. Obtain Current Property Tax Rates for the School, Police and Fire Jurisdictions Wherein the Development is Proposed
b. Calculate the Average Number of Persons per Household in the Respective County c. Determine
3. State Income Tax
b. Determine Total New Road Mileage for Proposed Development
a. Estimate the Cumulative Number of Residences to be Completed for a Given Time Period (5 Years)
c. Calculate Maintenance Costs Attributable to That Part of the Proposed Development Fronting on Existing Public Roads
b. Calculate the Average Number of Persons per Household in the Respective County c. Determine Per Capita State Income Tax Rebate
3. Police a. Obtain Annual Estimates of the Number of Homes to be Completed in the Proposed Development
a. Estimate the Cumulative
Number
b. Estimate the Average Annual Number of Police Calls per Dwelling Unit
b. Calculate Average Number of Motor Vehicle License Registrations per Household
c. Derive Average Costs per Call
c. Determine per License Registration Motor Fuel Tax Rebate to the County
4, 5 Fire Protection and Ambulance Service
d. Calculate per Mile Annual Motor Fuel Tax Rebate to Townships
a. Obtain Annual Estimates of the Number of Homes to be Completed in the Proposed Development
5. State Aid for Education a. Estimate Number of Students per Household
b. Estimate the Average Annual Number of Fire and Ambulance Calls per Dwelling Unit
b. Determine Number of Completed Households per Year c. Calculate the Amount of State Aid per Average Daily Attendance
c. Derive Average Costs per Call
Figure
3. A locally-based
fiscal impact
model
104
Long
Range
Planning
Vol. 16
February
the follow-up work to some of the initial assistance calls. A possible third cost component is readiness costs; that is, expenditures on patrolling, equipping and manning the radio dispatch center, additional staff and vehicles and on preparing the department in other ways so as to be ready to respond to assistance calls commensurate with potential need for service. Finally, rural subdivisions typically receive bothjfire protection and emergency ambulance service from Cost considerations for these fire departments. expenditures are quite similar to those components underlying police service costs. Major Public Revenues Revenues attributable to rural subdivisions fall within one of two categories-locally produced or intergovernmental transfers. Of the five major types of revenue sources identified only the property tax is locally produced. Namely, this form of revenue is based upon rates voted by local legislative authorities. Key issues to be considered for estimating property tax revenue from a proposed rural subdivision include the timing of market value assessment as a parcel of land progresses from a vacant lot to a fully developed residential lot, the expected pace of development within the proposed subdivision, and the lag effect of property tax payments. The remaining four tax revenue sources fall within the category of intergovernmental transfers. In particular, state governments rebate to local governments a certain proportion of the retail sales tax, motor&el tax and the state income tax collected from within their jurisdictions. Common to all three revenue rebates is the total number of individuals either in residence or registered for a motor vehicle license. Therefore, unless prospective households of a rural subdivision are additions, as opposed to redistributors, to a local government’s jurisdiction then revenue from any one of the three rebate tax sources cannot be considered extra revenue attributable to the rural subdivision. Finally, school districts receive general state aid from various state and federal grant programs which earmark funds for specific educational purposes including driver education, special education, vocational rehabilitation, bilingual programs, among others. The amount of aid provided to school districts is based upon weighted average daily attendance with students in post secondary schools being weighted more heavily than those in primary and secondary education.
Summary
Remarks
In summary, the world food problem is escalating annually. As the world’s population base increases, as higher standards of living are sought for and achieved through the development and adoption of
1983 technological innovations, and as affluence continues to trigger the decentralization of the urban population out into the surrounding countryside; the corresponding loss in productive farmland will be such that food and fiber production will not keep apace with demand. Of course, there are other factors that further impinge upon overall food and fiber productivity. These localized factors include; changing weather patterns, soil erosion, air pollution, competition for water, genetic vulnerability, production costs and fuel scarcities and fertilizers.
This study has focused on the U.S. experience where over the past lo-year period substantial farmland loss has resulted in recently nationally sponsored programs to: (1) study agricultural land, especially the quantity, quality, location, availability and ownership of farmland; (2) examine methods of retaining, protecting and improving farmland; and (3) d evise a set of programs to methods for develop, test and demonstrate preserving the quantity and quality of agricultural land. Of primary importance to these three concerns has been the substantial shift in migration movement favoring rural over urbanized areas along with the related rapid development of residential subdivisions in rural areas and the intensive developmental pressures which accompany them. As a result, senior administrators and planners responsible for rural community development, urban growth or other related areas should concern themselves with data acquisition, program development and policy formulation in the following key areas: (1) migratory patterns; their direction, intensity and dynamics, (2) farmland, by productivity classification, converted to urban activities, (3) direct and indirect impacts exurban activities exert on neighboring farmland productivity rates and rural communities, (4) assessment and evaluation of inventive programs to retain land for farming, (5) assessment and evaluation of disincentive programs to restrict rural to urban land conversion and (6) a methodology for examining the relative costs and benefits of alternative programs either promoting farmland retention or restricting exurban development. It is hoped that this study not only provides an information base to plan for effective management of the urban/rural fringe but also to underscore the potentially serious impact on the supply of food and fiber worldwide.
References (1)
T. Plaut, Urban growth and agricultural decline: problems and policies, Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas (1978).
(2)
W. Lassey, Planning in Rural Environments, York (1977).
McGraw-Hill,
New
The Breakdown
in Rural
Communities-Can
We Stop It?
Agricultural Land Protection Act of 1979. Hearing Proceedings before the Committee on Agriculture House of Representatives, 96th Congress (1 st session), 17 May, Serial No. 96-M (1979).
(8) R. Healy and J. Short, Rural land: market trends and planning
(4) V. Banks, Farm Population Estimatesfor 1976, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service Report No. 383 (1977).
(9) R. Coughlin and T. Plaut, Less-than-fee acquisition for the
(3)
(6)
D. Berry, Incentives for farmland retention in urbanizing areas, Planning and Public Policy, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1978).
(6)
W. Huemoller et al., Land Use: Ongoing Developments in the North Central Region, Ames: Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University (1976).
(7)
R. Schneider, Alternatives for Projection of Nonagricultural Land Needs in Illinois to the Year 2000, Department of Agriculture Economics, Paper No. 78 E-57, University of Illinois (1978).
implications, Journal of the American Planning Association, 45 (3), 306-317 (1979). preservation of open space, Journal of the American Planning Association, 44 (4). 452-462 (1978).
(10) G. Gustafson and L. Wallace, Differential assessment as land use policy: the California case, Journal of the American Planning Association, 41 (6), 379389 (1975).
(11) M. Danielson, Differentiation, segregation and political fragmentation in the American metropolis, in Governance and Population: the Governmental Implications of Population Change, A. E. Keir Nash (ed.), USGPO, pp. 145-l 75 (1972).
(12) United States Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality: Fifth Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality, Wash., D.C. USGPO (1974).
0024-6301/83/010097-09$03.00/0 Pergamon Press Ltd.
97
The Breakdown in Rural Communities Can We Stop It? Jeffrey
P. Richetto,
University
A ssistant Professor, Department
of Geology
and Geography,
of Alabama
Urban and suburban growth in the United States has had a significant impact upon land use, real estate speculation, property taxation and the agricultural sector of the country. Highly productive agricultural lands are being converted to non-agricultural uses; the costs of providing public services are increasing; large quantities of potentially productive farmlandare lying idle between ruralsubdivisions; and the sale of land in remote ruralareas of the country for ‘investment’ and second home purposes creates stress in rural communities, undermines the economic viability of agriculture and limits the amount of productive farmland available for food production. Thisstudyprovidesa planningstrategy toregulateandmonitor this rural- to-urban conversion process.
Introduction In the light of population growth trends, the development and diffusion of technological innovations, concern for improvements in standard of living, and the concomitant growth in primary, secondary, tertiary and quartenery sectors of an economy, nations worldwide are confronting the delicate land-use planning problem which involves the preservation of prime agricultural land under economic development and urbanization pressures. This conflicting situation, however, is more acute in advanced economies where societal attitudes and life style have not only responded to improved economic conditions but also provided impetus for further economic growth and prosperity.’ Typically, this ‘act of continuance’ is reflected in two interrelated processes: (1) the decentralization of the urban population and (2) the accompanying growth and physical expanDr. Richetto is Assistant Professor in the Department of Geology and Geography, Division of Regional and Urban Planning at the University of Alabama, 118 Smith 205/348-5095. P.O. Box 1945. AL35486. U.S.A.
sion of the urban infrastructure at the expense of surrounding rural farmland.2 Given that economically developed nations in general are major world food exporters, it becomes critical to examine, for those countries falling under this rubric, the present rural-to-urban land conversion process, its future and alternative planning strategies that will effectively preserve prime agricultural land. Numerous European and North American examples offer evidence for such an examination including; the PO Basin in Italy, the Polderlands in the Netherlands, establishment of the Zoneplan in Denmark, the Paris agricultural district in France, the Saint Lawrence region in Canada, among others. This study, however, examines the rural-to-urban transformation from the United States’ experience.
Farmland Loss in the United
States
In the United States 2 million to 3 million acres of land are being converted annually from agricultural uses to non-agricultural pursuits. This is an alarmingly high conversion rate since the United States only has a cropland reserve of 111 million acres of which only 24 million acres are immediately convertible to tillage. 3 Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the criticality of the farmland to urban conversion process. In particular, Table 1 presents evidence on farmland loss along the Connecticut River Valley for 11 municipalities in the state of Massachusetts. Table 2, on the other hand, projects urbanization of rural land over the succeeding 20-year period, assuming the continuation of present rural-tourban conversion trends. Although there are a variety of factors contributing to this adverse situation, all may be categorized under the general processes of economic growth,
98
Long
Table River
Range
Planning
1. Land in agriculture Valley
Vol. 16
and population
Population 1970
Municipality Amherst Deerfield Easthampton Gill Hadley Hatfield Northampton Northfield South Hadley Sunderland Whatley
26,331 3850 13,012 1100 3750 2825 29,664 2631 17,033 2236 1145
Massachusetts
February
5,689,170
1983
for 11 Massachusetts
municipalities
in the
1952
Acreage in agriculture Percentage change 1972 1952-l 972
6870 6452 2438 2244 9440 4513 5662 4213 3463 3112 3632
4786 5645 1959 2259 8335 3818 3723 4024 2063 2684 3104
1,052,643
Connecticut
Percentage of all land, 1972
-34 -12 -19
686.733
-11 -15 -34 - 5 -40 -13 -14
14 26 22 23 50 36 16 17 17 28 23
-34
14
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population: Massachusetts; MacConnell, W.P. Remote Sensing, 20 Years of Change in Massachusetts: 1951 /I 952-l 971 /I 972, Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Massachusetts (1975).
Table 2. Projected
urbanization
Land use All rural land Farmland (cropland, pasture and range) Cropland Prime agricultural land (SCS classes I and II)
of rural lands from
Stock in 1977 (1000 of acres)
1977 to 2000
Percentage of stock Conversion/year Converted (1000 of acres) 1977-2000
Percentage of reserve Reserve in 1977 Converted (1000 of acres) 1977-2000
1,410,000 955,000 413,000
2500 1200 730
4.1 2.9 4.1
N.A. N.A. 135,000
N.A. N.A. 12.4
326,000
910
6.4
47,000
44.5
Source: Diderikson, RI., A.R. Hidlebaugh and K.O. Schmude, PotenfialCroplandStudy, (1977).
suburbanization and ex-urban urban expansion, development. However, common to all four categories and essential to their continuation is the element of population and its related migration process. In particular, migration patterns have been traditional rural-to-urban patterns changing; (1950 and 1960s) have given way to more recent urban-to-rural and suburban-to-rural movements, Table 3. This outward, as opposed to inward, movement of households has been closely tied to the accumulation of affluence and mobility. Namely, ex-urban development has reflected, to a large degree, the needs and wants of incoming middle and upper income residents whose spatial mobility and effective demand in the market is greatest. Consequently, as the farm population continues to population increases, wane4 and the non-farm industrial, retail, residential, service and leisure activities wishing to serve this new population base respond; for example, rural residential subdivisions, recreation parks and golf clubs, along with regional shopping centers are springing up in the outlying countryside. Furthermore, this new non-farm, semi-urban and semi-rural population lives and works at low densities requiring new, extensive, and often cost-inefficient service infrastructure. As
USDA Soil Conservation Service Statistical Bulletin No. 58
a result, a substantial amount of cultivable farmland is taken out of production to supply these needs. The effects of urbanization on rural areas transcend the simple conversion of farmland to urban uses. Among the indirect effects of ex-urbanization are:
(1) the
decline in political status for the farmer or other long-term rural resident as ex-urban households move into the countryside; this situation may lead to:
(2) the
imposition of urban-oriented regulations on routine farming activities, higher property taxes to support urban-type public goods and services, vandalism, etc. and:
disinvestment (3) speculation, ductive farmland.
and idling
of pro-
These spillover effects, among others, provide for a farming environment involving risk and uncertainty, particularly along the rural-urban fringe. A Rural-to-Urban
Land
Use Conversion
Model
Most change in rural land use, especially the of rural land to urban use is conversion institutionalized in the U.S. land market. Herein a variety of demand and supply components are
The Breakdown Table 3. Migration 197551980
between metropolitan
in Rural Communities-Can
and non-metropolitan
areas: 1965-1970,
19651970 Metropolitan to non-metropolitan migrants Non-metropolitan to metropolitan migrants Gross migrants Net migrants to metropolitan areas Initial metropolitan population base Initial non-metropolitan population base Gross migration rate* Metropolitan out-migration ratet Non-metropolitan out-migration ratet
5.457,282 5.809.415 11,266,697 352,133 117,825,098 55.832.216 64.9 46.3 104.1
197&l
99
We Stop It?
975
6,721,OOO 5,127,OOO 11,848,OOO - 1.594.000 122,449,ooo 57,041,000 66.0 54.9 89.9
1970-1975
and
1975-I
980
9,736,201 6.357.210 16,093,411 - 3,378,991 133.689.135 73,692,853 77.6 72.8 86.3
‘Ratio of total migrants to total initial population times 1000. tRati0 of out-migrants to initial population times 1000. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, Mobility of the Population of the United States: March 1970 to March 1975, No. 285 (1975a); Geographical Mobility: March 1975 to March 1980, No. 331 (1980).
anticipated urban expansion, transportation and recreational demands.6 Specifically, for the state of Illinois (a prime agricultural state in the North Central Region) it is estimated that approximately 25,000 acres of rural land will be converted annually to urban use over the succeeding 20-year period.’
brought together. For example, rural land owners may be ‘pushed’ or ‘pulled’ into selling;5 farmers may choose one land use over another or idle their land depending upon market price; federal subsidy and production cost; lending institutions provide needed capital outlets; local, state and federal public functionaries determine infrastructure and thereby influence the pattern of development and the price of land; developers and builders directly alter the built-up environment. These components and processes are summarized in Figure 1.
Heretofore, the discussion has focused on demonstrating a need to more closely monitor and control the transfer of productive agricultural land to urban uses. Presently, there still remains the opportunity to address this potentially serious problem before it evolves into a fully-fledged crisis which often prompts reactionary and cosmetic type planning solutions. To this end, however, a number of informational bases must be established including; quantity and location of farmland converted to urban uses, the effect of federal programs utilizing agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes and
Based on recent trends in the land market, a collection of regional studies estimating the magnitude of future rural-to-urban conversion may be found in the literature. Huemoeller et al. project a rural-to-urban turnover of nearly nine million acres for the North Central Region between 1976 and 2000 in order to accommodate
Socioeconomic and Demographic Elements
Characteristics of Land
Participants and Market Processes
Changes in Land Use
Push Agricultural Situation
Economic Switchover _ Different Farming Activity
Age of Land Owners Desire for Change Inheritance Taxes Urbanization Spillovers
.
Idling and -Disinvestment in Farmland
Urban Infrastructure Industrial Growth, Decline and Relocation Preference for Residential
Urban-to-Rural Migration
I
Capital Availability
Figure 1. A simplified model of the urban-rural
Financial Institutions
land market.
Urban -Development of Farmland
to
100
Long
Range
Planning
February
Vol. 16
the major types of direct controls for retaining farmland are: (1) parcelization, (2) public purchase and (3) rural planned developments.
the feasibility and effectiveness of land-use controls for the protection of productive farmland. These bases, along with corresponding demonstration programs are outlined in Figure 2. Although numerous research efforts are currently developing all three information bases, the present study the last information focuses on category. Specifically, the following discussion; (1) reviews available land-use control options; (2) demonstrates the primary role of state and local governments in protecting farmland; and (3) outlines a planning methodology with which local governments may empirically support land-use decisions concerning farmland preservation.
Land-Use
Exclusive Farm-Use Zoning (Parcelization) A fairly typical approach to the concept of parcelization for rural planning has been to require relatively large minimum lot sizes.s The problem, however, is that such zoning strategies focus on retaining an area’s rural character, rather than on efficient resource management. Although there are numerous examples throughout the U.S., this type of control option appears to be most widely utilized in the Pacific Region. In California, for example, Madera County requires a minimum lot size of 640 acres and Solano County is zoned at a 160 acre minimum while Tulare and Marin Counties have agricultural land zoned at 80 and 60 acre minimums respectively. These counties, however, are not confronting the pressures of urbanization. Of special note is the fact that in those rural areas experiencing rapid growth (typically rural areas adjacent to urban places of 250,000 or greater) large minimum lot size zoning is defined within the range of 5-40 acre parcels. Thus, lots of this size may preserve an area’s bucolic character but they also increase substantially the total acreage of productive farmland locked up in parcels too small to be economically efficient production units.
Controls
Concern with both direct and indirect effects of population decentralization and urban expansion has prompted a number of land-use control options. In general, these options themselves may be categorized as either direct or indirect depending upon the type of urbanization pressure they address. That is, direct land-use controls effectively restrict the use of land for designated purposes including agriculture, open space, low density residential, etc. In contrast, those control options which provide incentives to retain land in its present usage are termed indirect land-use control options. Among
Informational
Demonstration
Requirements
Programs
1. information on the Quantity and Location of Agricultural Land Converted from Agricultural Uses to Non-agricultural Uses
1. A Set of Programs to Develop, Test, and Demonstrate Methods of Protecting and Maintaining the Quantity and Quality of Farmland
2. Information to the Effects Federal Programs Exert on Agricultural Land
2. A Set of Proarams to Provide Technical Assistance &States and Units of Local Government Along with Financial Assistance for the Purpose of Selecting and Developing Plans to Implement Methods of Protecting and Preserving Productive Farmland
3. Information on the Types of Programs Which are Best Suited for Protecting and Maintaining the Quantity and Quality of Farmland
3. A Set of Programs to Identify and Develop Methods and Procedures which will Insure that Presently Unquantifiable Agricultural Values may be Given Appropriate Consideration in Decision Making
4. Information Pertaining to the Feasibility and Effectiveness of Implementing Farmland Retention
4. A Set of Programs to Devise Methods for Reducing the Quantity of Farmland in and Around Urban Areas Being Converted from Agricultural to Non-agricultural Uses
Programs
5. Information on the Effects of Urbanization Industrial Development, and Other Non-agricultural Activities on Farmland Productivity
5. A Set of Programs to Evaluate the Relative Costs and Benefits of Methods Promoting Farmland Retention
6. Information on the Effects of Agricultural Operations on Urban Areas 7. Information on the Relationship Between Future Supplies of Energy and Fertilizer Resources and the Production of Food From Available Agricultural Land
Figure
1983
2. Informational
bases and demonstration
programs
The Breakdown As an alternative to large lot zoning but still within the definition of exclusive farm-use zoning, the Oregon Land and Development Commission requires that each city and county delineate ‘reasonable’ urban growth boundaries. Beyond these boundaries all land is pre-empted for rural use and particularly those parcels of land with soil in capability classes I-IV must be zoned exclusively for farm use. Public Purchase Of primary importance to this land-use control option is for the local, county; or state government to purchase development and development easement rights on farmland to either prevent the land from being converted to non-agricultural uses or more closely regulate the timing and sequencing of urban expansion. Basically, three major kinds of land acquisition techniques are considered within this control option. These include: (1) fee simple acquisition, (2) fee simple acquisition with subsequent lease or resale (with restrictions on development), and (3) the acquisition of development rights.9 The acquisition of land in fee simple denotes the purchasing of a title to an acreage of land by a public functionary. This enables the public authority to have direct effect upon the usage of the land. An extension to this approach is for the public to acquire land in fee simple, place a restriction on the deed indicating what uses are permissible, and then resell or lease the land to individuals. Finally, the effect on the possible use of land from purchase and resale or lease with restrictions is equivalent to the third approach; the direct purchase of development rights. Although the purchase of development rights is a somewhat abstract concept, it is based on severing from the fee (either through purchase or donation) the right to develop the land while leaving the owner in possession of the remainder of the fee. Although these three approaches are intuitively appealing (and currently being implemented in Suffolk County, Long Island and Burlington County, New Jersey), they have heretofore met with limited use primarily due to extensive public cost considerations as well as the broader ideological issue of federalism vs privatism in a market-oriented land economy. Rural Planned Development An alternative land-use control option, especially for rapidly growing rural areas, is the use of flexible zoning categories of which rural planned development (RPD) appears to be the most promising form. Such an ordinance, allowing a mixture of uses and densities, combines some of the efficiencies of more clustered development with those of extensive open land for resource management. In particular, this control option restricts nonagriculturally-related units to be clustered on the least productive farmland while the balance of the RPD is dedicated to permanent agriculture.
in Rural Communities-Can
We Stop It?
101
Among the major types of indirect controls for retaining farmland are: (1) agricultural districts and (2) differential assessment. Agricultural Districting Within this multiple-incentive type of approach farmers are. encouraged to work collectively in farming a district. In so doing the participating farmers are protected to some extent from regulations on farming activity, from special assessments for sewer, water, light and other public utility districts and from local use of eminent domain to acquire farmland for non-agricultural use. In addition, correlated policies at the state level further encourage agricultural pursuits within these districts and provide member farmers with the option to apply for differential assessment of their property with deferred taxation. Differential Assessment Essentially this incentive approach emphasizes use value as opposed to market value assessment of agricultural land.’ O For if there exists acute urbanization pressures on surrounding rural farmland, the potential savings in taxes may be substantial since market value assessment contains considerable speculative development value for this land. Basically there are three types of differential assessment: (1) pure preferential assessment-in which farmland is assessed at its current use value; (2) deferred taxation-which is pure preferential assessment with the condition that if the land is taken out of the eligible use, back taxes reflecting the difference between the market value and current use value of the land must be paid; and (3) restrictive agreement-whereby under contract a farmer is bound to keep his land in an eligible use for a specified time period in return for a pure preferential assessment on his land. RBle of State and Local Government Ultimately the effectiveness of any one or combination of the preceding land-use control options can be measured in the quantity and quality of farmland retained that otherwise would be converted to non-agricultural uses. However, this effectiveness measure is largely dependent upon the jurisdictional level at which the land-use control options are implemented; federal, state, county or local. Certainly the rural-to-urban conversion process is a critical national and international however, concern; the numerous and varied peculiarities related to the actual switchover ofrural land to urban use suggest strongly the need for a locally-based planning approach. For example, local farming activities that are deemed nuisances by incoming suburban-type households may be legislated against (e.g. regulations on using fertilizer, disposing of manure, creating odors and driving farm vehicles on commuter roads may be imposed). Second, local taxes may be increased to fund new schools, roads, utilities and other needed public services. Third, air pollution damage to
102
Long Range Planning Vol. 16
February 1983
crops may occur as a result of increased automobile traffic, residential space heating and industrial and commercial activity. Fourth, destruction of crops or equipment or harassment of farming operations may involve members from a neighboring rural subdivision development. Fifth, the principle of eminent domain may be imposed by local governments to acquire farmland for public uses aimed at serving the new suburban population (e.g. highways and reservoirs). These localized concerns, among others, exhibit a noticeable spatial variation in the sense that some concerns may dominate in certain areas while in other locales these same concerns may be of secondary importance. As such a national land-use control program would not effectively address the farmland preservation problem and may, in fact, generate counterintuitive results. In the United States implementing a locally-based planning by its existing semistrategy is facilitated autonomous political structure. Of primary importance is the power and responsibilities relegated to state and, in turn, local units of government.” Essentially, local governments are vested with the authority to tax, borrow, provide public goods and services and regulate (through available land-use controls) urban development. In this regard the following section outlines a planning framework that both draws upon the authority of local government and considers directly the pertinent issues for effective farmland preservation. A Locally-Based Planning Framework As stated earlier, two interrelated processes which impact on the quantity and rate - of productive farmland loss to urban uses include a redistribution of the population signalling a return to the rural countryside along with the associated growth and infrastructure. expansion of urban physical Through a number of case studies it has been observed that the latter process is a response to the former process. Consequently, in developing an effective planning strategy which promotes farmland retention, emphasis must be placed on regulating the outflow of households from urban to exurban areas. Essential to such a planning strategy is the phenomenon of free standing, rural subdivision development, i.e. a residential neighborhood which typically caters to higher-income households and which is not spatially contiguous to an existing urban area. For although it is common knowledge that these rural subdivisions occupied by primary residences usually require more services from local government units than they finance,” little empirical evidence has been collected in support of this observation. As a result, numerous court cases have ruled in favor of the farmer to cash in his farmland to housing developers. Therefore, one might be led to believe that in projecting the approximate dimensions of the cost burden and revenue receipts local government units can: (1) better prepare themselves to service a proposed
development; (2) determine whether a proposed development or group of pending developments is likely to overload financially one or more public services, or (3) reject the proposed development(s) or require modifications in them. To this end this paper suggests a fiscal impact model to project both the likely costs to local governments incurred by servicing a proposed rural subdivision and the likely revenues to be generated by that subdivision. The Planning Model The fiscal impact planning model considers five major public costs and five major public revenues. On the one hand, public costs include education, transportation, police security, fire protection and emergency ambulance service; on the other hand, public revenues include property tax, motor fuel tax, state income tax, state sales tax and state aid for education. Although neither of these two lists are all inclusive, they do reflect for the U.S. those public service responsibilities and revenue sources over which local governments exert jurisdiction. A schematic diagram of the entire planning model is illustrated in Figure 3. Major Public Costs The single greatest public expenditure burden generated by rural subdivision developments is that of providing public education. Educational costs for rural residents have two major components: (1) in situ or in-school costs (e.g. salaries, textbooks, utilities, supplies, etc.) and (2) distance related or busing costs. The basic datum for projecting inschool expenditures is the per-pupil cost reported by school districts. Essentially, all costs are summed less intergovernmental transfers and divided by average daily attendance. A daily cost-of-busing figure is determined by multiplying a per-pupil per-mile cost times (1) the number of students expected to be bused from a proposed subdivision and (2) the distance (in miles) a bus will travel from that subdivision to the school site. The maintenance of public roads involving snow plowing, filling potholes, periodic full resurfacing, etc. constitutes the second greatest public cost. Rural subdivision developments of significant size tend to have their own internal road system ranging from a single, short cul-de-sac to a network of several roads with access at two or more points. In addition, public road maintenance costs rise when residential development occurs along existing public roads. In particular, the demand for normal maintenance activities is increased as well as a greater need is placed on infrequent repair service such as regrading shoulders along lot frontage. Police surveillance costs, the third major public cost item attributable to a proposed rural subdivision, consist largely of the expenditures on labor, fuel, vehicle maintenance and depreciation involved in responding to calls for assistance from that development. A second cost component relates to
The Breakdown
I
in Rural
Communities-Can
103
Major Public Revenues
1
Major Public Costs
We Stop It?
I
L
1. Property
1. Education a. Project Pace of Development b. Estimate Number of Students per New Dwelling Unit c. Determine Education
b. Determine Time Lag for Reassessing Developed Property in the Development c. Estimate the Cumulative Number of Completed Residences Throughout the Construction Years of the Development
In-school Cost of per Student
d. Determine Whether Busing Service will be Extended to Proposed Development e. Identify Number of Additional Busing Destinations f. Estimate Number of Students Expected per Additional Destination g. Calculate Total Additional bus Mileage to New Development h. Calculate the Cost per Mile per Student for the Involved School District
Tax
a. Determine the Year Home Construction will Begin in the Proposed Development
d. Determine the per-lot Assessment Local Government
Decisions
a. To More Effectively Service a Proposed Development b. To Identify Service Areas with Potential Fiscal Burden and Fiscal Surplus
2. Sales Tax
c. To Reject or Require Modifications in a Proposed Development
2. Public Road Maintenance
a. Estimate the Cumulative Number of Residences to be Completed for a Given Time Period (5 Years)
t
a. Estimate Average Annual per Mile Cost for Minor Surface Repair, Seal Coating, Resurfacing, Snow Plowing, etc.
e. Obtain Current Property Tax Rates for the School, Police and Fire Jurisdictions Wherein the Development is Proposed
b. Calculate the Average Number of Persons per Household in the Respective County c. Determine
3. State Income Tax
b. Determine Total New Road Mileage for Proposed Development
a. Estimate the Cumulative Number of Residences to be Completed for a Given Time Period (5 Years)
c. Calculate Maintenance Costs Attributable to That Part of the Proposed Development Fronting on Existing Public Roads
b. Calculate the Average Number of Persons per Household in the Respective County c. Determine Per Capita State Income Tax Rebate
3. Police a. Obtain Annual Estimates of the Number of Homes to be Completed in the Proposed Development
a. Estimate the Cumulative
Number
b. Estimate the Average Annual Number of Police Calls per Dwelling Unit
b. Calculate Average Number of Motor Vehicle License Registrations per Household
c. Derive Average Costs per Call
c. Determine per License Registration Motor Fuel Tax Rebate to the County
4, 5 Fire Protection and Ambulance Service
d. Calculate per Mile Annual Motor Fuel Tax Rebate to Townships
a. Obtain Annual Estimates of the Number of Homes to be Completed in the Proposed Development
5. State Aid for Education a. Estimate Number of Students per Household
b. Estimate the Average Annual Number of Fire and Ambulance Calls per Dwelling Unit
b. Determine Number of Completed Households per Year c. Calculate the Amount of State Aid per Average Daily Attendance
c. Derive Average Costs per Call
Figure
3. A locally-based
fiscal impact
model
104
Long
Range
Planning
Vol. 16
February
the follow-up work to some of the initial assistance calls. A possible third cost component is readiness costs; that is, expenditures on patrolling, equipping and manning the radio dispatch center, additional staff and vehicles and on preparing the department in other ways so as to be ready to respond to assistance calls commensurate with potential need for service. Finally, rural subdivisions typically receive bothjfire protection and emergency ambulance service from Cost considerations for these fire departments. expenditures are quite similar to those components underlying police service costs. Major Public Revenues Revenues attributable to rural subdivisions fall within one of two categories-locally produced or intergovernmental transfers. Of the five major types of revenue sources identified only the property tax is locally produced. Namely, this form of revenue is based upon rates voted by local legislative authorities. Key issues to be considered for estimating property tax revenue from a proposed rural subdivision include the timing of market value assessment as a parcel of land progresses from a vacant lot to a fully developed residential lot, the expected pace of development within the proposed subdivision, and the lag effect of property tax payments. The remaining four tax revenue sources fall within the category of intergovernmental transfers. In particular, state governments rebate to local governments a certain proportion of the retail sales tax, motor&el tax and the state income tax collected from within their jurisdictions. Common to all three revenue rebates is the total number of individuals either in residence or registered for a motor vehicle license. Therefore, unless prospective households of a rural subdivision are additions, as opposed to redistributors, to a local government’s jurisdiction then revenue from any one of the three rebate tax sources cannot be considered extra revenue attributable to the rural subdivision. Finally, school districts receive general state aid from various state and federal grant programs which earmark funds for specific educational purposes including driver education, special education, vocational rehabilitation, bilingual programs, among others. The amount of aid provided to school districts is based upon weighted average daily attendance with students in post secondary schools being weighted more heavily than those in primary and secondary education.
Summary
Remarks
In summary, the world food problem is escalating annually. As the world’s population base increases, as higher standards of living are sought for and achieved through the development and adoption of
1983 technological innovations, and as affluence continues to trigger the decentralization of the urban population out into the surrounding countryside; the corresponding loss in productive farmland will be such that food and fiber production will not keep apace with demand. Of course, there are other factors that further impinge upon overall food and fiber productivity. These localized factors include; changing weather patterns, soil erosion, air pollution, competition for water, genetic vulnerability, production costs and fuel scarcities and fertilizers.
This study has focused on the U.S. experience where over the past lo-year period substantial farmland loss has resulted in recently nationally sponsored programs to: (1) study agricultural land, especially the quantity, quality, location, availability and ownership of farmland; (2) examine methods of retaining, protecting and improving farmland; and (3) d evise a set of programs to methods for develop, test and demonstrate preserving the quantity and quality of agricultural land. Of primary importance to these three concerns has been the substantial shift in migration movement favoring rural over urbanized areas along with the related rapid development of residential subdivisions in rural areas and the intensive developmental pressures which accompany them. As a result, senior administrators and planners responsible for rural community development, urban growth or other related areas should concern themselves with data acquisition, program development and policy formulation in the following key areas: (1) migratory patterns; their direction, intensity and dynamics, (2) farmland, by productivity classification, converted to urban activities, (3) direct and indirect impacts exurban activities exert on neighboring farmland productivity rates and rural communities, (4) assessment and evaluation of inventive programs to retain land for farming, (5) assessment and evaluation of disincentive programs to restrict rural to urban land conversion and (6) a methodology for examining the relative costs and benefits of alternative programs either promoting farmland retention or restricting exurban development. It is hoped that this study not only provides an information base to plan for effective management of the urban/rural fringe but also to underscore the potentially serious impact on the supply of food and fiber worldwide.
References (1)
T. Plaut, Urban growth and agricultural decline: problems and policies, Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas (1978).
(2)
W. Lassey, Planning in Rural Environments, York (1977).
McGraw-Hill,
New
The Breakdown
in Rural
Communities-Can
We Stop It?
Agricultural Land Protection Act of 1979. Hearing Proceedings before the Committee on Agriculture House of Representatives, 96th Congress (1 st session), 17 May, Serial No. 96-M (1979).
(8) R. Healy and J. Short, Rural land: market trends and planning
(4) V. Banks, Farm Population Estimatesfor 1976, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service Report No. 383 (1977).
(9) R. Coughlin and T. Plaut, Less-than-fee acquisition for the
(3)
(6)
D. Berry, Incentives for farmland retention in urbanizing areas, Planning and Public Policy, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1978).
(6)
W. Huemoller et al., Land Use: Ongoing Developments in the North Central Region, Ames: Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University (1976).
(7)
R. Schneider, Alternatives for Projection of Nonagricultural Land Needs in Illinois to the Year 2000, Department of Agriculture Economics, Paper No. 78 E-57, University of Illinois (1978).
implications, Journal of the American Planning Association, 45 (3), 306-317 (1979). preservation of open space, Journal of the American Planning Association, 44 (4). 452-462 (1978).
(10) G. Gustafson and L. Wallace, Differential assessment as land use policy: the California case, Journal of the American Planning Association, 41 (6), 379389 (1975).
(11) M. Danielson, Differentiation, segregation and political fragmentation in the American metropolis, in Governance and Population: the Governmental Implications of Population Change, A. E. Keir Nash (ed.), USGPO, pp. 145-l 75 (1972).
(12) United States Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality: Fifth Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality, Wash., D.C. USGPO (1974).