Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
counties more to deliver public services. These costs, which are borne equally by all of the
taxpayers, result in an entire city or county picking up the tab for new and costlier services
that only serve new, sprawling neighborhoods. 26 Some government agencies in Arizona
have performed detailed analyses on the costs of growth and have confirmed national
findings that sprawl development often costs communities much more to service than
development on smaller parcels within established communities. For example, another
Phoenix area city, Scottsdale, commissioned two independent fiscal impact studies
and determined that sprawl costs nearly twice as much as development in established
neighborhoods and three to four times as much as compact development across all
expenditure categories analyzed (fire, general government, municipal services, planning
and development, police, and community services). Studies performed for both nearby
Mesa and Gilbert found similar results. 26 Collectively, these studies helped municipalities
implement higher impact fees per dwelling unit, but, in the case of Mesa, political will
could not be mustered to charge impact fees at actual cost, which means that even cities
armed with the best information about the costs of sprawl can still lose money to finance
new infrastructure needed by leapfrog developments. (It is important to note that because
of the idiosyncrasies of Arizona law, no community can charge impact fees for schools
without facing a lawsuit brought by developers. So one of the largest infrastructure costs
associated with sprawl cannot be addressed by any municipality.) 27 University of Arizona
Professor Ignacio San Martín argues that within the decade “cities could go broke trying
to provide services for subdivisions that don't pay for themselves.” 28
Perhaps one of the most ironic results relating to the costs of sprawl in some areas is
that the more affluent households at the fringes are subsidized by the poorer households
located in the central city. For example, Myron Orfield in Metropolitics found that house-
holds in the central cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul pay $6 million more each year in
fees for sewer capital and operational expenses than they receive in services. In the central
cities, where there are high numbers of low-income residents, those residents subsidize
the new sewer systems by paying rates $19-$25 per year above the actual cost of delivery
to their own neighborhoods. 29 When dollars are focused on the suburbs, the inner and
older parts of cities are often neglected. A 1998 study by Subhrait Guhathakurta concluded
that suburban areas received the majority of planned capital expenditure funds and that
the spending per household in these suburban areas was 77% higher than for the average
Phoenix household. 30
14.3.3 Sprawl Eats Up Open Space and Fragments Wildlife Habitat
Areas with the highest growth rates also happen to have high numbers of imperiled
species, according to a report from the National Wildlife Federation. 31 The fastest growing
metropolitan areas with more than 1 million people in the contiguous 48 states are home to
approximately 29% of the nation's imperiled species. Maricopa County has 22 endangered
species and is one of the fastest growing counties in the United States. 31 Species such as the
Sonoran desert tortoise, while not listed as endangered, its numbers are declining. A key
reason includes loss of habitat including from development and urbanization (Figure 14.5).
14.3.4 Sprawl Hurts Tourism
As noted earlier, sprawl consumes natural open space, a key attraction in Arizona, which
also has a negative economic impact on communities. Tourism is the second largest
Search WWH ::




Custom Search