Growth restrictions substitute
government decisions for yours
by Andrew Cline
Growth and development have made North Carolina's economy one
of the fastest-growing in America, with statewide unemployment near all-time
lows. Yet all three levels of government in North Carolina – municipal, county
and state – are considering or have already enacted restrictions designed to
slow or halt new development, which critics say is ruining state residents'
quality of life.
In September, Gov. Jim Hunt announced that state government
may soon play a role in restricting development in N.C. cities and counties.
Under Hunt's plan, the state would devise incentives to financially reward areas
that implement so-called "smart growth" strategies, which provide for
government direction of new growth. A special task force would help N.C.
communities implement such policies, Hunt announced.
While Hunt was devising his anti-growth plan this summer,
local governments across the state began enacting or considering their own
growth restrictions. On Aug. 17, the Durham City Council – in an effort to
control traffic congestion – voted 10-2 to impose a six-month moratorium on
major development. For the next six months, land stretching from Research
Triangle Park to South Durham will be off limits to any project that would add
more than 150 cars to the roads, during rush hour.
Catawba County also enacted legislation recently to limit
growth. The new plan would increase the minimum lot size in certain subdivisions
from 20,000 feet to 2 acres. Commissioners said that the plan would channel
growth, so that new businesses and homes would be closer to schools, police
stations and water-and-sewer lines.
And Mecklenburg County commissioners are considering a
county-wide land-use plan that would cluster development around transit stops,
in an effort to ease traffic congestion.
In the Triangle, local-government officials are taking or
considering measures to restrict growth in their communities. In July, Cary's
Town Council approved an ordinance restricting development in areas where
schools are overcrowded. No home-building permits will be issued if the proposed
development would bring enough children to push an elementary school's
enrollment above 148 percent of capacity, a middle school's enrollment above 132
percent of capacity, or a high school's enrollment above 141 percent of
capacity. How the government would determine how many children were headed to a
new development – and how many of those children would come from out-of-town,
rather than from across town – is unclear.
Apex and Holly Springs have restricted growth to prevent it
from exceeding the capacity of their water systems. In mid-September, Johnston
County officials unveiled a plan to limit the increase in the number of building
permits issued in the county to no more than 5.6 percent a year. The proposal
would also mandate that 90 percent of building permits be reserved for
single-family dwellings. Both Durham and Wake County commissioners are now also
considering anti-growth proposals.
With growth a major issue in this fall's municipal elections,
a number of office seekers in the Triangle ran on anti-growth platforms. Mayoral
candidates in Chapel Hill and Raleigh and council candidates across the Triangle
have pledged to pursue tough anti-growth agendas, if elected. One Raleigh
mayoral candidate went so far as to proclaim that he would try to ban the
creation of new strip malls.
Where traffic congestion is angering local commuters, new
strip malls are eating up forested hilltops, and local schools are overcrowded,
growth restrictions may seem like the only sane response.
But we must keep in mind a few vital considerations. Road
congestion, for example, is caused by an undersupply of roads – which means
that it can be alleviated only by building more roads. Strip malls serve
legitimate commercial needs, and outlawing them will only redirect growth to
things like shopping malls, which create their own problems.
The most important thing to remember, however, is that growth
is directed by individuals who choose certain types of economic activity.
Preventing such activity substitutes the government's preferences for those of
individuals – and that usually makes everyone much worse off than if they had
been allowed to make economic decisions on their own.
Andrew Cline is director of publications at the John Locke
Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute located in Raleigh, and
on the World Wide Web at www.johnlocke.org.
©2000 John Locke Foundation, Inc.
200 West Morgan Street, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: 919-828-3876
Facsimile: 919-821-5117
Related Links:
Mountain
X Letters:
TOP
