Document Actions
Top 8 Myths of Growth
Adapted from “Better Not Bigger,” by Eben Fodor
Myth #1: Growth Provides Tax Relief
This is the mother of all growth justifications. The mantra is that growth provides additional tax revenues, thereby providing tax relief for existing residents. Unfortunately, there have not been many studies of this fundamentally pro-growth assertion, but the ones that are available indicate the opposite.
Chelmsford’s own history belies this myth.
- Chelmsford’s furious growth rate, tripling in size from 1960 to 1980, did not provide lower taxes in the short term, and it certainly has not provided lower taxes in the long term.
- The town’s continued high growth rate has coincided with a 50% increase in taxes in just the past few years for many residents.
Harvard economists Alan Altshuler and Gamez-Ibanez summed it up in a 1993 study for The Brookings Institute and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy entitled “Regulation for Revenue: The Political Economy of Land Use Exactions” when they wrote:
“The available evidence shows that development does not cover new public costs; that is, it brings in less revenue for local governments than the price of servicing it.”
Government studies, while small in number, consistently show that new development tends to increase property taxes and communities with the most rapid growth tend to have the greatest tax increases. Furthermore, population growth tends to increase the residential tax burden (or reduce services in areas that do not increase tax rates).
A 1997 study titled OpenLand, Development, Land Conservation and Property Taxes in Maine’s Organized Municipalities determined the following:
- The tax bill on the median-value house is, on average, lower in towns where there are more acres of open land
- The tax bill on the median-value house is, on average, higher in the towns that have larger tax bases, larger populations, more employment, higher values of taxable sales, higher taxable value of buildings and personal property
- The tax rate is, on average, higher in towns that are more developed and lower in more rural towns
- It is generally true in Maine that the towns with the most development have higher rather than lower tax bills
- From the town taxpayer’s perspective, conservation of a key parcel in town may be a less expensive option than allowing it to be developed in a way that would not pay enough to cover the costs to the town.
Until such a study is conducted in Massachusetts, this information provides the best data we have to make informed decisions about land use.
Myth #2: Growth Provides More Jobs for People in the Community
If local growth reduced local unemployment, then fast-growing metropolitan areas should have lower unemployment rates than slower-growing ones. However, statistical analysis shows no such correlation. Faster-growing areas wind up being bigger and more densely populated, but with similar unemployment rates. Growth creates jobs, attracts more people who require more jobs, and is accompanied by unemployment rates similar to the region as a whole.
Myth #3: Limiting Growth Will Make Housing Prices Shoot Up
Development proponents often make the argument that growth controls will affect housing affordability. However, studies of pro-growth cities versus those with growth controls found that the ones with growth controls did not experience higher escalation of property values, and in some of the cities with growth controls housing actually became more affordable over time. A possible explanation is that towns acting to control growth are probably also more proactive with respect to affordable housing. This is the path that would seem to make the most sense for Chelmsford.
Myth #4: Growth is Inevitable
Communities can and should set reasonable limits on their ultimate size and certainly on their growth rate to get there. Persistent high growth is ultimately undesirable. Social, environmental, and economic standards will direct growth without necessarily blocking it entirely. For example, commercial development might be allowed as long as set-aside funds are provided to subsidize affordable housing for the lower wage employees who want to and should be able to live close to their work. Funds for the capital improvements required by the town to support new developments should be included in the cost proposals to the town for such projects. Chelmsford is currently reviewing a possible strategy to implement this concept, Inclusionary Zoning. When the real costs are included, excessive profits (at the expense of the taxpayer) are removed and the rush to grow may be slowed.
Scores of communities across the country have adopted formal limits to their growth. The idea of forced growth is repulsive, and that is why so many people have a highly negative reaction to Chapter 40 overrides of local permit denials. However, there are ways to provide affordable housing, even under the almost universally despised Chapter 40 rules, that do not involve new development. These ways include buy-downs and redevelopment of existing properties, and funding sources include CPA funds, state and federal grants, and set-asides from commercial developments that increase the employment base and the residential population.
In Massachusetts, in order to keep Chapter 40 from being used as a weapon by developers (and in some cases pro-growth advocates in the town government) who want to force unwanted growth, guidelines and strategies for providing affordable housing have to be presented in a coherent master plan that shows it will achieve real progress. Furthermore, the existing master plan for affordable housing needs to be followed. This has not yet happened and must be considered a high priority if Chelmsford is to avoid growth forced upon it by developers who clearly have different objectives than our townspeople do.
Myth #5: If You Don’t Like Growth You are a “NIMBY” or an “Anti”
Chapter 40B was originally referred to as an “anti-snob zoning” law. It’s become clear that it is first and foremost a device for developers to bypass local ordinances and build what they want, where they want. A NIMBY, rather than being a “snob zoner,” is more likely to be someone who simply cares enough about their environment, their neighborhood and their community to stand up and try to protect the overall quality of life for everyone. The “NIMBY” and “Anti” namecalling is meant to invalidate what are often valid concerns about a multiplicity of issues important to the local quality of life.
The so-called “NIMBY” is almost always an unpaid, civic-minded volunteer with little or nothing to gain economically, as opposed to the “pro-growth” “pro-affordable housing” developers who profit from their efforts. People who want to slow growth for the good of the community are not simply NIMBYs. They are dedicated civic volunteers.
Myth #6: Most People Don’t Support Slow Growth or Environmental Protection
Clean air and water are top factors in where people decide to live. Surveys also show that most people in the U.S. feel that economic prosperity is better served by protecting the environment than by relaxing environmental regulations. For example, it is widely accepted that American automakers would not be in such a precarious position relative to foreign automakers if the government had gradually required more stringent fuel standards over the past two decades. Surveys show strong majority support nationwide for environmental protections.
Development advocates rely on the majority of citizens to remain silent. That’s why it’s so important that you let your town meeting representative, your Town Manager (currently Paul Cohen), your Planning Board members, and your Board of Selectmen know that you support a proactive, engaged government body who works to set and implement plans to prevent ill advised development. Specifically, let them know that you support non-growth strategies for providing affordable housing, and you oppose the sale of town-owned properties except to a land conservation trust.
Myth #7: If We Don’t Grow We Are In Decline
Now that the population of North America is well past optimal levels, additional growth is making us poorer by increasing costs faster than it increases benefits. The Gross Domestic Product goes up, but the Genuine Progress Indicator goes down. Still, an economy that is not growing is usually said to be “stagnant” rather than the more correct term “stable.” A metropolitan area that is losing population is said to be “in decline” rather than “decreasing in population.” You get the idea. Despite the fact that economic studies show that greater economic prosperity accompanies stable population levels, and despite the fact that cosmopolitan cities like Naples and Stuttgart have retained their prosperity and world leadership while sustaining a gradual reduction in population, the idea of a stable or decreasing population is often viewed in negative terms.
The high costs of growth are well documented. A groundbreaking 1995 study found that the costs to provide public facilities to a single new house in the U.S. exceeded $20,000. Subsequent studies in various regions confirmed the findings. Yet projections for new development’s financial impact on a municipality frequently count only the expected tax revenue and fail to enumerate the costs. These hidden costs are not paid by the developer, they are paid by the taxpayers. Growth profits a few at the expense of the many.
Myth #8: Vacant or Undeveloped Land is Just Going to Waste
Studies by the American Farmland Trust show that farmland and open space provide more in taxes than they consume in services. A detailed study of four New Hampshire towns in 1995 showed that each had a net revenue gain from open space and a net revenue loss from developed parcels. It is often cheaper in the long run for a town to buy open land rather than let it be developed and pay increased costs for infrastructure and services. Furthermore, by creating beauty and peace and quiet, open spaces undeniably raise the value of surrounding properties. Yet current Chelmsford policy, focused on the short term budget, is trying to find ways to sell town-owned land.
Quite apart from the direct financial benefit, however, open spaces act as invaluable watershed and natural buffers against creeping environmental degradation in terms of wildlife, water quality, drainage, and environmental toxins. A community which does not keep its open spaces limits its options for the future.