Sprawl Got Space on Ballots

By Ben White
Tuesday, February 27, 2001

Proposals to preserve open space and build and maintain parks were among the most popular ballot measures voters addressed in November. Voters in 38 states and hundreds of cities, towns and counties voted on 553 growth-related measures last November and passed 72 percent of them, according to a study released yesterday.

The study's authors cautioned that the 72 percent success rate does not indicate a national backlash against "suburban sprawl." For instance, a "yes" vote on some measures indicated support for new highway construction, which some analysts believe contributes to sprawl.

Instead, the proliferation of ballot measures reflects ongoing concern and debate over how to handle rapid growth, as well as the emergence of a new approach to the issue that ties together the interests of business and environmental groups and of center-cities, close-in suburbs, outlying suburbs and rural areas.

"What we are seeing is the beginning of a move toward broad, cross-jurisdictional coalitions," said Bruce Katz, director of the Brookings Institution's Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, which conducted the study. "The constituencies impacted by sprawl . . . have not acted together in the past."

Katz cited several examples of this coalition approach, foremost among them the statewide passage of a "Clean Ohio Fund" to provide $200 million to redevelop blighted urban areas in that state along with $200 million to preserve farmland and green space and to develop recreation trails.

Other examples of the coalition approach include passage in California of a measure to extend the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) line to San Jose (supported by environmental groups and Silicon Valley executives), and a $400 million annual budget set-aside in New Jersey to fund improvements in highways, mass transit, and pedestrian and bicycle paths.

The report also found that while local measures to purchase open space and keep it off-limits to development passed overwhelmingly (78 percent nationwide, 98 percent in the Northeast), citizen-sponsored efforts to impose new statewide restrictions on growth fared less well.

In Arizona and Colorado, for example, initiatives to force local officials to come up with growth plans and submit them to voters for approval failed after what the report said were "costly campaigns by opponents."

Overall, 90 percent of the measures studied were referred to the ballot by state and local governments. Only 10 percent arrived on the ballot after successful signature-gathering campaigns by citizen groups and wealthy individuals. Voters approved the legislative referenda proposals at a far higher rate (75 percent) than the direct, citizen-sponsored initiatives (53 percent).

The bulk of the ballot action took place in the suburbs, where voters addressed 395 growth-related measures; 201 of those were designed to preserve open space, 80 percent of which passed. Measures to pay for new school construction also were popular in the suburbs.

Growth management measures met with mixed results. In California, fewer than half of 39 measures designed to set suburban growth boundaries and enact building moratoriums were approved.

Central-city voters addressed just 64 growth-related ballot measures, according to the study, including 18 to provide economic development funds and 19 to earmark money to acquire open space and improve park facilities.

Voters in rural areas passed 20 of 31 open-space measures. But as with the suburbs, rural voters mainly rejected efforts to restrict growth.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company