Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan: Causes and Consequences

Transcription

1 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan: Causes and Consequences March Local Governments Advancing Southeast Michigan Southeast Michigan Council of Governments

2 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan: Causes and Consequences March 2003 SEMCOG 2003 Abstract SEMCOG s data on land use change from is analyzed in relation to census and other data on demographic and economic change. The report documents the amounts, location, and density of land development in Southeast Michigan. It relates land use change to its causes and examines implications for future development, housing affordability, redevelopment, municipal finance, transportation, and environmental quality. Preparation of this document was financed, in part, through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration, through the Michigan Department of Transportation and local membership dues. Permission is granted to cite portions of this publication, with proper attribution. The first source attribution must be SEMCOG, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. Subsequently, SEMCOG is sufficient. Reprinting in any form must include the publication s full title page. SEMCOG Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Information Services 535 Griswold Street, Suite 300 Detroit, MI fax infoservices@semcog.org Price: $20.00

3 Acknowledgements This report was written by Jim Rogers. Kim Lua provided the analysis of land use changes. Lisa Mayoras coordinated the 2000 land use update team, which included Katherine Bossler, David Breneau, Matthew Craft, Elizabeth Jones, Benjamin Mancell, Matthew Raschke, Jo-elle Warner, and Michael Woods. Xuan Liu developed methods to project future land development. Brian Parthum and Delores Muller contributed additional analysis. Gerry Schrock handled word processing. Janet Mocadlo did formatting and graphics work. The Center for Remote Sensing at Michigan State University provided valuable counsel and training in land use update methods. ii Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

4 Table of Contents Summary of Land Use Change... 1 Land Use Change and Sprawl... 3 How Much Is Land Use Changing, and Why?... 3 Land Use Issues... 7 Development Densities and Land Consumption... 7 Loss of Agricultural Land... 8 Detroit Housing Losses... 9 Open Space Preservation Transportation Water Quality Local Government Finance Housing Affordability Managing Growth Future Land Use Survey Findings on Land Use Issues Conclusions Bibliography iii Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

5 List of Data Displays Tables Table 1 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan, Table 2 Changes in Housing Units, Density, Residential Land, Employment, Nonresidential Land, and Developed Land by County, Southeast Michigan, Table 3 Sizes of Oakland County Single-Family Residential Parcels, Table 4 Land in Active Agriculture by County, Southeast Michigan, Table 5 Land in Recreation and Open Space, Southeast Michigan, Table 6 Total State Equalized Value and Taxable Value of Total Real and Personal Property, Selected Communities, Table 7 Planned Uses (2001) of Developable Land, Southeast Michigan, Figures Figure 1 Developed Land Increase and Growth in Population, Households, and Employment, Southeast Michigan, Figure 2 Land Use: Sources of Development, Southeast Michigan, Figure 3 Developed Land, 2000 and 2030, and Remaining Developable Land after 2030, Southeast Michigan iv Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

6 Summary of Land Use Change Key Findings SEMCOG s evaluation of land use change during the period provides hard data and new insights into the causes and consequences of the continuing growth of the Southeast Michigan region. In just 10 years, , developed land increased by 17 percent, so that Southeast Michigan s land is now 37 percent developed. The region s population growth of five percent (243,000 more people) from is a primary driving factor in land use change. Other growth causes are a nine percent increase in households, 14 percent growth in employment, and 16 percent growth in real per-capita income. Compounding the effect of growth on land development is the overall lower density of recent residential development. This factor accounts for 43 percent of the total acreage of land developed from Largely due to residential and nonresidential development, the region s land in active agriculture decreased 140,000 acres, or 13 percent, from Housing losses in Detroit from have created an estimated 4,600 acres more vacant land in Detroit. The shift of households from Detroit accounts for about 12 percent of suburban housing built during this period. Most of the land available for future development is in outlying parts of the region, where local plans and zoning primarily specify low-density development, where sewers are not available, and where larger homes on larger residential lots are the usual type of development. This means that most future development will occur at low densities, consuming land at least as rapidly as in the past decade. SEMCOG s forecast of 12 percent population growth (575,000 more people), 22 percent more households, and 16 percent more jobs, coupled with lower densities, will result in at least a 36 percent increase in developed land (390,000 acres) from Remaining land that is developable will drop from 1,129,000 acres (38 percent of regional land) in 2000 to 739,000 acres (25 percent of regional land) in Conclusions Real growth in population, households, jobs, and income all combine to drive land development and are magnified by lower density. Thus, the issue is not stopping sprawl or growth, but growing with less sprawl while effectively accommodating growth to ensure high quality of life. If present trends continue, future land development will be at least as fast as the recent past. This will cause shortages of developable land, will push up housing prices as land becomes scarcer, and will require major expansions of infrastructure. 1 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

7 Redevelopment and infill will be necessary for three reasons: to maintain and restore vitality of older communities, to help meet future housing demand, and to reduce future land consumption. State policies and legislation must be modified to support the needs of both growing and older communities to give them better tools and needed support to maintain and improve their quality of life. 2 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

8 Land Use Change and Sprawl Land use is changing across Southeast Michigan as the region s growth proceeds. This change is driven by four fundamental factors: growth in population, households, employment, and income. Lower densities of recent development compound this, resulting in large amounts of land being developed. The pattern and location of land use change depend on choices made by households, businesses, and governments. Land availability, local planning and zoning, transportation, and sewer and water service are key contributing factors to land use change. Underlying the way we use land are many other social and policy dynamics. These include residential segregation by race and income, federal tax subsidies for home mortgage interest and property taxes, school funding and quality, crime and public safety, societal ideals of lifestyle and urban design, constitutional protections of private property rights, infrastructure financing policies, and extent of personal vehicle ownership and use. The historical evolution of American land development patterns is well-documented elsewhere (Jackson, 1985). Current policy issues such as fiscal equity and competition for tax base, along with proposed solutions, have been discussed in recent publications (Orfield, 2002). However, what follows in this report on land use is focused on documenting the amount, location, and consequences of land use change. Concerns about the amount and impact of land use change can be thought of as attempts to answer three basic questions (Brueckner, 2000): What is causing such a large amount of land to be developed? Is land use change excessive? Are there other consequences of land use change? Those who believe that the amount of land being developed is excessive and that some consequences are undesirable often term land use change sprawl and advocate major public policy changes to address the problem. In the following sections of this report, SEMCOG provides some answers to these questions based on its data and its perspective as Southeast Michigan s regional planning organization for transportation, environment, community and economic development, and other issues of concern to its over 150 local government members. How Much is Land Use Changing, and Why? SEMCOG has tracked land use change for Southeast Michigan s 4,600 square miles and seven counties using aerial photography and computer mapping every five years since The 2000 update is nearly complete, allowing a preliminary look at the changes that occurred between 1990 and Key results are shown in Table 1. 3 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

9 Table 1 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan, Land Use (in acres) Developed Land Change Percent Change Residential 633, , ,100 19% Nonresidential 303, ,700 38,200 13% Subtotal Developed 936,700 1,096, ,300 17% Undeveloped Land Change Percent Change Agricultural 1,074, , ,800-13% Other, Undeveloped 937, ,000-18,500-2% Subtotal Undeveloped 2,012,300 1,853, ,300-8% Total 2,949,000 2,949,000 Source: SEMCOG. In just 10 years, developed land increased 17 percent, or 159,300 acres, bringing the region s total land developed to 37 percent. In this report, developed land is defined as residential and nonresidential uses of land that have been identified using aerial photography. The nonresidential category includes many types of developed uses of land, from retail stores and their surrounding land to industrial facilities, airports, and golf courses. In order to understand the causes of land use change and to help answer the question, Is land use change excessive? it is necessary to look at both demographic and economic growth in the region. Reports examining land use and sprawl usually make a single comparison to show that development is sprawling the rate of population growth in relation to the rate of land consumed for urban development. As Figure 1 illustrates, by this measure, SEMCOG s data show that land is being developed more than three times as fast as population is growing. Other reports put this ratio at 3:1 for the U.S. (Fulton, 2001). In reports for Michigan, the ratio of developed land to population change has been estimated at 7:1 (Michigan Society of Planning Officials, 1995) and 8:1 (Public Sector Consultants, 2001). However, population increase is only a part of the growth picture. Figure 1 shows developed land increases not only in relation to population, but also households and employment growth. It shows land development as the sum of residential and nonresidential land developed Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

10 Figure 1 Developed Land Increase and Growth in Population, Households, and Employment, Southeast Michigan, % Nonresidential 14% 9% Residential 5% Developed Land Population Households Employment Source: U.S. Census Bureau and SEMCOG. Another view of the key factors related to land development is shown in Figure 2. The graphic accounts for all land that was developed Nonresidential development accounts for 24 percent of land developed The rest is residential land development. To gauge the effect of the five percent increase in population (243,000 more people), we calculate how much additional land those people would occupy if the population increase from had occurred at average 1990 densities. This amount, the direct effect of population growth, is 27 percent of the total land developed. The effect of faster household growth than population growth is six percent of the total land developed. The remainder, 43 percent, is the result of the lower density of housing built , compared to all existing housing in New housing was built at an average density of 1.26 housing units per acre, in contrast to the 2.84 housing unit per acre density of all housing in the region in It is the combined effect of more people, more households, more jobs, higher incomes, and the lower density of development that accounts for the large increase 17 percent (or 159,300 acres) in land developed from When all these factors are considered together, it is reasonable to conclude that land development is extensive because of the growth factors, and excessive in the total amount of land used. 5 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

11 Figure 2 Land Use: Sources of Development, Southeast Michigan, Nonresidential Development 24% Population Growth 27% Lower Density of Residential Development 43% Additional Households 6% Source: SEMCOG. If a growing population and lower density of residential development are the most significant factors in the increase in developed land, what is causing the large amount of growth in housing? The region s overall population growth of five percent is part of the answer. This growth rate is moderate when compared to the U.S. as a whole, which grew 13 percent However, during this same time period, households grew faster, at nine percent. More households were formed from the base population as children left home to form their own households. Also, people are living longer and can afford to live in separate households. The results are that the average household in 2000 had 2.58 persons, down from 2.66 in 1990, and that household growth was considerably more rapid than population growth. Growth in incomes and wealth are also key factors in the way we use land. During the 1990s, per capita incomes rose 16 percent, adjusted for inflation. Personal wealth and business incomes also rose markedly. Improved individual finances supported the higher rate of household formation. Older people, whose health also improved, could stay in their own homes, and their children and grandchildren could afford separate households. With higher incomes, more single people could afford to live alone. More households and higher incomes also produced more stores, restaurants, and other businesses all causing more land to be developed. Lower-density housing results from a number of factors. The strong preference for larger lots (Marans, 2002) and the established patterns of lower-density development in newer growth areas are reinforced by community master plans. Higher incomes and personal asset growth support the demand for larger houses on larger lots. Many growth areas do not have sewer service available, mandating one-acre or larger lots for septic systems. The combined effects of population growth, faster household growth, employment increases, income gains, and the lower densities of new development are the fundamental drivers that have produced the land use changes documented here. Other factors are essential facilitators of the particular locations and 6 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

12 configurations of land development, but are not primarily responsible for the amount of land development. These include transportation access, the locations of available land, private property rights, and personal preferences. Land Use Issues Changes in land use pose challenges and raise questions of whether public-policy changes are needed. Many current issues are affected by land use change. Development Densities and Land Consumption The most basic result of land development is that as housing and nonresidential buildings are built, land is no longer available as open space, for agriculture, or for future development. The density of new housing and of employment locations is much lower now than in the past. For all housing in the region in 1990, average density was 2.84 housing units per acre. The new housing added was built at an average density of 1.26 housing units per acre. Table 2 illustrates how housing density varies greatly within the region. Table 2 Changes in Housing Units, Density, Residential Land, Employment, Nonresidential Land, and Developed Land by County, Southeast Michigan, County Net Housing Unit Change Average Density of New Housing (units per acre) Residential Land Change (acres) Employment Change Nonresidential Land Change (acres) Developed Land Change (acres) Livingston* 17, ,900 19,863 3,500 26,400 Macomb* 45, ,900 44,212 5,200 22,100 Monroe 8, ,800 4,080 4,100 13,900 Oakland* 59, , ,326 8,400 38,800 St. Clair* 9, ,800 8,786 4,200 26,000 Washtenaw 19, ,500 18,280 4,200 18,700 Wayne -6,565 NA** 4,800-5,662 8,600 13,400 Detroit -34,931 NA** -4,600-67, ,600 Out-Wayne 28, ,400 61,404 8,600 18,000 Southeast Michigan 152, , ,885 38, ,300 *For these counties, land development acres and densities are estimates based on preliminary results from 2000 land use update. ** Because of housing-unit losses in Detroit, density calculations for new housing were not possible. Source: U.S. Census Bureau and SEMCOG. 7 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

13 New subdivisions in western Wayne County may have three housing units per acre while the average new housing unit in St. Clair County uses more than two acres of land. Table 2 shows for each county the change in housing units, average density of new housing, change in residential land, employment, change in nonresidential land, and the total change in developed land. Low-density development magnifies the impact of actual growth in population, households, and employment. As new development occurs in outlying parts of the region, most is at low densities, resulting in an overall increase of 159,300 acres, or 17 percent, in developed land. Oakland County s tax assessment data on residential property can be used to illustrate another view of density, based on parcel or lot sizes. Table 3 shows that the large majority (90 percent) of single-family residential lots in Oakland County in 2001 were smaller than one acre. Table 3 Sizes of Oakland County Single-Family* Residential Parcels, 2001 Lot Size Number of Lots Percent of Lots Acres Percent of Acres 0.25 acre or smaller 153,386 45% 25,267 11% to 0.5 acre 113,378 33% 39,332 18% to 1 acre 39,514 12% 27,179 12% 1.01 to 2 acres 17,548 5% 24,229 11% 2.01 to 5 acres 11,999 4% 37,226 17% Larger than 5 acres 5,891 2% 69,480 31% Total 341, % 222, % *The count of single-family lots includes an estimated 4,000 lots that contain a duplex or triplex unit. Source: Oakland County Planning and Development Department. However, the 10 percent of single-family residential parcels larger than one acre account for 59 percent of the 222,713 acres of single-family residential land. The larger single-family lots are found primarily in areas farther out from core urban areas and usually do not have sewer service available. It should be noted that there were 15,973 acres of land in multi-family housing or in manufactured housing parks, and this area accommodated 24 percent of all housing units in the county. The Oakland County parcel data is consistent with SEMCOG s land use data, which show how much of recent residential development is low-density. In addition to its impact on land availability for future development, the 17 percent additional land consumption has other consequences. Many of these are discussed in the following sections. As land is developed, open spaces are lost as agricultural land, woodlands, and open fields are converted to housing and nonresidential uses. The pattern of scattered, low-density development in outlying areas results in fragmentation of remaining open space and natural habitat areas. The implication for the future is that we will see similar patterns as the region continues to grow. Loss of Agricultural Land Loss of agricultural land is another consequence of land development in the region. Table 4 shows changes in land that is actively farmed in each county, as determined using aerial photography. Overall, from agricultural land decreased by 140,800 acres, or 13 percent. 8 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

14 Table 4 Land in Active Agriculture by County, Southeast Michigan, Agricultural Land (in acres) County Change Percent Change Livingston* 125, ,100-13,200-11% Macomb 104,800 87,100-17,700-17% Monroe 241, ,900-16,100-7% Oakland* 71,300 53,900-17,400-24% St. Clair* 264, ,300-26,200-10% Washtenaw 221, ,100-30,200-14% Wayne 46,600 26,600-20,000-43% Total Region 1,074, , ,800-13% *For these counties, numbers are estimates based on partially complete land use update. Source: SEMCOG. The agricultural land losses are primarily due to land development. However, some losses are due to economic factors in farming. Because both factors are operating, changes in acreage in agriculture are only roughly comparable to total land development. In Washtenaw County, land in agriculture decreased considerably more than the amount of land developed. However, in Livingston County the reverse was true, as development took place about equally on previously agricultural and other undeveloped land. Detroit Housing Losses Between 1990 and 2000, the City of Detroit lost a net 34,931 housing units according to the 2000 Census. Without the 3,414 new units built during that decade, the losses would have been even greater. Contributing to housing abandonment in Detroit are the age of housing, large percentage of rental units, and lower incomes, which make repair and maintenance difficult. The nine percent loss in housing closely corresponds to Detroit s seven percent population drop. The only other cities with comparably large percentage losses in housing were Highland Park (-21 percent) and River Rouge (-13 percent). In addition to their impact on populations of the cities affected, housing losses have two major land use consequences. First, vacant land that can be redeveloped was created as housing was abandoned and demolished. SEMCOG estimates that housing losses in Detroit resulted in 4,600 more acres of vacant land from Second, SEMCOG estimates that 12 percent of suburban housing unit growth is due to households leaving Detroit to relocate to growing, suburban areas within the region. Preserving existing housing and attracting more new housing in the region s older cities will help stabilize city populations, improve municipal tax bases, and reduce the need for future suburban land development. 9 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

15 Open Space Preservation Open space is often thought of as including not only parks and recreation areas, but undeveloped woods and fields, farmland, and golf courses as well. SEMCOG s land use update shows that undeveloped land decreased eight percent in the 1990s, with the agricultural-land decrease of 13 percent the largest part of this reduction. SEMCOG recently undertook a separate project to update its inventory of recreation and open-space areas in the region. This was based on ownership and use, not land use interpreted from aerial photography. As Table 5 shows, 217,700 acres of the region s 2.9 million acres are dedicated to recreation and open space. Table 5 Land in Recreation and Open Space, Southeast Michigan, 2002 Types of Recreation and Open Space Lands Land Area (in acres) Percent State Parks, Recreation, and Game Areas 87,000 40% Metro Parks 21,700 10% County Parks 13,000 6% Municipal Parks 27,300 13% Nature Preserves, Reserves, Trails 8,700 4% Private Camps or Campgrounds 7,000 3% Private Recreation 11,500 5% Golf Courses 28,500 13% Other 13,000 6% Total 217, % Source: SEMCOG. In other words, 12 percent of the undeveloped land in the region is currently preserved as recreation and open space. A major challenge will be to increase the preservation of such land as future land development takes place and open, undeveloped land declines. Transportation Transportation access is both a facilitator and a consequence of land use change. Because of the extensive network of roads and highways, residents and businesses have large areas to choose from in deciding where to live or locate. There are a number of transportation consequences related to the amount of overall growth as well as the pattern of land use. More people, households, jobs, and income result in more vehicles and travel. Since roadway capacity is not increasing much, the result is more congestion. More housing and jobs spread over a wider area exacerbates congestion and lengthens commutes. From , average commute time in Southeast Michigan increased from 23 to 26 minutes. The amount of traffic experiencing congested conditions was 23 percent in If current development patterns continue, this will increase to 33 percent by Transportation funds are limited and are projected to fall $17 billion short of needs for road and bridge maintenance and improvements, and for maintaining existing transit over the next 25 years. The spreadout pattern and lower density of new housing makes providing transit service difficult for many suburbs and outlying areas of the region. 10 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

16 Water Quality Increases in developed land present challenges for protecting water quality. Construction activity causes soil erosion, and loss of woodlands and wetlands reduces filtering of stormwater runoff. The effects of runoff from new rooftops, parking areas, and lawns is a concern that over 170 communities in the region must now address through new stormwater permits. A key indicator of water quality impacts of land development is the amount of impervious surface on developed land. SEMCOG showed that an increase in impervious land from 14 percent in 2000 to 24 percent in the future would occur if all community master plans are fully realized. This may undo recent improvements in water quality in the region. Maintaining and improving sewers has a dollar shortfall similar to transportation; $14 to $26 billion is needed over the next 30 years, far in excess of present levels of spending. An alternative to the expense of building and operating sewer systems is properly located and maintained septic systems, but septic systems require lower-density development. Local Government Finance Shifts in tax base occur as land is developed for new housing and businesses. Shifts also occur within existing built-up areas as residents and businesses move. Both processes result in less taxable property in older communities that have little undeveloped land or room to grow. Table 6 shows changes over the past decade in tax base and taxable values for selected communities. Table 6 State Equalized Value and Taxable Value of Total Real and Personal Property, Selected Communities, (Adjusted to 2000 Dollars; CPI Base Year ) State Equalized Value (SEV) Taxable Value Community Percent Change Percent Change Auburn Hills $485,622,643 $1,774,910, % $485,622,643 $1,500,319, % Dearborn Hts. 1,044,568,942 1,428,833,170 37% 1,044,568,942 1,192,169,742 14% Detroit 7,351,509,726 9,824,297,370 34% 7,351,509,726 7,204,381,124-2% Genoa Twp. 293,820, ,368, % 293,820, ,187, % Macomb Twp. 479,733,390 1,713,897, % 479,733,390 1,497,424, % Pittsfield Twp. 489,921,648 1,170,550, % 489,921,648 1,083,747, % Wixom 342,508, ,630, % 342,508, ,537,750 88% Ypsilanti 284,916, ,851,000 15% 284,916, ,606,247 3% Source: Michigan State Tax Commission. The State Equalized Valuation (SEV) increases in Wixom and Auburn Hills largely reflect their attractiveness to businesses. Fast-growing Genoa, Macomb, and Pittsfield townships added large amounts of new housing. The slower growth in SEV in Detroit, Dearborn Heights, and Ypsilanti reflect their struggles to retain both residents and jobs. Taxable value increases for properties remaining in the same ownership are restricted to five percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. Communities without much land available for development are severely limited in taxable value growth. Without new construction to bring more SEV and its full taxable value, municipal revenues fall short of needs. 11 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

17 Housing Affordability As new housing is built, affordability becomes a problem in many areas. Some communities are reluctant to allow smaller lot sizes that would enable construction of lower-cost housing. Developers can make more money by building more expensive housing. One result has been a continued increase in the proportion of manufactured housing. In 1990, manufactured housing was three percent of all housing. Of new housing added , eight percent was manufactured housing. As discussed later under future development, land shortages will likely drive up the cost of housing in coming years. Managing Growth The land development process involves the demand for homes and buildings by households and businesses, the supply provided by land owners and developers, and the primary regulators of the process local governments. Southeast Michigan has 233 cities, villages, and townships, which manage land development. In addition to local government planning, zoning, and development reviews, some coordination in the development process occurs through county reviews of township subdivision plans. Local government planning and zoning enabling laws also provide for sharing of local plans with counties and neighboring communities. However, the primary decisions concerning density, mix of land uses, and compatibility with transportation and other infrastructure are made by local governments. While every community strives to provide the best quality of life for its residents, there are issues that may not be fully addressed in this process for example, land consumption and the supply of land for future development, maintenance of tax base, open space preservation, and affordable housing described elsewhere in this report. Future Land Use SEMCOG s forecast of future growth in households and employment can be translated into a projection of the amount and location of land that will be developed by Figure 3 shows these areas, as well as developed land in Based on the forecast of 12 percent population growth, 22 percent more households, 16 percent more employment (SEMCOG, 2001), and making conservative assumptions about future income growth and densities of development, SEMCOG projects that the region will experience at least a 36 percent increase, or 390,000 acres, in developed land by That will bring the region from 37 percent developed in 2000 to 50 percent developed in A principal consequence of future land development will be further reduction in land available for additional development and the more remote location of remaining land. As Figure 3 shows, a substantial portion of remaining undeveloped area is not available for development primarily water, wetlands, and parks and recreation areas. The shortage of land will drive up the cost of housing and require additional infrastructure extensions, but will also increase the incentive to redevelop older communities. 12 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

18 Figure 3 Developed Land, 2000 and 2030, and Remaining Developable Land After 2030, Southeast Michigan SANILAC LAPEER ST. CLAIR ST. CLAIR ST. CLAIR MACOMB GENESEE LAPEER OAKLAND OAKLAND OAKLAND LIVINGSTON WASHTENAW ST. CLAIR MACOMB WASHTE NAW JACKSO N WASH TENA W WAYNE WAYNE WASHTENAW LENAWEE WAYNE MONROE LENAWEE MONROE N MACOMB OAKLAN D LIVINGSTON INGHA M LIVINGST ON MACOMB SHIAWASSEE GENESEE LIVINGSTON Developed by 2000 Developed by 2030 (forecast density higher than 0.25 households or jobs per acre) Remaining developable land in 2030 Not developable MONROE LUCAS (Michigan/Ohio State Line) Source: SEMCOG 13 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

19 Table 7 shows the planned uses, according to community master plans, of land that was not developed in The fact that 69 percent is planned for low-density (one unit per acre or lower) residential use is another indicator of how much more land will be used to accommodate future growth in Southeast Michigan. Table 7 Planned Uses (2001) of Developable Land, Southeast Michigan, 2000 Planned Uses per Community Master Plans Developable Land (in acres) Percent Nonresidential Development 89,000 8% Residential by Planned Density (units per acre) Less than ,500 19% ,900 50% ,000 11% ,000 3% More than ,000 1% Residential Development 953,400 84% Conservation Areas 86,100 8% Total 1,128, % Source: SEMCOG. 14 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

20 Survey Findings on Land Use In late 2002, SEMCOG surveyed Southeast Michigan residents to gauge public opinion on a broad range of regional issues (ETC Institute, 2003). The 2001 Detroit Area Study s focus on community quality of life also provided insights into the public s view on land use issues (Marans, 2002). In the SEMCOG survey, transportation issues condition of roadway pavement, public transportation, and traffic flow received the lowest satisfaction scores and were rated as needing the most emphasis over the next three years. Only 28 percent of respondents were satisfied with traffic flow in the region, and this issue was of most concern in areas of the region that have seen some of the fastest growth in recent years. In Livingston County, 76 percent of residents were dissatisfied with traffic flow. In Oakland County, 63 percent were dissatisfied. Also rated low in satisfaction and as top issues for improvement were management of suburban growth (45 percent dissatisfied versus 27 percent satisfied) and urban core redevelopment (44 percent dissatisfied versus 25 percent satisfied). The 2001 Detroit Area Study asked about preference for style of neighborhood. As a printed survey, it could show drawings of two very different patterns of housing. One was a traditional, suburban subdivision with large lots and described as auto-oriented. The second choice showed a denser neighborhood described as transit-oriented and with schools and stores within walking distance. The respondents preferences were 70 percent to 30 percent favoring the traditional, suburban neighborhood. SEMCOG s survey found that 73 percent of respondents agreed with the belief that they can personally take action that would improve the environment. However, less than half favored any type of tax or fee increase to fund environmental improvements. When asked if they would favor local governments adopting ordinances that would require developers to protect natural areas when land is developed, 62 percent agreed. Preserving community quality of life is vital as land is developed in growing areas. The pursuit of improved quality of life is at the heart of residents decision-making on where to live. Both the SEMCOG survey and the 2001 Detroit Area Study found that the large majority of residents like their communities. They give high ratings to public schools, public safety, and attractiveness of their neighborhoods. The SEMCOG survey found that 66 percent of respondents rated overall quality of life in the region as good or excellent. In the Detroit Area Study, the comparable figure was 61 percent. The exception to the general pattern of relative contentment is in Detroit, where satisfaction is much lower on a range of issues, from public schools to roadway maintenance. In the Detroit Area Study at least 70 percent of each county s residents indicated satisfaction with their community. In contrast, for Detroit only 32 percent were satisfied, while 45 percent were dissatisfied. Clearly, improving quality of life in Detroit is necessary to support its redevelopment. And in suburban areas, most residents are quite satisfied with their communities, but recognize problems like increased traffic and want growth better managed. 15 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

21 Conclusions The land use changes documented in this report show a region with a substantial increase (17 percent or 159,300 acres) in land development from and a continuation of this pace of change in the future. Causing the amount of land use change are the combined factors of growth in population, households, employment, and income, along with the lower density of recent development. The basic growth factors are not subject to local policy control. The location, pattern, and density of development are influenced by many factors. The location of most undeveloped land in outlying areas of the region, where the established pattern of development is characterized by low-density housing, means that most new development will be built at the lower densities of the recent past. From , overall residential density was 1.26 housing units per acre, in contrast to the 2.84 housing units per acre for all housing built before The overall result of these forces is that growth cannot simply be halted. The concept of stopping sprawl needs to be replaced by a strategy of accommodating growth with less sprawl, while ensuring high quality of life as growth proceeds. Some consequences of the continued increase in land development are unavoidable. There will be less land available for future development. Only 25 percent of the total area of the region will be available and developable in 2030, down from 38 percent in This will push up housing prices and will require extensions of infrastructure to serve new development. However, the incentives for redevelopment and infill will increase. Because of the costs of redevelopment projects, older communities will need support to redevelop housing and business districts. Continued land development will directly affect agricultural lands and other undeveloped open spaces and natural habitat areas. Water quality will be affected as well. Programs to mitigate these impacts will be needed to preserve quality of life in communities that are experiencing land use changes. Local government finances and the services governments provide to citizens are vulnerable to the effects of land development changes. Faster-growing communities face demands for improved transportation and other services. Older communities have limited land available for new development, and their tax revenues from existing property are constrained by statutory limits on increases in taxable value of property. The challenges posed by growth and land use change are real. Growth cannot be simply stopped, but can be better managed. Especially for communities that face the fastest rates of growth and for those communities most in need of redevelopment, better tools and more support are needed to effectively deal with land use change. 16 Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan

22 Bibliography Brueckner, Jan K. Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies, International Regional Science Review 23, 2: (April 2000). ETC Institute. SEMCOG 2002 Community Survey Draft Findings Report. Detroit: SEMCOG, February Fulton, William, Rolf Pendal, Mai Nguyen, and Alicia Harrison. Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, Marans, Robert W. Detroit Area Study (DAS) 2001: Progress Report. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan, June Michigan Society of Planning Officials. Demographic Trends Working Paper. Rochester, MI: Michigan Society of Planning Officials, Orfield, Myron. American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, Public Sector Consultants, Inc. Michigan Land Resource Project. Lansing, MI: Public Sector Consultants, SEMCOG, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Regional Development Forecast for Southeast Michigan. Detroit: SEMCOG, October Land Use Change in Southeast Michigan