Why are urban growth boundaries a good idea?
I try to avoid the term “growth boundaries.” Instead, let’s say “expansion boundaries.” We’re not talking about limiting growth; it’s about directing it. The one thing that does not work is just simply saying, “Stop, right here. There’s the last subdivision. That’s the line.” Have they worked anywhere? Absolutely. The New Jersey Pinelands is the ideal example because it speaks to the growth issue. It says, “We’re going to have growth, but we’re going to set up a system of land-use planning that facilitates development, preserves open space and historic landscapes, and provides a return from the development process to those landscapes that are being preserved.” Oregon is another excellent example. The process in place there for 30 years has preserved, largely intact, the landscapes of the Willamette Valley, where the state’s population is centered. It doesn’t establish fixed boundaries, but draws a line and then says, “The line will be expanded according to some criteria to accommodate
