I know some areas have sprawled so far in Ohio, but where would you place urban growth limits at?

For Columbus, I'd put it in a screwed-up looking ring that touches Toledo, Findlay, Lima, Dayton, Hamilton, Cincinnati, Ripley, Portsmouth, Marietta, Wheeling, Youngstown, Cleveland, Sandusky, back to Toledo.

 

That's where I want my growth at!

for cincy, I would put it at the Great Miami River to the west, around the 71/75 split to the south, 275 to the east, and 275 to the north....dunno really though. 

For Cincy you could go as simple as the 275 beltway, but that may be too large.  The beltway concept may be more applicable for the other metros in the state.

yea i think its too large unfortunately, atleast on the west side.  The damn thing should have never been extended out to indiana.  Takes away from the purpose of a bypass....

If it was implementedwhat would happen to the properties outside the boundry? Farms just outside the boundry can't sell their farms for a huge profit anymore?

If it was implemented what would happen to the properties outside the boundry? Farms just outside the boundry can't sell their farms for a huge profit anymore?

 

Yes...that's kind of the point.  Actually they could still sell, but a developer would pay an enormous impact fee, and would thus no longer have the reason to develop outside the growth boundary.

For Dayton, Montgomery County and the western 1/4 of Greene County.

Columbus should be kept within 270.

Saying "within 270" doesn't really make sense. Freeway access is just as convenient for someone 2 mile outside the belt as someone 2 miles within it unless its much denser. I think a boundary should be made about 2 miles outside outer belts.

Here's my hidden agenda when I become the new County Commissioner:

 

 

.

This may seem a little crazy, but maybe between I-75 & I-71 up to 275.  Now that would be some dense urban development.

Here's my hidden agenda when I become the new County Commissioner:

 

 

 

You have my vote.

I guess it depends.  If I pull a sword from a stone and am therefore coronated King of Greater Cleveland my map would look very similar to Murray Hill's with the inclusion of East Cleveland and the Heights.  If I am a planner or smart growth advocate working in the real world it would be considerably larger, including all of Cuyahoga County and a good chunk of the surrounding counties at least.

Rather than implement an urban growth boundary, I would do the following if I were King of Ohio:

 

1. Repeal Article XII, 5a of the Ohio Constitution which requires all state-generated motor vehicle user fees to be spent on public roads in Ohio.

 

2. Cut state gas taxes by half and deposit the remaining revenues from gas taxes in the state's general fund.

 

3. Convert all free, limited access highways (ie: freeways) to toll roads and implement an EZ Pass-type subscription service with costs based on vehicle-miles and premiums for travel during peak travel hours. Until something like this is implemented, the free market will not exist in highway travel (especially commuting) as price is missing from the supply-demand equation. Right now, the only way to regulate demand for highways is to continually increase their supply and thus, foster more sprawl.

 

4. Have the state encourage counties to issue pollution emission permits based on the EPA-rated MPG of fossil fuel-powered motor vehicles. The state would encourage counties to implement this program by offering state funding shares for county-initiated road, transit and bike improvement and maintenance programs. Ohio counties that are at least 50 miles away from counties that fail to meet EPA air quality standards would be exempt from having to participate in the county-based pollution emission permit program.

 

5. Have the state encourage townships, villages, towns and cities to issue vehicle registration permits to all motor vehicles to operate on public roads in that local jurisdiction. The local government would use revenues from permits to replace all funding from non-road user funded sources (ie: property taxes, income taxes etc.). This would eliminate the local government subsidies to motor vehicle users. Participating local governments would be eligible to receive state funding shares for local street and bridge improvement projects.

 

6. Have the state encourage townships, villages, towns, cities and/or local sewer authorities to implement a storm water runoff impact fee program on property owners, both public and private, based on the amount of impervious surfaces on their properties. Thus, property owners with larger parking lots, larger roof areas and less greenspace would be charged higher impact fees. Property owners can reduce their impact fees by adding green surfaces to roofs, creating water recycling systems and adding gardens. Local governments that have storm water impact fee programs are eligible to receive larger shares of State Issue 2 funding for sewer projects.

 

I'll think of some more ways of putting the costs of sprawl on those who create those costs. It may not stop sprawl completely, but it should rein it in.

Here is a map of Portlands urban growth boundary.

 

In pdf.

 

http://www.metro-region.org/files/planning/ugbmap0506.pdf

 

They have expanded it 3 times substantialy since the 1970's.

 

http://www.metro-region.org/index.cfm/go/by.web/id/277

Thanks unusual fire for the links- lots of useful info about the Portland experience on the metro site.

 

    I am not in favor of growth boundaries, because a sharp boundary produces problems of its own. Traditional cities were naturally developed in a way with a dense center and less density on the periphery. Sprawl is caused in large part by government providing "free" roads and utilities to developers outside of the urban core.

 

    KJP - I like nos. 1, 2, and 3. Nos. 4, 5, and 6 I think will be troublesome to implement or enforce. 

 

    In the early history of automobiles, cities tried to regulate autos like they had been regulating streetcars. Driver's licenses were issued by cities. But, what if you wanted to drive to another city? Do you need a license in both cities? Ultimately, cities lost control of automobiles simply because they couldn't keep track of them all. And while the state eventually issued driver's licenses, the state authorities can't really track them, either.

 

    As for stormwater, I see your point, but again, enforcement is difficult. Slope, material, and location are also factors in stormwater management in addition to area size. In Oxford, Ohio, they limit impervious area. Guess what developers do? They buy one story houses, tear them down, and build one-story houses with basements on the same footprint. And what about downtown areas, which are nearly 100% impervious?

 

    Finally, are we talking URBAN growth boundary, or SUBURBAN growth boundary? Some previous posters called for some pretty big boundaries.

    Finally, are we talking URBAN growth boundary, or SUBURBAN growth boundary? Some previous posters called for some pretty big boundaries.

 

What's the difference?

Urban Growth Boundary for the following Ohio cities:

 

Toledo--Michigan state line to the north; Airport to the west; State Route 592 to the south; and eastern city limit of Oregon to the east

 

Cleveland--Lake Erie to the north; western city limit of Lorain to the west; Cuyahoga County line to the south; and State Route 306 to the east

 

Akron--Cuyahoga Valley National Park to the north; Route 21 to the west; State Route 619 to the south; and State Route 43 to the east

 

Canton/Massillon--Route 93 to the west; Akron-Canton Regional Airport to the north; Route 44 to the east; and Exit 99 on I-77 to the south

 

Youngstown--why bother; give the city to the state of Pennsylvania

 

Columbus--The entire Franklin County boundary line from west to east to south; and U.S. Route 36 to the north

 

Dayton/Springfield/Xenia--The entire Montgomery County boundary line from north to south to west; and Route 72 to the east

 

Cincinnati/Hamilton/Middletown--Indiana state line to the west; Ohio River to the south; Route 132 to the east; and the northern city limits of Hamilton, Middletown, and Lebanon to the north

 

 

I think any static urban growth boundary would have to be placed outside of the current growth boundary that expands daily. Maybe draw the line so that it wraps completely around the developments on the fringes, and keep it static until all land from the inner city out is filled. Theoretically Cuyahoga county is Ohio's only county that's completely built out, meaning no virgin land available. There are parts in inner city Cleveland that could use some new construction though, and those areas should be built out, before Twinsburg and Painsville. The inner-ring and some of the outer-ring Cuyahoga County 'burbs have little remaining land, which is part of the reason Summit, Portage, Lake, Lorain and Medina counties are exploding on the sides closest to Cleveland.

Well if Cuyahoga County is completely built up, then Cleveland can be like Dubai, build out onto the lake.

Youngstown--why bother; give the city to the state of Pennsylvania

 

Hey! That's not nice.

 

If you haven't noticed, Greater Youngstown is sprawling to the south. Check out the areas around Canfield, North Lima, etc. Lots of new housing subdivisions.

^It's further out than that - Columbiana and Salem have experienced the same thing.

I was going to mention that after seeing all the housing and big box retailers popping up along SR 14 in the past 10 years. But I wasn't sure if that was outgrowth from Greater Youngstown, or just localized activity.

Before reading more about Portland's UGB on the metro website, I wasn't aware that it was adjusted every five years to ensure it always encompasses enough land to accommodate 20 years worth of "growth".  Makes the concept a little less dramatic IMHO but makes me curious what its effect has really been.  Determining where it is pushed out must make for some very interesting politics- these decisions must be jackpot for lucky landowners.

 

 

2. Cut state gas taxes by half and deposit the remaining revenues from gas taxes in the state's general fund.

 

 

Hmmm, unexpected.  Do you view reducing the gas tax as a political sweetener to make the entire program more palatable or is the reduction an end in itself?  I think I'd rather see the state gas tax doubled, with a revenue neutral reduction in the income tax and/or state sales tax.

Hmmm, unexpected.  Do you view reducing the gas tax as a political sweetener to make the entire program more palatable or is the reduction an end in itself?  I think I'd rather see the state gas tax doubled, with a revenue neutral reduction in the income tax and/or state sales tax.

 

I proposed that to transfer much of the cost of using the roads to a point-of-purchase decision. We face that point in just about every other purchase we make -- the point at which we take possession of a product or service. Utilities are generally an exception -- we pay for their services after we use them.

 

With driving, we pay for it before we use it by paying gas taxes, license plate renewals, property taxes and income taxes. The latter two we pay at the local level whether we have a car or not, and drive a little or a lot. So when we get ready to leave the house to go somewhere, there is no point of decision about how we will get there or even if we should. That decision was made days ago (to buy the gas) or weeks ago (to buy the insurance and make a vehicle lease/loan payment), or months ago (to renew our license) and years ago (to make the down payment on acquiring the vehicle).

 

Thus, there is no decision of "do I really need to make this drive?" Or "do I really want to pay $X to drive today?" Imagine all the other purchases we decide when looking at the product and comparing our need/desire for it versus the price sticker on it. We aren't presented with the price of driving up front, and thus no choice needs to be made. We drive.

 

So I proposed a scenario where we are presented (as much as possible) with the costs of driving per trip up front. Some things can't be avoided, unless we have transponders at the foot of our driveways that start to calculate our costs of driving for that day. That's probably not practical. But we have phones, cable TV and other things at just about every house. So maybe it is technologically practical to install -- I just don't know how you enforce it.

I was going to mention that after seeing all the housing and big box retailers popping up along SR 14 in the past 10 years. But I wasn't sure if that was outgrowth from Greater Youngstown, or just localized activity.

 

A little bit of both. Some of it (particularly near Columbiana) is Pittsburgh sprawl as well - quite a few pilots based at PIT live in Ohio.

^^I follow, but to the extent gas consumption has costs not directly tied to infrastructure use (health and environmental degradation), I'd think taxing gas at the pump would be the most efficient way to force drivers to internalize these costs.  I think this might be what your proposal #4 was getting at, but I'm not sure I understand how your proposal would be implemented.  Would the permits be periodically re-issued without respect to the number of miles a vehicle has driven?

I don't see the boundaries per se working all that well. I like the ideas about re-costing sprawl oriented transit and development to make subsidies more clear and felt.

 

I'd begin restoring the core cities ability to annex or convert the metro counties to metro governments across the state. Then I would move the entire state to country-wide school systems removing the ability to leap to 'suburban school systems'.

I'm not sure if Calgary has an urban growth boundary (overall, Canada seems to have better policies to reduce urban sprawl than the US) but I was recently looking at the city Google Maps and notice how nicely it fits within its municipal boundaries. So I made this GIF:

 

I'm not sure if Calgary has an urban growth boundary (overall, Canada seems to have better policies to reduce urban sprawl than the US) but I was recently looking at the city Google Maps and notice how nicely it fits within its municipal boundaries. So I made this GIF:

 

 

Looks sort-of like Lexington, KY, which had an urban growth boundary decades before Portland, OR but nobody ever talks about it.

 

Cincinnati had a de facto boundary on the west side (Mill Creek/Great Miami watershed) before the new sewage treatment plant was built in Miamitown back in the mid-1990s. 

 

 

Winnipeg is similar, though it does not quite extend all the way out to it's boundaries. It seems to sprawl out in grid like chunks and then has a hard line where all development stops. I'm not sure if it was a legal growth boundary or just a de facto one. I do know that as soon as you got near the boundary, all the roads started to turn into mostly dirt and snow, or a frozen combination of the two.

I think the big difference is that Lexington has an urban service boundary while Portland has an urban growth boundary. So what Jake is saying about not having a sewage treatment plant on Cincinnati's west side until the 90's is kind of like us having an urban service boundary. If you wanted to build a subdivision or strip mall out there, you could, but you'd have to deal with your own sewage treatment.

I think the big difference is that Lexington has an urban service boundary while Portland has an urban growth boundary. So what Jake is saying about not having a sewage treatment plant on Cincinnati's west side until the 90's is kind of like us having an urban service boundary. If you wanted to build a subdivision or strip mall out there, you could, but you'd have to deal with your own sewage treatment.

 

It would be interesting to saddle the cost of redoing the old city's sewers and water on permits for new sewage and water connections outside a boundary.  So this would be a complete reversal of the situation that has existed for the past 50 years, where established areas have paid the majority of the cost of new utility extensions.  My grandparents' condo complex was built in the 80s with a "package plant" designed to operate for 10-15 years before it switched over to the new Great Miami sewer.  They of course ran the risk of the HOA having to pay huge money if the sewer wasn't ready by the time the package plant wore out in order to renovate it, possibly for a very short period of time.  When the sewer finally did arrive, each condo had to pay something like $800 to switch over.  It was yet another reason for all of the neighbors to argue with each other.  That HOA was a constant source of aggravation for my grandfather, who spent the final 30 years of his life complaining about it.  When it was time to move him to a nursing home, he then shifted his boundless energy to complaining about the management of the facility.   

 

I'm at work so I can't read this in detail, but here is a summary of the history of "package plants":

http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1535&context=ealr

 

 

 

 

For Cleveland, the shoreline has no boundaries.  More inland, it has to be the emerald necklace (roughly), right?

But gas taxes only go so far and don't account for electric vehicles. Mileage tax. Make every car check in at an echeck every six months and issue a tax based on miles driven.

 

I think that would be a far more effective barrier to people living out in Medina and commuting to downtown Cleveland every day.

In Central Ohio, I would like to see it done by township and put into order by MORPC for the next 30 years.  We have plenty of land within the boundaries of 270 that suburban expansion isn't that necessary.

 

My boundaries would go as follows outside of Franklin County.

 

Delaware County - Berkshire, Berlin,  Concord, City of Delware/Delaware, Genoa, Liberty & Orange Townships.  A majority of this are already or on their way to being developed.

 

Fairfield County - Violet

 

Licking County - Etna, Harrison, Jersey*(South of Jug St, West of County Rd 26 & North of 161), Lima/City of Pataskala

 

Madison County - County Line w/ Franklin County

 

Pickaway County - See Madison County

 

Union County - Jerome

 

 

I think I'd take all of this one step further and dissolve all of the existing townships and counties within the state. Then I'd create "super metropolitan counties" that would be synonymous with each general metropolitan region in the state, based more or less on CSAs, and that would also function as urban growth boundaries. The new county lines/UGBs would extend far enough out that they wouldn't "cut through" any existing municipality, eliminating for example parts of Columbus city spilling over into Delaware and Fairfield counties, and would also establish an ample "land buffer" for potential future growth and development, but not to the extreme.

 

The unincorporated areas between metropolitan counties could be placed under another a nominal designation, like a new township-county hybrid of sorts, but not one that would permit future incorporation and development unless people specifically sought it, and in which case there would be a democratic process to go through for it.

 

No more local school systems. County schools at minimum.

No more local school systems. County schools at minimum.

 

Yeah the way it's set up now, there is all sorts of narcissism of small small differences, petty jealousy, etc., aside from the obvious operational inefficiencies. 

 

Also, if growth boundaries were in place, there would not be all of the abandonment of old schools as the population holds more or less steady for the metro but drifts ever-outward.  There are abandoned schools of all shapes and sizes all over Cincinnati.  With a growth boundary, schools would rarely be abandoned.  One situation where it would likely still happen is near the major universities, where former blue collar housing was eventually made into student rentals. 

I remember Columbus Monthly, before the Wolfes bought it, would run an article every few years called "Ranking the Suburban Schools" of the 15-16 suburban Columbus school districts (Olentangy got added later once it grew from 300 students to 10,000 in the early 2000s). Any school that had any sizeable minority (other than Asians or Jewish) or poor populations immediately got knocked down to the bottom half. Bexley got hammered for the 3 blocks of South Bexley that didn't average $100,000+. This was because of test score averages. Like that 4% of the student population could make your kid stupider as compared to raising them in a newer 'burb. To me, the networking possibilities for a kid are just as important and you can't knock the networking possibilities in Bexley. You probably want avoid raising your kid in an area with a ton of retirees since it's only a few years before they don't know anybody at companies anymore.

Yeah they create those ridiculous lists in Cincinnati too.  People get so caught up in that crap.  But Cincinnati's situation is completely distorted by the countless catholic grade schools and high schools, which motivate all sorts of irrational decisions by parents. 

 

For example, one of my uncles built a house directly across the street from a decent suburban public high school in 1997.  He ended up sending all four of his kids to 12 years of catholic schools apiece.  So 48 years of tuition in addition to higher-than-average property taxes that fund that school district.  In addition to my aunt ferrying these kids around town in her minivan for 20+ years when they could have just been walking across the street. 

 

 

I wonder how many learning opportunities were thrown in the trash by the kids rotting in cars all that time.