Growth Management or Social Engineering? The Albuquerque Experiment Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., FAICP Professor & Director Urban Affairs & Planning Virginia Tech – Alexandria Center National Impact Fee Roundtable – Denver 2005

What is “Social Engineering” The use of policy to –Change behavior –Change social outcomes “Engineering” tools  –Taxes and fees (economists’ preference) –Regulations (politicians’) –Combined (planners’ preference)

We are Already Socially Engineered  Federal & State Public education, standards Public health (inoculations) Public safety (driving rules, building codes) Retirement planning (IRAs) Home Ownership (tax deductions) Investment (capital gains preferences)

We Are Already Socially Engineered  Local Euclidian zoning (segregating land uses) Exclusionary zoning (keep low-income out) –Large-lot & large-house zoning Inefficient pricing –Average cost utilities, subsidized roads, etc. = Urban Sprawl (development patterns that create more costs than benefits)

Effects of Social Engineering in Land-Use Planning Over-consumption of land Rising costs per unit of new development Inefficient land-use interactions causing more traffic Social segregation, skewed benefits Higher quality of life in some areas, lower QoL in others  Less than optimal aggregate QoL

Purposes of Growth Management Protect public goods Minimize taxpayer exposure Maximize positive land-use interactions and minimize negative ones Distribute growth benefits & burdens equitably Elevate the current quality of life

Planning and “Re-Engineering” Provide public goods (buy/regulate) Reconfigure land-use planning to reduce facility costs (regulation), reduce taxpayer exposure (efficient pricing) Reconfigure land-use to maximize positive land-use interactions (regulation) Workforce housing; provision of facilities equitably (subsidies, regulation) Outcome should be aggregate QoL improvement

The Albuquerque Experiment Planned Growth Strategies (PGS) Based on Growth Management Goals Encourage development in areas with existing services  “Fully-Served” tier = $0 marginal cost “Partially-Served” tier  Charge “full” marginal cost “Unserved” tier  Development agreements

The Role of Impact Fees New Mexico Allows Public Safety Water, wastewater, stormwater Parks and recreation, open space, trails Roads New Mexico Does Not Allow Schools, libraries, community centers PGS-based Impact Fees For All eligible fees except water & wastewater

PGS-Impact Fee Team Chris Nelson, Virginia Tech, team leader Steve Tindale, Tindale Oliver Associates Roads James C. Nicholas, University of Florida Public Safety, Parks, O.S., Trails Kees Korsmit, Integrated Utilities Group Stormwater drainage Julian C. Juergensmeyer, Georgia State U. Law

PGS-Based Impact Fees Public Safety “east” & “west” service areas: $207 to $276 per 1k sf du Trails & Open Space: $390 per 1k sf du Parks and Recreation  7 service areas: $0 to $1,630 per 1k sf du Drainage  5 services areas: $0 to $0.32 per impervious square foot Roads  7 service areas: $0 to $2,918 per home in largest-home tier Steve Tindale to Review

Even More “Engineering” $0 for Affordable Housing (HUD) $0 in Metropolitan Redevelopment Areas 30% to 70% reduction for job-based development west of Rio Grande (jobs-housing balance) New study to derive across-the-board reductions based on land-use integration