CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.
uk
Provided by Research Papers in Economics
LAND USE PLANNING ISSUES
T. H. Sidor, Assistant Director
Cooperative Extension Service
Oregon State University
The Extension Service National Land Use Task Force has
been delegated the responsibility of projecting an understanding of
the opportunities and the processes involved in land resource man-
agement. Areas that have been identified for attention include: (1)
issues and concerns, (2) land use policy choices and alternatives,
(3) the decision maker, and (4) the citizen's role in land use plan-
ning.
The problem in the planning and allocation of land resources is
that different people or groups want different things from these
resources. What constitutes quality of life and what is possible
under certain of these resource constraints are therefore key is-
sues.
Deciding on the proper use of land depends on the careful
assessment of human needs and desires. Land has been equated
with power, with the establishment of personal identity, and with
money, as a commodity in the marketplace. It has been seen as a
natural resource, as a source of public wealth, and as space for
expansion.
Tolerance for different points of view, coupled with apparently
boundless wealth, has led Americans to exploit natural resources
in the name of individual freedom. Many current problems stem
directly or indirectly from this continued exploitation of a limited
resource-land price speculation, urban sprawl, diminishing farm
lands, and lack of access to public space. The prevalence of the
automobile has also intensified some land use problems.
Land use affects others besides the owners and users. The next
step is to develop policies, programs, and legislation for our land
resources that avoid or anticipate problems before they arise.
Effective evaluation calls for recognition of past circumstances
which have led to present conditions; awareness of facts needed to
assess the current state of affairs; and, finally, use of these two
kinds of information to make educated guesses about the future.
Within such a framework, the following discussion examines six
central issues affecting land use:
1. The legal and economic implications of land as property.
67
2. The implications of rural-urban relations.
3. The effect of technology on land use.
4. The requirement of land for food and fiber (consumer de-
mands).
5. Intergovernmental relations affecting policy decisions.
6. National development and population distribution.
THE LEGAL AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF LAND AS PROPERTY
Property consists of the rights society gives an individual with
respect to an object or physical entity. The rules for controlling
what society gives are defined by law. In this country territorial
rights and property ownership have dominated decisions affecting
land use. Many questions concerning land resources have been
settled by viewing land as property.
As a consequence, land owners have emphasized the economic
aspects of property, viewing it primarily as a commodity or input
into the production process. Ownership of commodities has im-
plied absolute rights concerning their use or disposition. Thus indi-
viduals tend to regard land use as a matter of personal choice.
In early America, concepts of property rights assured a land
owner almost unrestricted use of his land regardless of the effects
on owners of adjacent property. Land use effects across property
lines led to nuisance laws permitting other land owners (or gov-
ernmental units) to restrict an individual's use of his property if
such use were odorous, unsightly, noisy, hazardous, unhealthful,
or harmful to the general welfare.
At present, a concern for the public interest clearly allows the
restriction or regulation of land use, with the extent and form re-
maining in question. Restrictions on use, for example, may reduce
the economic worth of land without any compensation to the
owner. Some agree such restrictions amount to a taking only if the
economic value of the land to the individual is concerned and not
its value to the community. Has the public the right to restrict use
to the point that the property has no economic value to the owner,
if it thereby protects a public right? Conversely, public invest-
ments may increase the value of an individual's property at the
taxpayer's expense. Should the owner alone gain from the in-
creased value, or should a portion of such value be returned to the
public that created it?
Only recently has the central concept of individual property
68
rights been challenged. Now major challenges which must be an-
swered have arisen.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF RURAL-URBAN RELATIONS
Continuing population growth and concentration in urban areas
have increased the demand for urban land-for homes, for industrial
and executive parks, for shopping and service centers. All these
uses currently require greater per unit land area than the more
densely built central city of older urban communities. Since many
communities were originally settled as trade centers amid prime
farm land, the conversion to urban uses often results in loss of
prime land from agricultural production. Much more land is re-
moved from agricultural production than is needed for urban ex-
pansion. Much land removed from agriculture in anticipation of
urban use is good quality land. A recent study in Springfield, Mas-
sachusetts, indicates that rural land is being urbanized at rates from
five to ten times faster than population growth.
Contemporary highways call for greater areas, with freeways
using large amounts of land in both urban and rural settings, to
serve mainly urban-based traffic. Urban residents also look to the
rural land for recreational opportunities and for second homes.
These urban pressures frequently conflict with rural uses and de-
sires of rural residents. An awareness of man's impact on the land
resource must now be accompanied by alternatives to realize the
whole potential of this resource. High quality agricultural land
should not be lost by default but by deliberate decision.
Land use decisions should be based on both rural and urban
needs. Whatever policies this generation adopts should take into
account both present and future demands, as they can be
identified, for both rural and urban land resources.
TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAND
Modern technology also has implications for land use. One
aspect of technology has been the amount of solid waste generated
each year. Much of this solid waste goes into open dumps and
sanitary landfills (occupying an estimated half million acres) that
are located in areas of active agricultural production. Continued
solid waste disposal may require as much as 150,000 additional
acres each year.
Modern techniques for raising livestock and poultry in concen-
trated operations raise the problem of handling animal wastes, and
this problem in turn has a direct bearing on the location of these
industries.
69
Flood control and drainage projects have mixed impacts on use
of land. The construction of reservoirs reduces the land surface
area. Such reservoirs may have either a beneficial or an adverse
effect on fish, wildlife, recreation, and stream bank erosion.
Unlimited surface mining has disturbed about two million acres
of land, resulting in pollution through acid mine drainage into
streams and in scars on the land's surface. The current need for
energy will probably result in further extensive surface mine opera-
tions to reach the nation's sizable coal and shale resources.
LAND FOR FOOD AND FIBER
Since World War II, the United States has been able to in-
crease land productivity at a greater rate than its population growth
through the application of pesticides and fertilizers and the de-
velopment of improved varieties. However, studies of the long-
range effects of pesticides and fertilizers have led to demands for
restriction of their use. Should such restrictions result in decreased
production, more land will be needed to produce the same amount
of food.
So far, land for agricultural use has not been a major policy
issue in this nation. Even now, the issue is not a shortage of land
but rather effective use of land. Planning and control of land use
can guide the spatial distribution of population and economic ac-
tivities, public development investments, and the preservation of
land for agricultural and timber production to meet both national
and international needs.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
Land policy has had a powerful effect on this nation's growth
and development. From the beginning it has been the source of
bitter conflicts, first between developed nations vying for rights to
the new world, then between settlers and Indians, and finally
among the colonists themselves. The nation developed various
policies that promoted westward migration. Land grants were
made to encourage railroads, telephone lines, roads, and canals.
The Homestead Act helped settlers to push westward and develop
new land. Preservation policy began in 1891 with the Forest Re-
serve Act. New laws created national parks and game refuges. The
National Soil and Water movement resulted in further legislation
concerning land as well as agricultural production.
Although land grants, the Homestead Act, and other govern-
mental policy have led primarily to disposal of land in the public
domain, the federal government has recently shown great concern
70
about future utilization of public as well as private land. This con-
cern has been reflected in a variety of multi-county planning or-
ganizations, in national environmental legislation, and in special
concerns with coastal zoning.
Over the past fifty years local governmental units have had
almost total responsibility for actual control of land use. The 1924
Model Zoning Act and the 1928 Standard Enabling Planning Act
still guide current land use control practices. Continued state re-
liance on the concept of these two model acts has kept planning
and land use controls in the hands of local government.
However, the growing concern for long-range conservation of
natural resources on the part of both federal and state government
has interacted with the investment of public funds to create pres-
sure for comprehensive intergovernmental land use planning.
Presently a primary need is to develop a workable interaction be-
tween levels of government so that coordinated land use decisions
are possible. Such interaction depends on defining which elements
of land use are of national concern and which are the proper con-
cern of state and local government. Federal grants to local entities
for water and sewer facilities without proper attention to sound
land use planning is one example of the need for better inter-
governmental coordination.
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
Almost 30 percent of the nation's population lives in central
cities and another 40 percent in suburbs, small urban places, and
rural areas within standard metropolitan statistical areas. The re-
maining 30 percent live outside the metropolitan area. Although a
greater proportion of the population lives in concentrated urban
settlements, the latest census shows continued growth in more
dispersed communities outside the urbanized areas.
The federal government, with the adoption of the Rural De-
velopment Act of 1972, has recognized, as part of its national de-
velopment policy, that the nonmetropolitan portion of the nation
must receive increased attention. Full and forceful application of
the act would influence population distribution, with larger num-
bers remaining or being attracted to nonmetropolitan areas. Should
this occur, additional pressures for land for urban uses would arise
in the dispersed communities. A continuation of the trend would
also reduce the population density in metropolitan areas.
No matter what progress is made in rural development, most of
the population will still live in urban areas. Public investment and
governmental policies can influence urban land use. Policies to
71
contain urban sprawl, to renew deteriorating areas, and to put
vacant lands within urban perimeters into productive use are pos-
sible matters for governmental attention.
There is a need for relevant research and policy determinations.
There is an urgent need for study of the economic and social con-
siderations in land use planning.
We have all the land we need to produce the food products we
will need as a nation. I have not heard a word about the cost as we
use our better agricultural land for supposedly needed housing,
transportation, and other purposes.
I have not heard about the costs associated with energy of
moving our people from the outlying subdivisions to the central
area of production, or the costs or policy decisions that must be
faced if are are to have public participation in land use decisions.
Gene Wunderlich, in a paper entitled "Who Owns America's
Land?" says:
Research on property is subject to the great dilemma of choosing
between analyses that are specific enough to be empirically sound and
analyses that are general enough to be of significance. Can there be
criteria for the economic performance of the property system? Can the
transaction costs of marketing rights be determined? How well does the
property system assign costs and benefits of economic activity? Perhaps,
too, the really important issues have little to do with economics.
Raleigh Barlowe in his publication, Land Resource Eco-
nomics, commented:
With increased population pressure and the increased material re-
quirements of modern life, the area needs of almost every type of land
use are bound to increase. The problems of meeting these additional land
requirements would be simplified if each use could expand without in-
fringing upon lands needed for other purposes.
This is what it is all about. Land use planning is not a simplistic
endeavor; it is time consuming and it is a sophisticated process. It
is a controversial subject. It deals with emotion and logic, with
idealism and political reality, with preservation and market-
oriented traditionalism. Above all, it deals with people and their
reliance on the nonrenewable resource-land.
72
