Sprawl and Race: Today's Winners Become Tomorrow's Losers / David Rusk (Sweet ch 3) ABSTRACT I.Sprawl A.Ohio consumes land at 5 x rate of population growth II.Contributes to problems in the core: A.Disinvestment B.Concentrated poverty C.Racial Isolation III.Need for regional solutions promoted by a broad coalition

[Introduction] I.Sprawl contributes to economic and racial segregation II.Even in “elastic” cities, and more so in “inelastic” ones

CONSUMING LAND I.NATIONAL STUDY, A.OHIO: 64% increase in urbanized land, 13% increase in urbanized population 1.Land being consumed at almost 5 times the rate of population growth B.Contributes to abandonment of homes in the core C.Contrast with Portland (see next slide)

[from Rusk 2001] Table 1 Land-to-Population Growth Ratiosfor Northeast Ohio Urbanized Areas from PopLand Land-to-Pop National average88% 255% 3 to 1 Cleveland 21% 112% 5 to 1 Lorain-Elyria ( ) 50% 78% 1½ to 1 Portland OR 129% 242% 2 to 1 (in 2000: The federal Natural Resources Inventory recorded that Ohio’s “developed land” increased 21.0% during the 1990s compared to a 4.7% increase in population – a 4.5 ratio of growth in developed land to population growth. This was the sixth worst ratio among all states.)

Table 2 Growth of Population ( )Compared to Loss of Farmland ( ) Metro Area Population FarmlandAcres per Net New Resident State of Ohio 4.7% -6.0% 1.8 Cleveland 1.8% -12.0% 0.8 Lorain-Elyria 5.0% -9.1% 1.0 Portland OR % 0.001

INSIDE GAME, OUTSIDE GAME I.Note: This is the title of Rusk’s 1999 book. The goal of the “games” is to stabilize and revive cities in the urban core. II.“Inside Game” – policies that cities can pursue within their borders A.e.g. - supporting Community Development Corporations (CDCs) III.“Outside Game” – policies that require regional cooperation to be effective A.E.g. land-use management, tax-base sharing, inclusionary zoning IV.In the book, Rusk concludes that only a combination of the two games will save cities and inner suburbs from continued decline

INSIDE GAME, OUTSIDE GAME CONTINUED I.Strong ‘sprawl controls’ help maintain the value of older communities (the core) II.Evidence – Cleveland vs. Portland A.Portland as example of successfully combining inside and outside games

Table 3 New Homes Built Compared to New Households Formed for Northeast Ohio from 1970 to 1990 (Rusk 2001) Metro Homes Households “Excess” Pct 1970 Units Area Built Formed Homes Built "Vanished ” Cleveland 167,300 62, % -12.7% Lorain-Elyria 31,200 21,000 49% -9.5% Portland OR 203, ,200 24% -9.5%

Table 5 Change in Assessed Property Valuation in Northeast Ohio (adjusted for inflation) from 1961 to 2000 (in $ billions) (Rusk 2001) Metro Valuation Valuation Real Change Real Change Area in 1961 in Cleveland PMSA $6.369 $ % 14% Cuyahoga $5.634 $ % 9% Cleveland $2.918 $6.096#-64%-5%# Rest of Cuyahoga $2.716 $ % 13%* Geauga $0.100 $ % 40% Lake $0.458 $ % 14% Medina $0.178 $ % 53%

Community Development Corporations I.[classic example of “inside game”] A.[Cleveland Neighborhood Development Coalition]Cleveland Neighborhood Development Coalition II.Track record III.Problem – trying to run up a down escalator IV.[this is an argument for the outside game]

“Comeback City” or “City Past the Point of No Return” I.“Past the point of no return” – unable to stabilize and rebuild by means of the inside game alone II.Rusk concludes that while Cleveland’s decline slowed in the 1990s, it is a city “past the point of no return” III.Evidence – no city that is as disadvantaged relative to its region as Cleveland has done so