Growth Management or Growth Management or Social Engineering?Social Engineering?

The Albuquerque The Albuquerque ExperimentExperiment

Growth Management or Growth Management or Social Engineering?Social Engineering?

The Albuquerque The Albuquerque ExperimentExperiment

Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., FAICPArthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., FAICPProfessor & DirectorProfessor & Director

Urban Affairs & PlanningUrban Affairs & PlanningVirginia Tech – Alexandria CenterVirginia Tech – Alexandria Center

National Impact Fee Roundtable – Denver National Impact Fee Roundtable – Denver 20052005

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 Engineeringin 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 SafetyWater, wastewater, stormwaterParks and recreation, open space,

trailsRoads

• New Mexico Does Not AllowSchools, libraries, community

centers

• PGS-based Impact Fees ForAll 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 tierSteve 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