IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v31yi3p131-149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Sprawl Debate: Let Markets Plan

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Gordon
  • Harry W. Richardson

Abstract

Sprawl issues ought not be a federal issue because land-use control is local. Americans have been moving to both suburban and private communities for many years, an expression of the constitutional right to travel. They seek more direct control over their personal property rights. Both trends are at odds with the desire of planners to impose more controls via land-use and growth controls. Planners base their arguments on the need to control urban sprawl. Examining their arguments one-by-one shows that they are empirically weak. The controls are ineffective and will do little to slow these shifts in residential location. The logic of the planners' position would be to control development everywhere via state and even federal legislation, but this is undesirable, unattainable, and probably unconstitutional. Sprawl will remain an issue over which state and local jurisdictions will either continue to fight or find an uneasy accommodation. Copyright , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Gordon & Harry W. Richardson, 0. "The Sprawl Debate: Let Markets Plan," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 31(3), pages 131-149.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:31:y::i:3:p:131-149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jonathan Levine & Aseem Inam, 2004. "The Market for Transportation-Land Use Integration: Do Developers Want Smarter Growth than Regulations Allow?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 409-427, November.
    2. Wenjia Zhang & Ming Zhang, 2018. "Incorporating land use and pricing policies for reducing car dependence: Analytical framework and empirical evidence," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(13), pages 3012-3033, October.
    3. Brendan Gleeson, 2008. "Critical Commentary. Waking from the Dream: An Australian Perspective on Urban Resilience," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 45(13), pages 2653-2668, December.
    4. Tiangui Lv & Li Wang & Hualin Xie & Xinmin Zhang & Yanwei Zhang, 2021. "Exploring the Global Research Trends of Land Use Planning Based on a Bibliometric Analysis: Current Status and Future Prospects," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Nicolas Raimbault & Adeline Heitz & Laetitia Dablanc, 2018. "Urban planning policies for logistics facilities: a comparison between US metropolitan areas and the Paris region," Post-Print hal-02086893, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:31:y::i:3:p:131-149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.