<%BANNER%>

Special Constraints on a Municipality and the Potential Relationship between These Constraints and Regional Sprawl

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024108/00001

Material Information

Title: Special Constraints on a Municipality and the Potential Relationship between These Constraints and Regional Sprawl Tax Burdens and Lower Income Households in Washington, D.C.
Physical Description: 1 online resource (87 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Helfant, Matthew
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: building, capital, capitol, columbia, constraints, dc, district, heights, homerule, households, imbalance, income, low, lower, municipality, regional, relationship, rights, sprawl, structural, tax, voting, washington
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Our study explores the potential relationship between structural imbalance in the District of Columbia and sprawl in the region, with a specific focus on comparative local tax burdens. It compares and contrasts sprawl with other regions in the United States, three indexes and other tools, and compares and contrasts tax burdens within the DC Metropolitan Area to discern a potential relationship between the structural imbalance and regional sprawl. Unlike any other municipality in the United States, the District of Columbia has special constraints imposed on it: Congress, and therefore the federal government, has oversight over all governmental decisions made by the locally elected District of Columbia government. Much of the real property, properties that are owned by the federal government, non-profits, institutions, and embassies, in the District of Columbia, over half by some estimates, are exempt from paying local taxes. This gap has become known as the structural imbalance. We hypothesize that, along with other factors, the structural imbalance may be a disincentive to live in the District of Columbia; especially for low income families; it may very well be an incentive for people to commute from the periphery. Evidence suggests a potential relationship between the structural imbalance of the District of Columbia and sprawl in the region because there is evidence to suggest that sprawl in the Capital Region is high and there is a tax burden disincentive for low income households to live in the District of Columbia.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Matthew Helfant.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Schneider, Richard H.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0024108:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024108/00001

Material Information

Title: Special Constraints on a Municipality and the Potential Relationship between These Constraints and Regional Sprawl Tax Burdens and Lower Income Households in Washington, D.C.
Physical Description: 1 online resource (87 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Helfant, Matthew
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: building, capital, capitol, columbia, constraints, dc, district, heights, homerule, households, imbalance, income, low, lower, municipality, regional, relationship, rights, sprawl, structural, tax, voting, washington
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Our study explores the potential relationship between structural imbalance in the District of Columbia and sprawl in the region, with a specific focus on comparative local tax burdens. It compares and contrasts sprawl with other regions in the United States, three indexes and other tools, and compares and contrasts tax burdens within the DC Metropolitan Area to discern a potential relationship between the structural imbalance and regional sprawl. Unlike any other municipality in the United States, the District of Columbia has special constraints imposed on it: Congress, and therefore the federal government, has oversight over all governmental decisions made by the locally elected District of Columbia government. Much of the real property, properties that are owned by the federal government, non-profits, institutions, and embassies, in the District of Columbia, over half by some estimates, are exempt from paying local taxes. This gap has become known as the structural imbalance. We hypothesize that, along with other factors, the structural imbalance may be a disincentive to live in the District of Columbia; especially for low income families; it may very well be an incentive for people to commute from the periphery. Evidence suggests a potential relationship between the structural imbalance of the District of Columbia and sprawl in the region because there is evidence to suggest that sprawl in the Capital Region is high and there is a tax burden disincentive for low income households to live in the District of Columbia.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Matthew Helfant.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Schneider, Richard H.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0024108:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 SPECIAL CONSTRAINTS ON A MUNICIPALITY AND THE POTENTIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE CONSTRAINTS AND REGIONAL SPRAWL: TAX BURDENS AND LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN WASHINGTON, DC. By MATTHEW NEAL HELFANT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Matthew N. Helfant

PAGE 3

3 To My Nicole and our Munchkin.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I express my appreciation to the University of Florida, especially the Urban and Regional Planning Department. I learned a lot in the past one and a half years in a subject I previously knew little about. I thank my chair Dr. Richard Schneider He made this experience interesting, enjoyable, and fruitful and your input has been invaluable. In addition, I thank my other committee member Dr. Dawn Jourdan. She challenged my ideas to make them even better. I could have not done this without my partner in life. My dear Nicole deserves infinite gratitude for being there for me every step of the way.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8 ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................9 C H A P T E R 1 INTRODUCTIO N ..................................................................................................................11 Problem Statement: Structural Imbalance ..............................................................................11 General Backg round ...............................................................................................................12 Fiscal Deficit ...................................................................................................................13 American Colony .............................................................................................................14 Possible Relationship ..............................................................................................................15 Planning Significance of the Pr oblem ....................................................................................15 Hypothesis and Overview of Methodology ............................................................................16 Key Term: Sprawl ...................................................................................................................17 Study Limitations ....................................................................................................................17 2 BACKGROUND AND A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............................................19 Background and Historical Development ...............................................................................19 Pierre Charles LEnfant ...................................................................................................19 Birth of Contemporary Development Patterns ................................................................20 Change after World War II ..............................................................................................21 Modern Washington ........................................................................................................21 Demographics ..................................................................................................................22 Economy ..........................................................................................................................22 Urban Geography ............................................................................................................23 Structural Imbalance ...............................................................................................................23 Sprawl in the Capital Region ..................................................................................................25 Building Heights and Boundaries ....................................................................................25 Washington versus the Other Washington ......................................................................26 Adjacent Communities to Washington ............................................................................27 Inner and Outer Suburbs ..................................................................................................27 Loudoun County: An Example of an Outer Suburb ........................................................28 Unorthodox Development Pattern ...................................................................................29 Measurement and Compari son of Sprawl ...............................................................................29 Sprawl City Index ............................................................................................................29 USA Today Index ............................................................................................................30 Ewing Index .....................................................................................................................30

PAGE 6

6 Decentralization of Employment and Sprawl ..................................................................31 Commuter Tax and Loss of Revenue ..............................................................................32 Tax Burdens and Sprawl .................................................................................................33 Tax Burdens and Migration in DC ..................................................................................35 Tax Burdens in Washington ............................................................................................36 Lower Income Vulnerabilities to Sprawl ........................................................................37 3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................39 Overview of the Methodology ................................................................................................39 Data Analysis/Procedures Followed ................................................................................40 Index Comparison Role ...................................................................................................40 The Tax Burden Analysiss Role ....................................................................................41 4 FINDINGS AND RESULTS ..................................................................................................43 Ewing Index Comparisons ......................................................................................................43 South ................................................................................................................................44 Midwest ...........................................................................................................................44 Northeast ..........................................................................................................................45 Mountain West and Southwest ........................................................................................45 Far West ...........................................................................................................................46 Sprawl City Index Comparison ..............................................................................................46 USA Today Index Comparison ..............................................................................................47 Tax Burden Comparison Analy sis ..........................................................................................48 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................50 Planning Implications .............................................................................................................51 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................52 New Look At Zoning .......................................................................................................52 Future Research ...............................................................................................................52 Regional Planning ...........................................................................................................53 A P P E N D I X A GERMAIN SECTIONS OF THE DC HOME RULE ACT ...................................................55 B TAX BURDEN CHARTS ......................................................................................................64 C SPRAWL INDEXES ..............................................................................................................67 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................81 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................87

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 21 Comparitive Population Densities of Washington, an Inner, and an Outer Suburb (United States Census Bureau, 2000) ................................................................................27 41 Ewing Index Capital City Comparisons. Ewing Index C hart of Washington and Selected State Capital City Metropolitan Regions .............................................................44 42 Sprawl City Index Capital City Comparisons ....................................................................46 43 USA Today Index Capital City Comparisons ....................................................................47 B 1 Summary of average major tax burdens for selected Washington Metropolitan area jurisdictions and the District of Columbia Calendar year 2006 .........................................65 C 1 Ewing Index Sprawl Scores for 83 Metropolitan Regions Source: (Ewing, et al. 2002) ..................................................................................................................................68 C 2 100 Largest U.S. Urbanized Areas ranked by square miles of sprawl (1970 1990) Source: (www.sprawlcity.org, 2000) ................................................................................71 C 3 USA Today Sprawl Index for Other Regions ....................................................................75

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 11 Conceptual Model ..............................................................................................................17 21 Building Height Comparison .............................................................................................38 C 1 USA Today Sprawl Index Top 25 Sprawling Regions ......................................................74

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presented t o t he Graduate School of t he University of Florida i n Partial Fulfillment of t he R equirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning SPECIAL CONSTRAINTS ON A MUNIC IPALITY AND THE POTENTIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE CONSTRAINTS AND REGIONAL SPRAWL: TAX BURDENS AND LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN WASHINGTON, DC. By Matthew Neal Helfant December 2008 Chair: Richard Schneider Major: Urban and Regional Planning Our study explores the potential relationship between structural imbalance in the District of Columbia and sprawl in the region, with a specific focus on comparative local tax burdens. It compares and contrasts sprawl with other regions in the United States three index es and other tools, and compares and contrasts tax burdens within the DC Metropolitan Area to discern a potential relationship between the structural imbalance and regional sprawl. Unlike any other municipality in the United States, the District of Columbia has s pecial constraints imposed on it: Congress, and therefore the federal government, has oversight over all governmental decisions made by the locally elected District of Columbia government. Much of the real property, properties that are owned by the federal government, non profits institutions, and embassies, in the District of Columbia, over half by some estimates, are exempt from paying local taxes. This gap has become known as the structural imbalance. We hypothesize that, a long with other factors, the structural imbalance may be a disincentive to live in the District of Columbia; especially for low income families; it may very well be an incentive for people to commute from the periphery. E vidence suggest s a potential relationship bet ween the structural imbalance of the District of Columbia and sprawl in the region because there is evidence to

PAGE 10

10 suggest that sprawl in the Capital Region is high and there is a tax burden disincentive for low income households to live in the District of C olumbia.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Problem Statement: Structural Imbalance Our study explore d the potential relationship between the structural imbalance of the District of Columbia and sprawl in the region, with a specific concentration on comparative tax burdens for the residents of the District versus the citizens of nearby taxing jurisdictions We focus especially on the impacts on lower income households. Unlike any other municipality in the United States, the District of Columbia has special constrai nts imposed on it: Congress, and therefore the federal government, has oversight over all governmental decisions made by the locally elected District of Columbia government. Perhaps the most significant governmental actions that Congress exercises oversig ht over are the raising and appropriation of local revenue. An element that complicates this further is the fact that although residents of the District of Columbia are required to pay federal income taxes, they do not have representation in Congress wher e decisions are made on how to raise and appropriate their federal tax dollars. Further complicating matters is the fact that much of the real property, properties that are owned by the federal government, non profits and institutions, and embassies, in t he District of Columbia, over half by some estimates, are exempt from paying local taxes. Furthermore, there are many people who live outside the District but work in it. There is a disparity between the funds and resources that the District of Columbia recoups, mostly from federal appropriations, and the funds and resources expended by those who do not pay taxes to the District but use services provided by the District. This disparity has become known as the structural imbalance (The United States Gen eral Accounting Office, 2003) As a result of the structural imbalance, more revenue is needed in order to recoup the Districts budget deficits. A tax burden analysis discussed in this paper shows that many

PAGE 12

12 residents pay higher taxes compared with surrounding jurisdictions. Along with other factors, the structural imbalance may be a disincentive to live in the District of Columbia; it may very well be an incentive for people to commute from the periphery. Another disincentive as a result of this is that the District of Columbia Home Rule Act disallows the District of Columbia government to levy a tax on commuters who work in the District but live outside its boundaries. There are other elements that have a relationship with and/or stem from the structur al imbalance that may also have an impact on sprawl in the region: lack of voting rights, and a cap on building heights. While these elements may also be a deterrent for people to live in the District and there is further discussion of these elements, thi s research specifically examine s the structural imbalance as it relates to tax burdens. This thesis compares and contrasts sprawl with other regions and compare s and contrast s tax burdens in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area order to discern a potentia l relationship between the structural imbalance and regional sprawl. General Background The District of Columbia is the only national capitol of the industrialized democracies that does not have voting representation in the legislature for its residents (R ichards, 1988) The Federal Government has oversight over all local public policy including taxing and spending. Also, the Federal Government uses more of Washingtons local resources than it pays for through the appropriations process. All of these elem ents add up to a special situation for a municipality (The United States General Accounting Office, 2003 ) There has been little research as to the impact of this situation on how the District government can regulate development and the impact on the regio n. There are numerous resources that explore the topic of the District of Columbias structural imbalance although the topic is not widely known outside of the Capital Region (The United States General Accounting Office, 2003; United States. Congress. Sena te. Committee on

PAGE 13

13 Appropriations. Subcommittee on District of Columbia., 2004; Gandhi, 2003) There are newspaper articles; mostly from local publications (The Washington Post Editorial Board; US Fed News, 2006; DeBose, 2003). With ample information about the structural imbalance and with no significant research on how the structural imbalance may impact sprawl in the region, this research can shed some light on the topic The result of this research can give the planning discipline a deeper understandi ng of how tax burdens, in this case stemming from something beyond the municipalitys control, can impact sprawl in the region surrounding it. Fiscal Deficit Unlike any other municipality in the United States the District of Columbia has obstacles that n o other municipalities in the United States face: federal oversight over every aspect of its governmental functions. Congress has oversight over how the District raises and spends local revenue. The federal government and other institutions also use a si gnificant amount of land, over half by some e stimates. The owners of this real property are not subject to local taxes, thus putting a fiscal burden on the District. More specifically, on the revenue side the District loses revenue because of an inabi lity to tax nonresident earnings and tax exempt property. On the spending side, costs are high due to an expensive labor market and services needs mostly for a high incidence of poverty, services being used by those not paying taxes e.g. foreign governme nt diplomats, the federal government, and other tax exempt users, and services traditionally provided by states such as Medicaid. This all adds up to a deficit between $500 million and $1.2 billion annually (The United States General Accounting Office, 20 03; United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on District of Columbia. Subcommittee on District of Columbia., 2004; Fauntroy, 2000).

PAGE 14

14 American Colony The residents of the District have all the responsibilities of being American citizens with less of the privileges: they pay federal taxes but are not able to elect representatives to help decide how those taxes are levied or spent. These special restraints and others that can be lumped in with the structural imbalance may ha ve a profound impact on growth patterns in the region. The structural imbalance can be traced back to the origins of the federal jurisdiction. Article One of Section Eight of the United States Constitution states that Congress has the power to: exercis e exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts magazines arsenals dockyards and other needful buildings (United States Constitution Article 1 Section 8) This gives Congress the authority to control its Capitol and the area that surr ounds it. It is debatable whether it means Congress has oversight over all of the District of Columbia because the district encompasses more than ten square miles but to this day Congress has exercised authority and oversight over the entire District of C olumbia; not just the federal enclave. Because of this, Congress has played a major role in shaping Washington over the years. Through appropriations and oversight Congress has limited the role of local government. There is little doubt that this element sets Washington apart from other cities in the United States ( Fauntroy, 2000) The Home Rule Act of 1973, while devolving some powers to the District of Columbia Government such as giving the residents of the District of Columbia the right to elect a

PAGE 15

15 mayor and council, further codifies Congresss right to review legislation and authority over the Districts budget1. Possible Relationship We suggest that many of the elements that can be lumped into the structural imbalance may have an impact on sprawl i n the region. Many of these elements such as inability to impose a commuter tax, a cap on building height, and high taxes to make up for lost revenue from tax exempt properties may provide incentives for individuals and companies to locate outside of the district. Indeed, one can get the best of both worlds by locating close enough to the District to benefit from the economy that stems from the housing of the federal government but outside the District in order to avoid higher taxes. Not having voting re presentation in Congress may also be a disincentive to living inside the District of Columbia. Other elements may also be disincentive s For example, t here is a high probability that exurban communities like Loudoun County, one of the fastest growing counties with a population above 100,000, benefit from their proximity to the District (United States Census Bureau, 2006) The rapid growth in Loudoun County is considered by many to be unmanaged (Davenport, 2006) The factors involved with the structural imbalance may have a relationship with sprawl in the region, which is high according to three methodologies detailed in this paper (Ewing; et. al., 2002; www.sprawlcity.org, 2000; USA Today, 2001 ) Planning Significance of the Problem Sprawl is an import ant issue to the Planning profession. Sprawl may become an even more prevalent issue as gas prices continue to soar and awareness of the global climate change phenomenon continues to intensify. The land use patterns associated with sprawl fuel an auto1 The District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973; Public Law 93 198; 87 Stat. 777; D.C. Code 1201 pas sim Approved December 24, 1973

PAGE 16

16 de pendent society. Therefore, studies that can increase the planning professions knowledge of sprawl and the variables that influence it may be significantly useful. The desired outcome of the research is to take a look at the relationship between the stru ctural imbalance of the District of Columbia and sprawl in the Capital Region. Exploration of this potential relationship can help planners and policy makers to better understand if limitations imposed on a municipality that may potentially cause higher t ax burdens may have any association with sprawl in the region. Hypothesis and Overview of Methodology It is hypothesized that sprawl is high in the Capital Region and that there is a relationship between tax burdens that stem from the structural imbalance of the District of Columbia and sprawl in the region. This author argues high tax burdens and no commuter taxes may be a disincentive to live in the District. Furthermore, high tax burdens may make it especially difficult for low income individuals to live in the District. Therefore, there may be a relationship between both variables, the structural imbalance and regional sprawl. It is difficult to prove a direct relationship between the structural imbalance and regional sprawl as it would be difficult to control for the various variables involved let alone identify all of them. Instead, this paper tests the hypothesis and explores a potential relationship between sprawl in the region and the structural imbalance focusing on one particular element stem ming from the structural imbalance: tax burden. This is done by comparing and contrasting sprawl in the Capital Region with sprawl in the metropolitan areas of state capitals of similar sizes, and comparing tax burdens of the District with the surrounding communities. These comparisons could provide evidence to support the idea that there is a potential relationship between the structural imbalance and regional sprawl with regard to tax burdens. While this methodology may show evidence of such a relationship, the relationship will not be defined. Specifically, the

PAGE 17

17 direction of the relationship will not be defined. Figure 11 below shows what the potential relat ionship may look like. Figure 1 1. Conceptual Model Key Term: Sprawl Indeed, sprawl can be a n ambiguous term; it cannot be defined succinctly. Therefore, there has to be a definition of the term for the purposes of this paper. Some suggest that definitions can be grouped into six general categories: 1) B y an example seen to embody the chara cteristics of sprawl such as Los Angeles. 2) A s an aesthetic judgment about a gen eral urban development pattern 3) A s the cause of an exter nality such as auto dependence. 4) A s the consequence or effect of some independent variable such as exclusionary zoning 5 ) A s one or more existing patterns of development such as low de nsity and leapfrogging. 6 ) A s a process of development that occurs over some period of time as an urban area expands (Glaster et. al., 2001). These catego ries are taken into account by a methodology that is used later in the paper to measure sprawl (Ewing; et. al., 2002). Study Limitations There are many intervening variables involved when trying to understand sprawl. Such variables include concurrency r egulations, level of autonomy given from the state to the municipality, federal highway money and build out, zoning laws that maintain low density, and

PAGE 18

18 gas prices/taxes. Identifying all the factors is difficult enough: trying to control for them is even m ore difficult. Without controlling for every variable involved, there is no way that a definitive link can be made, and therefore a conclusive answer will not be the product of this research. The empirical issues involved in identifying and controlling the intervening variables make it difficult to research without significant time and funding. Rather, t his research attempts to show the possibility of a relationship between sprawl in the region and the structural imbalance. This can be done by looking b y comparing sprawl and tax burdens in the Capital Region with the metropolitan areas of other capitals, specifically, capital cities regions of similar sizes. Another limitation is that a national capital is compared with state capitals. National capitals tend to be very different from stat e capitals or from other cities in that they tend to house larger governments and more foreign embassies among other attributes.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND AND A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Background and Historical Development Washington is a city born in the 18th century. Today, it retains its historical character and interweaves it with contemporary style. Washington is a city of old and new. Its midrise buildings on neoclassically laid out baroque streets and monuments t o the past are met with contemporary features such as transit that includes a subway. It is a city that is constantly evolving but never losing its sense of history. The current capital city of the United States of America was not the first capital city; both New York and Philadelphia had that honor previously. Washington was born out of the swamp on the Potomac River. It was placed in a strategic location at the head of navigation at the confluence of this great river as a place to build a city whose pr imary function was to be the seat of the Federal Government. It was a new city for a new nation. Pierre Charles LEnfant The man many give credit for the vision and planning of Washington is Pierre Charles LEnfant. LEnfant was born in Paris in 1754. He was the son of an artist; in fact, LEnfant descended from a family of artists. He was also a student of the arts at the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture. At the time, city planning was considered an art. LEnfant studied such art as the plan o f the City and Park of Versailles. His artistic background was the foundation for his plan for the future American capital (Caemmerer, 1950) When LEnfant was just twenty two years old he was one of the first French officers to offer his services to the cause of American Independence. He fought in the French and Indian War. He also fought in the American Revolution. During this time, he and George Washington formed a close professional relationship. The two of them had considerable correspondence.

PAGE 20

20 T herefore, it was no surprise that Washington called upon his confidant to plan what was to be the city later named for him (Caemmerer, 1950) On July 9th, 1790 Congress passed the Residence Act, which fixed the seat of government along the Potomac River a nd authorized President Washington to appoint three Commissioners to survey the area to find a place to put the district. The city was to be ready for occupancy by 1800. By early 1791, President Washington formally asked, and Pierre L Enfant agreed to proceed with making a survey and maps of the Federal Territory (Kite, 1970) Birth of Contemporary Development Patterns By the 1920s Washington was expanding to fill in the districts boundaries and spilling over. Washington was now more of a region than an isolated city. Areas on the periphery other than Alexandria and Arlington were developing. The upand coming metropolitan city had developed along streetcar and railroad lines like the other cities of its day. Development was now encroaching out from the traditional core of the city into the rest of the district and into the states of Maryland and Virginia. The automobile would change the development patterns in the years to come but was already leaving its impact. Outside the boundaries of Washingt on, there was a supposed opportunity for people to live a rural lifestyle and be able to commute to the city. The automobile afforded these people the opportunity to not have to live near mass transit anymore. Sprawling development that was less visual ly manageable occurred (Gutheim, 1976) Unfortunately, for those seeking this kind of lifestyle; they were not alone. The number of people moving out into the suburbs was significant. Fresh air, physical safety, easy access: all are reduced in proporti on to the numbers seeking them. The massive developments on the periphery of Washington illustrate this chaotic and frustrating effort to combine urban and rural values (Gutheim, 1976, p. 100)

PAGE 21

21 Change after World War II The Post World War II period br ought change to the Capital Region. The next major alteration of the landscape in Washington and the vicinity was the construction of the beltway and the subsequent locating and relocating of Federal buildings and institutions outside the District of Colu mbia boundaries. The main motives for these changes were fear of concentrating highly sensitive bureaus within range of a possible nuclear attack, a yearning for campus like environments, and the same factors that caused residential and commercial development to sprawl: the automobile being a major culprit (Gutheim, 1976) In 1961 a new plan was issued by the National Capital Planning Commission and the National Capital Regional Planning Council. This plan was called A Policies Plan for the Year 2000 (Gutheim, 1976, p. 56) It was considered a continuation to the McMillan Plan just as the McMillan Plan was a continuation to the LEnfant Plan. An evolving city that keeps traditions from the past but never hesitating to keep putting steps forward: the tradition in Washington has been to build on previous plans and not start over. This new plan introduced important new initiatives. Perhaps the most important of the initiatives was in the transportation arena. Proposed were rapid rail and new highways that would better connect the city with communities outside. Believing that a mass transit system, a modern, rationalized version of the once thriving system of streetcars and railroads, would meet twentieth century needs, the Year 2000 Plan foresaw the orderly growth of the city occurring in planned secondary town centers developed along these radials, a pattern to be achieved by the strategic location of federal employment (Gutheim, 1976, p. 56) Modern Washington Today Washington has a modern transit system similar to the one proposed by the Year 2000 Plan. The city and surrounding communities combine the modern and traditional. Finding

PAGE 22

22 the right equilibrium has been the focus through the first centuries and will, no doubt, continue to be the focus f or the next centuries. As this paper is written, debate is being waged about a possible return of street cars that had their place in the early 20th Century (O'Connell, 2007) Washingtons status as capital to the United States ensures that there is much focus in the years to come with regard to planning issues. Demographics Washington is a tale of two cities. It is a majority minority city; it is 56.5 percent African American and only 38.4 percent white (United States Census Bureau, 2006) There is co nsiderable wealth in the city but there is also considerable poverty. The median household income is above the national average despite having a poverty rate significantly above the national average (United States Census Bureau, 2004) This pattern can also be seen with regard to education attainment as well. Despite being below the national average with regard to percentage of high school graduates, the number of people who have bachelors degrees or higher is almost fourteen percent higher than the n ational average and nearly a quarter of the population has degrees beyond undergraduate coursework (United States Census Bureau, 2000) There is a great divide between those with means and those without. Economy The economy of Washington, DC is dominated by the business of running the federal government. As of 2002, the federal government accounts for 27% of the jobs in Washington, D.C. In addition to federal government jobs there are many jobs in industries that exist such as lobbying and issue advocac y. However, Washington has a growing economy that is also diversifying with a declining percentage of federal government jobs over the current and next ten years and a growing percentage of professional and business service employment over the same

PAGE 23

23 period (Whitman & Seigmund, 2005) Despite this trend, the presence of the federal government will continue to be the reason the city exists and the major force behind economic development. As one would expect with a capital city, especially the capital of the United States, the built environment is dominated by institutional use. An estimation of over half of all lands are owned by the federal government, foreign governments, or tax exempt organizations (United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriat ions. Subcommittee on District of Columbia. 2004) This land is exempt from local DC taxes. This severely limits the revenue the District of Columbia can raise. Urban Geography Despite being the American capital, one cannot deny the European, espec ially French, inspiration that is prominent. The baroque grid neoclassical layout that LEnfant had a hand in designing is only part of it. Washington is different from other cities in the United States of the same size for what is missing: skyscrapers. The Washington skyline is similar to Paris; a collection of midrise buildings with a tall narrow symbolic landmark that can be distinctly seen rising above the other structures. Paris has the Eiffel Tower, George Washington has his Monument. Structural Imbalance In May of 2003, upon the recommendation of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia, Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and others, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO), released a report entitled District o f Columbia: Structural Imbalance Management Issues. In this report, the nonpartisan governmental agency assesses whether, and to what extent, the District of Columbia faces a structural imbalance between its revenue capability and the cost of providing adequate levels of public services (The United States General Accounting Office, 2003) This report concludes that there exists a substantial

PAGE 24

24 structural imbalance, even though considerable uncertainty exists regarding its exact size (The United States G eneral Accounting Office, 2003, pp. 78) Of course before confirming its existence, the term had to be defined. The GAO used two contrasting concepts to define the term for the purposes of the report: current services imbalance and representative services imbalance. Current services imbalance is defined by addressing the question if a jurisdiction were to maintain its current level of services into the future, would it be able to raise the revenues necessary to maintain that level of service under it s current taxing policies? (The United States General Accounting Office, 2003, p. 2) On the other hand, representative services imbalance compares and contrasts different jurisdictions with similar public service responsibilities as a benchmark agai nst which to compare imbalances between the cost of providing public services and revenue raising capacity and addresses the question if a jurisdiction were to provide a representative basket of public services with average efficiency, would it be able to generate sufficient revenues from its own taxable resources and federal grants to fund a representative basket of services if its resources were taxed at representative rates? (The United States General Accounting Office, 2003, p. 3) The GAO used thi s connotation in order to do its analysis. A little over a year after the publication of the GAO report there was a Congressional Hearing on the topic. The hearing, not coincidentally, was conducted by the Senate Appropriations District of Columbia Subcom mittee whose ranking member at the time was Senator Landrieu. In his testimony at the hearing, then Mayor Anthony Williams highlighted some of the challenges that the structural imbalance imposes on the District. This included the regions mass transit s ystem, Metro, which has a direct correlation with sprawl and city and regional planning. The Mayor stated the system has an unfunded need of almost one and a half

PAGE 25

25 billion dollars and that the District has a particularly onerous burden when it comes to Me tro because as the Federal Government has pulled back from Metro funding, States have stepped up, and we (District of Columbia Government) do not have access to State tax base to meet those needs (United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on District of Columbia., 2004, p. 3) Legislation : Furthermore, legislation introduced prior to the hearing was mentioned frequently during the hearing even though the hearing had a broader purpose than to discuss the legislation. This bill, The District of Columbia Fair Federal Compensation Act of 2004 was lauded as a possible remedy, at least in large part, by many. The bill would have provided an 800 million dollar contribution annually from the federal government to the District of Columbia Government; it was not passed. Sprawl in the Capital Region Building Heights and Boundaries Although Washington is a compact city, it is not a dense one. It is different from other cities in the United States of the same size for what is mis sing: skyscrapers. There is a cap on the heights of buildings. In Washington, a law from 1910 limits the heights of new buildings to no more than 20 feet (6 m) greater than the width of the adjacent street. This is a federal law that is also codified by local law2. Figure 21, on the next page, shows how small the buildings in Washington are compared to other cities One other difference that Washington has with other cities is well defined boundaries. Because of its status as the Federal District Was hington does not annex any new territory. The boundaries are not likely to ever change. As a result, Washington has a compact urban form: land is not wasted. Sprawling development within the 2 The Building Height Act of 1910, codified at D.C. Code 6601.05

PAGE 26

26 city boundaries does not happen with perhaps the exception of a few communities east of the Anacostia River (Snyder, 2008) Outside of the boundaries is a different story Washington versus the Other Washington The District of Columbia has a population of around 581,000 according to 2006 estimates (United States Cen sus Bureau, 2006) The land area is just over 61 square miles and almost 9,400 people for each of those square miles according to 2000 census numbers (United States Census Bureau, 2000) For comparison, Seattle, a city of around 582,000 people from 2006 census estimates has a population density of over 6,700 people for each of its 84 square miles from 2000 census numbers (United States Census Bureau, 2006; United States Census Bureau, 2000) Seattle, being a city of similar size population, is less dense than Washington despite having buildings that are taller. The building height cap in Washington, DC essentially restricts the heights of most new buildings to be no more than about 130 ft or about 40 meters. This means that most buildings are no more th an about 13 stories. Currently there is debate regarding this limit should change and how much it would hypothetically change if allowed (Schwartzman, 2007) On the contrary, Seattle is a city of much taller buildings. The tallest building in Seattle, th e Columbia First Building, is 285 meters or 937 feet tall. There are over 100 buildings in Seattle that are taller than 40 meters (Emporis Corporation, 2008) This fact shows just how compact Washington is; Washington could be a very dense city if its buildings were allowed to be taller. This also suggests that Washington and cities of similar size are not very dense. In contrast, Manhattan dwarfs Washington with a population density more than seven times larger, at around 67,000 people per square mile (United States Census Bureau, 2000; United States Census Bureau, 2006) Figure 2 1 at the end of the chapter illustrates differences in building heights.

PAGE 27

27 Adjacent Communities to Washington The densities of some of the communities adjacent to Washington ar e about the same as Washington. The density in Alexandria, Virginia, is just under 8,500 people per square mile as of the 2000 census (United States Census Bureau, 2000) The density in Silver Spring, Maryland, is over 8,100 people per square mile as of the 2000 census (United States Census Bureau, 2000) The density of Falls Church, Virginia, is 5,200 people per square mile as of the 2000 census (United States Census Bureau, 2000) The density in Bethesda, Maryland, is over 4,200 people per square mile as of the 2000 census (United States Census Bureau, 2000) Without the building height restrictions that the District of Columbia has the skyline in these inner suburb communities is less modest in some places. For example, skyscrapers just across the Pot omac River in the unincorporated area known as Rosslyn, which is also known as a district in Arlington, are over 300 ft tall (Emporis Corporation, 2008; United States Census Bureau, 2000) Density is important because one of the main characteristics of s prawl is low density (Ewing R; et al 2002) Table 2 1 below compares the densities in Washington to an example of an inner suburb and an example of an outer suburb. Table 2 1 Comparitive Population Densities of Washington, an Inner, and an Outer Suburb (United States Census Bureau, 2000) City Density Washington, DC 9,400 persons per sq mile Inner Suburb: Alexandria, Virginia 8,5000 persons per sq mile Outer Suburb: Loudoun County, Virginia 326.6 persons per sq mile Inner and Outer Suburbs Washington, DC and the surrounding communities that make up the metropolitan statistical area are also considered walkable. A recent study by the Brookings Institute ranks the Washington DC Metropolitan area the most walkable in the United States (Leinberger 2007) This study is a field study of the number and location of regional serving walkable urban

PAGE 28

28 places in the 30 largest metropolitan areas in the United States. According to the study, the Capitol Region has the most regional serving walkable urban places per capita in the country. The study also concluded that the region also has the second highest absolute number of walking urban places. The met ropolitan statistical area with the most is New York. The study also states that the metropolitan region h as at least another 10 regional serving walkable urban places emerging that could reach critical mass over the next five to ten years (Leinberger 2007) However, further from Washington, the densities of communities drop dramatically. The communities f arther out from the Washington suburbs that are usually designated as exurbs are much less dense than Washington or its inner suburbs. Conversely, growth in the area is very significant. This area is home to some of the fastest recent and current growth in the entire United States. Loudoun County: An Example of an Outer Suburb Loudoun County, Virginia, is a prime example of an exurban community on the fringe of the Capital Region. The density of Loudoun, as of the 2000 Census, is 326.6 persons per square mile (United States Census Bureau, 2000) This county has grown by an astounding 58.5 percent between 2000 and 2006 according to US Census estimates; the fastest growing county in the United States among counties that have a population greater than 100,000. In real numbers, Loudoun County has grown by almost 100,000 people in the first six years of the twenty first century (Un ited States Census Bureau, 2000; United States Census Bureau, 2006) Even more astounding, the population of Loudoun County wa s just over 86,000 in 1990 (United States Census Bureau, 1990) Between 1990 and 2000 the County almost doubled in size (United States Census Bureau, 1990; Un ited States Census Bureau, 2000; United States Census Bureau, 2006)

PAGE 29

29 Unorthodox Development Patte rn Divisions in the Capital Region do not fit the conventional paradigm of city versus suburbs; there are both affluent and poor neighborhoods in Washington. The region as a whole has the same mix. There are wealthy and poverty stricken areas in the s uburbs. Economic and residential growth have been uneven; they favor one half of the region over the other. The e astern half of the District of Columbia and suburban areas to the east of the District have significant poverty. On the other hand, the west ern part of the region, including the western part of the District and suburban areas to the west of the District enjoy great affluence. Perhaps a strong force behind this trend is jobs moving westward while low income families tend to stay to the east (T he Brookings Institution, 2000) Perhaps this means that places like Loudoun County, while sprawling, are not necessarily a major recipient of relocation of lower income families. Measurement and Comparison of Sprawl Sprawl City Index An index ranked the 100 largest Urbanized Areas in the United States by square miles of sprawl. Urbanized areas are the reduction of rural land due to the increase of the total size of the land area of the city and its suburbs over a particular period of time. The Washing ton, DC, urbanized area is ranked as having the fourth most sprawl in the U.S. (www.sprawlcity.org, 2000) Only the Atlanta, Houston, and New York City urbanized areas have more sprawl according to the index. Of note, this index used the US Census define d areas known as Urbanized Areas instead of Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Urbanized Areas are defined by the US Census as the fully developed area of a central city, and its suburbs. Unlike Metropolitan Statistical areas, Urbanized Areas do not include rural land (www.sprawlcity.org, 2000) If the findings from above are any indication, sprawl may be a serious problem in the Capitol Region.

PAGE 30

30 USA Today Index Another index used to measure sprawl was developed by USA Today. This index measured 271 metropolitan areas and assigned scores based on two density related measures: 1. Percentage of a metro areas population living in urbanized areas, using the Census Bureaus definition of urbanized: 1,000 or more residents per square mile 2. Change in the m etropolitan population living in urban areas between 1990 and 1999 After their analysis according to the methodology, USA Today declared that Los Angeles was less sprawling than New York, Portland, Oregon. On this index, Washington, DC was ranked as one of the most sprawling: 15th out of 271 metropolitan areas. An argument against this index is is too simplistic. Specifically, that it has a total reliance on density as an indicator of sprawl in a way that fails to distinguish development at low suburba n densities (as low 1,000 person per sqare mile, ) and development at high urban densities (Ewing et al., 2002, p.25) Despite, arguable flaws, Washington, DC is ranked as a high sprawling city on this index as well. Ewing Index An index developed by Reid Ewing for a report for Smart Growth America entitled Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact 2002 is another index. The Ewing index uses metropolitan regions as defined by the US Census and it measures factors such as residential density, neighborhood mix of jobs; homes and services; strength of activity centers and downtowns; and accessibility of the street network (Ewing et al., 2002) According to this index the Washington, DC metropolitan is the 26th most sprawling out of 83 metropolitan regions. In a ddition, Wash ington has a score in the index that, according to the authors, is below average for compactness. Measuring Sprawl and its Impact, 2002 is perhaps the best attempt to measure, and therefore compare, sprawl among different cities. In order to measure sprawl, the report first had

PAGE 31

31 to figure out a way to define it. This is no easy task as sprawl is vague term. In order to accomplish this difficult task a comprehensive review of academic and popular literature on the subject was performed by the researchers. As a result of this review an operational definition was developed. The definition has four dimensions: 1. a population that is widely dispersed in low density development, 2. rigidly separated homes, shops, workplaces, 3. a lack of well defined, thriving activity centers, such as downtowns and town centers 4. a network of roads marked by huge blocks and poor access The researchers state that other features usually associated with sprawl such as lack of transportation choices stem from the four dimensions noted (Ewing; et. al., 2002) The authors claim that the study is the first to create such a multidimensional picture of the sprawl phenomenon (Ewing; et al., 2002, p.4) The sprawl index developed by this research stems from the four dimensions stated in the definition. The four dimensions as defined earlier were restated more specifically into headings: 1. Residential density; 2. Neighborhood mix of jobs, homes, and services; 3. Strength of activity centers and downtowns; 4. Accessibility of the street network. The researchers attached measurable components to each dimension, (e.g. Residential density ) includes the portion of residents living very close together in town centers, as well as simple overall density (Ewing; et a l., 2002) The product of this is a comprehensive list that takes into account several important factors and measures them in numerous ways. Decentralization of Employment and Sprawl Another factor that may have a potential relationship with sprawl in W ashington is decentralization of employment. Glaeser, et. al. (2001) relates sprawl to the degree of decentralization of employment using data from the Department of Commerces Zip Code Business Patterns for 1996 (Glaeser, et al. 2001) Specifically, thi s report looked at what

PAGE 32

32 percentage of the jobs in the 100 largest metropolitan areas are located within 3 miles of the Central Business District (CBD) The hundred cities were then organized into four categories : 1) Dense employment m etros : those having 25% or more of their employment within three miles of the CBD 2) Centralized employment m etros : those having 10 15% of the metropolitan employment within three miles of the CBD and more than 60% within 10 miles of the CBD. 3) Decentralized employment m etros : those having 1025% of metro employment within three miles of the CBD and less than 60% of metro employment within ten miles of the CBD 4) Extremely decentralized employment m etros : those having less than 10 percent of metro employment within three miles of the CBD. In this index, Washington, DC is placed among the Decentralized Employment Metros. According to the index, only 18.85% of the employment is within 3 miles of the CBD. Therefore, there is evidence to suggest that there may be a relationship between decentralization of employment and sprawl in the Washington Metropolitan Region. Commuter Tax and Loss of Revenue As stated earlier, one of the components of the structural imbalance of the District of Columbia is the inability to levy a commu ter tax. This inability may account for some of the gap between revenue and costs, but not all of it because the more significant component is the repayment or lack thereof by the Federal Government. Nevertheless, research has shown two point s : 1. C ommuters may pay taxes even if they are not directly levied (Shields & Shideler, 2003) 2. The elimination of the commuter tax in New York City may have unfairly worsened the fiscal condition of the city and made regional tax systems more regressive (Chernick & Tkacheva, 2002 ) Therefore, Washington, DC may be receiving some revenue from commuters even if Congress will not let the District levy a commuter tax but at the same time regional tax

PAGE 33

33 systems may be more regressive due to the inability to impose a commute r tax. Future research should look more at the consequences of the Districts inability to impose a commuter tax. Tax Burdens and Sprawl I argue that tax burdens stemming from the structural imbalance have a potential relationship with sprawl in the Capi tal Region. The basis of this argument has been suggested by other researchers (Song & Zenou, 2006; Brueckner & Kim, 2003). Two reports in particular document this potential relationship in general terms. Urban Sprawl and the Property Tax, 2003 and P roperty Tax and Urban Sprawl: Theory and Implications for US Cities, 2006 both argue that there is a potential relationship between high tax burdens, at least with regard to property tax, and sprawl. Brueckner & Kim (2003) explore the links between prope rty taxes and urban sprawl. To do this they use a model that shows that property tax may have a depressing effect on improvements to property and thus reduce population density which in turn can spur the spatial expansion of cities. However, the model the y use also shows a countervailing effect from lowe r dwelling sizes which in tur n increases densities and make cities smaller. Thus, they argue that property tax may be listed as one of many casual factors of sprawl. (Brueckner & Kim, 2003). With the c ase of the District of Columbia, however, the building height cap also artificially depresses improvements, in addition to a higher tax burden doing so. Therefore, while, based on their analysis, the tax burden may be a casual factor, with regard to property taxes, there may be another factor that makes a stronger push for urbm an sprawl; a factor that is not covered in the methodology, but is discussed in this paper and should be an element in future research of this topic.

PAGE 34

34 Song & Zenou (2006) also only look at property tax specifically with regard to a potential connection to sprawl. The authors conclude that higher property taxes result in smaller cities. To reach their conclusion, they developed a model that adopts a log linear utility function with a variable elasticity of substitution greater than one that shows that property taxes reduce city size. They tested this model on 448 urbanized areas (Song & Zenou, 2006). Of note, they tested urbanized areas, which were also tested to make up the spr awlcity index refered to but not used in this paper. T his paper makes its comparisons using metropolitan areas, the areas compared in the Ewing Index. However, the result of their work also shows a potential link, at least with regard to property taxes, and sprawl. Both journal articles support this authors argument, at least in part, that high tax burdens have a potential relationship with sprawl. Historic Preservation tax incentives may also have a potential relationship with sprawl; they may reduce it. Historic structures tend to be in city centers, if tax incentives can reduce the cost to live in them, then choosing to live in a historic structure may be an easier choice financially because it would cost less. It has been argued that Historic pre servation tax incentives can level the playing field for historic properties and reduce sprawl (Mann, 2002) Perhaps if there is evidence to suggest that tax incentives have a potential relationship with the reduction of sprawl, then the converse may als o be true: tax burdens may have a potential relationship with sprawl. Further, ad valorem taxes may also have a potential relationship with sprawl. It has been argued that regions that rely on ad valorem property taxes to fund services and infrastructure may have more sprawl than those who rely on a broader tax base (Pendall, 1999). This is another example of tax burdens having a relationship with sprawl. Perhaps, limitations on the

PAGE 35

35 Districts revenue raising authority may also have a potential relation ship with sprawl because they are unable to rely on a broader tax base. According to Wyatt (2006), tax payers and government officials in the District of Columbia have a significant interest in the relative tax position of the District compared to the sur rounding jurisdictions (Wyatt, Tax Rates and Tax Burdens in the District of Columbia: A Nationwide Comparison 2006, 2007, p. 8) This information is not only important to the stakeholders listed above but it is significantly important to this thesis. Th is report is an important piece of the puzzle when trying to decipher a relationship between the two key variables of this study: the structural imbalance of the District of Columbia, the dependant variable and sprawl in the region surrounding DC, the inde pendent variable. This is because this report compares and contrasts the tax burdens of residents living in Washington and the surrounding communities. Tax burdens are a key element of the structural imbalance; the structural imbalance forces the Distric t of Columbia to impose higher taxes on its residents because of loss of revenue. This author argues that tax burden, stemming from the structural imbalance, may be a disincentive for people to live in the District of Columbia proper and therefore have a relationship with sprawl in the region. Tax Burdens and Migration in DC Some literature has been found about the relationship between tax burdens and migration patterns in Washington. Strauss (1998) argues that tax payers in the middle to low income bra ckets in Washington have been leaving faster than in suburban Maryland and Virginia and Suburban Maryland is a major beneficiary of net DC migration. Strauss (1998) however, also argues that service efficacy issues may have more influence on migration t han tax burdens (Strauss, 1998) While tax burdens stem from the structural imbalance so do service efficacy

PAGE 36

36 issues. Both elements may have a relationship with sprawl. Nevertheless, in the 10 years since the arguments were made by Strauss (1998), publi c policy could have changed and may lead to different conclusions. Tax Burdens in Washington Tax Rates and Tax Burdens: Washington Metropolitan Area 2006 is an annual exercise by the District of Columbia government that compares the tax burdens of the j urisdictions of the Washington, DC metropolitan area. It is divided into two parts. The first part contains detailed calculations on tax burden for the District of Columbia and five inner suburban taxing districts: Montgomery and Prince Georges Countie s in Maryland and Arlington and Fairfax Counties and the city of Alexandria in Virginia. While many of these inner suburbs, with the exception of perhaps Fairfax County, have similar densities to the District and therefore probably do not have nearly as m uch sprawl, the first part of this analysis can help demonstrate whether or not there is a disincentive to live in the district due to a higher tax burden. The analysis contained in the first part includes analysis of what hypothetical families of three w ould pay at different income levels: $25,000, $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000. This analysis plugs in factors like whether or not they own a home, and how many cars they own, and therefore is more comprehensive than simply comparing the rates. The secon d part of this study contains a comparison of statutory tax rates for the entire metropolitan region. This analysis is less reliable than the tax burden analysis because it only looks at the rates and not what people actually pay. Specifically, Tax Rates and Tax Burdens: Washington Metropolitan Area 2006 is used as a tool in the methodology of this thesis to gain a better understanding about tax burden, an important element stemming from the structural imbalance, and its relationship with developmenta l patterns in the Capital Region. However, there are limitations to using this resource. Only the first part of the report actually calculates tax burdens. The first part only

PAGE 37

37 includes communities that are closer to Washington. The outer counties of the metropolitan region like Loudoun County are not included in it. There is only a comparison of the tax rates with regard to Loudoun County. Another limitation to using this report is the tax burden analysis, although more accurate that just comparing the rates, does not calculate the tax burden for everybody, just hypothetical families of three at different income levels. Despite these limitations, the report can still help show the relationship between the structural imbalance and development patterns because it can show whether or not there is tax burden either higher or lower in District of Columbia than the surrounding inner suburban communities for at least some people and show the tax rate differences between the District and the rest of the region Therefore, a potential relationship between tax burdens and sprawl may be established from this data. Lower Income Vulnerabilities to Sprawl Lipman (2006) focuses on understanding the housing and transportation constraints and choices of lower to modera te income households. One of the key conclusions that the report makes is that families with incomes ranging from $20,000 to $50,000 annually that move far from work to find affordable housing end up spending their savings on transportation. This finding shows how difficult life may be for low to moderate income people to find affordable housing without driving to qualify. In general terms, this report states that often low to moderate income families are vulnerable to sprawl. Of note specifically, for this thesis, one of the 28 metropolitan regions studied is the Washington region. The report notes that the Washington region has one of the least affordable housing markets. But, housing at the suburban fringes is especially high cost and lower income families are more likely to live in the central city, and inner suburban neighborhoods where housing costs and other burdens are somewhat lower (Lipman, 2006) This somewhat contradicts the theory presented by this researcher: lower

PAGE 38

38 income families in Washington may move to the suburban fringe in order to have a lower cost of living. However, other literature, has shown that factors such as gentrification have pushed lower to moderate income individuals to the fringe in the Capital Region (Williams, 19 88 ; Rice, 2006) Therefore, perhaps, for our purposes, an assumption can be made that lower to moderate income families may be more vulnerable to the pressures of sprawl than others with regard to showing a relationship between the structural imbalance an d sprawl. Figure 2 1. Building Height Comparison

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Overview of the Methodology This methodology relies on personal knowledge and experience as a resident and elected official of the District of Columbia plus index es that measure s prawl, a report that measures tax burdens and additional literature reviewed in this paper. A case study directly linking the structural imbalance with an impact on sprawl in the Capital Region would be complicated because of empirical issues: there are many intervening variables that cannot be controlled T his study will aim to prove the hypothesis and show a potential relationship between sprawl in the Capital Region and the structural imbalance, with specific emphasis on comparative tax burdens stemming from the structural imbalance. This is done by comparing and contrasting sprawl in the Capital Region with sprawl in regions that include state capital cities in other parts of the country and comparing tax burdens of the District with the surrounding communities in its own region. The reason why comparisons with other capital cities can help show whether or not sprawl is high in Washington is because capital cities have similar traits. Perhaps, especially for this research, an important trait is tha t capital cities have significant stock of tax exempt real properties including properties that have government, nonprofit, university and other institutional uses that are exempt from local taxes (Adam, 2003) Foreign embassies are also exempt from loca l taxes. Foreign embassies are common for obvious reasons in Washington, but not very common in state capitals. Therefore, comparison with other national capitals may provide more insight. However, this author did not find data that can sufficiently be used to make those comparisons. The state capital region comparisons could suggest whether there is a potential relationship between the structural imbalance and regional s prawl with regard to tax

PAGE 40

40 burdens. As this study is preliminary more research wil l need to be done in the future in order to make stronger conclusions. Data Analysis/Procedures Followed D ata is analyzed using three separate sprawl indexes in order to compare sprawl in the Washington, DC region with other strategically chosen regions. After this analysis, the first observation is made: whether or not sprawl, according to the three indexes is higher than it should be in the Washington, DC region when compared to state capital metropolitan areas of other regions. After the first observation the tax burden analysis will be looked at. The tax burden in Washington, DC is compared with the tax burdens in other jurisdictions within the region. This will allow the research to examine whether or not tax burdens stemming from the structural imbalance may be a factor in where people choose to live in the region. At this time, if there is evidence to suggest according to the three sprawl indexes that sprawl in the Washington Region is higher than it should be compared to state capitals of ot her regions and if there is evidence to suggest according to the tax burden analysis, that tax burdens are a factor for development patterns, then it will noted that there may be a potential relationship between the structural imbalance and sprawl in the Capital Region with regard to tax burdens stemming from the structural imbalance. Index Comparison Role Three Indexes are used as a vehicle to compare and contrast Washington, DC with other capital regions. Comparing the Washington, DC metropolitan stat istical area with state capitals can show if sprawl in the Capital Region is comparable to other capitals. Comparing the Washington, DC MSA with MSAs of state capitals that are close in population size can make the comparisons an even more valuable tool because it control s for factors that stem from the size of the populations. Specifically, the reason why comparisons to state capital cities is made

PAGE 41

41 is because capital cities tend to have more tax exempt real propertys such as properties owned and used by the government, nonprofit agencies and institutional uses such as universities (Adam, 2003) To control for regional factors, the MSA comparison is extended to include state capital MSAs with the closest populations from 6 regions: the South, Midwes t, Northeast, Mountain West, Southwest, and the Far West. The cities are listed on the next page SouthAustin, Texas Midwest St. Paul, Minnesota Northeast Boston, Massachusetts Mountain West Denver Colorado Southwest Phoenix, Arizona Far West Sacr amento, California If, after making comparisons between Washington and the six state capitals above, Washington is among the most sprawling, then there would be evidence to suggest that Washington has significant sprawl. The Tax Burden Analysiss Role No ted earlier the District of Columbia Government annually publishes a tax burden comparison reports entitled Tax Rates and Burdens: Washington Metropolitan Area 2006 This report compares and contrasts the tax burden among jurisdictions in the region. Th e findings in this report are used to show if tax burden, a central issue stemming from the structural imbalance and the focus of this thesis, may play a role in determining development patterns across the region. In other words, if there is evidence t o suggest that there is a tax burden that is higher in the District of Columbia than in surrounding communities as a result of the analysis performed by the author of the report, than it is evidence to suggest that tax burden stemming from the structural imbalance may be a disincentive to living in the District and therefore there may be potential relationship between the structural imbalance and sprawl in the region. If, after making the sprawl index comparisons, there is evidence to suggest that there is significant sprawl

PAGE 42

42 in Washington, and after reviewing the report on tax burdens, there is evidence to suggest that there are higher relative tax burdens in Washington than in the surrounding jurisdictions, then it will be noted that there may be a basis t o suggest that there may be a potential relationship between the structural imbalance and regional sprawl stemming from tax burdens.

PAGE 43

43 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND RESULTS As a result of the tax burden analysis comparisons there is evidence to suggest that the t ax burden in Washington, DC may play a role in development patterns in the region. The results of Part I of the report show that among Washington and the inner suburbs of Montgomery and Prince Georges County in Maryland and Arlington and Fairfax Countie s and the City of Alexandria in Virginia, Washington has the highest overall tax burden for a hypothetical household of three with an income of 25,000 dollars. As those with the lowest income may be the most vulnerable there may be significant disincentive for low income residents to live within the boundaries of the District of Columbia (Lipman, 2006; Rice, 2006; Brueckner & Kim, 2003; Song & Zenou, 2006) Therefore, it is arguable that there is a potential relationship between the structural imbalance of the District of Columbia and sprawl in the region because there is evidence to suggest that sprawl in the Capital Region is high and there is a tax burden disincentive for low income households to live in the District of Columbia. The degree and extent of this relationship is the subject of speculation and analysis in this thesis and should be the subject of future research that has the time and resources to look deeper into the issue. Ewing Index Comparisons The Ewing Index duplicated in Appendix B, rates the Washington, DC MSA with a 90.8 overall score which places it as the 26th most sprawling region overall among 83 other regions Washington, DC earned a Connectivity Score of 98, a Centeredness Score of 97.8, a Mixed Use score of 78.7, and a Density score of 106.9. Scores that are lower indicate more sprawl. The average score for each factor is 100. This means that metro areas that have scores above 100 are more compact than average. Therefore, according to the Ewing Index, Washington is less

PAGE 44

44 compact than average Interestingly, the Houston PMSA has a slightly higher score and, therefore, according to the Ewing Index is less sprawling. Houston is by far the largest city in the United States that does not employ zoning codes. Table 41. Ewing Index Capital City Comparisons Ewing Index Chart of Washington and Selected State Capital City Metropolitan Regions Metropolitan Area Overall Score Washington DC 90.8 Minneapolis Saint Paul 95.9 Sacramento 101.9 Austin 110.3 Phoenix 110.9 Denver 12 5.2 Boston 126.9 Lower numbers indicate more sprawl. Adapted from (Ewing; et. al., 2002) To control for regional factors, the MSA comparison is extended to include state capital MSAs with the closest populations from 6 regions: the South, Midwest, N ortheast, Mountain West, Southwest, and the Far West. Table 3 1 above compares the cities from each of the regions and Washington with regard to the overall score in the index. South Representing the South is Austin. The population of Austin as of the 2006 US Census Estimates is 709,893. This makes Austin the 16th largest city in the country. By comparison, Washington, DC has a population according to the same estimates of 581,530 people and currently ranks 24th. The population of the Austin MSA accor ding to 2007 estimates is almost 1.6 million. The population of the Washington, DC MSA is much larger despite Austins city population being larger. The population of the Washington, DC MSA is roughly 5.3 million. On the Ewing Methodological scale Austi n is 59th with an overall score of 110.3. Midwest Minneapolis represents the Midwest region. The population of Minneapolis is smaller than Washington, DC by over 200,000 people. When you add Minneapoliss Twin City sister

PAGE 45

45 and compare the Minneapolis St. Paul Bloomington MSA to the Washington, DC MSA you actually have a much larger disparity between the two: the Washington, DC MSA has roughly a two million person advantage. On the Ewing Methodological Chart the Minneapolis St. Paul Bloomington MSA is 38th out of 83 with an overall sprawl score of 95.9 roughly 5 points separates Minneapolis and Washington. Therefore, according to the Ewing Index, the Minneapolis St. Paul Bloomington MSA is a little less sprawling than the Washington, DC MSA. Since th e difference is minimal and Washington is significantly larger whether you are comparing the size of the city or the MSA, region may not play a significant role in determining sprawl. Northeast Representing the Northeast is Boston. The populations of the Boston and Washington, DC MSAs are relatively close; the Boston MSA has less than a million less people than the Washington, DC MSA. In addition, less than ten thousand people separate the two with regard to city population; this time Boston has more people. Therefore, a comparison may work well. The Boston MSA has a low sprawl ranking according to the Ewing Index; it has a ranking of 77 out of 83 with an overall score of 126.9. Mountain West and Southwest Both Denver, representing the Mountain Wes t, and Phoenix, representing the Southwest, share a common characteristic: they are the largest cities for hundreds of miles. Denvers city population is less than twenty thousand less than Washingtons; Denvers MSA population, however, is only slightly less than half of the Washington MSAs. Phoenixs city population is among the largest in the country: its population is ranked number five with just over one and a half million people. B oth MSAs are ranked as among the least sprawling among the 83 regi ons.

PAGE 46

46 Denver is ranked 72nd with a score of 125.2 overall. Phoenix is ranked almost as low sprawling with a ranking of 61st and an overall score of 110.9. Far West Representing the Far West is Sacramento. Californias capital city is certainly not the largest city for hundreds of miles, but its size is somewhat similar to Washington. Sacramentos city population is slightly more than four hundred and fifty thousand which is over one hundred and thirty less than Washington. When it comes to comparing t he Metropolitan Statistical Areas the difference is more striking: the Sacramento MSA has a population of less than half of Washingtons. The Ewing Index ranking for the Sacramento MSA is 46th with an overall score of 102.6. Therefore, according to this index the Sacramento MSA is somewhat less sprawling than Washington. Sprawl City Index Comparison In the Sprawl City Index, duplicated in Index B, the Washington, DC region is ranked fourth out of 100 urbanized areas. This index states that Washington has 450.1 square miles of growth in its urbanized area. Only three urbanized areas are ranked as having more: Atlanta, Houston, and New York. Of the six capital city regions, Washington is ranked first. Table 32 below shows where each is ranked. Tabl e 42. Sprawl City Index Capital City Comparisons Urbanized Area Square Miles of Growth in Urbanized Area Washington DC 450.1 Phoenix 353.6 Minneapolis Saint Paul 341.6 Boston 226.8 Austin 187.4 Denver 166.0 Sacramento 89.7 Higher numbers indicat e more sprawl. Adapted from (www.sprawlcity.org, 2000)

PAGE 47

47 USA Today Index Comparison In the USA Today Index, duplicated in Index B, the Washington, DC region is ranked as the 15th most sprawling region among 271 metropolitan areas. The rankings in this i ndex are based on two density related measures. In this index, one of the capital cities was ranked as more sprawling than Washington: Austin, Texas. Nevertheless, Washington is still ranked among the most sprawling among the six capital cities compared Table 3 3 below shows where each is ranked. Table 43. USA Today Index Capital City Comparisons Metropolitan Area Sprawl Index Score Austin 413 Washington DC 261 Phoenix 216 Denver 199 Minneapolis Saint Paul 140 Boston 127 Sacramento 116 Higher n umbers indicate more sprawl. Adapted from (USA Today, 2001 ). Of critical significance, all the state capitals, representing all regions of the country, have lower sprawl in their regions according to two out of the three indexes. In the other index, Was hington has the second most sprawl among the regions compared. Therefore there is evidence that suggests that Washington has more sprawl in its region than other capital cities in the United States. Of note DC is special i n that it is a national capital and the comparisons are with state capitals; entities that do not completely share the same characteristics. While this evidence is far from suggesting that there is an impact on sprawl in the Capital Region stemming from the structural imbalance, it may suggest that the Washington, DC MSA has more sprawl, according to the two of the three, than the other capital cities in the comparison and is among the most sprawling in all three indexes.

PAGE 48

48 Tax Burden Comparison Analysis As noted previously, Tax Rates and Tax Burdens: Washington Metropolitan Area 2006 makes comparisons of tax burdens between the District of Columbia and five communities close by: Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in Maryland and Arlington and Fairfax Counties and the city of Ale xandria in Virginia. The analysis contained in this report includes analysis of what hypothetical families of three would pay at different income levels: $25,000, $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000. This analysis plugs in factors such as whether or not they own a home, and how many cars they own, and therefore is more comprehensive than simply comparing the rates. According to the tax burden analysis, a t the $25,000 income level, Washington has the highest overall tax burden. This tax burden is found to be $567 more than the lowest tax burden which is located in Prince Georges County and over $300 more than the average tax burden for the area studied. At the $50,000 income level, the hypothetical household of three actually pays the least among the jurisd ictions studied. For the final three income levels, the District is statistically in the middle (Wyatt, Tax Rates and Tax Burdens: Washington Metropolitan Area 2006, 2007) These results show that among Washington and the inner suburbs included in this part of the report, Washington has the highest overall tax burden for a hypothetical household of three with an income of 25,000 dollars. As those with the lowest income may be the most vulnerable, there may be significant disincentive for low income res idents to live within the boundaries of the District of Columbia. However, as previously stated, there are many limitations to this analysis. This part of the report that makes this analysis only includes communities that are closer to Washington. The outer counties of the metropolitan region like Loudoun County are not included in it. Another, limitation to using this report is the tax burden analysis, although more accurate than just comparing the rates, does not calculate the tax burden for everybody just hypothetical families

PAGE 49

49 of three at different income levels. Despite these limitations, this report can still help show a potential relationship between the structural imbalance and development patterns because it can show whether or not there is tax burden either higher or lower in District of Columbia than the surrounding inner suburban communities for at least some people. Therefore, arguably, a potential relationship may be established from this data.

PAGE 50

50 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As previously stated, there is evidence to suggest a potential relationship between the structural imbalance of the District of Columbia and sprawl in the region because there is evidence to suggest that sprawl in the Capital Region is high and there is a tax burden disincentive for low income households to live in the District of Columbia. The degree and extent of this relationship is the subject of speculation and analysis in this thesis and should be the subject of future research The results of the three Sprawl Index Comparisons enable this researcher to make the observation that the Washington, DC region may have more sprawl than other capital cities of similar sizes in different regions. As a result of the tax burden analysis comparisons there is evidence to suggest that the tax burden in Washington, DC may play a role in development patterns in the region. Tax Rates and Burdens: Washington Metropolitan Area, 2006 show s that among Washington and the inner suburbs of Montgomery and Prince Geor ges County in Maryland and Arlington and Fairfax Counties and the City of Alexandria in Virginia, Washington has the highest overall tax burden for a hypothetical household of three with an income of 25,000 dollars. As those with the lowest income may be the most vulnerable there is evidence to suggest that there may be significant disincentive for low income residents to live within the boundaries of the District of Columbia (Lipman, 2006; Rice, 2006; Brueckner & Kim, 2003; Song & Zenou, 2006). Therefor e, there is evidence to suggest that there may be a potential relationship between the structural imbalance and sprawl with regard to tax burdens. There are other elements that may have potential relationship with and/or stem from the structural imbalance that may also have an impact on sprawl in the region: lack of voting rights, and a cap on building heights. While these elements may also be a deterrent for people to live in

PAGE 51

51 the District and there has been further discussion of these elements, this research has specifically examined the structural imbalance as it relates to tax burdens. Planning Implications As noted earlier, s prawl is an important issue to the Planning profession. Sprawl may become an even more prevalent issue as gas prices continue to soar and awareness of the global climate change phenomenon continues to intensify. The land use patterns associated with sprawl fuel an auto dependent society. Therefore, studies that can increase the planning professions knowledge of sprawl and the variables that influence it may be significantly useful. The desired outcome of the research is to take a look at the relationship between the structural imbalance of the District of Columbia and sprawl in the Capital Region. Exploration of this potential relationship can help to better understand if limitations imposed on a municipality that may potentially cause higher tax burdens may have any association with sprawl in the region. Furthermore, the sprawl in Washington may have led to decentralized empl oyment. As noted earlier, a study shows that only 18.85% of the employment is within 3 miles of the CBD. Therefore, many people may drive to work. Perhaps, many lower income individuals drive from where they live in the eastern part of the region where it is less expensive to live to the western part of the region where many of the employment centers are located. Whether this is a cause of sprawl or a symptom of it is for other research to explore. However, this is a concrete problem with a potential r elationship to sprawl in the Capital Region. Car dependence may be a result of people living far from work. Car dependency may be considered a tax if one looks at the costs involved. It has been suggested that car ownership may cost around $6,000 a year to own a car when the cost of car payments, and related costs such as fuel, maintenance, and insurance are factored in (Lewyn, 2002) That figure is nearly a quarter

PAGE 52

52 of the total income, before taxes, for a household earning $25,000 per year. While many middle to high income residents may be able to afford their commutes, lower income residents are burdened tremendously. Recommendations New Look At Zoning Recently, Donald Shoup weighed in on possible zoning regulation revisions for the District of Columb ia that would be the first significant changes in 50 years (Shoup, 2008) He stated that 50 years ago was when the zoning regulations were put into place in Washington. According to Shoup, back then it was assumed that in the future almost everybody in t he city would have a car. However, as he notes, as of the 2000 census, 37 percent of households do not own a car. Therefore, he recommends that the zoning regulations, and especially, the off street parking regulations, should be reduced. Shoup ends the article by commending the District of Columbia Office of Planning for recommending just that (Shoup, 2008) Perhaps it is not only time for adjustments to be made in the District of Columbia but also in the other communities that make up the region. Pla nning for a more compact ly built environment may increase the population density in places where it is appropriate so that there can be less density in areas where it is less appropriate. The planning offices of those communities, especially those on the outer periphery, should look into making similar changes. Future Research Further research into this topic should include more economic analysis, more residential surveys, and Geographic Information Systems analysis. More specifically, further research can use the these tools in order to study the variables looked into in this thesis, sprawl and tax burden; and the variables explored but not analyzed such as the building heights cap and voting rights, and lack of autonomy. Tax burdens, the building heights cap, lack of voting rights, and

PAGE 53

53 lack of autonomy may not only have a potential relationship with sprawl but they also may have a pot ential relationship with poverty. Other research can also look into other variables involved that may not stem directly from the structural imbalance but may have a potential relationship with the development patterns in the region such as housing costs, the interstate highway, concurrency, NIMBYism, and zoning that mandates low density among numerous other variables. Rese arch following those general guidelines may shed more light on this important subject. Regional Planning Calthorp & Fulton (2001) argue that one of the greatest ways to combat sprawl is more planning at the regional level. While there are regional planni ng organizations that plan for this region, i t may be more difficult to coordinate planning for this region because three "state" jurisdictions are involved but more significantly, because of the lack of autonomy that the District of Columbia government has Perhaps the District government will be given more autonomy in the future. That may be the best way to help alleviate this problem. In the absence of the District of Columbia being given more autonomy, the governments of the adjacent jurisdictions and the outer suburbs can attempt to reduce sprawl by giving incentives for developers to do more infill projects and disincentivising development projects that are on the fringe. These jurisdictions, especially, the outer suburban ones, can do a better job to encourage smarter and more responsible growth. Perhaps, all of these jurisdictions can work together on regional solutions. Perhaps, tax incentives for affordable housing in historically preserved structures may be a way to recycle old housing stock in Washington and the inner older suburbs and help lower income residents live closer to the city center. Perhaps, also, a program like this can reduce sprawl as suggested earlier in this paper. It may be most effective if it is coordinated a t the regio nal level. Of course a program like this would also

PAGE 54

54 reduce revenue that the District takes in. However, if the program has success and draws more residents to the city or at least curtails sprawl then reductions in revenue from property taxes due to exem ptions can be made up with additions to revenue from income taxes and other economic development that may occur as a result of a successful program. Something that may supplement regional planning coordination well is planning at the neighborhood level. I n 1975 a new entity called the Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) was created in Washington The ANC is made up of 37 local commissions comprised of 299 single member districts. The commissions take up local issues, mostly planning issues, such as zon ing, traffic device placement, and parking. It is the job of the commissions to make recommendations to the major, city council, and other applicable government agencies on these issues. The commissions hold regular, usually monthly, meetings with their constituents to discuss the issues before making formal recommendations. The recommendations made are to carry great weight (Office of the District of Columbia Auditor, 2001) Entities like the Advisory Neighborhood Commission can help municipal governments make decisions based on input from local community leaders and, therefore, better planning decisions may come as a result. Better planning decisions may lead to more density, successful redevelopment and more attractive neighborhoods, and therefore a potential reduction in sprawl. Perhaps, communities on the periphery can adopt this program that Washington has had for years.

PAGE 55

55 APPENDIX A GERMAIN SECTIONS OF THE DC HOME RULE ACT Public Law 93198; 87 Stat. 777; D.C. Code 1 201 passim Approved December 24, 1973, as amended ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSIONS SEC. 738. [D.C. Code 1251] (a) The Council shall by act divide the District into neighborhood commission areas and, upon receiving a petition signed by at least 5 per centum of the register ed qualified electors of a neighborhood commission area, shall establish for that neighborhood an elected advisory neighborhood commission. In designating such neighborhoods, the Council shall consider natural geographic boundaries, election districts, and divisions of the District made for the purpose of administration of services. (b) Elections for members of each advisory neighborhood commission shall be nonpartisan, and shall be administered by the Board of Elections and Ethics. Advisory neighborhood c ommission members shall be elected from single member districts within each neighborhood commission area by the registered qualified electors of such district. (c) Each advisory neighborhood commission-(1) may advise the District government on matters of public policy including decisions regarding planning, streets, recreation, social services programs, health, safety, and sanitation in that neighborhood commission area; (2) may employ staff and expend, for public purposes within its neighborhood commi ssion area, public funds and other funds donated to it; and (3) shall have such other powers and duties as may be provided by act of the Council. (d) In the manner provided by act of the Council, in addition to any other notice required by law, timely no tice shall be given to each advisory neighborhood commission of requested or proposed zoning changes, variances, public improvements, licenses, or permits of significance to neighborhood planning and development within its neighborhood commission area for its review, comment, and recommendation. (e) In order to pay the expenses of the advisory neighborhood commissions, enable them to employ such staff as may be necessary, and to conduct programs for the welfare of the people in a neighborhood commission ar ea, the District government shall allot funds to the advisory neighborhood commissions out of the general revenues of the District. The funding apportioned to each advisory neighborhood commission shall bear the same ratio to the full sum allotted as the p opulation of the neighborhood bears to the population of the District. The Council may authorize additional methods of financing advisory neighborhood commissions.

PAGE 56

56 (f) The Council shall by act make provisions for the handling of funds and accounts by each advisory neighborhood commission and shall establish guidelines with respect to the employment of persons by each advisory neighborhood commission, which shall include fixing the status of such employees with respect to the District government, but all su ch provisions and guidelines shall be uniform for all advisory neighborhood commissions and shall provide that decisions to employ and discharge employees shall be made by the advisory neighborhood commission. These provisions shall conform to the extent practicable to the regular budgetary, expenditure and auditing procedures and the personnel merit system of the District. (g) The Council shall have authority, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, to legislate with respect to the advisory neighborhood commissions established in this section. (h) The foregoing provisions of this section shall take effect only if agreed to in accordance with the provisions of section 703(a) of this Act [uncod ified]. AGREEMENTS WITH UNITED STATES SEC. 731. [D.C. Code 1131.1] (a) To prevent duplication and to promote efficiency and economy, an officer or employee of: (1) The United States government may provide services to the District of Columbia government; and (2) The District of Columbia government may provide services to the United States government. (b) (1) Services under this section shall be provided under an agreement: (A) Negotiated by officers and employees of the 2 governments; and (B) Approved by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Mayor of the District of Columbia. (2) Each agreement shall provide that the cost of providing the services shall be borne in the way provided in subsection (c) of this section by the governme nt to which the services are provided at rates or charges based on the actual cost of providing the services. (3) To carry out an agreement made under this subsection, the agreement may provide for the delegation of duties and powers of officers and emplo yees of: (A) The District of Columbia government to officers and employees of the United States government; and (B) The United States government to officers and employees of the District of Columbia government. (c) In providing services under an agreeme nt made under subsection (b) of this section:

PAGE 57

57 (1) Costs incurred by the United States government may be paid from appropriations available to the District of Columbia government officer or employee to whom the services were provided; and (2) Costs incurr ed by the District of Columbia government may be paid from amounts available to the United States government officer or employee to whom the services were provided. (d) When requested by the Director of the United States Secret Service Division, the Chief of the Metropolitan Police shall assist the Secret Service and the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division on a nonreimbursable basis in carrying out their protective duties under section 302 to title 3 and section 3056 of title 18 [of the U.S.C.]. ENACTMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS BY CONGRESS SEC. 446. [D.C. Code 47304] The Council, within fifty calendar days after receipt of the budget proposal from the Mayor, and after public hearing, shall by act adopt the annual budget for the District of Columb ia government. Any supplements thereto shall also be adopted by act by the Council after public hearing. Such budget so adopted shall be submitted by the Mayor to the President for transmission by him to the Congress. Except as provided in section 445A(b) section 467(d) section 471(c) section 472(d)(2), section 475(e)(2) section 483(d) and section 490(f), (g), and (h)(3) [D.C. Code 431691(b), 47326.1(d), 47327(c), 47328(d)(2), 47 330.1(e)(2), 47331.2(d), and subsections (f), (g), and (h)(3) of 47334], no amount may be obligated or expended by any officer or employee of the District of Columbia government unless such amount has been approved by Act of Congress, and then only according to such Act. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Mayor shall not transmit any annual budget or amendments or supplements thereto, to the President of the Unite d States until the completion of the budget procedures contained in this Act. After the adoption of the annual budget for a fiscal year (beginning with the annual budget for fiscal year 1995), no reprogramming of amounts in the budget may occur unless the Mayor submits to the Council a request for such reprogramming and the Council approves the request, but only if any additional expenditures provided under such request for an activity are offset by reductions in expenditures for another activity. REIMBURS ABLE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT Sec. 722. [Uncodified] (a) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to advance to the District of Columbia the sum of $750,000, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for use (1) in the paying t he expenses of the Board of Education (including compensation of the members thereof), and (2) in otherwise carrying into effect the provisions of this Act. (b) The full amount expended out of the money advanced pursuant to this section shall be reimburse d to the United States, without interest, during the second fiscal year which begins after the effective date of title IV [January 2, 1975], from the general fund of the District.

PAGE 58

58 TITLE VI -RESERVATION OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY RETENTION OF CONSTIT UTIONAL AUTHORITY SEC. 601. [D.C. Code 1206] Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Congress of the United States reserves the right, at any time, to exercise its constitutional authority as legislature for the District, by enacting legislation for the District on any subject, whether within or without the scope of legislative power granted to the Council by this Act, including legislation to amend or repeal any law in force in the District prior to or after enactment of this Act and any act passed by the Council. LIMITATIONS ON THE COUNCIL SEC. 602. [D.C. Code 1233] (a) The Council shall have no authority to pass any act contrary to the provisions of this Act except as specifically provided in this Act, or to-(1) impose any tax on prope rty of the United States or any of the several states; (2) lend the public credit for support of any private undertaking; (3) enact any act, or enact any act to amend or repeal any Act of Congress, which concerns the functions or property of the United S tates or which is not restricted in its application exclusively in or to the District; (4) enact any act, resolution, or rule with respect to any provision of title 11 of the District of Columbia Code (relating to organization and jurisdiction of the Dist rict of Columbia courts); (5) impose any tax on the whole or any portion of the personal income, either directly or at the source thereof, of any individual not a resident of the District (the terms "individual" and "resident" to be understood for the pur poses of this paragraph as they are defined in section 4 of title I of the District of Columbia Income and Franchise Tax Act of 1947[, approved July 16, 1947 (61 Stat. 332; D.C. Code 471801.4)]); (6) enact any act, resolution, or rule which permits the building of any structure within the District of Columbia in excess of the height limitations contained in section 5 of the Act of June 1, 1910 [An Act To regulate the height of buildings in the District of Columbia (36 Stat. 453)] (D.C. Code, sec. 5405), and in effect on the date of enactment of this Act [December 24, 1973]; (7) enact any act, resolution, or regulation with respect to the Commission on Mental Health; (8) enact any act or regulation relating to the United States District Court for the Dis trict of Columbia or any other court of the United States in the District other than the District courts, or relating to the duties or powers of the United States Attorney or the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia;

PAGE 59

59 (9) enact any act, resol ution, or rule with respect to any provision of title 23 of the District of Columbia Code (relating to criminal procedure), or with respect to any provision of any law codified in title 22 or 24 of the District of Columbia Code (relating to crimes and trea tment of prisoners), or with respect to any criminal offense pertaining to articles subject to regulation under chapter 32 of title 22 during the forty eight full calendar months immediately following the day on which the members of the Council first elect ed pursuant to this Act take office; or (10) enact any act, resolution, or rule with respect to the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority established under section 101(a) of the District of Columbia Financial Re sponsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995 [, approved April 17, 1995 ( 109 Stat. 100; D.C. Code 47391.1(a))]. (b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as vesting in the District government any greater authority over the National Zoological Par k, the National Guard of the District of Columbia, the Washington Aqueduct, the National Capital Planning Commission, or, except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, over any federal agency, than was vested in the Commissioner [Mayor] prior to t he effective date of title IV [District Charter] of this Act [January 2, 1975]. (c) (1) Except acts of the Council which are submitted to the President in accordance with the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921 [Chapter 11 of Title 31, United States Code], an y act which the Council determines, according to section 412(a) [D.C. Code 1229(a)], should take effect immediately because of emergency circumstances, and acts proposing amendments to title IV of t his Act [District Charter] and except as provided in section 462(c) and section 472(d)(1) [D.C. Code 47322(c) and 47328(d)(1)], the Chairman of the Council shall transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President of the Senate, a copy of each act passed by the Council and signed by the Mayor, or vetoed by the Mayor and repassed by twothirds of the Council present and voting, each act passed by the Council and allowed to become effective by the Mayor without his signature, and each initiated act and act subject to referendum which has been ratified by a majority of the registered qualified electors voting on the initiative or referendum. Except as provided in paragraph (2) [of this subsection,] such act shall take effect upon the expiration of the 30calendar day period (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, and any day on which neither House is in session because o f an adjournment sine die, a recess of more than three days, or an adjournment of more than three days) beginning on the day such act is transmitted by the Chairman to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, or upon the date prescribed by such act, whichever is later, unless during such 30 day period, there has been enacted into law a joint resolution disapproving such act. In any case in which any such joint resolution disapproving such an act has, within such 30day pe riod, passed both Houses of Congress and has been transmitted to the President, such resolution, upon becoming law, subsequent to the expiration of such 30day period, shall be deemed to have repealed such act, as of the date such resolution becomes law. T he provisions of section 604 [D.C. Code 1207], except subsections (d), (e), and (f) of such section, shall apply with respect to any joint resolution disapproving any act pursuant to this paragraph. (2) In the case of any such act transmitted by the Chai rman with respect to any act codified in title 22, 23, or 24 of the District of Columbia Code, such act shall take effect at the end of the 60 day period beginning on the day such act is transmitted by the Chairman to the Speaker of the

PAGE 60

60 House of Representa tives and the President of the Senate unless, during such 60day period, there has been enacted into law a joint resolution disapproving such act. In any case in which any such joint resolution disapproving such an act has, within such 60day period, passe d both Houses of Congress and has been transmitted to the President, such resolution, upon becoming law subsequent to the expiration of such 60day period shall be deemed to have repealed such act, as of the date such resolution becomes law. The provisions of section 604 [D.C. Code 1207], relating to an expedited procedure for consideration of joint resolutions, shall apply to a joint resolution disapproving such act as specified in this paragraph. (3) The Council shall submit with each Act transmitted un der this subsection an estimate of the costs which will be incurred by the District of Columbia as a result of the enactment of the Act in each of the first 4 fiscal years for which the Act is in effect, together with a statement of the basis for such esti mate. BUDGET PROCESS; LIMITATIONS ON BORROWING AND SPENDING SEC. 603. [D.C. Code 47313] (a) Nothing in this act shall be construed as making any change in existing law, regulation, or basic procedure and practice relating to the respective roles of the C ongress, the President, the federal Office of Management and Budget, and the Comptroller General of the United States in the preparation, review, submission, examination, authorization, and appropriation of the total budget of the District of Columbia gove rnment. (b)(1) No general obligation bonds (other than bonds to refund outstanding indebtedness) or Treasury capital project loans shall be issued during any fiscal year in an amount which would cause the amount of principal and interest required to be pa id both serially and into a sinking fund in any fiscal year on the aggregate amounts of all outstanding general obligation bonds and such Treasury loans, to exceed 17 percent of the District revenues (less any fees or revenues directed to servicing revenue bonds, any revenues, charges, or fees dedicated for the purposes of water and sewer facilities described in section 490(a) [D.C. Code 47334] (including fees or revenues directed to servicing or securing revenue bonds issued for such purposes), retirement contributions, revenues from retirement systems, and revenues derived from such Treasury loans and the sale of general obligation or revenue bonds) which the Mayor estimates, and the District of Col umbia Auditor certifies, will be credited to the District during the fiscal year in which the bonds will be issued. Treasury capital project loans include all borrowings from the United States Treasury, except those funds advanced to the District by the Secretary of the Treasury under the provisions of title VI of the District of Columbia Revenue Act of 1939[, approved July 26, 1939 (P.L. 76225; 53 Stat. 1118)]. (2) Obligations incurred pursuant to the authority contained in the District of Columbia Stadi um Act of 1957[, approved September 7, 1957] (71 Stat. 619; D.C. Code, title 2, chapter 17, subchapter II) [D.C. Code 2321 through 2330], obligations incurred by the agencies transferred or established by sections 201 [Amendment to the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945] and 202 [D.C. Code 5102], whether incurred before or after such transfer or establishment, and obligations incurred pursuant to general obligation bonds of the District of Columbia issued prior to October 1, 1996, for the financing of Department of Public Works, Water and Sewer Utility Administration capital projects, shall not be included in determining the

PAGE 61

61 aggreg ate amount of all outstanding obligations subject to the limitation specified in the preceding paragraph. (3) The 17 percent limitation specified in paragraph (1) [of this subsection] shall be calculated in the following manner: (A) Determine the dollar amount equivalent to 17 percent of the District revenues (less any fees or revenues directed to servicing revenue bonds, any revenues, charges, or fees dedicated for the purposes of water and sewer facilities described in section 490(a) [D.C. Code 47334(a)] (including fees or revenues directed to servicing or securing revenue bonds issued for such purposes), retirement contributions, revenues from retirement systems, and revenues derived from such Tr easury loans and the sale of general obligation or revenue bonds) which the Mayor estimates, and the District of Columbia Auditor certifies, will be credited to the District during the fiscal year for which the bonds will be issued; (B) Determine the actu al total amount of principal and interest to be paid in each fiscal year for all outstanding general obligation bonds (less the allocable portion of principal and interest to be paid during the year on general obligation bonds of the District of Columbia i ssued prior to October 1, 1996, for the financing of Department of Public Works, Water and Sewer Utility Administration capital projects) and such Treasury loans; (C) Determine the amount of principal and interest to be paid during each fiscal year over t he term of the proposed general obligation bond or such Treasury loan to be issued; and (D) If in any one fiscal year the sum arrived at by adding subparagraphs (B) and (C) [of this paragraph] exceeds the amount determined under subparagraph (A) [of this paragraph], then the proposed general obligation bond or such Treasury loan in subparagraph (C) [of this paragraph] cannot be issued. (c) Except as provided in subsection (f) [of this section], the Council shall not approve any budget which would result i n expenditures being made by the District government, during any fiscal year, in excess of all resources which the Mayor estimates will be available from all funds available to the District for such fiscal year. The budget shall identify any tax increases which shall be required in order to balance the budget as submitted. The Council shall be required to adopt such tax increases to the extent its budget is approved. (d) Except as provided in subsection (f) [of this section], the Mayor shall not forward to the President for submission to Congress a budget which is not balanced according to the provision of subsection 603(c) [subsection (c) of this section]. (e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the applicability to the District government of the provisions of section 3679 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (31 U.S.C. 1341), the so called Anti Deficiency Act [D.C. Code 1341, 1342, and 1349 to 1351 and subchapter II of Chapte r 15 of Title 31, United States Code].

PAGE 62

62 (f) In the case of a fiscal year which is a control year (as defined in section 305(4) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995[, approved April 17, 1995 (109 Stat. 152; D.C. Code 47393(4)]), the Council may not approve, and the Mayor may not forward to the President, any budget which is not consistent with the financial plan and budget established for the fiscal year under subtitle A of title II of such Act [subpart B of subchapter VII of Chapter 3 of Title 47 of the D.C. Code]. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON CERTAIN DISTRICT MATTERS SEC. 604. [D.C. Code 1207] (a) This section is enacted by Congress -(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such these provisions are deemed a part of the rule of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in that House in the case of resolutions described by this section; and they supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rule (so far as relating to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the sa me manner and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House. (b) For the purpose of this section, "resolution" means only a joint resolution, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: "That the . . approves/disapproves of the action of the District of Columbia Council described as follows: . . .", the blank spaces therein being appropriately filled, and either approval or disapproval being appropriately indicated; but does not include a resolution which specifies more than 1 action. (c) A resolution with respect to Council action shall be referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia of the House of Representatives, or the Committee on the District of Columbia of the Senate, by the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may be. (d) If the Committee to which a resolution has been referred has not reported it at the end of 20 calendar days after its introduction, it is in order to move to discharge the Committee from further consideration of any other resolution with respect to the same Council action which has been referred to the Committee. (e) A motion to discharge may be made only by an individual favoring the resolution, is highly privileged (except that it may not be made after the Committee has reported a resolution with respect to the same action), and debate thereon shall be limited to not more than 1 hour, to be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. An amendment to the motion is not in order, and it is not in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.

PAGE 63

63 (f) If the motion to discharge is agreed to or disagreed to, the motion may not be renewed, nor may another motion to discharge the Committee be made with respect to any other resolution with respect to the same action. (g) When the Committee has reported, or has been discharged from further consideration of, a resolution, it is at any time thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the consideration of the resolution. The motion is highly privileged and is not debatable. An amendment to the motion is not in order, and it is not in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to. (h) Debate on the resolution shall be limited to not more than 10 hours, which shall be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. A moti on further to limit debate is not debatable. An amendment to, or motion to recommit, the resolution is not in order, and it is not in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution is agreed to or disagreed to. (i) Motions to postpone made w ith respect to the discharge from Committee or the consideration of a resolution, and motions to proceed to the consideration of other business, shall be decided without debate. (j) Appeals from the decisions of the chair relating to the application of the rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, to the procedure relating to a resolution shall be decided without debate.

PAGE 64

64 APPENDIX B TAX BURDEN CHARTS

PAGE 65

65 Table B 1. Summary of average major tax burdens for selected W ashington Met ropoli tan area jurisdictions and the District of C olumbia Calendar year 2006 Income ($) Tax burdens Percent of income Area Average District Of Columbia Area Average District Of Columbia Overall burden 25,000 2,769 3,088 11.1% 12.4% 50,000 4,476 4,0 52 9.0% 8.1% 75,000 7,404 6,986 9.9% 9.3% 100,000 9,729 9,482 9.7% 9.5% 150,000 14,628 15,027 9.8% 10.0% Individual income 25,000 219 510 0.9% 2.0% 50,000 1,556 1,579 3.1% 3.2% 75,000 3,108 3,228 4.1% 4.3% 100,000 4,788 5,139 4.8% 5.1% 150,000 8,195 9,224 5.5% 6.1% Real estate 25,000 1,805 1,805 7.2% 7.2% 50,000 1,921 1,431 3.8% 2.9% 75,000 2,625 2,124 3.5% 2.8% 100,000 3,060 2,554 3.1% 2.6% 150,000 3,912 3,393 2.6% 2.3%

PAGE 66

66 Table B 1. Continued Sales and use 25,000 499 547 2. 0% 2.2% 50,000 737 823 1.5% 1.6% 75,000 1,108 1,252 1.5% 1.7% 100,000 1,230 1,404 1.2% 1.4% 150,000 1,752 2,025 1.2% 1.3% Automobile 25,000 246 226 1.0% 0.9% 50,000 262 218 0.5% 0.4% 75,000 563 382 0.8% 0.5% 100,000 650 386 0.7% 0.4% 150,0 00 770 386 0.5% 0.3% Tables Produced by Government of District of Columbia: Office of Revenue Analysis (Wyatt, Tax Rates and Tax Burdens: Washington Metropolitan Area 2006, 2007)

PAGE 67

67 APPENDIX C SPRAWL INDEXES

PAGE 68

68 Table C 1 Ewing Index Spraw l Scores for 83 Metropolitan Regions Source: (Ewing, et al. 2002)

PAGE 69

69 Table C 1. Continued

PAGE 70

70 Table C 1. Continued

PAGE 71

71 Table C 2. 100 Largest U.S. Urbanized Areas ranked by square miles of sprawl (19701990) Source: (www.sprawlcity.org, 2000) Urbanized Area (ranked by amount of sprawl) Square Miles of Sprawl (growth in land area) 1. Atlanta, GA 701.7 2. Houston, TX 638.7 3. New York City -N.E. New Jersey 541.3 4. Washington, DC -MD -VA 450.1 5. Philadelphia, PA 412.4 6. Los Angeles, CA 393.8 7. Dallas -Fort Worth, TX 372.4 8. Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 358.7 9. Phoenix, AZ 353.6 10. Minneapolis -Saint Paul, MN 341.6 11. San Diego, CA 309.5 12. Oklahoma City, OK 307.7 13. Chicago, IL N.W. Indiana 307.3 14. Baltimore, MD 282.9 15. Kansas City, MO -KS 268.6 16. Saint Louis, MO -IL 267.6 17. Orlando, FL 262.9 18. Detroit, MI 247.4 19. Boston, MA 226.8 20. Norfolk Virginia Beach Newport News, VA 221.4 21. San Antonio, TX 215.1 22. San Francisco -Oakland, CA 193.1 23. Austin, TX 187.4 24. Pittsburgh, PA 181.7 25. Cincinnati, OH -KY 176.6 26. Seattle, WA 174.8 27. Birmingham, AL 174.2 28. West Palm Beach -Boca Raton, FL 170.2 29. Denver, CO 166.0 30. Richmond, VA 158.1 31. Jacksonville, FL 156.4 32. Charleston, SC 151.7 Table C 2 Continued 33. Riverside San Bernardino, CA 150.4 34. Memphis, TN 145.5

PAGE 72

72 35. Jackson, MS 144.7 36. Tucson, AZ 141.8 37. Chattanooga, TN -GA 140.1 38. Nashville, TN 140.0 39. Charlotte, NC 136.0 40. Knoxville, TN 132.7 41. Tulsa, OK 124.3 42. Portland-Vancouver, OR WA 121.2 43. Fort Lauderdale Hollywood Pompano, FL 114.9 44. Albuquerque, NM 111.4 45. Hartford-Middletown, CT 110.8 46. Columbus, OH 110.4 47. Las Vegas, NV 109.9 48. Raleigh, NC 105.4 49. Tacoma, WA 104.1 50. Little Rock -North Little Rock, AR 103.9 51. El Paso, TX -NM 101.0 52. Baton Rouge, LA 100.9 53. Columbia, SC 95.6 54. Miami -Hialeah, FL 94.0 55. Ogden, UT 91.9 56. McAllen-Edinburg -Mission, TX 91.6 57. Sacramento, CA 89.7 58. Pensacola, FL 88.9 59. Indianapolis, IN 87.7 60. Colorado Springs, CO 86.6 61. New Orleans, LA 86.1 62. New Haven-Meriden, CT 80.4 63. Wilmington, DE -NJ -MS -PA 78.0 64. Greenville, SC 77.2 65. Grand Rapids, MI 77.0 66. Rochester, NY 74.3 67. Louisville, KY -IN 72.2 68. Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 71.8 69. Harrisburg, PA 71.4 70. Salt Lake City, UT 6 9.8 Table C 2 Continued 71. Flint, MI 67.4

PAGE 73

73 72. Springfield, MA -CT 64.1 73. San Jose, CA 61.2 74. Mobile, AL 60.5 75. Albany -Schenectady -Troy, NY 58.2 76. Milwaukee, WI 55.5 77. Providence-Pawtucket, RIMA 54.6 78. Worcester, MA -CT 54.3 79. Akron, OH 53.6 80. Fresno, CA 53.6 81. Shreveport, LA 52.2 82. Des Moines, IA 50.6 83. Dayton, OH 49.2 84. Oxnard-Ventura, CA 45.6 85. Allentown-Bethlehem -Easton, PA 43.6 86. Omaha, NE -IA 41.8 87. Bakersfield, CA 41.1 88. Wichit a, KS 39.4 89. YoungstownWarren, OH 38.7 90. Syracuse, NY 37.4 91. Spokane, WA 35.8 92. Trenton, NJ -PA 30.4 93. Toledo, OH -MI 27.9 94. Stockton, CA 27.0 95. Lansing-East Lansing, MI 25.3 96. Corpus Christi, TX 25.2 97. Honolulu, HI 23.7 98. ScrantonWilkes -Barre, PA 20.4 99. Bridgeport -Milford, CT 11.9 100. Cleveland, OH 10.2 Total 14,545.2 Average Urbanized Area (mean of values in column) 145.5 Land Area Data derived from U.S. Census Bureaus 1970 and 1990 reports on Urbanized Land Area.

PAGE 74

74 Figure C 1. USA Today Sprawl Index Top 25 Sprawling Regions

PAGE 75

75 Table C 3. USA Today Sprawl Index for Other Regions Metro area Sprawl index score Pop. in 1999 Pop. % in urbanized areas in 1999 Rank Change from 1990 99 Rank Ocala, Fla. 536 245,541 31.40% 267 10.10% 269 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 528 237,170 21.50% 271 7.20% 257 Johnstown, Pa. 504 235,213 30.50% 268 5.40% 236 Charlottesville, Va. 501 150,961 47.80% 241 7.30% 260 Sumter, S.C. 481 107,295 51.70% 218 8.00% 263 Lima, Ohio 480 153,867 42.40% 255 4.70% 225 Nashville 478 1,171,096 53.00% 2 11 9.00% 267 Terre Haute, Ind. 477 148,376 49.20% 233 5.80% 244 New London, Conn. R.I. 474 282,048 50.50% 228 6.00% 246 Little Rock, Ark. 474 560,035 54.10% 206 9.00% 268 Boise City, Idaho 473 405,007 52.70% 214 7.20% 259 Bellingham, Wash. 471 15 9,493 44.30% 251 4.50% 220 Saginaw, Mich. 469 401,279 50.60% 227 5.70% 242 Jackson, Mich. 469 156,597 49.30% 231 5.50% 238 Utica, N.Y. 468 291,615 47.70% 242 4.70% 226 Athens, Ga. 466 139,732 53.80% 208 7.20% 258 Knoxville, Tenn. 464 663,880 49.2 0% 232 5.30% 232 Springfield, Mo. 463 307,824 55.30% 199 8.10% 264 Portland, Maine 457 232,708 51.40% 220 5.40% 237 Benton Harbor, Mich. 455 159,862 34.50% 266 3.50% 189 Parkersburg, W.Va. Ohio 455 149,905 37.90% 261 3.60% 194 Charlotte, N.C. 454 1,405,961 56.30% 193 7.40% 261 Fort Wayne, Ind. 452 483,652 51.50% 219 5.30% 233 Yuma, Ariz. 451 134,532 58.20% 181 12.40% 270 Punta Gorda, Fla. 450 135,815 56.10% 194 7.20% 256 Williamsport, Pa. 450 116,744 46.50% 246 3.90% 204 York, Pa. 450 37 5,635 40.50% 257 3.60% 193 Merced, Calif. 448 201,676 35.10% 265 3.20% 183 Lexington, Ky. 446 453,450 51.70% 217 4.90% 229 Jackson, Tenn. 445 101,463 55.00% 200 5.80% 245 Danville, Va. 441 107,739 48.10% 239 3.80% 202 Wausau, Wis. 437 123,748 47. 90% 240 3.60% 197 Naples, Fla. 437 209,017 57.60% 184 7.10% 253 Greensboro, N.C. 437 1,178,495 51.30% 223 4.20% 214 Wilmington, N.C. 435 222,793 55.90% 196 5.50% 239 Mobile, Ala. 433 536,301 58.60% 178 7.10% 255 Lakeland, Fla. 431 462,884 54.80% 201 5.00% 230 Sheboygan, Wis. 423 110,580 55.90% 195 4.80% 228 Burlington, Vt. 418 168,896 54.20% 205 4.20% 213 Fort Myers, Fla. 417 403,863 61.30% 165 6.80% 252 Austin, Texas 413 1,132,817 62.00% 163 6.60% 250 Lancaster, Pa. 408 458,907 44.50% 2 50 2.90% 158 Baton Rouge, La. 402 578,445 64.60% 151 6.70% 251 Lynchburg, Va. 401 209,178 49.10% 234 3.00% 167 Wheeling, W.Va. Ohio 401 152,124 51.40% 221 3.20% 180 Goldsboro, N.C. 399 112,688 55.40% 198 3.80% 201 Sharon, Pa. 393 121,848 42.60% 2 54 2.40% 139 Atlanta 392 3,824,281 67.40% 130 7.60% 262 Bangor, Maine 391 87,936 62.30% 160 5.10% 231

PAGE 76

76 Table C 3. Continued Salinas, Calif. 391 376,814 66.70% 137 -7.10% 254 Beaumont, Texas 388 375,954 61.30% 164 4.70% 224 Elkhart, Ind. 388 173,805 60.50% 171 4.30% 217 Appleton, Wis. 384 346,380 65.90% 144 5.60% 240 Lafayette, Ind. 384 172,920 59.40% 172 4.20% 212 Savannah, Ga. 382 287,349 70.30% 116 8.70% 266 Huntsville, Ala. 381 343,820 59.10% 175 3.90% 206 Barnstable, Mass. 381 152,220 48.20% 237 2.60% 144 Asheville, N.C. 379 215,427 55.70% 197 3.20% 182 Gainesville, Fla. 379 206,306 65.80% 145 5.30% 234 Tallahassee, Fla. 378 274,806 63.70% 155 4.60% 223 Reading, Pa.. 378 357,387 53.70% 2 09 3.00% 169 Syracuse, N.Y. 378 732,039 51.00% 225 2.70% 153 Kalamazoo, Mich. 378 446,939 54.70% 202 3.10% 176 Fort Smith, Ark. Okla. 377 195,636 52.20% 216 2.90% 161 Madison, Wis. 375 428,149 63.60% 156 4.50% 219 Sherman, Texas 372 103,883 56.60 % 191 3.20% 181 Columbia, S.C. 370 517,411 68.30% 127 5.70% 243 Evansville, Ind. Ky. 370 291,396 62.90% 159 4.10% 211 Myrtle Beach, S.C. 369 178,658 39.80% 259 1.70% 110 Shreveport, La. 366 378,708 65.20% 148 4.40% 218 Kokomo, Ind. 364 100,114 57 .10% 187 3.10% 177 Greenville, S.C. 363 926,654 42.20% 256 1.60% 107 Huntington, W.Va. Ky. Ohio 361 313,439 52.90% 212 2.60% 149 Pensacola, Fla. 360 405,930 69.50% 119 5.60% 241 Grand Rapids, Mich. 357 1,045,268 62.20% 161 3.60% 196 Hickory, N.C. 357 325,596 23.70% 270 1.00% 87 Bakersfield, Calif. 354 636,736 54.20% 204 2.60% 150 Owensboro, Ky. 353 91,330 66.60% 138 4.30% 215 Altoona, Pa. 352 130,310 56.90% 188 2.90% 164 Albany, Ga. 350 118,442 72.70% 103 6.10% 247 Houma, La. 346 195,114 35.70% 264 0.90% 82 Chattanooga, Tenn. Ga. 345 452,198 67.10% 135 4.00% 210 Jackson, Miss. 345 432,626 69.70% 118 4.70% 227 Binghamton, N.Y. 342 247,060 58.20% 180 2.90% 162 Scranton, Pa. 342 611,758 59.00% 177 3.00% 165 Lafayette, La. 340 378,5 17 37.30% 262 0.80% 78 Daytona Beach, Fla. 340 471,864 67.20% 133 3.90% 207 Pine Bluff, Ark. 339 81,087 69.30% 123 4.30% 216 Youngstown, Ohio 339 589,432 58.50% 179 2.90% 160 Rochester, N.Y. 338 1,081,365 56.80% 190 2.60% 148 Glens Falls, N.Y. 33 3 121,753 47.20% 245 1.00% 88 Pueblo, Colo. 333 136,188 79.00% 68 8.40% 265 Jacksonville, N.C. 333 142,644 65.30% 147 3.40% 186 Cumberland, Md. W.Va. 332 97,543 52.80% 213 1.90% 119 Melbourne, Fla. 331 470,027 76.60% 82 6.50% 249 Memphis, Tenn. A rk. Miss. 329 1,100,230 76.60% 81 6.40% 248 Alexandria, La. 325 126,953 63.40% 157 3.00% 168 Biloxi, Miss. 323 352,155 73.10% 101 4.50% 222 Birmingham, Ala. 323 913,565 71.10% 114 4.00% 209

PAGE 77

77 Table C 3. Continued Rockford, Ill. 322 358,704 75.80% 87 5.40% 235 Montgomery, Ala. 322 323,675 69.20% 124 3.70% 198 Anniston, Ala. 320 117,136 57.40% 186 2.30% 134 Florence, S.C. 319 125,609 47.50% 243 0.70% 76 Springfield, Ill. 319 203,833 63.70% 153 3 .00% 166 Duluth, Minn. Wis. 316 235,929 50.70% 226 1.10% 90 Harrisburg, Pa. 316 617,166 49.30% 230 1.00% 86 Dover, Del. 315 125,058 45.50% 248 0.50% 67 Greenville, N.C. 309 128,300 83.30% 38 14.20% 271 Louisville, Ky. Ind. 306 1,003,148 76.00% 85 4.50% 221 Macon, Ga. 306 322,093 63.70% 154 2.70% 152 Albany, N.Y. 305 870,412 57.90% 182 2.00% 123 Grand Junction, Colo. 304 114,585 74.20% 99 3.90% 205 Modesto, Calif. 303 428,970 60.80% 168 2.30% 135 Dubuque, Iowa 301 87,732 71.20% 113 3.40% 188 Wichita, Kan. 300 549,636 67.70% 129 3.10% 171 Texarkana, Texas Ark. 299 123,453 53.60% 210 1.00% 89 Indianapolis 299 1,530,570 69.40% 121 3.20% 178 Steubenville, Ohio W.Va. 297 133,476 48.30% 236 0.40% 61 Tyler, Texas 296 170,615 52.20% 215 0.90% 81 Augusta, Ga. S.C. 295 460,338 67.00% 136 2.90% 159 Cincinnati Hamilton, Ohio Ky. Ind. 292 1,957,682 75.70% 89 -3.80% 203 Orlando, Fla. 290 1,531,635 74.20% 98 3.50% 192 Erie, Pa. 286 275,737 63.10% 158 2.10% 128 Rocky Mount, N.C. 285 147,2 10 38.50% 260 0.80% 25 Mansfield, Ohio 285 174,320 44.10% 252 0.40% 33 Richmond, Va. 284 964,695 76.90% 76 4.00% 208 Lewiston, Maine 284 90,417 72.70% 105 3.20% 179 La Crosse, Wis. Minn. 282 122,061 66.10% 141 2.50% 141 Las Cruces, N.M. 278 171,270 59.20% 173 1.50% 105 Monroe, La. 277 147,187 75.30% 90 3.40% 187 Des Moines, Iowa 277 440,560 72.50% 107 3.00% 170 Stockton, Calif 275 550,351 64.70% 150 2.00% 125 Fayetteville, Ark. 275 278,016 36.40% 263 2.60% 12 Fresno, Calif. 272 888,903 59.2 0% 174 1.40% 98 Joplin, Mo. 272 149,911 45.00% 249 0.90% 23 Raleigh, N.C. 271 1,101,410 59.00% 176 1.20% 95 Visalia, Calif. 271 359,156 29.20% 269 8.80% 2 State College, Pa. 269 133,141 49.60% 229 0.20% 40 Spokane, Wash. 268 412,358 74.80% 93 3.10% 175 Canton, Ohio 268 402,104 61.20% 167 1.40% 101 Eau Claire, Wis. 268 144,180 57.80% 183 1.00% 85 Hartford, Conn. 266 1,144,169 66.10% 140 2.00% 126 Johnson City, Tenn Va. 265 464,210 51.10% 224 0.10% 41 Roanoke, Va. 265 227,408 76.80% 80 3.40% 185 Janesville, Wis. 263 151,322 40.20% 258 5.70% 5 Yakima, Wash. 263 215,705 47.20% 244 1.30% 19 Washington Baltimore, Md. Va. W.Va. 261 7,332,960 78.30% 71 -3.50% 190

PAGE 78

78 Table C 3. Continued Pittsburgh 260 2,336,230 71.00% 115 2.60% 145 Dothan, Ala. 255 134,980 46.50% 247 3.30% 8 Columbus, Ohio 254 1,478,498 72.40% 108 2.60% 146 Chico, Calif. 254 198,077 43.70% 253 10.90% 1 Pittsfield, Mass. 253 82,636 62.20% 162 1.10% 91 Lansing, Mich. 253 44 9,545 60.70% 169 0.90% 84 Decatur, Ala. 252 143,653 49.10% 235 1.60% 17 Lake Charles, La. 251 181,438 69.30% 122 2.10% 129 McAllen, Texas 250 534,615 67.30% 132 1.90% 118 Dayton, Ohio 247 945,669 72.10% 109 2.40% 138 Columbia, Mo. 247 130,574 66.4 0% 139 1.70% 108 Tulsa, Okla. 245 783,728 66.00% 143 1.50% 102 Albuquerque, N.M. 244 682,848 81.30% 49 3.60% 195 Medford, Ore. 244 174,918 48.10% 238 5.10% 6 Bloomington, Ind. 241 115,627 64.80% 149 1.20% 92 St. Joseph, Mo. 238 97,300 75.20% 91 2 .60% 147 Iowa City, Iowa 237 103,232 72.70% 106 2.10% 131 Allentown, Pa. 237 618,269 67.80% 128 1.70% 109 Reno, Nev. 237 319,386 81.10% 53 3.30% 184 Houston Galveston Brazoria 234 4,473,439 80.20% 60 -3.10% 174 Fort Collins, Colo. 232 235,091 56.9 0% 189 0.10% 43 St. Cloud, Minn. 231 163,298 51.30% 222 3.30% 9 Peoria, Ill. 231 344,948 70.20% 117 1.80% 114 Denver Boulder Greeley 229 2,398,875 84.60% 30 3.80% 199 Santa Fe, N.M. 225 143,386 54.40% 203 1.00% 22 Jacksonville, Fla. 224 1,058,981 79 .20% 67 2.80% 157 Milwaukee Racine 222 1,645,045 81.30% 50 3.10% 172 Elmira, N.Y. 222 91,612 69.10% 126 1.30% 96 Portland Salem, Ore. Wash. 221 2,177,308 72.70% 104 1.90% 117 Sarasota, Fla. 221 557,303 87.40% 21 3.80% 200 St. Louis, Mo. Ill. 220 2,568,578 79.30% 65 2.70% 155 Florence, Ala. 220 137,612 53.90% 207 2.40% 13 Phoenix 216 2,994,922 86.50% 25 3.50% 191 New Orleans 215 1,310,213 82.50% 42 3.10% 173 Seattle Tacoma Bremerton 210 3,457,616 80.30% 59 2.70% 151 Charleston, W.Va. 209 253,008 65.40% 146 0.40% 63 Detroit Ann Arbor Flint 208 5,472,317 80.80% 54 2.70% 154 Hattiesburg, Miss. 205 112,544 60.70% 170 0.30% 35 Boston Worcester Lawrence, Mass. N.H. 205 5,662,136 76.80% 78 -2.10% 127 Minneapolis St. Paul 203 2,856,786 79.90 % 63 2.50% 140 Amarillo, Texas 202 210,292 81.90% 46 2.70% 156 Fort Walton Beach, Fla. 200 174,175 76.80% 79 1.90% 121 Topeka, Kan. 200 165,557 80.40% 58 2.50% 142 Grand Forks, N.D. Minn. 199 99,382 57.50% 185 2.20% 14 Sacramento Yolo 199 1,691,69 5 76.20% 83 1.90% 116 Corpus Christi, Texas 197 390,241 75.80% 86 1.70% 111 Panama City, Fla. 196 148,422 79.90% 64 2.20% 132 Redding, Calif. 196 164,908 56.50% 192 6.00% 4

PAGE 79

79 Table C 3. Continued Toledo, Ohio 194 609,2 43 78.10% 72 1.90% 122 Sioux Falls, S.D. 185 165,275 71.90% 110 0.70% 75 Muncie, Ind. 182 116,324 73.00% 102 0.80% 80 Philadelphia, Pa. Wilmington, Del. -Atlantic City, N.J. 178 5,993,578 81.90% 45 -2.20% 133 San Antonio 176 1,559,55 8 83.20% 39 2.40% 137 Buffalo, N.Y. 175 1,146,556 79.00% 69 1.60% 106 Tucson, Ariz. 172 800,472 84.70% 29 2.50% 143 South Bend, Ind. 171 258,713 93.50% 8 2.90% 163 Dallas Fort Worth 171 4,888,326 81.30% 51 1.90% 120 Gadsden, Ala. 170 104,326 71.6 0% 112 0.30% 58 Clarksville, Tenn. Ky. 169 202,665 61.30% 166 6.50% 3 Yuba City, Calif. 168 137,775 64.00% 152 1.80% 16 Tampa 167 2,281,537 83.30% 37 2.10% 130 Rapid City, S.D. 164 87,925 74.70% 95 0.50% 69 Davenport, Iowa Ill. 162 357,960 74.80% 9 2 0.60% 70 Champaign, Ill. 162 167,570 67.20% 134 0.70% 28 Longview, Texas 161 210,534 69.10% 125 0.30% 36 Las Vegas, Nev. Ariz. 159 1,367,114 80.50% 56 1.50% 103 Eugene, Ore. 158 316,356 67.40% 131 0.70% 27 Auburn Opelika, Ala. 157 101,903 66.10% 1 42 2.00% 15 Great Falls, Mont. 154 78,833 80.60% 55 1.40% 99 Columbus, Ga. Ala. 153 272,153 83.10% 40 1.80% 113 Rochester, Minn. 151 117,605 69.40% 120 0.40% 31 Cleveland Akron 151 2,910,733 83.40% 36 1.80% 115 Richland, Wash. 151 184,513 76.80% 77 0.70% 74 West Palm Beach, Fla. 150 1,038,254 89.90% 14 2.30% 136 Waco, Texas 146 204,796 76.00% 84 0.40% 62 Springfield, Mass. 143 575,299 88.50% 19 2.00% 124 Kansas City, Mo. Kan. 141 1,751,214 79.90% 62 0.80% 79 Providence, R.I. Mass. 138 1,12 2,337 85.80% 26 1.70% 112 Wichita Falls, Texas 136 137,314 74.70% 97 0.20% 39 Decatur, Ill. 135 113,185 81.20% 52 0.90% 83 Brownsville, Texas 132 332,512 75.70% 88 0.00% 44 Tuscaloosa, Ala. 129 161,726 71.80% 111 1.50% 18 Lawrence, Kan. 125 94,151 8 0.00% 61 0.40% 64 Bloomington, Ill. 121 143,758 73.70% 100 1.10% 21 Victoria, Texas 118 83,275 74.80% 94 0.90% 24 Green Bay, Wis. 118 216,602 82.60% 41 0.70% 77 Fayetteville, N.C. 117 284,702 87.00% 23 1.20% 94 Norfolk, Va. N.C. 116 1,547,085 90.30 % 12 1.50% 104 Charleston, S.C. 116 544,103 77.80% 74 0.10% 42 Odessa, Texas 113 247,274 89.90% 13 1.40% 100 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 113 183,726 80.50% 57 0.20% 56 Bismarck, N.D. 112 91,845 79.30% 66 0.00% 46 Chicago, Ill. -Gary, Ind. Kenosha,Wis. 112 8, 853,199 89.90% 15 -1.30% 97 Billings, Mont. 110 126,821 77.90% 73 0.30% 37 Missoula, Mont. 107 89,589 74.70% 96 2.80% 11

PAGE 80

80 Table C 3. Continued Killeen, Texas 104 303,363 77.50% 75 0.60% 29 Fort Pierce, Fla. 104 302,089 81.90% 44 0.30% 60 El Paso, Texas 97 713,257 95.40% 4 1.20% 93 Cheyenne, Wyo. 96 79,067 84.30% 31 0.40% 65 Oklahoma City, Okla. 94 1,045,728 81.70% 47 0.10% 47 Waterloo, Iowa 88 120,743 87.10% 22 0.50% 66 Abilene, Texas 87 122,192 89 .60% 16 0.60% 71 Lubbock, Texas 84 229,417 84.20% 32 0.20% 52 New York Long Island, N.Y. N.J. -Conn. Pa. 82 20,196,774 91.50% 10 -0.70% 72 Provo, Utah 80 340,913 83.60% 35 0.00% 45 Los Angeles Riverside Orange Co. 78 15,954,560 94.30% 5 -0.70% 73 C asper, Wyo. 78 63,251 85.20% 27 0.20% 51 Honolulu, Hawaii 77 872,757 78.80% 70 4.20% 7 Omaha, Neb. Iowa 77 699,385 85.00% 28 0.20% 49 Pocatello, Idaho 75 75,257 82.00% 43 0.40% 32 Bryan, Texas 75 134,242 88.10% 20 0.20% 55 San Angelo, Texas 74 103, 197 86.60% 24 0.20% 50 Miami Fort Lauderdale 69 3,630,497 98.30% 1 0.50% 68 Santa Barbara, Calif. 66 397,596 88.50% 18 0.20% 48 San Diego 66 2,798,201 93.80% 7 0.30% 59 Sioux City, Iowa Neb. 63 120,505 84.10% 33 0.50% 30 San Francisco Oakland San Jose 62 6,898,680 93.40% 9 -0.20% 53 Lawton, Okla. 60 112,982 83.70% 34 0.80% 26 Salt Lake City, Utah 60 1,281,817 97.60% 3 0.20% 57 Fargo, N.D. Minn. 58 169,446 81.60% 48 3.10% 10 Anchorage, Alaska 56 256,711 97.80% 2 0.20% 54 Colorado Springs, Co lo. 55 498,097 89.10% 17 0.20% 38 Lincoln, Neb. 45 237,337 90.50% 11 0.40% 34 Laredo, Texas 26 193,273 93.90% 6 1.10% 20

PAGE 81

81 LIST OF REFERENCES Adam, D. (2003). A Diversifying Source of Revenue for the City of Tallahassee: An Analysis of Options; Florida State University University Reubin OD. A skew School of Public Policy. Tallahassee, Florida : Florida State University American Public Transportation Association. (2008). Transit Ridership Report 2nd Quarter 2008. Washington, DC: American Public Transport ation Association. The Brookings Institution. (2000). Moving Beyond Sprawl: Toward a Broader Metropolitan Agenda. Retrieved October 31st, 2008, from Brookings: http ://www.brookings.edu/articles/2000/spring_communitydevelopment_katz.aspx Brooks, D. (2004). On Paridise Drive: How we Live (And Always Have) in the Future Tense. New York: Simon & Schuster. Browning, C. E. (1990). The Rise of Beltways: A Powerful Force for Urban Change. Focus Brueckner, J. K., & Kim, H.A. (2003). Urban Sprawl and the Property Tax. International Tax and Public Finance 523. Burchell, R. W. (2005). Sprawl Costs: Economic Impacts of Unchecked Develpment. Washington: Island Press. Burchel l, R., & Listokin, D. (1995). Land, Infrastructure, Housing Costs and FinancialIimpacts Associated with Growth: The Literature of the Impacts of Sprawl Versus Managed Growth. Cambridge, Ma: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Caemmerer, H. P. (1950). The Lif e of Pierre Charles L'Enfant: Planner of the City Beautiful: T he City of Washington. Washington, DC: National Republic Publishing Company. Calthorp, P., & Fulton, W. (2001). The Regional City: Planning for the End of Sprawl. Washington, DC: Island Press. C arey, G. W., Greenberg, M., & MacOmber, L. (1968). Educational and Demographic Factors in the Urban Geography of Washington, D.C. Geographic Review, Vol. 58, No. 4 515537. Chernick, H., & Tkacheva, O. (2002 ). Commuter Tax and the Fiscal Cost of Commut ers to New York City. State Tax Notes 25 (6). Cox, J. L. (1967). Federal Urban Development Policy and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments: A Reassessment. Urban Affairs Review pp. 7594. Davenport, C. (2006, January 3). In a Fast Growing County, Sprawl Teaches Hard Lessons. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from csmonitor.com: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0123/p02s02ussc.html

PAGE 82

82 DeBose, B. (2003, June 6). Report Scores Fiscal Practice; Sites Revenue, Waste. The Washington Times p. B01. Down ing, P., & Gustely, R. D. (1977). The Public Service Costs of Alternative Development Patterns: A Review of the Evidence. In P. (. Downing, Local Service Pricing Policies and Their Effect on Urban Spatial Structure (pp. 6386). Vancouver: University of Bri tish Columbia Press. Emporis Corporation. (2008). Tallest Skyscrapers: Arlington. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from Emporis.com: http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/sk/li/?id=101487&bt=9&ht=3&sro=1 Emporis Corporation. (2008). Tallest Skyscrapers: Seattle. Ret rieved March 12, 2008, from Emporis.com: http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/sk/li/?id=101046&bt=2&ht=2&sro=21 Emporis Corporation. (2008). Tallest Skyscrapers: Washington, DC. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from Emporis.com: http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/s k/li?id=101047&bt=2&ht=2&sro=0 Ewing, R ., .Pendall, R & Chen, D.; (2002). Measuring Sprawl and its Impact:. Washington, DC: Smart Growth America. Fauntroy, M. K. (2000). The Erosion of Home Rule in the District of Columbia: The Impact of Partisan Politics City Suburban Politics, and Congressional Intervention, 19731998. Howard University, Department of Political Science. Washington, DC: Bell and Howell Information and Learning Company. Gandhi, N. M. (2003, August 22). Let the District Expand Its Tax Base The Washington Post p. A20. Gillette, H. (1995). Between Justice and Beauty : Race, Planning, and the Failure of Urban Policy in Washington, D.C. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Glaeser G., Kahn, M. & Chu, C.. (2001). Job Sprawl: Employment Location in Metropolitan Areas. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute: Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Glaster, G. E (2001). Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and Measuring an Elusive Concept. Housing Policy Debate 12 (4), 681 717. G utheim, F. A. (1976). The Federal City: Plans & Realities. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Harrison, D. (1976). Transportation Technology and Land Use Patterns. Cambridge, MA: Department of City and Regional Planning, Harvard University. Hei m, C. E. (2001). Leapfrogging, Urban Sprawl, and Growth Management: Phoenix, 19502000. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 245283.

PAGE 83

83 Jacobs, J. (2003). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. In S. Campbell, & S. S. Janney, J. J. (1978). Jo hn Jay Janney's Virginia: an American farm lad's life in the early 19th century. McLean, Va: EMP Publications. Kite, E. S. (1970). L'Enfant and Washington. New York: Arno Press and New York Times. Kurban, H., & Persky, J. (2007). Do Metropolitan Areas with Rich Central Cities Experience Less Sprawl? Economic Development Quarterly 179184. Lambert, T. E., & Meyer, P. B. (2006). Ex Urban Sprawl as a Factor in Traffic Fatalities and EMS Response Times in the Southeastern United States. Journal of Economic Is sues XL (4), 941953. Lansing, J. B., & Hendricks, G. (1967). Automobile Ownership and Residential Density. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Leinberger, C. B. (2007). Footloose and Fancy Free: A Fi eld Survey of Walkable Urban Places in the Top 30 Metropolitan Areas. The Brookings Institute, Metropolitan Policy Program. Washington: The Brookings Institute. Leinberger, C. B. (2007). The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream. Washington, DC: Island Press. Lipman, B. J. (2006). A Heavy Load: The Combined Housing and Transportation Burdens of Working Families. Washington, DC: Center For Housing Policy. Lewyn, M. E. (2002). Why Sprawl is a Conservative Issue, Part II. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from Republicans for Environmental Protection: http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol6/ge6.2_sprawl2.html Mann, R. (2002). Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation: An Antidote to Sprawl? WIDENER LAW SYMPOSIUM JOURNAL 207236. Michelson, W. (1977). Envir onmental Choice, Human Behavior, and Residential Satisfaction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Natsios, D. (2005). National Security Sprawl. In B. McGrath, Sensing the 21st Century City: Close up and Remote (pp. 8085). London: Wiley Academy. Nel son, A. C., & Dueker, K. J. (1990). The Exurbanization of America and Its Planning Policy Implications. Journal of Planning Education and Research 91100. O'Connell, J. (2007, November 23). Streetcars Desired. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from Washington Business Journal: http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2007/11/26/story10.html?b=119605 3200% 5E1554622

PAGE 84

84 Office of the District of Colu mbia Auditor. (2001). Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. Retrieved October 1, 2008, from Office of the District of Columbia Auditor: Deborah K. Nichols, esq: http://www.dcauditor.org/anc.asp Ohls, J. C., & Pines, D. (1975, August 3). Discontinous Urban Dev elopment and Economic Efficiency. Land Economics 22434. Paley, A. R. (2005, August 5). In Outer Suburbs, Lighting Up the Night. Washington Post p. A01. Peck, M. C. (2005). Washington Dulles International Airport. Charleston, SC : Arcadia Publishing. Pe ndall R, 1999, "Do landuse controls cause sprawl?" Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26(4) 555 571 Reed, A. J. (1987). A Critique of NeoProgressivism in Theorizing about Local Development Policy: A Case from Atlanta. In C. N. Stone, & H. T. Sanders, The Politics of Urban Development (pp. 199215). Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas. Rice, A. (2006, March 5). The Suburban Solution. Retrieved October 1, 2008, from The New York Times Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/maga zine/305affordable_rice.1.html?pagewanted=pri nt Rich, R. C. (1977). Equity and Institutional Design in Urban Service Delivery. Urban Affairs Review pp. 383410. Richards, M. D. (1988). Struggle for Democracy A Local Sociopolitical History of Washington, District of Columbia. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from DC Vote: http://www.dcvote.org/trellis/struggle/historyofdcvotingrights MDR.cfm?print=1 Rome, A. (2001). The Bulldozer in the Countryside: Suburban Sprawl and the Rise of American Environmentalism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Schwartzman, P. (2007, May 2). HighLevel Debate on Future of D.C. The Washington Post p. B01. Shields, M., & Shideler, D. (2003). Do Commuters Free Ride? Estimating the Impacts of Interjurisdictional Commuting on Lo cal Public Goods Expenditures. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy 33 (1), 2742. Shoup, D. (2008, August 3). Washington Should Plan for People, Not Cars. The Washington Post pp. B 08. Snyder, T. (2008, April). A Giant Missed Opportunity. East of t he River pp. 4041.

PAGE 85

85 Song, Y., & Zenou, Y. (2006). Property Tax and Urban S prawl: Theory and Implications for US Cities. Journal of Urban Economics 519534. Squires, G. D. (2002). Experiencing Residential Segregation: A Contemporary Study of Washington, D.C. Urban Affairs Review pp. 155183. Strauss, R. P. (1998). The Income of Central City and Suburban Migrants: A Case Study of the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. National Tax Journal 51 (3), 493516. The United States General Accounting Office. (2 003). District of Columbia: Structural Imbalance and Management Issues. Washington: United States General Accounting Office. Time Magazine. (1929, May 26). Federal City. Retrieved Feburary 9th, 2008, from Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar ticle/0,9171,7322854,00.html Tischler & Associates. (2002, July). Retrieved December 9, 2007, from Fiscal Impact Analysis of Residential and Nonresidential Land Use Prototypes: http://amiba.net/pdf/barnstable_fiscal_impact_report.pdf USA Today. (2001 Fe burary 21). Wide Open Spaces: The USA Today Sprawl Index. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/sprawl/masterlist.htm United States Census. (2005). 2005 US Census Estimates. Washington, DC: United States Census. United St ates Census. (2006). 2006 Estimates. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau United States Census Bureau. (1960). 1960 United States Census. Washington: United States Census Bureau. United States Census Bureau. (1970). 1970 United States Census. Washin gton: United States Census Bureau. United States Census Bureau. (1990). 1990 United States Census. Washington: United States Census Bureau. United States Census Bureau. (2000). 2000 United States Census. Washington: United States Census Bureau. United States Census Bureau. (2004). 2004 Estimates. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau. United States Census Bureau. (2006). 2006 United States Census Estimates. Washington: United States Census Bureau. United States Constitution Article 1 Section 8. (n.d.) Unied States Constitution

PAGE 86

86 United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on District of Columbia. (2004, June 24). Structural Imbalance in the District of Columbia. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from The United States Governme nt Printing Office GPO: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:96426.pdf US Fed News. (2006, December 15). Delegate Norton: President Signs Land Transfer Bill Bringing Valuable Sites for New Housing, Facilities, Partial Payment for Structural Deficeit. US Fed News Whitman, R. D., & Seigmund, F. (2005, June). District of Columbia Employment Projections by Industry and Occupation, 20022012. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from D.C. Department of Employment Services, Office of Labor Market Research and Information.: http://www.does.dc.gov/does/frames.asp?doc=/does/lib/does/info/ep2.62105.pdf Williams, B. (1988). Upscaling Downtown: Stalled Gentrification in Washington, DC. Ithica, New York: Cornell University Press. Williamson, T. (2002). Sprawl, Politics, and Participation: A Preliminary Analysis. National Civic Review 235244. World Commision on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. New York: Oxfo rd University Press.www.sprawlcity.org. (2000). Sprawl City. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from How Bad is Sprawl?: http://www.sprawlcity.org/hbis/index.html Wyatt, E. W. (2007). Tax Rates and Tax Burdens in the District of Columbia: A Nationwide Comparison 2006. Washington, DC: District of Columbia Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Office of Revenue Analysis. Wyatt, E. W. (2007). Tax Rates and Tax Burdens: Washington Metropolitan Area 2006. Washington, DC: District of Columbia Office of the Chief Financia l Officer, Office of Revenue Analysis.

PAGE 87

87 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Matthew Neal Helfant was born in New Jersey and moved to Florida at a young age. He did his undergraduate studies at University of Central Florida g raduating with a B.A. in History and Political Science. After graduation he moved to Washington, DC. In Washington he worked for one of the two shadow Senators representing the District of Columbia and served as an Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner in the Tenleytown Nei ghborhood. After Wa shington, he moved to Iowa to work on Florida Senator and Governor Bob Grahams campaign for the Pr esidency. After that campaign he continued campaign work and then went back to school for a M.S. in Political Science at Florida State University. After gr aduation he moved back to Washington and worked for a lobbying firm. He moved from Washington to Denver to work on another campaign before deciding to go back to school to pursue a M.A. in Urban and Region al Planning at the University of Florida.