President Clinton's multibillion-dollar land-acquisition program aimed at curbing what environmentalists call "urban sprawl," may have the opposite effect on development and pollution.

According to a new study by the Reason Public Policy Institute, solutions to urban sprawl -- called "smart growth initiatives -- actually restrict where people can live -- "concrete jungles with no connection with the natural environment."

"Urban sprawl" is the name give to the suburbanization of rural areas that some environmentalists believe is luring people away from the cities and threatening farm lands, open spaces and the environment.

David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a Washington think tank, said the campaign to limit suburban development may be a cure worse than the illness.

"Ironically, urban sprawl is far more likely to become a problem with the president's anti-sprawl campaign than without it," Ridenour said.

The study by the Reason Public Policy Institute found that less than 5% of the land area of the United States has been developed, with 75% of the nation's population living on just 3.5% of the land area.

Further, the study found that in more than three-quarters of the states, over 90% of the land is used for such rural purposes as forestry, pasture, wildlife preservation and parks. Farmland loss to development -- once a serious problem -- has declined from 6.2% per decade during the 1960's to 2.7% now.

And Americans need less farmland today. Demand for agricultural land has been declining due to technological advances, such as fertilizers, biotechnology and pesticides, that have increased crop yields. Agricultural output increased by more than 28% in the 1990's alone, according to the study.

The study found that the Clinton Administration's anti-sprawl campaign could create new problems.

By buying rural lands for open space and parks, the Administration could increase land prices in already developing suburban areas, placing home ownership out of the reach of Americans of modest means.

Which is what a similar program in Portland, Oregon produced. Portland went from being one of the nation's most affordable cities to one of the five or six least affordable.

Because families have an especially strong demand for the open space, large lot sizes, better schools and low crime rates that typically accompany low-density living, rising city and suburban prices caused by the Administration's program could cause people to move to even more rural areas, beyond the reach of the Administration's program.

This would mean longer commutes and, yes, more automobile emissions: precisely the opposite of what the Administration says it wants.

Even if the Administration's plan did successfully force Americans to live closer together in large urban areas, it is questionable that this would be good for the environment.

Economist Randal O'Toole found that cities with the highest densities also have the highest smog ratings.

And the study also found that the fairness argument -- where pro-smart growth advocates contend that urban dwellers should not be forced to subsidize suburbanites who require new roads, sewers and other infrastructure -- may also be questionable.

On average, the study found, people in low-density areas consume less government services than those in urban areas. At the same time, they also pay a tax imposed explicitly for the construction of infrastructure that many urban dwellers don't -- state and federal gas taxes.

Published: February 22, 1999

Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws.