Session Discussion: Can Land Use Economists Help Planners?

Abstract

T his session's authors do a wonderful job of providing empirical evidence on the population and employment growth patterns currently reshaping the American landscape. Traditional land use patterns are being replaced by new alternatives in many areas and reverting to old patterns in other places. Suburbs and rural communities are being inundated with lowto medium-density residential development, often considered sprawl by longer term residents. Many American cities are de-densifying, with populations dropping while land coverage increases. On the other hand, a few cities are experiencing rebirth and increased density as inner-cities redevelop with luxury high rises and mixed-use communities. Since these trends will drive infrastructure spending decisions, understanding and predicting them is important. The difficulty in predicting and explaining these trends lies in their genesis: millions of people making individual decisions on where to live, work, send their kids to school, etc. Because of the multiplicity of factors inherent in our decisions about lifestyle choices, explaining such decisions with statistical precision is an incredibly difficult task. However, attempts must be made because government officials need guidance in allocating budgets for new roads, schools, water treatment plants, and all the other capital investments that support our modern lifestyle. Incorrect growth forecasts mean billions (or trillions) of tax dollars wasted. The dollar amounts at stake are phenomenal; in 2000, road expenditures alone totaled $127 billion nationwide (U.S. Department of Transportation). Thus, this area of research is of the highest importance. The paper by Partridge et al. looks at where jobs are being created and finds that employment growth in locations near an urban center exceeds that in areas farther away, but the effect is not overwhelming. Further, they find that natural