The Crushing Cost of Sprawl

William Fulton, writing for the LA Times, provides some good insight into the struggles of cities to stay solvent

The recent bankruptcies of Stockton and San Bernardino have again highlighted the fragility of many California cities’ finances. In each case, the burden of public pensions has been blamed for the financial problems. However true that may be in the short run, the pension blame game masks another, deeper problem for the state’s taxpayers: the hidden but crushing cost of sprawl.

As William notes, there is a better way:

By contrast, responsible “smart growth” development — in both urban and green-field areas — can offer cities a way out of this financial box. By placing things closer together, smart growth reduces the amount, and cost, of roads and other infrastructure. By reducing the miles all those public vehicles have to travel, compact development lightens the load on taxpayers to provide those neighborhoods with public services. And by using land more efficiently, compact development generates more tax revenue — in some cases more than 100 times more tax revenue per acre than suburban sprawl.

100 times more tax revenue per acre! 100 times more revenue. And that’s just revenue. Compact development also more efficiently utilizes resources. Streets, utilities, and services all cost less per capita.