Having attended the recent League of Women Voters (LOWV) sponsored debate on growth in Mount Vernon, I thought I’d simply list a few key points concerning what I heard there.

1) Though Don Cell’s piece in the Sun leading into the debate may have given some the impression the event would feature pro-growth and anti-growth panelists, it really featured proponents of two different kinds of growth: conventional suburban growth (Rick Elliot and Richard Snavely) and thoughtful growth informed by principles of New Urbanism (Dick Peterson). The remaining panelist (Gretchen Sutherland) voiced support mainly for a new road between the Stonebrook development and the North side of town.

2) The pro-conventional-growth panelists said the same things they’ve said all along: They believe the Stonebrook development has adhered to the Comprehensive Plan. They think any objections to the design of Stonebrook (and other conventional developments such as the Wolfe addition) are merely matters of “taste.”

3) Dick Peterson did a superb job of outlining the reasons why a design making more use of New Urban principles, built on a more human scale, is superior to conventional suburban design. It is not simply a matter of taste. It’s an appreciation of the lessons of design which evolved over hundreds or years prior to the birth and domination of the American suburb after World War II. I will add to Dick’s points with the observation that New Urban principles tend to create developments which are less oil dependent, and so less damaging to the environment. Dick even provided handouts and a laptop slide show illustrating photographically the differences between typical suburban development such as Stonebrook, and those using more thoughtful principles such as those found in New Urbanism. He described, as well, observations he’d made in traveling to two such developments, one in Illinois, the other in Wisconsin.

4) There was brief debate concerning the question, “Does residential development pay for itself?” On this topic, the pro-conventional-growth panelists demonstrated having done no research at all. In fact, the only point either offered as evidence of their contention that it does pay for itself was Rick Elliot’s assertion that our tax rates have not gone up. Dick Peterson countered that, on the other hand, his street had gone to hell. (This is a common problem. A town allows ongoing residential growth which costs more in services than the revenues it generates, and the tax revenues spent to make up the difference then take away from road repair and other services.) Elliot suggested that was because the city had spent so much money on parks in recent years. One wonders if city in good financial health should be able to develop parks and maintain roads at the same time.

I’ll add that it is deceptive to say our tax rates haven’t gone up. We had to pass an 8.9 million dollar bond issue to build a new high school. When costs are thus routed to us in ways not reflected in our “tax rate,” it’s all too easy to say “tax rates haven’t gone up.” There is a reason why bigger communities tend consistently to have higher tax rates.

Dick was generous to his adversaries, however, in allowing that “the jury is out” on whether development does in fact pay for itself. While it’s true there are probably isolated instances in which it does, they are quite unlikely to involve conventional suburban development such as we see here. The developments which come closest to paying for themselves tend to be more compact. Moreover, as I’ve shown here, there is a great deal of evidence suggesting residential development rarely fails to cost more to serve than the tax dollars it brings in.

5) Dick drew on his years on the Planning and zoning Commission to explain to the audience that in recent years MV has had in place two very different growth policies: the official policy (the Comprehensive Plan), and the de facto policy, the latter being the approach to growth carried out by many officials including most members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and some members of the City Council. The de facto policy has favored developers and largely ignored the Comprehensive Plan. I was glad Dick described this state of affairs as I don’t believe most residents here have been aware of it.

6) I thought is was a shame the LOWV did not recruit anyone for the panel who advocates a strict no-growth policy. Audience questions indicated that I’m not the only person here who sees the importance of such a stance. It appears other residents would like more discussion of the no-growth option. (One question, for instance, pointed to cities which thrive despite low or no population growth. And it wasn’t from me! :) )

7) The topic of local population growth per se did not receive the attention it warrants. This was due, it seems, to the perception that MV’s growth had not been fast enough in recent years for the issue to concern us. For instance, we might notice that MV’s population has only grown by about 353 people in the last 14 years. Therefore, since 353/14 ~ 25, we might expect to continue growing by only 25 people per year. At that rate, it would take 80 years to add another 2,000 people.

Over just a few years this sort of quick approximation probably isn’t far off the mark for a town as small as MV. And had I not done a good deal of research on this topic in recent months I probably wouldn’t be complaining about it. But it turns out there’s a problem with it that causes it seriously to underestimate population growth over longer periods: It doesn’t account for the increasing number of births each year as a function of the growing population base.

In other words, to project population growth more accurately, you need to add not the same number (25) each year, but a number which increases every year (though the birth rate may stay the same) in direct proportion to the size of the population base producing it. (The number of course increases even more if the birth rate or immigration levels go up.) This is another way of saying that populations tend to grow exponentially. You can understand this intuitively simply by thinking about how many births a town of, say, 30 might produce in a year at a given birth rate (e.g., 2.5 children per woman of childbearing years), versus a town of, say, 30,000 with the same birth rate.

The result is that while growth will often look unremarkable (not much different, in fact, from simply adding a small fixed number each year) for a number of years, as the population grows the numbers begin accelerating, soon producing an alarming rate of growth. This is what causes the familiar phenomenon of a town’s growth seeming to sneak up on residents who observe, for example, that “the community seemed to grow slowly for a long time, but has grown amazingly fast in the last few years.” It’s also what produces almost unbelievable graphs such as the one I posted some weeks ago illustrating world population growth.

Taking into account the exponential nature of population growth, then, we have to project MV’s population to grow more in the coming years than an we would otherwise expect. City officials cite a growth rate of 1.5% in recent years. That’s about right if you use census data from 1990 to 2004. At that relatively low rate, based on a current population of 4,000 (It’s actually a bit higher), I’ve mentioned here before that the math of exponential growth shows a MV population more than tripling (adding 8,000 people) in 74 years, or about one lifetime.

But that 1.5% figure is based on past years. What can we say about today? I think few would need convincing that MV’s growth rate is increasing. The growth of Cedar Rapids and Iowa city has made MV more attractive to many as a bedroom community. There is a larger trend, as well, toward migration away from larger cities to smaller towns, and MV is just the kind of town for which many of these migrants are looking. Brisk sales in the newer developments such as Stonebrook further suggest a quickening of local growth. What, then, if we make reasonable adjustments to account for the likely higher growth rate of today? The Mount Vernon Development Corporation projects about a 5% growth rate in the next few years, expecting to add about 1,000 new residents in fewer than five years. But to be conservative, let’s split the difference between our two estimates and assume a 3.25% growth rate. At that rate, the same 74 years would have MV achieving a population of nearly 43,000 people! Is that what we want?

What if we knew growth would only be modest?
With all that said about exponential growth, what if it didn’t exist? What if, in MV, we did only have to worry about adding another 1,000 or 2,000 people over the next several decades? Clearly, if that were the case, we should still reject growth! The growth industry has lied to us, telling us we “need” growth. See the essays on growth myths to understand that statement. That’s what they want us to believe because the truth is that development lines their pockets while destroying land and doing nothing for the community other than ultimately raising its tax rates (or eroding its services). (Richard Snavely came close to admitting this when he was unble to come up with any benefit growth would have for an existing resident.) By accepting growth we only appease and support those who have spread that propaganda. Moreover, we’ve entered an age when our national growth has exceeded our land’s carrying capacity, and environmental degradation is at an all time high with catastrophic losses underway around the world. By accepting growth we abdicate our responsibility to future generations to preserve a livable, healthy natural environment capable of supporting a decent quality of life. Further growth here and in most mature towns is completely unnecessary and is, in fact, harmful. For much more on this, please refer to prior posts here and the sources to which they link. I would recommend especially the Gabor Zovanyi article about which I wrote some weeks ago. There are additional compelling reasons for rejecting growth which I’ve not touched on so far at the Small Town Project. They’ll be featured in upcoming posts.

While I fully agree with those who are sad to see conventional subdivisions being built here and who argue for better, more human design, I hope this post has provided enough reason for most readers to put concern over growth on the front burner.

I would submit that MV should take a hard, perhaps painful look at the portion of its Comprehensive Plan which advocates population growth as though we “need” it. It may well be that even the bright, informed, and well meaning folks who created the plan, publishing it in 1995, were influenced (as nearly all of us were at the time) by the pervasive growth machine propaganda which tells us we “need” growth. Rest assured, that is the portion of the Plan the growth machine loves to see.

Additional note: Though I’ve attended at least three previous league event of this sort, this was the first at which a League representative read a long justification for their restricting audience comments to written questions. I and others had complained previously about this feature, so perhaps the League was trying to demonstrate some level of responsiveness to our complaints. However, the reasons for their use of written questions have always been apparent. (They prevent audience members from voicing personal attacks against panelists, etc.) And the shortcomings of the system remain. It works better in a debate format because to some extent the audience can expect the debaters to confront one another with their deceptions, misstatements, and the like. For “meet the candidates” events, “discussions,” and other non-debate events, it makes far less sense. Such events, in which no one has the chance to confront presenters on misleading statements, often verge on being propaganda venues. To take 100% of the risk of annoying audience behavior out of an event in the manner by which the League does so is, unfortunately, to take the life and substance out of it as well. I hope they’ll still consider a change.