Rampant growth carries hidden costs

By FORREST ROSE
Columbia Daily Tribune Commentary, February 8, 2005

Let’s hear it for the good people of Harg, who managed to collect enough signatures in Columbia to stymie the largest proposed annexation in city history. In doing so, they stalled a development that would bring more than 1,800 homes, a golf course and commercial businesses butting up against their rural hamlet.

No one should be surprised that the group Harg Area for Responsible Growth, or HARG, was easily able to round up the required signatures. The group’s success reflects a general feeling of disquiet in Columbia about the long-term effects of rampant development on our splendid little city and the surrounding countryside.

Moreover, a lot of residents are starting to suspect that our city government, in its relentless pursuit of revenue, will embrace any and all proposed developments, regardless of the strains they impose on the infrastructure and competing needs of the central city. This suspicion was confirmed for many by the fact that the enormous west-side Wal-Mart Supercenter recently gained city council approval in spite of the overwhelming opposition of the citizenry.

Despite the widening popular sentiment against go-go growth, HARG’s victory will almost certainly prove to be a hollow one.

The combination of Columbia’s wild appetite for annexation and the developer’s natural desire to make a maximum profit will inevitably override any piffling dissent. It is almost certain that Billy Sapp will eventually build that dream development on his 965-acre tract.

Some people like to say the city has a superior planning process. That’s a hoot.

What the city has is a superior sewage system: the fruits of generous federal funding in happier times. Only Columbia has the consolidated sewage system that can handle the kind of volume generated by thousands of new residences and businesses.

The upside for the city is that it can tax-bill the developers to finance the laying of new sewer lines, a cost the builder passes on to the home buyers. It’s a sweet deal, up to a point. The city, of course, will have to provide police, fire, road maintenance and a host of other services to the new development, although the tax-revenue equation is supposed to come out on the plus side.

But there are also hidden costs that don’t come directly out of the city coffers. For example, the proposed Sapp City project, like other fringe developments, will put a heavy burden on the roads - in this case, state Route WW. Because sewers aren’t the only things that get clogged, motorists will soon complain about the traffic snarls they are sure to encounter daily.
The Missouri Department of Transportation, with chief responsibility for the state road, will be urged to widen it and maybe build another exit on Interstate 70 to accommodate the commuters. It’s no wonder MoDOT is always broke.

Other complications arising from Columbia’s Khan-like annexation policies are the "islands" of unincorporated land within the new city limits. The situation creates mind-boggling inconsistencies in road building and maintenance, in fire and police protection, and in ordinances ranging from planning and zoning to open burning.

It’s also worthwhile to question whether the city’s constant sprawl in all directions could cause it to neglect the needs of the central city, where the homeowners in general are not as well-heeled as those in the swanky new suburbs. Because new developments are subject to tax-billing, the municipal Public Works Department is ever-ready to outfit those areas with good sewers and wide sidewalks, knowing it will be reimbursed for the work.
As a result, the philosophy of public works as a shared responsibility is being replaced by a fee-for-service approach that tends to favor the well-off.

Although firebrands on both sides might see it as such, the controversy is not as simple as being pro-growth or anti-growth. Property owners have a right to develop their land and make money on it, and city officials have only a limited say in the matter.

They do have some say, however, and so far they have offered hardly a single discouraging word. Growth will always be a municipal priority, but it shouldn’t be the sole priority.

If growth is the whole point of the exercise, we put at risk the quality of life that is a vital part of Columbia’s long-term health and prosperity. The object is not to be the biggest city - it’s to be the best.