Understanding impacts of growth patterns is no small challenge. Market forces and public policies have evolved into an addictive, land consuming belief in a lifestyle that requires unsustainable levels of public investment. Competitive Communities are investigating actual costs of community growth patterns and reevaluating policies that, over time, contributed to many undesirable outcomes. The methodology starts with documenting trends that have impacted community long-term health – economically, environmentally and socially. In order to effectively change policy the problems must be understood. It is difficult to achieve consensus on solutions when there is no agreement on problems that new rules will solve. Communities are in need of better tools to manage growth in a more cost efficient manner. Increased taxes and public use fees are trends accompanied by reduced levels of public services. Do these trends parallel community growth patterns? You bet! If you need more proof its time to organize your community and invest in a growth trends impact analysis.

One challenge of your perception is a look at retail trade in your community. Do you think this sector has added jobs and business establishments? Check out FedStats. Click on your state and then enter your city. Click on the link to HUD’s state of the cities data system and check out retail trade. If your community is not managing growth, chances are, you will see a decline between 1990 and 2000 in the number of both jobs and business establishments. It is also likely that you will find that average wages in this category have also gone backwards. Does the lack of community growth policies contribute to the decline? Unmanaged growth is like trying to run your communities’ largest company without a business plan.

Organizing non-profit, public purpose, groups as implementers responsible for specific area comprehensive plans keep focus on accountability and public return on investment. These plans provide advocacy tools, for attracting investment and managing impacts of development or redevelopment projects, to improve long-term community health. It is often difficult for communities experiencing rapid outward growth and accelerating inner community decline to wait for plans to address issues from what Bruce Katz of the Brookings Institute refers to as “hyper sprawl”. To provide an interim means for evaluating projects until appropriate plans can be developed the Congress for New Urbanism and the EPA have published a “Smart Scorecard for Development Projects” (SPS). This checklist approach uses “Smart Growth” objectives to assist community leaders interested in better understanding the positive and negative outcomes of projects. Smart Growth objectives listed in this publication include:

· To help minimize the impacts of new development (public infrastructure costs, congestion, air pollution, loss of agriculture land, etc.);
· To provide greater accessibility and choices in how we move about from home, work, shopping and leisure activities;
· To stabilize and improve the long-term financial performance for commercial and homeowners;
· To maximize the return from public investments in existing and new roads, schools, utilities, transit systems, bridges, waterways, etc;
· To protect natural habitat and watersheds for the future; and
· To foster a greater sense of connection, responsibility and continuity for citizens with their communities.

The SPS includes the following ten checklist categories:

1. Proximity to existing / future development and infrastructure;
2. Mix and balance of uses;
3. Site optimization and compactness;
4. Accessibility and mobility choices;
5. Community context and site design;
6. Fined-grained block, pedestrian and park network;
7. Environmental quality;
8. Diversity;
9. Re-use and redevelopment options;
10. Process collaboration and predictability of decisions

Although this scorecard is useful it is not an adequate substitute for comprehensive planning that includes economic, physical and social strategies.