An unknown sage is credited with this wisdom, “experience is what you get when you get what you don’t want.” Experience can also be costly. Blindly following a “nothing is to good for our children” philosophy has led Michigan to a future that is likely to achieve just the opposite. After passing a state law that tied school operating funds to school population a competition for students began. Five hundred new schools were built and 278 older schools were closed. These schools were built outside existing communities to accommodate a 4.5% growth in student enrollment that will shrink 1.5% in the next 30 years. Now that property taxes are rising and school related debt has increased since 1994 from $4 billion to $12 billion, questions are being asked. What have we done? School districts are building lavish new schools with marketing campaigns to attract new students and their families to abandon their established communities in favor of a low-density pseudo rural lifestyle. Michigan is now consuming land eight times faster than it is growing population. Although Michigan is growing slowly it is one of the fastest sprawling states. School location decisions seem to be playing a significant role in this expensive growth trend. To learn from the mistakes of others check out this report in the Great Lakes Bulletin News Service prepared by Mac McClelland and Keith Schneider for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the Michigan Land Use Institute, Hard Lessons: The real cost of Michigan’s school construction boom.

Some of the lessons learned and recommendations include:

·“In every case we studied, building a new school cost more than renovating an older one.

·The broader the public’s involvement in school construction decisions, the more effectively a school board develops long-term, less costly solutions.

·Establish renovating existing schools as the top priority; constructing new schools in existing neighborhoods the next priority; and constructing new schools in farm fields the last resort. Schools must conserve land and reduce costs through more efficient site design, and sharing playing fields, athletic stadiums, and recreational facilities among different schools and the community.

·Persuade districts to submit long-term construction and improvement plans to local governments for review and comment. School boards and local government should ensure that such plans are incorporated into community master plans.

·Encourage districts to improve their system of assessing the condition and capacity of all school facilities by avoiding “free” feasibility studies from architects and construction managers and instead paying for independent assessments that provide truly accurate information about the costs of both renovation and new construction. These assessments must include a comprehensive comparison of the costs of building a new school versus renovating an existing one, including all short and long-range land, infrastructure, staffing, and transportation expenses.

·Amend the Michigan School Bond Loan Program to strongly encourage schools to stay in existing neighborhoods.

·Provide additional financial incentives to upgrade school buildings to urban school districts to level the playing field with their suburban neighbors.”

We recently provided master planning services to the Webster Parish School Board that led to a successful tax election to invest in Minden, Louisiana school improvements. The school board and the community worked together through the planning process to formulate and evaluate plans to invest for the future. The idea of a new large edge school was considered and consolidation concepts were compared to reinvesting in existing campuses. The community saw the benefits and cost advantages of reinvesting. The decision of this historic small town positions it as a “Competitive Community”. Improving existing schools and rebuilding on existing sites sets the stage for redeveloping neighborhoods and building the future on qualities that can increase the uniqueness value of this community.

Also check out the 3.17.04 Competitive Communities entry, Schooling Growth and a 1.4.04 entry, Exploring Connections between Brainpower and Quality Place

How does your community grow? Is it the latest trend development? Or is it planned? Is it low density on the edge? Or is it compact and maybe a redevelopment area? How do you know which form of growth is best? Do growth patterns affect economic development? Is there some means of comparing costs and benefits of planned verses low-density trend development? These are important questions for competitive communities.

Shrinking public resources, increasing public infrastructure needs and pressure to improve economic performance are overwhelming the best-intended community leaders. It makes since that planned compact forms of development require less infrastructure and public services than unplanned low-density trend development. It is less obvious that thoughtfully planned communities enhance regional economic performance. Measuring the impacts and costs of growth help identify problems created by current policies. Savings and earnings from better-planned growth will provide competitive communities an edge in future.

To add to the research the Brookings Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy released a March 2004 discussion paper by Mark Muro and Robert Puentes, Investing in a Better Future: A review of the Fiscal and Competitive Advantages of Smarter Growth Development Patterns. The following are summary points and quotes from the paper:

·“The cost of providing public infrastructure and delivering services can be reduced through thoughtful design and planning. Several studies suggest that rational use of more compact development patterns from 2000 to 2025 promise the following sorts of savings for governments nationwide: 11.8 percent, or $110 billion, from 25-year road building costs; 6 percent, or $12.6 billion, from 25-year water and sewer costs; and 3.7 percent, or $4 billion, for annual operations and service delivery. School-construction savings are somewhat less.

·Regional economic performance is enhanced when areas are developed with community benefits and the promotion of vital urban centers in mind. Studies show that productivity and overall economic performance may be improved to the extent compact, mixed-use development fosters dense labor markets, vibrant urban centers, efficient transportation systems, and a high “quality-of-place." Productivity increases with county employment density. Communities that practice growth management realize improved personal income shares over time.

·Suburbs also benefit from investment in healthy urban cores. Finally, studies suggest that to the extent these smarter development patterns foster equity in regions by improving center-city incomes and vitality, they will also enhance the economic well being of the suburbs as well as the city. City income growth has been shown to increase suburban income, house prices, and population. Reduced city poverty rates have also been associated with metropolitan income growth.”


“…This paper makes the case that during times of tight budgets, more efficient and beneficial growth strategies make more sense than ever. As these strategies become more widespread, the challenge for the research community will be to move beyond the obvious fiscal savings and continue to quantify the profound effects on economic competitiveness, equity, and quality of life available through better planning and community design. Ultimately, these issues lie at the crux of what better development is really all about.”

“…Smart growth appears to offer governments the possibility of quantifiable fiscal savings over time through the reduction of capital-facility and service-delivery costs. It also promises regional economic and productivity gains. Finally, it likely will enhance both urban and suburban income levels.”

For additional resources check out the 11/24/02 Competitive Communities entry, Establishing Policies for Quality Place.