Sunday, January 18, 2009
By J.B. Smith
Tribune-Herald staff writer
It might seem like a Texan’s birthright to sprawl, to stake out an acre or two just outside the city lights, with plenty of elbow room between you and your neighbor.
But in McLennan County, that dream is on a collision course with fiscal realities. Local planners say that if current growth patterns continue over the next 25 years, it will cost $3 billion to build roads to new growth areas. And they can no longer depend on state and federal governments to do the heavy lifting.
In recent years, Greater Waco has seen an unprecedented amount of scattered low-density development, known as urban sprawl. Between 1995 and 2005, 72 percent of development acreage in McLennan County was outside the recognized urban boundaries of Waco and its suburbs, according to the Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization.
The county’s population grew 11 percent during those 10 years, but developed acreage increased by 22 percent, suggesting a pattern of growth that is half as dense as the historic norm.
A December 2007 study commissioned by the Waco MPO predicted that if current growth patterns continue, 45.7 square miles of land would be consumed by 2030, based on a population increase conservatively estimated at 45,319.
That’s a land mass equivalent to 70 Cameron Parks.
The study by Waco MPO, which represents Waco-area cities in transportation decisions, called the current growth pattern “astonishing” and ultimately unaffordable.
“The Waco MPO recognizes that continuing unfettered growth in rural areas is unsustainable while much infill development potential remains unrealized,” states the final report from the study by Wilbur Smith Associates. “Certain transportation projects are likely to promote this sprawllike development pattern and encourage low-density rural growth, which in turn can only be accommodated by expensive, capacity-increasing highway projects.”
Waco MPO director Chris Evilia says the Texas Department of Transportation has traditionally funded the arterial road system that has served Waco’s growth corridors, such as West Highway 84. Now that money has dried up, and local government can’t afford to make up the difference, Evilia said. He expects the state will provide only about $500 million of the $3 billion in identified needs for 2035, and much of that will go to Interstate 35.
“It leaves us in a quandary,” Evilia said. “The message we have to send for the time being is that we are restricted as to what we can do in the outlying areas. If it’s a safety problem, we’re required to address that. Other than that, we don’t have money for many other projects.”
MPO planners this year are preparing a 25-year plan for highway projects, and they’re rethinking their old priorities. They are now hoping to focus development in areas that already have infrastructure development and avoid road projects that could lead to more urban sprawl.
For example, the MPO is pulling back from its earlier recommendation to expand Highway 6 to four lanes on the west side of Lake Waco, from McLaughlin Road to Compton Road.
The original project cost was to be $36.5 million, but it may be reduced to a much more modest project.
“That doesn’t look like a project that’s going to happen,” Evilia said. “It’s too expensive. The whole issue for that area is, how much do you want to encourage people to move into that part of the county?”
Even high-priority projects have become difficult to fund, Evilia said. For example, the expansion of congested China Spring Road is scheduled to begin in 2012, but only $1.6 million of the required $25.6 million has been identified.
City Manager Larry Groth said the problem with urban sprawl doesn’t end with roads.
“It’s every service we provide,” he said. “Water, sewer, police, fire, public transportation, solid waste pickup. Any time you have to drive more to serve people, it costs you money.”
Groth said the city could pass restrictions to limit growth in its extraterritorial jurisdiction, which extends five miles from the city limits. But he said he would rather focus on encouraging infill development in existing parts of town.
“I believe if you do things right in the inner city, people will want to live here,” he said. “If we can offer great jobs, a great community and amenities, that thought of moving to the country and getting your own acre will be less appealing than staying in the city.”
The Greater Waco Chamber of Commerce is about to kick off a yearlong community planning process to find ways to bring people back to the area it refers to as “Greater Downtown,” extending from Baylor to Cameron Park and into East Waco.
Chamber officials are proposing as a goal to capture half the growth of McLennan County within that area by 2050. By the chamber’s growth projections — much more aggressive than the MPO’s estimates — that would mean 80,000 more people in the inner city.
The vision is for a dense, pedestrian-friendly environment where people can live, shop and work without having to drive.
If that’s the community’s goal, it’s time to focus public money in the inner city instead of the outskirts of town, said chamber urban planning director Chris McGowan.
“We know that development follows infrastructure,” he said. “It’s time for us to decide how we want to grow as community. This isn’t anti-growth at all. It’s about smarter growth.”
Builder Steve Sorrells is constructing suburban-style homes in Badger Ranch and The Enclave, but he sees a growing market for more urban living.
“I think you’re going to be seeing overall trends toward more density,” he said. “The high-density urban development will appeal to people migrating into Texas, and we’re going to have a tremendous amount of that.”
Sorrells said he supports the city’s goal of higher density development, but he’s wary of any efforts to restrict development in outlying areas. And he said he finds it “somewhat concerning” that planners would scale back improvements to Highway 6 to limit development west of Lake Waco. He said the Speegleville area is a prime growth area.
“That’s the next place it’s going to go,” he said.
Councilman Jim Bush, a commercial builder who represents West Waco, said he believes the growing market for urban dwellings will cool the trend toward sprawl.
He said as baby boomers begin to retire, they are reconsidering the wisdom in living in large, isolated houses. Meanwhile, younger residents are less attracted to the suburban lives of their parents and more interested in city life.
“Those people aren’t going to want to sprawl out as much as their parents did,” he said. “I think you’re really going to see less of the mind-set of, ‘Let’s go way out and buy two acres and put a house on it,’ ” he said. “I think the market’s going to dictate it.”
jbsmith@wacotrib.com
757-5752
Comments
By Julia
Jan 21, 2009 9:20 PM | Link to this
The solution is to make the developers of these new areas pay for the infrastructure to serve and support them. The Developers then pass the costs onto the buyers.
This is a 'user fee' for infrastructure that is only fair.
By Realist
Jan 20, 2009 4:59 PM | Link to this
Betty
How long ago was that? How long do you hold grudges?
By betty
Jan 19, 2009 10:00 PM | Link to this
Shame, shame, shame on you Waco Tribune Herald and the Waco City Council. Remember who killed downtown. It was the Waco City Council. They couldn't stand all that hot-rodding our boyfriends did on Austin Ave. The Waco City council is the one who voted to make it a pedestrian mall and the Waco Tribune was right there with them, printing what the City told them to print. Our schools are in the shape they are in because of the leadership provided in the past and present. No wonder there is no middle class in Waco, only the poor and the wealthy. Urban sprawl is a direct result of the Waco City Council led by Mayor Dupuy and the former mayor, Linda Etheridge. Waco annexed all the way to McGregor, while the people who lived there were against being annexed. Same with China Springs. Who is on the Council? Jim Bush, a builder. Vote them all out.
By Frank
Jan 19, 2009 8:05 PM | Link to this
Hopefully the economy will prevent any more leap frogging. Better yet, I hope people will be able to understand their mistakes when they examine how much money is being spent because of poor planning.
I agree that this city needs to place a limit on developers because we are the ones that will be paying for their actions.
By j.b. smith
Jan 19, 2009 4:35 PM | Link to this
Mike,
Nobody is suggesting that China Spring is Round Rock. But it's interesting to compare Williamson and McLennan Counties.
Williamson County (only slightly larger geographically) had 139,551 people in 1990, when I was in college there. That year, McLennan County had 189,123.
Now McLennan has 228,123, while Williamson has leapfrogged ahead of us with 373,363.
So is Williamsonıs sprawl more severe than ours? It only appears so, because there are more people. But the development pattern for subdivisions and shopping centers is just the same. Weıre growing slower, but we're growing in the same way. So maybe Williamson County gives us a clue to how this county will look in a few decades if current trends continue.
By ChuckN
Jan 19, 2009 4:24 PM | Link to this
Yes, the answer is in fixing schools. I dont see why the council didn't even consider giving tax incentives for builders to raze the abandoned portion of Franklin and stick the new mall there. Thanks to them and the greedy developers, our services and tax dollars are getting stretched thin.
The problem is that many people only think about themselves and fail to look at the big picture. They dont get involved and just run to where they think they will get the most for themselves.
The more people move away from Waco, instead of getting involved, the more the city will decay. We also need more council members who are willing to stick some teeth into zoning requirements, and look past the might dollar.
By David
Jan 19, 2009 3:24 PM | Link to this
The Frisco comparison is very apt. Waco is committing the same sins as pretty much every city in Texas.
The new developments being further and further out of the city to get "better schools" is just not sustainable. Frisco is now an uninhabitable nasty ball of suburban sprawl, clogged roads and rotting McMansions (particle board is great eh?). Now they're moving further out to Rockwall. Its nuts.
China Spring follows the same problem and exacerbates it in spades. The average lot size in China Spring is HUGE. Not big enough to actually run a farm on, but enough to put a dozen houses on. Everything is so far apart its just silly. Their school is good right now because of white (I use this term meaning more "middle class". Bellmead is mostly white but definately way below middle class) flight. History repeats though. In 10 years this school will crash and burn because the community isn't of a sustainable design (IE, its problems will only get worse instead of better) and as such property values will sag and the dreaded poor people will move into the district.
Folks should be concerned with FIXING problem school districts instead of just running away from them.
By Mike
Jan 19, 2009 9:23 AM | Link to this
Well, here's our monthly Rah rah downtown propaganda piece by JB. Interesting take on it, by going with the "urban sprawl" angle. Firstly, it's hard to label what's going on in Waco as what would typically be considered sprawl by normal metropolitan standards. Dallas, Houston, Austin we ain't. Living in Robinson, Woodway, China Spring, or even Hidden Valley is hardly comparable to the problems of suburban congestion in larger cities. Woodway is not Frisco. China Spring is not Round Rock. We've got a long way to go before we're even close to that level of sprawl. And as far as publics services being provided, that's what taxes are for. That's why we have a big annexation to-do every decade or so.
The big thing that bugs me to no end about these downtown articles is the so-called target of "half the county growth" to occur in inner city Waco over the next 40 years. Some Chamber guy threw that out off the top of his head a few months ago as a quote, and it's touted as an official goal in almost EVERY article or opinion piece since. That's not even an optimistic projection. It's borderline delusional. As I recall from the earlier article, the Chamber used an OLD Comptroller's county population projection AND they used a "high growth" scenario, that the Comptroller's office actually recommends NOT to use, and then this half of that growth number is out of thin air, as far as anyone knows.
How about a look at the actual population growth in the area. If the rate's at least positive, then I'd say that's actually pretty good for the area. And you might get a little better with what's going on, but really, not anywhere near that 80,000 projection. What's going on in downtown is nice these days, but it's hardly the revolution in middle city living you guys paint it as. It's looking like a good place for businesses again, but aside from making it the new "in" place for Baylor students or young, freshly graduated singles, there's not that much attractive about downtown or the new development that would make many other people want to live there.
And why does all this growth have to happen in inner city Waco? Why not the parts of the city where there ARE still good schools, safe neighborhoods, good communities, good access to businesses, etc. Why no attention to North or Northwest or West Waco, or even places in South Waco that are seeing their best days ever.
By Dale
Jan 19, 2009 8:43 AM | Link to this
A lot of people are talking about WISD, so I am going to say it. I went through WISD and got a good education that pretty much prepared me for the outside world. I am not sure what has happened between then and now. The only thing I can see from the outside is that when I was in WISD the schools I went to were 99 percent white. Today, those same schools are 99 percent non-white. Otherwise, I am not sure how WISD got such a bad rap as being a bad school district other than it being mostly non-white. I am not sure how WISD can say it is landlocked, and when Waco annexes additional land, the property somehow becomes part of the Midway ISD instead of the Waco ISD. School district boundaries just do not make sense anymore.
From this observer, segregation is still practiced in McLennan County. Only the form of it has changed. The Whites Only and Colored Only signs have come down, but segregation is still being practiced by the school district in which people live. Midway, China Spring, Bosqueville, Robinson are mostly white. Waco is mostly non-white.
When realtors are recommending that families not live in WISD's jurisdiction, then you have a much bigger problem than roads. It may be too late to fix it.
By Taco
Jan 18, 2009 9:03 PM | Link to this
I started to visit Waco back in 1985, every year we would return to visit family, I moved to Hewitt in 98 and the funny thing is Waco has never really attracted much of anything.....blame on the good old Mayor and Larry Anti-Growth, do you think he would leave his nice place in Lorena for a downtown condo? Doubt it....I really feel for the residents of far west Waco, wait til you need Waco PD, hang on, because its going to be a long wait.....
[1 2 3] next
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F, except on Tuesday when it's open until 9 p.m.
Post a comment
*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.