COMMENTARY

n one way or another uncontrolled population growth is at the root of many site problems and compromises. The problems may stem from the arrival of illegal aliens or from the influx of

legal citizens relocating to places where they perceive a better quality of life, or both.

   This is a global pattern. Prime target areas on every continent except Antarctica are being hit by the onrush of people, people and more people. The population crush typically brings an urgent need for more school rooms, more landfill capacity, more emergency medical services, more jail cells and more costs for government of all types. Public services are overwhelmed. Taxes go up. Political stress builds.

   In states such as Arizona along the Mexican border, the flow of illegal immigrants has become unbearable. This has led that state’s legislature to enact a new law placing heavy penalties on businesses that hire illegal aliens. The potential impact on the state’s economy is a matter of hot debate.

   The Census Bureau notes that “nearly a century ago, in 1910, each of the 10 most populous cities was within roughly 500 miles (805 km.) of the Canadian border. The 2006 estimates show that seven of the top 10 – and three of the top five – are in states that border Mexico.”

   The legislative action in Arizona is one of many attempts by state governments to deal with the illegal immigration that the Federal bureaucracy has failed to stop. Legislators in 40 states have introduced a total of some 1,500 measures related to illegal immigration. Most seek ways to better enforce existing laws.

   The population control problem is more complex in areas where the growth is made up of legal residents (retirees) who wish, for example, to move from cold northern states to resort areas in the South, or others seeking to find a higher income level, better infrastructure, more recreational opportunities, and/or improved security. There’s no law against that.

   In Florida, for example, over-population is bringing all of the infrastructure headaches encountered elsewhere, plus monumental damage to priceless natural habitats. We have described this destruction in our report “Mayday Florida” that was posted on SiteNet in 2007. In Florida today this poses a huge question that hangs over the state like the sword of Damocles.

   There are similar problems in other high-growth states such as Georgia, the Carolinas, Texas, and half a dozen western locations. In most of these areas today, there is deep concern about unlimited and uncontrolled population growth. Can these areas that have been deliberately or unwittingly promoting population growth – and have thus been hell-bent on self-destruction – now bring themselves to stop, regroup and pursue a different strategy?

   Oregon was one of the first states to try to control all forms of over-population growth. In 1973 the state enacted a law creating urban growth boundaries and restricting uses outside them that conflicted with agriculture and forestry. In many state legislatures there are ongoing fights between growth-control advocates and those who say such measures will wreck the economy.

   The battle is fiercer at the local level. Hundreds of county and municipal bodies have acted to control growth in some way – most commonly via rejecting rezoning proposals. Many such actions are reversed in court. In any event, they represent a piecemeal approach that does not get to the root of the problem.

   A more logical approach is now being pursued in a number of communities. Their plans establish what might be termed “growth-carrying capacity” for the jurisdiction and stop issuing building permits when that capacity is reached. Conventional measures of capacity include availability of school rooms, utility services and other infrastructure elements. Where capacity was inadequate, new development would be put on hold until the inadequacy was remedied.

   A new approach is to add environmental sustainability to the list of capacity factors. This brings into account such things as the ability of the local aquifers to sustain more wells or the capacity of local streams to cope with more pollution or pumping without impacting wildlife or wetlands. Albemarle County, Va., is setting up such a plan. In Canada, the town of Okotoks, Alberta, claims to be a world leader in holding population to the capacity of its water supply.

   Change is in the wind, and alert agencies – both public and private – are taking a fresh look at growth planning programs. The strategy of the future has two key elements: first, reducing the overall rate of growth to a pace that is manageable, and second, distinguishing between desirable and undesirable growth. For most areas, desirable growth is new high-tech industries locating in campus-like settings. Undesirable growth is seen in thousands of retirees and unneeded new residents and their attendant subdivisions and automobiles.

   To solve this problem, some propose strong Federal programs to make it necessary or attractive for people to stay in the North and East rather than migrating to the South and West. We suspect that a proposed tax on moving would be very un-American, if not unconstitutional. Depending on how they are structured, incentives for not moving might have some effect.

   Today there is a screaming need for heroic high-level leadership. An acceptable population control plan would be unprecedented. There is no highly successful model program from any state to follow. Whatever the plan, it would encounter intense opposition. For example, in some areas there might be big cuts in residential construction – producing an army of displaced contractors, carpenters, plumbers and electricians.

   Local builders and developers are the backbone of the business community in many areas. They are important financial supporters of candidates for mayor, city council, county commission and other key offices. They are prominent in local chambers of commerce and business associations. In many ways they are good citizens who do good things. At the same time, many are operating businesses that destroy their home environment and reduce quality of life – a dilemma compounded every day.

   The challenge to economic development officials will be to re-focus their programs so as to increase incentives for desirable growth and minimize the appeal for that which is not desired. For corporate facility planners, there will be a need for new analyses to estimate the influence of over-population on site and annual operating costs. Future site searches may stress the importance of population control in areas of interest. This shift in emphasis is something that facility planners will need to monitor more closely in the days ahead.

   McKinley Conway has authored more than 40 books on development strategies. A former Georgia Senator, he is Chairman of Conway Data, Inc. and publisher of Site Selection.