From the Late September 2013 North Woods Call
Many years ago—before I ever lived in northern Michigan—my predecessor at The Antrim County News wrote a column about urban sprawl and development in Traverse City.
The area around Grand Traverse Bay, he concluded, was a beautiful place “until the white man came.”
He was, as I recall, talking about the heavy traffic and view-blocking construction along U.S. 31 in the mid-1970s. Today, of course, these problems are exponentially worse.
Northern Michigan—Traverse City and Petoskey, in particular—are drawing visitors and new residents like steel nails to some kind of powerful urban magnet.
Recent national attention as great places to live and vacation have only increased the number of people and automobiles flocking to these areas.
Each time I venture into either of those communities, I’m struck by the additional clutter and increased difficulty I have driving my own vehicle through the mind-numbing congestion.
I’m sure city officials are doing their best to cope with all the changes, but I wonder if they’re doing enough. As population figures escalate, little seems to relieve the growing pressure. Even building new and wider roads does not eliminate traffic congestion. The new roads just fill up with cars and additional businesses that attract more activity.
These problems are by no means confined to northern Michigan. Unplanned growth and urban sprawl have become huge problems in many locations.
Some folks in my hometown of Richland—a generally peaceful, well-used community in lower Michigan—worry about this, too.
It’s not that they mind the increased commerce and higher tax base that come with more people and more development. They just hate having lost the quaint, small-town atmosphere that once was the village.
Yet they should have thought about that years ago—back when they first began to welcome the houses, apartments, businesses and industries that now surround the one-time farm community.
These days, cars and trucks crawl around the shady village square like ants on molasses. They fill parking lots, clog roadways, and snake out in all directions across the cluttered landscape. And people are everywhere—crowding local schools and forcing higher taxes on us all.
It’s an ongoing challenge faced by cities and villages throughout the Great Lakes region—and beyond. From Buffalo to Chicago and Cleveland to Marquette, sprawl is increasing air and water pollution, devouring forests and wetlands, and saddling communities with the social and economic costs of unplanned growth.
Many people in Richland seem to think they can stop this hungry monster with feeble efforts to preserve local heritage. They’ve had the village designated a historic district, and have declined to let the streets be widened to accommodate the thickening traffic.
But I think it’s too little, too late. They shouldn’t have allowed it to get this way in the first place. Even now, little is being done to stop the runaway development that hugs the outskirts of the village—turning it into what writer James Howard Kuntsler calls “the geography of nowhere.”
Still, I find myself hoping there’s a way out of this mess. Some claim there is—if we have the wisdom and will to correct our mistakes. Urban, suburban and rural communities should try to manage growth and sprawl with what the Sierra Club says are “smart-growth solutions.” These include setting boundaries for urban growth, preserving farmland and green space, and building neighborhoods that are easy on pedestrians.
We need better transportation choices, too—such as bike paths, commuter trains and buses. And we should do away with government programs and tax policies that help create sprawl. More importantly, we should insist that decaying urban areas be revitalized before new development is allowed on open rural land.
People move away from cities because they’re looking in part for better schools, safer streets, and cleaner air. They also want a sense of community and a connection to nature. If we could address these issues in existing urban areas, there might not be a need, or a desire, for so many people to flee to places like Richland, or rural communities further to the north.
The answer lies in making all communities “user-friendly” and livable—regardless of their size. That way, everyone can enjoy the benefits of a healthy environment.
And we wouldn’t have to destroy our farmland, forests and rural villages in the name of modern homesteading.
No comments:
Post a Comment