ABSTRACT
A European observer would expect that zoning had a great deal to do with the management of development on the urban fringe (growth management), but he would be sadly wrong. American zoning largely proceeds on the basis of decisions regarding individual lots. What is typically ignored is the cumulative effect of an enormous number of “lot decisions.” This is partly because the zoning machine usually operates without the advantage of a guiding plan; partly because zoning has traditionally been unconcerned with the timing of development (or its relationship to the provision of infrastructure); and partly because the normal presumption of municipalities is in favor of developmentthe more, the better. The last point goes deep: instead of asking “is the proposed development desirable in the public interest at this place at this point in time?,” the typical municipality starts from the presumption that any development is good and, in any case, it is unfair to penalize a particular owner with a refusal: if one farmer’s land has been approved for development, why shouldn’t his neighbor get equal treatment? Traditional zoning therefore has difficulty in even attempting to relate development decisions to wider questions of planning. It is essentially reactive and “timeless.” The difficulties to which this may be expected to give rise are exacerbated by the fact that zoning maps usually have a similar timeless quality. They show the use to which individual lots of land may-in isolationreasonably be put, but they do not take into account the effect of the timing of development applications or the effect of a number (and certainly not all) of the proposals emerging at a particular time. The availability of public services (from
sewers to roads to schools) does not enter into the political calculus. Development patterns can therefore be haphazard, inefficient, and wasteful, costly to service, and cumulatively disastrous-with inadequate public services, “gridlock” and the like.
