|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Explore, enjoy and protect the planet | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Problems, comments or contributions? |
Local Issues: Urban SprawlIs Urban Sprawl a Problem in Omaha?[Date] City planners told members of our Metro Area Development Committee that Omaha doesn’t have an urban sprawl problem! Omaha has some of the most permissive laws governing urban growth in the nation. Omaha can control development within three miles of its boundaries, and it can annex adjacent communities up to a population of 10,000 as long as they are in Douglas County. Unlike some other metropolitan areas, development in Douglas County is generally contiguous with a minimal number of governmental jurisdictions. However, from a land-use viewpoint, the City of Omaha provides a classic example of urban sprawl. During the 40-year period between 1960 and 2000 Omaha’s population grew by 29%, but during the same period the City’s land area more than doubled -- from 50.83 sq. mi. in 1960 to 118.88 sq. mi. in 2000, an increase of 134%. As a result of this dispersion, the population density dropped 45%. (See Table 1.) The dispersion of urban population not only consumes vast amounts of rural farmland, green space and wetlands, it causes an increase in the individual taxpayer’s burden to pay for streets, sewers, and other infrastructure and public services.
Omaha has an average residential density of 3.4 units/acre. At this density, a population of 12,000 occupies 2.25 square miles, and it takes about 2 miles of streets to serve this population. Much of the new residential growth outside Omaha is at a density of one residential unit per acre or less. It takes 7.65 sq. mi to support a population of 12,000 at one unit/acre with 9.65 miles of streets. See Table 2.
1Residential density only 2Relationship also pertains to other utilities; e.g. water, sewer, power lines, etc. Despite the existence of a new Omaha Master Plan approved in January 1997, the City continues to do little to curb developers’ projects that continue this pattern of dispersion. The Master Plan has the following goals for managing the growth of the City:
Sarpy County is a Developers’ Paradise! Growth in Sarpy County illustrates the need for regional planning in the metro area. Although we expected to find Sarpy communities concerned about Omaha dominating plans for growth, instead Bellevue, Papillion, LaVista, Springfield, Gretna, and the County government are all competing for development and disputing among themselves over annexation of unincorporated areas. Thus developers can exert considerable power by playing one community against another. Control over development is very difficult at this time in Sarpy County. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||