This article examines the process by which municipalities switch strategies in response to growth pressure. Utilizing a case study approach of three New Jersey communities, this article argues that changes in local growth strategies are brought about by advocates who incorporate fiscal arguments with quality-of-life concerns and capitalize on a perceived development threat to achieve a more favorable political environment. By reframing local debate over formerly contentious issues such as open-space preservation and environmental quality, advocates are able to permanently change the local political culture. However, such action can have exclusionary consequences and act as a hindrance to the implementation of a balanced-growth approach to urban development.
Alexander, A.1998. Trenton-Hopewell sewer link gains Whitman's OK. Trenton Times. http://www.gsenet.org/. September 20.
2.
Asbury Park Press.1999. Halfway home on case tracthttp://www.gsenet.org/. July 15.
3.
Bates, L., and R. Santerre.1994. The determinants of restrictive residential zoning: Some empirical findingsJournal of Regional Science34:253-63.
4.
———. 2001. The public demand for open space: The case of Connecticut communities. Journal of Urban Economics (250) 1: 97-111.
5.
Baumgartner, F., and B. Leech.1998The importance of groups in politics and political Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
Benfield, F., M. Raimi, and D. Chen.1999. Once there were greenfields: How urban sprawl is undermining America's environment, economy, and social fabric. Natural Resources Defense Council.
7.
Birkland, T.1998. Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy18 (1): 53-74
8.
———. 2007. After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press
9.
Bollens, S.1992. State growth management. Journal of the American Planning Association58 (4): 454-466.
10.
Brody, S., V. Carrasco, and W. Highfield.Measuring adoption of local sprawl reduction planning policies in Florida. Journal of Planning Education and Research25:294-310.
11.
Burchell, R., D. and Listokin.1992. Fiscal impact procedures and the state of the art: The subset question of the costs and revenues of open space and agricultural lands . New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
12.
Burchell-Listokin Associates1997. Fiscal impacts of the scotch road office park developmentPrepared for Merrill Lynch.
13.
Burchell, R., G. Lowenstein, W. Dolphin, C. Galley, A. Downs, S. Seskin, K.G. Still, and T. Moore.2002. Costs of sprawl—2000. TCRP Report 74. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
14.
Clingermayer, J.C.1996. Quasi-judicial decision making and exclusionary zoningUrban Affairs Review31 (4): 544-53.
15.
Coryell, L.2004. Battle lines over state plan land use compromise could be far reachingTrenton Times. http://www.gsenet.org/. October 3.
16.
Daniels, T.1999. When city and country collide: Managing growth in the metropolitan fringe. Washington DC: Island Press
17.
Daniels, T.2005. Land preservation: An essential ingredient in smart growth . Journal of Planning Literature19 (3): 316-29.
18.
Donovan, T., and M. Neiman, M.1992. Community social status, suburban growth, and local government restrictions on residential developmentUrban Affairs Review28:323-36.
19.
Downs, A.2004. Introduction. In Growth management and affordable housing: Do they conflict? edited by A. Downs.Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.
20.
Drone, R.2005. Member, Citizens for Informed Land Use Discussion with author, April.
21.
Eaker, J.2005. Mayor's office, East Brunswick Township Discussion with author, March.
22.
East Brunswick Democratic Organization.2005 . The Democratic record of accomplishmenthttp://www.ebdems.org/record.html.
23.
Edwards, J.2005. Former Member, Hopewell Township Committee Discussion with author, May.
24.
Fink, L.2004. Mayor, Holmdel Township. Interview with author, December.
25.
Fischel, W.2001. The homevoter hypothesis: How home values influence local government taxation, school finance, and land-use policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
Freedgood, J., and R.C. Wagner.1992. Cost of community services studies: Snapshots of net fiscal impacts of different land uses in townsNortheastern Office, American Farmland Trust.
27.
Gollin, J.1999. Holmdel survey results favor open space and oppose sewershttp://www.gsenet.org/. June 15.
28.
———. 2001. Holmdel: Chase-Manhattan Tract will be preservedhttp://www.gsenet.org/. April 17.
29.
Hollis, L., and W. Fulton.2002. Open space protection: Conservation meets growth management. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
30.
Hommer, M.2005. Member, Lawrence Brook Watershed Association, discussion with author, June.
31.
Howell-Moroney, M.2004. Community characteristics, open space preservation and regionalism: Is there a connection?Journal of Urban Affairs2 (1): 109-18.
32.
Jenkins, P.2004. East Brunswick courts housing for seniors. Newark Star Ledger. http://www.gsenet.org/. June 6.
33.
———. 2005. Mayor puts focus on commercial ratablesNewark Star Ledger. http://www.gsenet.org/. January 19.
34.
Kaufman, R.2005. Member, Citizens for Informed Land Use Discussion with author, July.
35.
Lewis, P.1996. Shaping suburbia: How political institutions organize urban development. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
36.
McDonald, J.F., and D.P. McMillen.2004. Determinants of suburban development controls: A Fischel expedition. Urban Studies41 (2):341-61.
37.
Neary, B.2005. Mayor, East Brunswick Township. Interview with author, April.
38.
Orfield, M.2002. American metropolitics: The new suburban reality. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
39.
Pendall, R.2000. Local land use regulation and the chain of exclusion. Journal of the American Planning Association66 (2): 125-40.
40.
Pogodzinski, J.M., and T. Sass.1994. The theory and estimation of endogenous zoning. Regional Science and Urban Economics23 (5): 601-30.
41.
Romero, F., and A. Liserio.2002. Saving open spaces: Determinants of 1998 and 1999 “antisprawl” ballot measures. Social Science Quarterly83 (1): 341-52.
42.
Rudoph, V.1994. Cost of community service studyEast Amwell Agricultural Advisory Board.
43.
Schneider, M., and P. Teske.1995. Public entrepreneurs: Agents for change in American government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44.
Shramko, S.2005. Member, Citizens for Informed Land Use Interview with author, February.
45.
Smeltzer, C.2004. Two township open space tax questions for the November 2 ballotTownship of Hopewell Report 3, no. 2
46.
Solecki, W., R. Mason, and S. Martin.2004. The geography of support for open space initiatives: A case study of New Jersey's 1998 ballot measure. Social Science Quarterly85 (3): 624-639.
47.
Stiles, T.2005. President, Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space Interview with author, February.
48.
Stratton, F.2005. Member, East Brunswick Environmental Commission Discussion with author, August.
49.
Sziber, P.2005. Member, Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space Discussion with author, July.
50.
White, D.1990. The woodlands of Hopewell Valley: A study prepared for the Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space
51.
Wilson, R., and R. Patterson2002. State growth management and open space preservation policiesLyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs Policy Research Project Report, No. 143.
52.
Yin, R.1994. Case study research: Design and methods, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
