Proponents of more regional cooperation in U.S. metropolitan areas have suggested that increasing concern about the effects of unregulated growth creates the possibility of building a regional coalition around combating sprawl. Analysis of public opinion data from New York and Los Angeles suggest a more complicated picture. Suburbanites who are experiencing “city-like” problems in their communities seem increasingly receptive to slow-growth policies. However, residents of the central city in these areas are much less supportive of controls on growth—a problem for the goal of regional coalition building. Furthermore, even among suburbanites, support is not uniform: African-Americans, lower income residents, and those with stronger ties to the city are all less supportive of slow-growth measures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbott, C.1987. The new urban America: Growth and politics in sunbelt cities. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.
2.
Agresti, A.1996. An introduction to categorical data analysis. New York: John Wiley.
3.
Baldassare, M. , and J. Hassol. 1996. Possible planning roles for regional government: A survey of city planning directors in California. Journal of the American Planning Association62 (1): 17-29.
4.
Bradbury, K. L. , A. Downs, and K. A. Small. 1982. Urban decline and the future of American cities. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
5.
Bustillo, M.1998. SOAR battle could change political landscape. Los Angeles Times, 4 October, B1-B1.
6.
Downs, A.1994. New visions for metropolitan AmericaWashington, DC: Brookings Institution; Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
7.
Downs, A.1998. The big picture: How America’s cities are growing. The Brookings Review16 (4): 8-11.
8.
Fulton, W.1997. The reluctant metropolis: The politics of urban growth in Los Angeles. Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books.
9.
Gerston, L. N. , and P. J. Haas. 1993. Political support for regional government in the 1990s: Growing in the suburbs?Urban Affairs Quarterly29 (1): 154-163.
10.
Jackson, K. T.1985. Crabgrass frontier: The suburbanization of American politics. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
11.
Julnes, G. , and W. Pindur. 1994. Determinants of local governmental support for alternative forms of regional coordination. American Review of Public Administration24 (4): 411-428.
12.
Kanarek, A. , and M. Baldassare. 1996. Preferences for state and regional planning efforts among California mayors and city planning directors. Journal of Planning Education and Research16: 93-102.
13.
Katz, B. J.1998. Reviving cities: Think metropolitan. Policy brief 33. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
14.
Katz, B. J. . 2000. Reflections on regionalism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
15.
Katz, B. J. , and S. Bernstein. 1998. The new metropolitan agenda: Connecting cities and suburbs. The Brookings Review16 (4): 4-8.
16.
Kelley, D.1999. As suburbs change, they still satisfy. Los Angeles Times, 19 October, A1-A1.
17.
Kolbert, E.1991. Region around New York sees ties to Ccity faltering. New York Times, 1 December, 1: 1-1.
18.
Los Angeles Times poll 429: Suburban living. 1999. Los Angeles Times, 10-16 July; distributor: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.
19.
Marcal, L. , and S. Svorny. 2000. Supportfor municipal detachment: Evidence from a recentsur vey of Los Angeles voters. Urban Affairs Review36 (1): 93-103.
20.
Myers, P. 1999. Livability at the ballot box: State and local referenda on parks, conservation, and smarter growth, Election Day 1998 [online]. Discussion paper prepared for the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Available: http://www.Brook.edu/urban/publications
21.
Newman, M.1991. Anger against governors reflected in 3-state poll. New York Times, 22 November, A1-A1.
22.
Nivola, P. S.1998. Fat city: Understanding American urban form from a transatlantic perspective. The Brookings Review16 (4): 17-19.
23.
Orfield, M.1997. Metropolitics: A regional agenda for community and stability. Washington, DC: Brookings and the Lincoln Land Institute.
24.
Peterson, I.1998. My open space or yours? It’s time to duel for dollars. New York Times, 15 November, 14NJ: 2-2.
25.
Pinkus, S.1999. Poll analysis: Life in the “Burbs” in Southern California. Los Angeles Times [online]. Available: http://www.latimes.com/news/timespoll/local
26.
Purdum, T. S.2000. Los Angeles tests its limits in quest to grow. New York Times, 13 February, 1: 1-1.
27.
Rusk, D.1998. The exploding metropolis. The Brookings Review16 (4): 13-16.
28.
Victories in the space race; Voters are willing to raise taxes to save land. 1998. The Record, 8 November, O2-O2.
29.
WCBS-TV News/New York Times . 1991. New York City and suburban poll [computer file]. New York: WCBS-TV News [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
30.
Williams, O. P.1967. Life-style values and political decentralization in metropolitan areas. In Urban politics: Past, present & future, edited by H. Hahn and C. Levine. New York: Longman.
31.
Wolman, H. , G. Galster, and R. Hanson. 2000. Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Urban Affairs Association, Los Angeles, 3-6 May.
