Originally Posted by
dynodonn
One factor limiting sprawl in my local is the amount of land that can be deeded, with much of it now zoned and legally set aside for agricultural use. Commute time and the cost of commuting is another factor in limiting sprawl as well.
Over the last 20 to 30 years in my locale, a considerable movement on higher density housing has taken place, with numerous empty lots and fields in many neighborhoods being filled with homes or apartment complexes. The downside to higher density housing in my locale is the once quieter roads now have higher density traffic numbers to go with it.
Your first sentence reminded me of two non-government programs for limiting sprawl. These might appeal to some who don't like government involvement.
First is a non-profit program in Michigan called Land Bank. They buy properties and either keep them "in the bank" or restore and sell them. At first they mainly worked in rural areas to conserve farmland and forested areas. Now county land banks work in urban areas to prevent or reverse blight. They have "fast track" authority to quickly purchase foreclosed/abandoned properties. They either demolish or rehab the buildings, then resell them, using profits to buy more property. How does this reduce sprawl? Because it helps people who want to live in cities stay there, rather than being pushed into sprawl areas by lack of good housing in the cities.
Second is what you might be referring to, dynodonn. The Nature Conservancy and other non-profits get farmers and other rural people to deed their land to the non-profit. They are able to live on the land the rest of their lives, provided they don't allow development of the property. When they die, the non-profit takes full possession of the property.
These are both programs that are called "non-confrontational environmentalism". Most people can support them, regardless of their ideology.