Editing Urban growth boundary (section)

=== United States ===
[[File:Urban growth boundary at Bull Mountain in Oregon.JPG|thumb|Dividing line between rural and urban in the Portland, Oregon, area]]
The [[United States|U.S.]] states of [[Oregon]], [[Washington (state)|Washington]] and [[Tennessee]] require cities and counties to establish urban/county growth boundaries.<ref name="TACIR">{{cite web |title=Knoxville-Farragut-Knox County Growth Policy Plan |url=http://attachment.tacir.tn.gov/Growth/GrowthPlans/Knox.pdf |website=[[Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations]] |publisher=Knoxville-Farragut-Knox County Growth Policy Coordinating Committee |access-date=November 30, 2020 |date=January 12, 2000 }}</ref>

Oregon restricts the development of farm and forest land. Oregon's law provides that the growth boundary be adjusted regularly to ensure adequate supply of developable land; as of 2018 the boundary had been expanded more than thirty times since it was created in 1980.<ref>"[https://www.oregonmetro.gov/urban-growth-boundary Urban growth boundary]", Metro.</ref> In the [[Metro (Oregon regional government)|Metro]] area, the urban growth boundary has to have enough land within it for 20 years of growth; it is reviewed every six years. Other cities in Oregon seek regulatory review of proposed urban growth boundary expansions as needed.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Rush |first=Claire CLAIRE RUSHdate=February 25, 2024 |title=Oregon is so green because it's been literally illegal to build housing outside cities since the 1970s. That could be changing |url=https://fortune.com/2024/02/25/oregon-affordable-housing-crisis-land-use-suburbs-strip-malls-1970s/ |access-date=2024-02-25 |magazine=Fortune |language=en}}</ref> Some economic analysis has concluded that farmland lying immediately outside of Portland's growth boundary is worth as little as one-tenth as much as similar land located immediately on the other side;<ref>[http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf 8th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey: 2012] Demographia/Performance Urban Planning.</ref> other analysis have found that the UGB has no effect on prices when some other variables are taken into account.<ref>Myung-Jin, J. (2006). "The effects of portland's urban growth boundary on housing prices". ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 72(2), 239-243.</ref>

Washington's Growth Management Act, modeled on Oregon's earlier law and approved in 1990, affected mostly the state's more urban counties: as of 2018, [[Clark County, Washington|Clark County]], [[King County, Washington|King County]], [[Kitsap County]], [[Pierce County, Washington|Pierce County]], [[Snohomish County]], and [[Thurston County, Washington|Thurston County]].<ref>"[http://mrsc.org/getdoc/37359eae-8748-4aaf-ae76-614123c0d6a4/Comprehensive-Planning-Growth-Management.aspx Growth Management Act]", MRSC of Washington.</ref>

In Tennessee, the boundaries are not used to control growth per se, but rather to define long-term city boundaries. (This was a response to a short-lived law in the late 1990s allowing almost any group of people in the state to form their own city).<ref>{{cite web |url-status=dead |url=http://www.state.tn.us/tacir/growth.html |title=Tennessee Growth Policy |website=Tennessee State Government |access-date=2013-12-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130521035331/http://www.state.tn.us/tacir/growth.html |archive-date=May 21, 2013 }}</ref> Every county in the state (except those with consolidated city-county governments) has to set a "planned growth area" for each of its municipalities, which defines how far out services such as water and sewer will go. In the [[Memphis, Tennessee|Memphis]] area, annexation reserves have been created for all municipalities in the county. These are areas that have been set aside for a particular municipality to annex in the future. Cities cannot annex land outside of these reserves, so in effect the urban growth boundaries are along the borders of these annexation reserves.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://shelbycountytn.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/663 |title=Recommendations for Planned Growth and Rural Areas |website=Shelby County, TN |access-date=2013-08-07 |archive-date=2017-05-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525022853/http://shelbycountytn.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/663 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Additionally, new cities are only allowed to incorporate in areas determined to be planned for urban growth.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70a.110|title=RCW 36.70a.110: Comprehensive plans—Urban growth areas.|website=app.leg.wa.gov|access-date=2019-01-31}}</ref>

California requires each county to have a [[Local Agency Formation Commission]], which sets urban growth boundaries for each city and town in the county.

States such as Texas use the delineation of extraterritorial jurisdictional boundaries to map out future city growth with the idea of minimizing competitive annexations rather than controlling growth.

Notable U.S. cities surrounded by UGBs include [[Portland, Oregon]]; [[Boulder, Colorado]]; [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]; [[Virginia Beach, Virginia]]; [[Lexington, Kentucky]]; [[Seattle|Seattle, Washington]]; [[Knoxville, Tennessee]];<ref name="growthpolicy">{{cite web |title=Knoxville-Farragut-Knox County Growth Policy Plan |url=http://attachment.tacir.tn.gov/Growth/GrowthPlans/Knox.pdf |website=[[Tennessee Department of Transportation]] |publisher=Knoxville-Farragut-Knox County Growth Policy Coordinating Committee |access-date=November 30, 2020 |date=January 12, 2000 }}</ref> and [[San Jose, California]]. Urban growth boundaries also exist in [[Miami-Dade County, Florida]] and the [[Minneapolis–Saint Paul]] metropolitan area of [[Minnesota]]. In Miami-Dade, it is referred to as the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), and is generally to protect from continued sprawl into and drainage of the [[Everglades]]. Portland, Oregon is required to have an urban growth boundary which contains at least {{convert|20000|acre|km2}} of vacant land.

Urban growth boundaries have come under an increasing amount of scrutiny in the past 10 years as [[real estate pricing|housing prices]] have substantially risen, especially on the West Coast of the U.S.<ref>[http://www.philadelphiafed.org/files/br/br_q4-2006-2_boom_bubble.pdf Business Review - for readers with a general interest in economics]. Philadelphia Fed. Retrieved on 2013-12-06.</ref> By limiting the supply of developable land, critics argue, UGBs increase the price of existing developable and already-developed land. As a result, they theorize, housing on that land becomes more expensive. In [[Portland, Oregon]], for example, the housing boom of the previous four years drove the [[Metro (Oregon regional government)|growth-management authority]] to substantially increase the UGB in 2004. While some point to affordability for this action, in reality it was in response to Oregon State law.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors197.html |title=ORS Chapter 197 — Comprehensive Land Use Planning I}}</ref> By law, Metro, the regional government, is required to maintain a 20-year supply of land within the boundary.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.oregonmetro.gov/urban-growth-report|title = Urban Growth Report|date = 7 May 2014}}</ref> Even with the addition of several thousand acres (several km<sup>2</sup>) housing prices continued to rise at record-matching paces. Supporters of UGBs point out that Portland's housing market is still more affordable than other West Coast cities, and housing prices have increased across the country.