What makes a Good City?

Sustainability and Reinvestment for Kansas Citys Future Jamie Ferris Public Administration 5535 Dr. Carr 7 December, 2011

1 What makes a good city may vary based on your income level, your age or stage in life, your marital or family status, you ethnicity or religion or your political views. The elements a city is composed of varies as well: population size and demographics, tax levels, services provided by the city, proximity to desired amenities, the list is extensive and diverse as well as highly subjective. Some theorists such as Charles Tiebout (1956) suggests that smaller, more fragmented governments give the public the opportunity to chose which city to live in based on the tax-service package in each respective area that best suits their needs. The Kansas City metropolitan area exemplifies urban sprawl and embodies all of the negative effects the sprawl has on the city and its communities. Sprawled areas, defined by rigidly separated homes, shops, and workplaces; a network of roads marked by huge blocks and poor access[which] lack of well-defined, thriving activity centers, such as downtowns and town centers, affects citizens basic quality of life, people living in more sprawling regions tend to drive greater distances, own more cars, breathe more polluted air, face a greater risk of traffic fatalities and walk and use transit less (Ewing, Pendall & Chen, 2003, pp. 5). These impacts are visible throughout the Kansas City metro, punctuated by the overwhelming reliance on private, car-centered, transportation and relatively low population density in the urban core. The population has consistently pushed outward since the end of World War II, in Kansas City MissouriJC Nichols Company was finishing a home a day for years following the Second World War (t2 Entertainment, & Inland Sea Productions). This development into the seemingly infinite greenfields in then-rural areas surrounding Kansas Cityon all sideshas continued for the past 60+ years, creating extensive sprawl and fragmentation of a suffering population.

2 Census data shows that the most expensive homes in Kansas City form a ring around the city; this golden ring has been moving farther from downtown at a rate of about two miles per decade. In its wake are acres of declining property values that have left many residents stranded (Anderson, 1998, pp. 12-13). Between 1990 and 1996, the Kansas City metropolitan area spread 70%, while its population, now over two million, increased only 5% (Lacayo, 1999). This disproportionate growth is unsustainable in regard to both resources and economics. Additionally, with changing demographics, the way in which Kansas City expands may not meet the needs of the population; were overbuilt today in the number of large lot homes that will be needed in 2040. The demand will shiftto homes in suburban and urban settings that have walkable featureswere going to see a tremendous change in demand and Im not sure were prepared for that change (t2 Entertainment, & Inland Sea Productions). Dr. Robert Freilich, formerly of the University of Missouri-Kansas City, suggests in his 1997 report To Sprawl or Not to Sprawl: a National Perspective for Kansas City, sprawl has engendered six major crises for Americas major metropolitan regions. These crises are: central city and first- and second-ring suburban distress; environmental degradation through loss of wetlands, sensitive lands, air and water quality degradation; massive gasoline energy overutilization; fiscal insolvency, transportation congestion, infrastructure deficiencies and taxpayer revolts; massive agricultural land conversion; and housing inaffordability [sic] (pp. 2). Decidedly anti-sprawl and suburbanization, Robert Putnam (2000), author of Bowling Alone, explains how the process of suburbanization creates, over time, homogeneous, lifestyle enclaves, segregated by race, class, education, [and] life stage (pp. 209). Additionally, due to the physical structure of suburbs, and, the way in which our lives are now

3 centered inside the house, rather than on the neighborhood or the community, with the large use of automobiles, the life of the sidewalk and the front yard has largely disappeared, and the social intercourse that used to be the main characteristic of urban life has vanished (Jackson, as cited in in Putnam, 2000, pp. 211). Recently, in response to the increasingly evident negative externalities of sprawl, more environmentally sustainable urban development has become a possible alternative solution to various problems facing our society. Not only is the development of walkable, livable communities in urban, suburban and rural areas (though the focus is often primarily on urban centers) a way to reinvest in our social communities by encouraging a more cooperative, engaged, interactive form of development but to mitigate the negative ecological effects of sprawl as well. As Edith Callaghan and John Colton asserted in their 2006 study, communities that are rich in community and social capital are more resilient and tend to sustain economic growth more successfully (Callaghan and Colton, 2008, pp.931-942). The researchers go on to explain their intersection of environment and community; the movement toward sustainable development lies neither in focusing solely on the bottom line immediate needs, nor on the abstract sustainable future, but in a middle ground that seeks to enhance long and short term community resilience through investments in all the various forms of community capital (Callaghan and Colton, 2008, pp. 932). In fact, the design of a triple-bottom-line approach to sustainable development has been initiated and defined as: a process of reconciliation of (1) the ecological imperative to live within global biodiversity carrying capacity and maintain biodiversity; (2) the social imperative to ensure the development of democratic systems of governance to effectively propagate and

4 sustain values that people wish to live by; and (3) the economic imperative to ensure that basic needs are met (Dale and Onyx, 2010, pp. 2). This idea is, fundamentally, the basic tenet of Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver IIs federally funded Green Impact Zone of Missouri program located in the urban core of Kansas City. As Van Jones, founder of Green for All and President Obamas Special Counsel for Green Jobs stated, the project takes 150 blocks [of] blighted, tough neighborhoods, weatherizes every home there that needs it, fixes mass transit and puts people to worksaves people money as well as helping planet Earth (Green Impact Zone of Missouri [GISZMO], 2009). This program, which attempts to focus on infill development in the urban core, is currently being implemented, and serving as a pilot city for programs of this nature across the country, is located in a particular area of Kansas City [see Figure 1, Figure 2] where unemployment is, between 20 to 50 percent, and the poverty rate is approximately 31 percent. Notably, the percentage of residents that is black is 89.29 percent, compared 31 percent in all of Kansas City (GIZMO, 2009). This is consistent with what Morgan and Mareschal (1999) found, that cities that are highly fragmented, particularly with populations over 10 thousand, have greater instances of black isolation. As they proposed, it can be asserted in Kansas City that fragmentation has increased the racial divisions within the urban area and facilitates the ability of whites to minimize contact with black residents (Morgan & Mareschal, 1999). Focusing on community involvement, job creation and training as well as implementation of green, energy efficient practices, Congressman Cleaver explained, the Green Impact Zone is bringing together an unprecedented coalition of stakeholders, including local government, community agencies, neighborhood organizations, universities, private utilities and small contractors to dramatically and transparently achieve the objectives of the American Recovery

5 and Reinvestment ActLet us seize this giant opportunity to create a better future and show America, when it comes to green we are in the lead (GIZMO, 2010). The city of Kansas City authorized $1.5 million to help launch the Green Impact Zone initiative in September 2009. The Mid-America Regional Council administers the grant and provides oversight for the initiativealong with its Green Impact Zone partners[MARC brought] millions of dollars in stimulus funds and other investments to the zone (GIZMO, 2010). Projects incorporated in the initiative include: housing assistance, employment and job training, public safety and community service, weatherization and energy and water conservation, infrastructure [including transportation] and communityparticularly youth involvement (GIZMO, 2010). This engagement of the community could prove vital to the viability of the sustainability efforts. As Kent Portney of Tufts University suggests that by being more citizen-oriented, cities can help create longevity in their population by incorporating training, education and other assistance, creating a population that is self-sufficient and that keeps its money within the community (Portney, 2003, pp. 105). This fostering of the well being of the population not only aids the economic strength of the city but also can help develop civic trusta key element of social capital that can help develop a strong community. Additionally, the research by Savitch, et al. (1993), though somewhat contested, suggests that a strong urban core does more than provide benefits for urban residents; it creates healthier suburbs as well. A part of the federal economic stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allowed the U.S. Department of Transportations Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery [TIGER] program to allocate a total of $50 million: $26.2 million to fund transportation infrastructure improvements in the Green Impact Zone, as well as

6 $23.8 million for improvements to regional transit corridors that extend from the urban core into suburbs on both sides of the state line (GIZMO, 2010). Additionally, In November 2009, [Kansas City Power and Light] received a $24 million grant from the Department of Energy to help fund a SmartGrid demonstration project in the Green Impact Zone and surrounding areas [see Figure 3]The SmartGrid project will introduce innovative technologies to the urban core of Kansas City, which will allow customers to more effectively manage their energy usage and costs and allow KCP&L to improve infrastructure and reliability (GIZMO, 2010). This technology, which allows residents to monitor and manage their energy consumption, is a progressive step in beginning the process of updating the countys outdated and overburdened current power grid structure, allowing for more cultivation and utilization of alternative energy sources. One vital aspect of the communityhousingfaces serious trouble; approximately 25 percent of the properties in the zone are vacant lots, and another one-sixth have vacant structures. Fewer than half the homes are owner-occupied. Almost 20 percent of all mortgages were delinquent over the last two years (GIZMO, 2010). The program is spearheading efforts to assist in capital building and increase value in the neighborhoods within the zone including lowincome weatherization projects, rehabilitation of foreclosed homes, development of vacant lots, removal of dangerous buildings, and addressing rental property maintenance and absentee ownership (GIZMO, 2010). Additionally, the zone has partnered with Bryant Real Estate of Kansas City to help educate, counsel and provide assistance on achieving homeownership to citizens within the zone (GIZMO, 2010). Encouraging homeownership could help build as sense of pride for the residents, promoting long term residence in the area that could, in turn, help create a stronger commitment to development.

7 Molly OMera of the WorldWatch Institute (1999) emphasizes the significance of livable communities; in her article, Reinventing Cities for People and the Planet she affirms the detriment to American social institutions caused by sprawl and impersonal communities. She writes, the arrangement of buildings and ease of access to them help determine the livability of a city. Streets come alive with pedestrians when shops, factories, offices and houses are all within walking distance of each otherIn contrastcrime often plagues fragmented cities, which isolate the poor in distinct pockets (pp. 43). Putnam agrees with the connection between civic interaction and safer, more cohesive communities; he cites research by Jane Jacobs (The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961) that concludes, social capitalis what most differentiated safe and organized cities from unsafe and disorganized ones where as, controlling for poverty and other factors, a weak organizational base and low social participation in local activities face an increased risk of crime and violence (Putnam, 2000, pp. 307-308). The Green Impact Zone, which has a markedly higher crime rate than the rest of the Kansas City metro, is engaging the citizens in a participatory role in the revitalization of the neighborhoods with aims to instill more pride in the community and deter future crime. In addition to a strong sense of social community, it is clear that development that is to be sustainable and its effects lasting must encourage social community development as well. Though civic engagement has been in severe decline over the last two decades, rates of participation increase with urban revitalization movements, improving citizen involvement in the community (Putnam, 2000). Likewise, as Thad Williamson (2002) of the Jepson School of Leadership Studies, University of Richmond suggested, a place that looks and feels like a coherent community should help produce citizens who are better able to identify with where they

8 live and are more engaged in civic and political life (pp. 235). This argument is counter to some of the most basic principles of Tiebouts (1956) public choice theory. The Kansas City region is highly fragmented; though spatially it is quite large, many interests vary on either side of the state line as well as among factions within the city itself. Tiebouts (1956) theory suggests that smaller, more fragmented governments, and therefore communities, give the public the opportunity to chose which city to live in based on the taxservice package in each respective area that best suits their needs. This model, however, rather than effectively having cities compete for the best interests of Kansas City, discourages community engagement on a large scale and marginalizes the residents of the urban core. As Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Community Development Ann Dale wrote, [community participation and involvement] is the key intersection between social capital and sustainable development. Social capital is about relationshipsrelationships within

communities, and between communitiesWe need to re-examine out relationships with the natural worldWe will not realize sustainable development unless we understand the personal imperative (Dale, 2002, pp. 17). Many who advocate the revitalization and increased economic and ecological sustainability of the Kansas City metro area have found ways of attracting like-minded people looking to create social and professional situations in which to contribute to the development of the city. Organizations such as The Crossroads Community Association, the Rivermarket Community Association, the Urban Core Group, and others, have become popular in advocating, publicizing and achieving projects for the betterment of the greater community. The problem with much of this regeneration of urban development is the inequities present in how the city utilizes incentives and, therefore, where development takes place. The

9 prevalence of TIF-based incentives for business and economic development has been great throughout the KCMO metro area due to the availability of program implementation and the allowance of discretion in approving TIF projects. The use of both TIF and EAT practices increased over 200 percent between 2000 and 2004 (Kelsay, 2007). Based on maps (see Figure 4) of TIF district demographics, [2007], 88 percent of TIF projects have occurred in KCMO Council Districts one, two, four and six. These districts are the most highly populated, and maintain the highest level of educated, affluent, non-minority residents. In contrast, KCMO Council Districts, three and five which are the lowest income, highest minority districts, hold only 12 percent of TIF projects. This unequal TIF project distribution is counter-intuitive considering the existence of [physical] blight as common criteria for project approval, though, as Long noted, the Missouri TIF statue does not use socio-economic distress factors to determine physical blight (R. Long, personal communication, May 2, 2010). As can be seen by the distribution of incentive-based projects in the urban core, the more distressed areas are not truly given priority in redevelopment and renewal efforts. In order to successfully grow the population and economy of the urban KCMO area, particularly when attempting to reverse the damage done by the recent recession, the most severely distressed areas must be stabilized and made to prosper; if incentive use will increase once again in order to do this, it must be done equitably. As Blakely and Leigh (2010) write, increased business investment can transform many inner cities from places left behind by the new economy into places leading the way to economic success (pp. 266). Investment in the urban core is vital, otherwise the continued inequalities will only cause further detriment to the sustainability of the city as a whole. Seeking the perspective of the various stakeholders and trying to understand what their

10 priorities are is vital to the success of downtown projects because, to get the masses to move on this [development] issue requires that concepts of sustainability be brought to them in a way that makes sustainable living relevant to them, their families, and their communities (Callaghan and Colton, 2008, pp. 933). The perspective that a resilient community is one that finds the appropriate balance of capital within a particular community context, and encompasses public, private, and individual interests is key in understanding the components associated with the overhaul of the developmental status quo (Callaghan and Colton, 2008, pp. 939). Not coincidentally, Kansas City is the location of not only the Green Impact Zone project but another pilot program in sustainability as well. In an effort to curb the negative impact sprawl has on the environment all throughout the metro, Kansas City has partnered with the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] the Sustainable Skylines projects which works with various urban areas across the country help innovate, fund and implement sustainable practices throughout the municipal area. Sustainable Skylines provides a flexible framework for stakeholders to choose projects to implement over the next three years [beginning in 2007]. Those projects will: integrate transportation, energy, land use and air quality planning, yield measurable air quality benefits within three years, promote collaboration among multiple stakeholders, identify and leverage resources among partners (Sustainable Skylines, 2010). Gerald Williams of the Kansas City, Missouri City Planning and Development Department explains the attraction of the area, the [City level] political climate right now is very supportive of sustainability and there are numerous examples of sustainable initiates going on in KCMO (Williams, 2010). He goes on to explain that the city is committing itself to sustainability efforts on a governmental level, including partnering to achieve the goals of the Sustainable Skylines program.

11 Seven main projects for the initiative have been decided upon by a community group of stakeholders. The projects, focusing on environmental matters include: the Constructing Clean Air project which aims to minimize the air pollution that comes from construction projects, KC Idle-Free, a metro-wide partnership of organizations helping improve air quality by reducing automobile idling that takes place on their property, Parking Lots to Parks which reimagines the traditional parking lot, designing them to have a lesser environmental impact, Solar KC, a project to install solar technology at public buildings and Water Wise, a demonstration project to show the relationship between air and water quality. The project includes Water Wise for home interiors, which will demonstrate the water conservation strategies and practices adopted in the renovation of the Project Living Proof model home (GIZMO, 2010). The goal of Project Living Proof is to restore a modest home at 917 Emanuel Cleaver Blvd in Kansas City, Missouri, to exhibit how to make a century-old home more energy efficientThe home will be a demonstration of the KCP&L Smart Grid which is a combination of onsite energy generation, advanced switches and capacitors, automated meter reading, and other smart technologies that allow for real-time monitoring and management of energy usage (Project Living Proof, 2010). Such projects allow the greater public to visualize the possibilities for implementing sustainable efforts in their own neighborhoods. In addition to supporting federally funded programs, the city of Kansas City adopted the Greater Downtown Area Plan in March 2010 outlining goals for the economic, social and environmental development of the city. The five outlined goals include: doubling the population downtown, increasing employment, Creating a walkable downtown, retaining and promoting safe, authentic neighborhoods, and promoting sustainability (Greater Downtown, 2010).

12 It is rather undisputed that the manner in which cities are developed and organized needs to be reconsidered and revised. Putnam (2000) promotes spending less time traveling and more time connecting with neighbors[living] in more integrated and pedestrian-friendly areas[through methods such as] mixed-use zoning, pedestrian-friendly street grids and more space for public use [which] should enhance social capital (pp. 408). How development affects the residents and their quality of life as well as the relationship between the physical environment and the people who populate it, including a wide range of social issues that transcend the purely environmental is an essential element to consider when looking to create an area with vitality, longevity that enhances the greater community (Portney, 2003, pp. 125). The notion of walkability is truly central to the revitalization of the urban core. Williams explains that aspect of the citys plan: the recently approved Greater Downtown Area Plan identifies walkability as the most important mode of transportation downtown and has a variety of recommendations for how to make downtown more walkableFuture development downtown is envisioned to be dense, walkable and sustainablethe new development code now requires pedestrian impact studies and also includes new zoning tools which encourage walkable development (e.g. Pedestrian Overlay Zoning, new downtown zoning districts)The obvious benefit is to reduce vehicle miles traveled and bolster alternative modes (each transit rider begins and ends their trip as a pedestrian). But from an economic standpoint, "walkable" communities tend to also be more desirable places to live (there are other qualities that create enduring communities, but it seems to me that walkability is a key element). At the basic human level, walkability improves mobility and allows better access to jobs, services, food etc... (Williams, 2010). The comprehensive plan provides an outline for the implementation of walkable access between districts in the city. Linking the different areas from the Rivermarket to the Crossroads to the Plaza would enable people to experience much more of the city without relying on a car and encouraging engagement in the community.

13 As presented in the plan, the issue of mass transit in Kansas City is one of much contention in recent years though it is regarded as a topic that needs urgent addressing. As Dr. Ferlich (1997) explains, a major contributing factor to sprawl in Kansas City is transportation. A series of highways and interstates leave the urban core, creating a suburban web of roads that must be traveled in order to get to jobs located in the urban core. Attitudes concerning masstransit systems, exemplified by the endless delay of the proposed light-rail plan that would have connected the Plaza to downtown and the airport, further add to the problem, creating more congestion and the ever-pressing need to widen and maintain roads (pp. 11). Recently, however, a streetcar line has been proposed for the Main Street corridor connecting the city from the Crown Center/Union Station area to the Rivermarket. While not a solution to the black isolation that is present East of Main Street, this accessibility to transportation will help move workers, residents and visitors alike throughout some of the most trafficked areas of the city. Additionally, according to the Kansas City Star study done for the Mid-America Regional Council indicated building a streetcar line on Main Street would add $500 million to the projected increase in land value in that corridor by 2025 (Collison, 2011). It is the hopes of the City, as well as other proponents of the plan that accessibility to living wage jobs will increase with the streetcar line as well. As a part of the Green Impact Zone initiative, in January, the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) brought bus rapid transit service to the Green Impact Zone with the launch of its new Troost MAX service. The route serves the citys highest ridership corridor, and features green technologies such as hybrid electric buses, rain gardens and a pervious concrete park-and ride lot (2011). Additionally, in July, the Green Impact Zone hosted Opportunity Road, a transportation fair to help residents explore travel options for access to

14 jobs in other parts of the metropolitan area. Representatives from MARCs RideShare program, KCATA and The JO shared information with 59 residents, many of whom also participated in a bus tour. Participants got first-hand experience in commuting by bus, learning where to catch the bus and make transfers while they experienced the ride (GIZMO, 2011).

The Green Impact Zone initiative has not proceeded without problems and criticism, however. According to a report by the Kansas City Star, of the more than $85 pledged by state and federal governments million for five major improvement projects in and around the zone, just $25 million had actually been spent or bid by the end of September 2011 (Helling, 2011). Additionally, the major projects are deemed responsible for fewer than 150 jobs, according to figures provided to the government. Cleaver had expected 1,000 by now (Helling, 2011). Adding to the problems, there have been construction, regulatory, administrative, and labor issues to contend with that have delayed much of the work (Helling, 2011). Many residents have expressed disappointment in the slow progress, particularly in the area of job creation. In an area of the city with soaring levels of unemployment, promises of over 1,000 jobs created are not taken lightly. Congressman Cleaver agrees, [he] called the zones job creation record most disappointing. At this point, I thought we would have a thousand or more jobs, he said. I am frustrated that the job creation has not surfaced as fast as we wanted (Helling, 2011).

Concerning accessibility of jobs, this issues disproportionately affects the urban poor; as higher wage jobs move their location further and further outside the urban core, the ability of workers to reach those jobs decreases. This problem of isolating the urban poor (the majority of which are minorities) is, while not the direct topic of this study, a problem that could be remedied with smart growth; the development of walkable neighborhoods, mixed-income

15 housing and mixed-used development as well as implementation of a more comprehensive transit program in the downtown area. To this point, Ferilich (1997) describes the benefits of new urbanist design principles; First, [new urbanist design] creates sufficient density to encourage the use of public transit but also relies upon the use of transportation corridors and centers with or without rail transit. Second, it locates residences, jobs, and retail destinations close to public transit facilities. Third, it utilizes mixed uses, with retail and employment locations within walking distance of residential areas. Fourth, it is built on a grid transportation network, which is not divided into the arterial-collector-local road classification system found in most suburban areas. Finally, it contains urban design guidelines and design features in order to encourage a more pedestrian orientation that, theoretically, encourages its residents to eschew the automobile in favor of more communal forms of transportation (pp. 16). It is upon these principles that the city built its Greater Downtown Area Plan. The plan states of its vision: we must focus on connecting our neighborhoods to create a strong urban community, flourishing with diversity, fostering business, maintaining historic neighborhood identities, and sustaining a safe, vibrant, and healthy Greater Downtown Area for current and future generations (Greater Downtown, pp. 5). Utilizing the triple bottom line approach and focusing attention to areas of great need, such as the public education system, environmental impact and combating sprawl, the plan may be the innovative display of commitment to the future of the urban core needed to encourage othersprivate companies, investors and individuals aliketo pursue downtown ventures. Budding interest from non-urban residents has been augmented by the addition of the, somewhat contentious, Power and Light entertainment district, the revitalization of the Crossroads Arts District and the popularity of events such as the monthly First Fridays gallery open house and the encouragement of entrepreneurship and small business development in the area. Additionally, under favorable market conditions, conversion of downtown buildings into

16 lofts and condominiums helped promote an influx of downtown residents the likes of which had not been seen in Kansas City in decades (t2 Entertainment, & Inland Sea Productions). Sprawl breeds increased governmental fragmentation and inefficiencies, as more independent levels of government, each with its own agenda, impact more people and businesses. Solutions require broad-based support. History has taught that lasting fiscal growth occurs within a strong economy one based as much on the quality of life and successful business practices as on collaborative, rather than adversarial, government participation planning for growth (Freilich, 1997, pp. 14). Though based in deep-seeded socioeconomic issues and complicated by tax and development codes and incentives, and exacerbated by an institutionally reinforced, unattainable ideal of the American Dream and its focus on the present, the decentralization of Kansas City into an ever-expanding sea of suburbs is a problem that can be curbed. With the implementation of good, future-focused policies, an entrepreneurial spirit and a desire to create a city that is sustainable economically and environmentally, the negative effects sprawl has had on the Kansas City metro can be mitigated. By continuing to encourage and widely implement sound practices like those utilized in the Green Impact Zone and actively, creatively and relentlessly pursuing the goals outlined in the citys plan, Kansas City may be able to reach the status of a world class city, a potentially worthy and feasible aspiration.

17

Figure 1: Green Impact Zone of Missouri District Map

Figure 2: GIZMO Demographics

18

Figure 3: GIZMO Smart Grid Plan

19

Figure 4: KCMO TIF Demographics, 2007

20
References

Anderson, G. (1998). Why smart growth: A primer. Smart Growth Network, International City/County Management Association. Web. 3 Oct 2010. Blakely, E. J., and Nancey G.L. (2010). Planning Local Economic Development. 4th. Los Angeles: Sage. Callaghan, E. and Colton, J. (2008). Building sustainable & resilient communities: a balancing of community capital. Environmental Development Sustainability 10, 931-942. City Area Development Council. Tax and incentive profile. Retrieved from http://www.smartkc.com/SiteLocation/TaxesIncentives/EnterpriseZones.php. Collison, K. (2011, Nov 28). Can downtown bear the cost of proposed streetcar line? Kansas City Star. Retrieved from http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/28/3291363/can-downtown-bear-costs-ofproposed.html#storylink=misearch Dale, A. and Newman, L. (2010). Social capital: A necessary and sufficient condition for sustainable community development? Community Development Journal, 10(1), 1-21. cdj.oxfordjournals.org. Retrieved at Miller Nichols Library. Ewing, R., Chen,D. and Pendall, R. (2002). Measuring sprawl and its impact. Washington, D.C.: Smart Growth America. Freilich , R.H. (19997). To sprawl or not to sprawl: a national perspective for kansas city. Informally published manuscript, School of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, Retrieved from www.umkc.edu/whmckc/publications/KIMBALL/.../Freilich-04-21-1997.pdf. Kansas City, Missouri. (2010). Greater Downtown Area Plan. Green Impact Zone of Missouri. (2009). Kansas City, Missouris community plan for the American recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. Retrieved from http://greenimpactzone.org. Helling, D. (2011, Dec 3). Green impact zone makes small impact so far in KC. Retrieved from http://www.kansascity.com/2011/12/03/3300055/green-impact-zone-in-kc-makes.html#storylink=misearch Jackson, K. T. (1985). Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 272-280. Kansas City of Kansas City, Missouri, Economic Development Corporation, & Planned Industrial Expansion Authority. (2008, Apr 23). Economic Development and Incentive Policy Implementation Progress Update. Kelsay, M. P. (2007, 17 Jan). Uneven patchwork: tax increment financing in Kansas City. Reclaim Democracy, Kansas City Chapter. Lacayo, R. (1999, March 22). The Brawl over Sprawl. Time. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990488-5,00.html Morgan, D. and Mareschal, P. (1999). Central city/suburban inequality and metropolitan political fragmentation. Urban Affairs Review. 34 (4). 578-595. O'Mera, M. (1999). "Reinventing Cities for People and the Planet." WorldWatch Paper. 147, 43-46.

21
Portney, K. E. (2003). Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously. Cambridge: The MIT Press,101-175. Preliminary Baseline Data Report. (2009). Green Impact Zone of Missouri. Kansas City. Retrieved from www.greenimpactzone.org/assets/preliminary-data-report.pdf Project Living Proof. (2010). KC Energy. Metropolitan Energy Center, n.d. Retrieved from http://www.kcenergy.org/projectlivingproof.aspx. Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster. Savitch, H.V., Collins, D., Sanders, D., and Markham, J.P. (1993). Ties that bind: Central cities, suburbs, and the new metropolitan region. Economic Development, 7(4), 341-357. Sustainable Skylines Kansas City. (2010). Mid-America Regional Council. Retrieved from http://www.sustainableskylineskc.org. t2 Entertainment, & Inland Sea Productions (Executive producer). (2009). The Next American Dream. USA: KCPT/PBS. Tiebout, C. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. The Journal of Political Economy. 64 (5), 416-424. Williams, G. E-mail Interview by Jamie Ferris. 12 Nov 2010. 16 Nov 2010. Williamson, T. (2002). Sprawl, Politics, and Participation: A Preliminary Analysis. National Civic Review, 91(3), 235. 2002. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. Miller Nichols Library. Year One Annual Report. (2010). Green Impact Zone of Missouri Kansas City. Retrieved from http://www.greenimpactzone.org/assets/annual-report-09-30-10.pdf Year Two Annual Report. (2011). Green Impact Zone of Missouri Kansas City. Retrieved from http://www.greenimpactzone.org/assets/2011annualreport.pdf.