NationStates Jolt Archive

I’m not sure what category this belongs in, perhaps environment, but what industry will it affect? Ideas are highly appreciated. Tell me what you think! Thank you.


Urban Sprawl Control Act
1st Draft

OBSERVING, the growth of cities from small trading hubs to massive, crowded megalopolises,

HAVING EXAMINED, the disastrous pollution released from these cities to the environment,

SHOCKED, at the vast tracts of land absorbed by such developments,

AND REALIZING THAT, the environment of the world is interdependent and that harm to it in one part of the world, will indeed affect the environment across the globe.

The Member Nations of the Nation States United Nations:

DEFINE the following:

City: An area of land, governed by a single local government.

Metropolis: An area of land, governed by a single local government, with a population of 20 million or more people.

Megalopolis: Several Metropolises which through uncontrolled building have become one continuous development.

Suburb: An area of land, primarily consisting of residential plots, located on the border of a city, that depends upon the city for employment.

PROCLAIM, that city/local governments, which rule over a city with a population of 2 million or more people, may not annex a suburb with more than ten percent of the original cities population.

DEMAND, that areas of land, with the exception of Zoo’s and Wildlife sanctuaries, which contain the habitat of an endangered species, may not be declared the part of any city with a population of 2 million or more.

DECLARE, that cities which fit the aforementioned definition will not be allowed to exceed 5200 square kilometers in size (3231.132 square miles).

DECLARE, that cities which fit the aforementioned definition will not be allowed to exceed 35 million people in population.

DEMAND, that no further building projects are started on previously undeveloped land, in cities with a population of more than 30 million.

DEMAND, that the number of people who move into the city will not increase the population on a city by more than .5% a year in cities with a population of more than 30 million.

COMMAND, that any city which currently exceeds the city size specifications, meet these specifications within 10 years, perhaps by de-annexing sections of the city into self-governing suburbs.

COMMAND, that any city which currently exceeds the city population specification, to not allow any more people to move into the city, and create self-governing suburbs to decrease the population until it meets the specifications.

DECLARE, that any new suburb created cannot exceed more than 100 square kilometers in area, or exceed more than 2 million people in population.

APPLAUD, the actions of city governments to end urban sprawl,

AND MOURN, the loss of environmental treasures to over-development.

Thank you.

Sorry, but what this appears to me to do is simply force large cities to split into multiple administrative areas, as they can avoid growth limits by doing this. Such an effect could actually be negative, since it might be harder to restrain rampant growth and coordinate conservation etc if power within a city is decentralised. Have I missed something?

Thank you for replying. This is, in fact, only a first draft, and my thoughts are probably not the only solution to the problem. I am now amending it. However, I do believe that you misunderstood my reasoning. The idea was not to de-centralize power, but instead to regulate growth. These newly created suburbs would act as buffer zones so that the city could not continue to absorb the surrounding area. The suburbs would also create a less crowded home for the people who work in the cities to live.

Thank you.

I think what Myopia is saying is that while the intent is there, the actual effect that the measure would have would be to create perverse incentives to create an additional level of bureaucracy such that cities can avoid running into environmental limitations. This will have a 2 fold effect.

First, it will only have a very short lived, short-term effect on sprawl. Second, that short term solution will be undermined by the massive amount of economic waste that this will cause (by creating additional unecessary bureaucracy in order to circumvent restrictions).

<snip irrelevant comment>

As for category, I would choose, environmental, Industries affected Automobile manufacturing (since this is an industrial process that usually takes place in cities). Also, the fact that you are restraining sprawl will also very likely reduce demand for cars.

Thank you for your insight. I will look into a way to work your ideas into the legislation. I get what your saying, by reducing Urban Sprawl, we should not be increasing Bureaucratic Sprawl. Perhaps, suburbs are not the best solution. Are there any suggestions?

Jovian Worlds, no comment is irrelevant, I'd like to hear what you snipped.

Thank you.

Snipped a comment on phasing in. I didn't read your draft carefully enough.

Also, I advise using capitalization of all first words in a proposal to facilitate ease of reading. Sort of like a bulleted list. Easier to draw attention to each section of the proposal. Since they never seem to have implemented formatting w/ resolutions, it makes scanning the resolution a lot quicker when it comes to getting approvals once submitted.

Otherwise, you're likely to be frustrated many times as the resolution fails to be approved.

Thanks! I'll amend that right now.

What about UN member-nations that are not ruled by a representative government such as your proposal defines a city to be split up into this districts ruled by local governments?

I'm afraid that I do not understand your question, Tuesday. If you are suggesting that not all cities are ruled by a local government, and so my legislation could not apply to them; I'd have to disagree. Even in a non-representative government, like a dictatorship, a city by definiton will have a local government, even if it isn't elected. As far as we are concerned, as people in the business of International Governance, nothing seperates two cities if they are ruled by the same local government. For example, In country Z, Ruler Q rules at the national level, and he is a dictator, he appoints Official B to rule over City B, and Official A to rule City A. However, next door in the Country of 4, Ruler 12 rules at the national level, and appoints himself to rule Cities 1 and 2, as well as 3,4,5, etc. In a sense of Government, which is the way we must look at things, nothing seperates Cities 1 and 2, because they are ruled over by the same local government. The only way that we could recognize Cities 1 and 2 as seperate was if there were various underlings that differed between the two cities, because then they are not really ruled by the same local government. For Example, back in the country of 4, Ruler 12 appoints Official 33 as his assistant in City 1, and Official 24 as his assisstant in City 2. So they are different local governments, because they consist of different rulers.

Hope I anwsered you question,

Thank you.

Please Comment.

I think this would drastically alter a lot of nations' dynamics and stability. If cities can only grow to a certain size, and that after that you have to build a new city, then isn't it possible the city could just end up slowly sinking in to oblivion, or stagnation?

Cities have to grow, in the same way that nations grow. Otherwise the civilization will stop progressing, stop improving.

I understand that protecting the environment is possible, but would it not be better done restricting the actual area of a city, rather than it's population?

Also this makes a lot of assumptions about how nations are goverened. My nation doesn't have administrations that limit themselves to single cities. In fact there are not really any cities, mostly just towns and larger towns. They have sherrifs, but they don't administrate, just concentrate on law and order and so forth. So even if this proposal passes, I can't see it having much of an affect on the way my nation works.

To build on TilEnca, living costs are drastically effected by such a measure. As the population of the City Grows, if its boundaries are permanently set and reached, dwelling costs will rise.

This could lead to homelessness, which is considered bad, as housing and apartment costs rise greater than wages. Or, it could lead to class districting. Rich people part of town, poor people part of town, etc. To force this resolution the UN should be willing to offer easements when such events occur. As this places potentially significant costs on UN Member Nations.

Actually, after rereading the resolution, the afforementioned comments would be valid if the resolution was acting to limit sprawl.

It does not, it just classifies government based on population. Suburbs can still be created, and land will still be taken up. The name will be different is all. Nor does there appear to be any measure preventing suburbs to incorporate into new cities, expand via developers developing all the land before 30 mil target is met, and then create new suburbs.

This resolution does nothing to prevent the problem it identifies. Heck, with building restrictions placed on population size, it ecourages rapid development, even if not neccessary, to support the maximum population granted to a city.

The definitions need work, especially for megalopolis. Not all megalopoli start as large cities that grow into each other. Many of them start as a single city that continues to grow to absurd levels.

And then there's nutters out there, like me, that will fully build a megalopolis from the ground up, start to finish, and then let people and businesses move in.

I actually did this (*gasp!* over in NS) when my population was too big to be in one place. The Hack really just has two "cities". Chiba City's population is around 2 billion, and the Tindalos Megalopolis weighs in at about 1.5 billion.

Actually, looking over it again, some of the definitions can just be tossed out, as the line between "metropolis", "megalopolis" and "arcology" is pretty fine, and often up to individual interpretation (many people tried to tell me that Tindalos was an arcology, for instance). Also, the government requirement in the definitions is also suspect. Anarchies, for instance, aren't likely to have local governments.

Real Life: Just like to point out that the definition of city given does not appear to be correct from my understanding of the term.

In Australia at least, a 'city' (like Sydney) is not governed by a single council, but rather by several local councils. The suburbs include some right next to the CBD (eg Surry Hills) or those on the outskirts (eg Berowra).

The closest definition that Sydney fits is that of megalopolis, but there obviously are not more than 20 million people in Sydney (there aren't that many people in the country).

I am aware that in America, the 'city' ends with the council borders, but that definition is not true here.

Over half of Adam Island is already protected from development. All this rule will do is destroy the rights of people to manage the land that they OWN.

First, to Enn, exactly, the point is to change the governments of cities, to standardize them to prevent sprawl, to centralize that city government, and contain its borders. However, I have realized that this proposal is just too sweeping to enact all at once. Thank you for your comments, and I look forward to hearing them again when I propose another idea.

The Federation of Meteor Impact Victims throws its full opposition to this measure. Population limits on cities will only serve to increase sprawl, as, with a maximum population density, cities will have to expand, or more cities will have to rise, in order to fit the people of the nation.

The best way to combat sprawl is density. Limiting density will only serve to increase sprawl, even with a high limit of 5769 per square kilometer (5.8 people per square meter). Eventually, more cities will need to arise to fit these artificial limits. Without these limits, one can fit more people into the land one has. Density is the only alternative to sprawl.

Because this measure, in an attempt to limit sprawl, limits its only alternative, we reject it, wholeheartedly.