American cities have for too long used a "Ponzi scheme" development style that's led to costly and inefficient sprawl focused on cars instead of people, according to an engineer and land planner.

That development is financially unsustainable without significant tax increases or service cuts, so cities will have to find different ways to grow productively, said Charles Marohn, executive director of Strong Towns.

Strong Towns is a Minnesota nonprofit that encourages growth that enables communities to become financially strong and resilient.

Marohn laid out his case Wednesday for 150 people at a Lancaster County Planning Commission forum at Manheim Township Public Library during one of a dozen "curbside chats" the organization is holding this week across Pennsylvania.

According to Marohn, after World War II, America began embarking on the "suburban experiment" — a move away from walkable, people-centered communities.

It was a change in how people had lived for thousands of years in cultures across the globe, he said.

In the new experiment, growth was financed three ways: transfer payments by government — for example, government-funded water or sewer projects that served as catalysts; transportation spending; and debt financing, according to Marohn.

At the end of WWII, he said, a typical community spent less than 2 percent of its budget on debt service. That's now increased to more than 20 percent and he has seen cities with debt service as high as 65 percent.

The experiment appeared to work for a time, according to Marohn.

"So, initially we spend very little and, comparatively, we get a whole lot back. The catch is, we agree to maintain that infrastructure indefinitely … What we are doing is, we are exchanging this near-term value for this long-term obligation," he said.

Over time, growth can only continue if development continues at ever-accelerating rates or if development generates more wealth than it costs to maintain, he said, adding that's not the case.

"We have to start having a conversation about making our places more productive," he said.

As an example, Marohn compared a "big-box" store and auto dealership development outside Brainerd, Minn., with the existing downtown commercial district.

In terms of property tax generated, the downtown area was far more productive and didn't require building a costly infrastructure to maintain.

Marohn's ideas resonated with the audience.

Rod Houser is a retired teacher who recently moved into Lancaster city and is involved with Lancaster Downtowners, a group promoting downtown living for retirees.

While some of the planning terminology was unfamiliar to him, "so much of it made total sense to me, the economics of it," he said.

"It was very attractive to me in the idea that I really see some sort of a need for rebuilding (and) restructure because what we're doing, I know, isn't sustainable," he said.

Karen Weibel, Lititz Borough Council president, said Marohn's ideas made sense.

"I think building new infrastructure over the long term probably is the wrong way to go and I think you can't balance your books on new development," she said.

David Kratzer, Penn Township's municipal manager and a county planning commission member, said the township has been trying to incorporate the ideas Marohn talks about into its growth plan.

James Cowhey, executive director of the county planning commission, said the county has long been concerned with development costs and has been trying to guide development with that in mind.

"And we're getting there slowly ... The location of development in Lancaster County is in the right place, but the intensity and density and mixed use is not what it should be to get the returns on investment that we need," he said, calling it an incremental process.

"I think we have the good foundation and footing for having a more sustainable fiscal environment for infrastructure, but we're not there yet. We're getting there."

For more information, go to: www.curbsidechat.org or www.strongtowns.org.
dnephin@lnpnews.com