Washington's Got Enough Growth to Share

Yesterday's report by my colleagues D'Vera Cohn and Amy Gardner on the explosive growth in King George and Caroline counties should dispel any fantasy that we're finally getting sprawl under control.

Like it or not, the Washington regional economy remains among the hottest in the country, with most of the growth going out rather than up, west rather than east, toward the exurbs rather than the inner city.

We might use this moment to recall the First Rule of Holes, which holds that when you're in one, stop digging. It should be obvious, even to the most determined of local boosters, that we won't be able to grow our way out of the problems of inadequate transportation infrastructure, the overcrowded schools, the overtaxed local budgets.

In many cases, the region finds itself at those tipping points in the growth process, where the next increment of desired capacity requires a huge, upfront investment. These are the points where increasing capacity on the subway line doesn't simply require a few new subway cars, and people to operate them, but an entire new track and all the tunnels that go with it. Or when it's not just a new wing on the high school but an entire new high school.

Put another way, what we've seen over the past decade has been relatively cheap growth -- growth that's been built on the foundation of past investments. But going forward, the next batch of new jobs and new residents will require a much bigger investment, not just on the part of those moving in, but for those of us already here.

This is not an argument for pulling up the bridge and locking the gates. But it is reason to raise questions about a regional planning effort recently launched by the Potomac Conference, a loose organization of the region's political and business leaders.

As put to the conference at its semiannual meeting in Chantilly last month, the biggest challenge facing the region is figuring out the best way to accommodate the 2 million new people, 1.6 million new jobs and 1 million new households coming our way over the next 25 years. The consensus among those present was that we should now channel that growth to underdeveloped areas of the District and Prince George's County and toward "denser" neighborhoods at Metro stops and along public transit corridors.

I'm for density as much as the next guy and would argue we should use every carrot and stick we can find to make it happen. I also agree with George Mason University's regional economic development guru, Richard Florida, that we also need to come up with models for this "new urbanism" that go beyond just building tall condominium towers and mixed-used megaprojects at every Metro stop.

But given the difficulty in overcoming the political opposition to "dense" development in established neighborhoods, it seems unrealistic to expect that there will be enough of this sort of "smart growth" to accommodate 2 million new residents -- or that most of those 2 million would willingly chose the new urban lifestyle, even if it were available.

Which leaves us with a difficult choice: either accept another 25 years of continued sprawl or take some steps to slow the growth in jobs and population. My vote: slower growth.

The old-fashioned way to slow growth, of course, is to use zoning ordinances, land banks and caps on building permits to hold down new construction. Unfortunately, this works only if controls are imposed region-wide, which isn't likely, particularly in a region as politically balkanized as Washington.

A more effective approach, it seems to me, would be to ask the federal government to engage in a regional planning process that would gradually shift more of its operations -- and the private contractors who go with it -- to Richmond and Baltimore.

These two neighbors would certainly welcome the addition of steady, good-paying jobs, while offering lots of great old housing stock and underutilized neighborhoods ripe for redevelopment. And because such diversion would result in no net loss in economic activity or tax revenue for either Maryland or Virginia, it would be a political and fiscal win all the way around.

As you might imagine, this is an idea some Washington business leaders -- particularly those in and around the development business -- consider heresy.

While most have no philosophical problems spending millions of dollars a year to promote economic development, they would somehow consider it Soviet-style "state planning" if the goal were to shift to restraining development instead.

And then there are those, like primo developer Chip Akridge, who worry that "if the golden goose finds a better nest, it might up and leave." That's a pretty unlikely outcome, it seems to me, as long as Congress, the White House and top Cabinet officers remain here in Washington.

A truly successful and confident region is one that realizes when it has too much of a good thing and pushes back from the table. The risk of trying to swallow it all is choking to death.

Steven Pearlstein can be reached atpearlsteins@washpost.com.