The following is a short study of population growth in some small towns compiled by Mel Schupack of Walpole. He authorized The Walpolean to share it with you. CCB
A Perspective on Growth and the Need for Active Planning
by Mel Schupack
I think there is little question Walpole will grow. The issue is the degree to which growth will be defined by the community as opposed to the degree to which the community will end up being defined by the growth. Walpole is entering a period of growth beyond what it has experienced in the past. We look to our Planning Board to provide leadership in dealing with it.
Up to now growth in Walpole has been quite slow. The first year we had a census, 1790, the population of Walpole was 1,245. By 1950 (160 years later) it had grown to 2,536. In 2000 the population was 3,594. The US Census estimate for 2004 was 3,704.
Year Population % Change Source of Data
1790 1,245 First Census of Walpole
1950 2,536 103.69% % Change over 160 years
1960 2,825 11.40%
1970 2,966 4.99%
1980 3,188 7.48%
Economic & Labor Market Information Bureau, NH Employment Security.
1990 3,210 0.69% US Census
2000 3,594 11.96%
2004 3,704 3.06% Estimate
Walpole has not yet experienced real growth. Some of us who have lived elsewhere have experienced what happens to the community fabric with acceleration of growth.
What we see so far in Walpole is just the beginning of a more rapid growth cycle. The graph above shows this is still at early stages of what some of us have seen elsewhere. There is more to indicate this as well. The Society for the Protection of NH Forests issued a report in 2000, which showed almost all the growth in NH, was in the southeastern part of the state. Little growth was evident in the southwestern part. I believe the projections for us back than were in the 10-12% range for the next two decades or so. Their latest report in 2005 more than doubled that projection and indicated accelerated growth has begun in our area. Indeed several towns in the Monadnock area were taken by surprise and rushed to put in some emergency growth management ordinances. A recent article by a conservative commentator (David Brooks) indicated the US will grow by 70 million people by 2025. Already the trend shows growth is not going to existing metropolitan areas nor to suburbs, but to the less populated parts of the country, which Walpole is. While the details of growth will be somewhat different for different areas and different periods, I suggest that there is a general overall pattern. Important differences in the variations of that pattern depend to a significant extent on the reaction of different communities to the beginning of growth. It is necessary to look over decades rather than just a few years.
To demonstrate the importance of an early active approach, I will be comparing the very early stage of growth here in Walpole to two towns. I call them Town A and Town B. These two towns are way ahead of us in terms of growth, but the patterns of growth can suggest lessons from which we might benefit. Both were, and still are, considered small towns similar to Walpole. They began as very small towns in rural and agricultural areas with very little growth over many decades. (Having lived in Town A for 35 years I am most familiar with it. Town B is not far from Town A.)
Town A in the very early stage of the growth cycle reacted very differently than did Town B. Town A had a quite active Planning Board, town government and citizenry that enacted comprehensive zoning and other ordinances to actually implement the Master Plan. Town B took a far more hands-off approach.
Physically, Town A is in many ways comparable to Walpole. Both towns go from a waterway to hills (a small mountain in A and in Walpole, High Blue, which is only 700 ft. lower than that mountain.). Both towns are heavily forested with second growth forests, having been cleared for agriculture early on. Both towns are historic and have a historic center. Town A is much farther along the growth curve and yet has largely retained its physical character and integrity by means of a comprehensive Master Plan implemented by a comprehensive set of land use ordinances. The land use ordinances for Town A are145 pages long compared to about 41 pages for Walpole. Town A is smaller in area. While it is not possible to briefly review all of that, Town A’s ordinances include detailed design review criteria, including building size, density, design and landscaping. There are also planned residential districts, an historic overlay district and a heritage trees and habitat ordinance to protect forests and habitat. Town B has undergone rather profound transformation, now having mostly high end residential subdivisions surrounding huge shopping malls, although more recently (a bit after the fact perhaps) it also has put in design review and a more comprehensive set of land use ordinances.
The data I use start at different dates for each because real development started at different times. (Town A was earlier.) But the data for the first two decades of this comparison shows definite similarities. The figures below are for population:
Decades Town A Town B Walpole
1 2,551 1,587 3,210
2 2,554 5,150 3,594
3 4,164 18,225
4 4,847 39,844
5 7,331 53,643
6 10,411 60,569
7 12,942 64,296
Property owners are rightly concerned about the impact of land use regulations on their future property values. The instinctive reaction often is to oppose any regulation for fear it will limit their future property values. However actual data will show the opposite to be true. For example, the median house values for Town A in 2000 (at the end of the accelerated growth period for both towns) was 2.2 times that for Town B. Property owners in Town A fared very well indeed. It suggests what I expect most realtors with a few decades of experience with such situations might tell us, that property values are impacted more by the physical (and historic) environment of the surrounding community than by the number of houses you can cram on to a piece of property. A properly comprehensive set of land use ordinances end up protecting property values as well as the community,
Growth is always incremental. If one focuses on each incremental project it can be easy to miss the broader perspective. In part it is job of a good master plan to provide at least some of that broader perspective. That is why the master plan is so important. When the actual land use ordinances do not provide for “protecting and carry out of the master plan” then the community is at considerable risk. Whenever the master plan goals are bypassed, then it gets very hard if not impossible to go back to those goals.
It is for this reason that the two petition warrant articles are submitted. These aim at a small change in the zoning ordinance aimed at that “protecting and carrying out of the master plan”. These are only small steps for what might be the larger task of protecting the character and integrity of what is so much valued by most of us who live in Walpole. For that we really need a far more concerned and forward looking planning board leading a comprehensive planning effort. The future of our community is at stake.
