The purpose of this paper is to provide background information on trends and possible future changes in urban structure and lifestyles important for planning the development of a parcel of Arizona state trust land known as Superstition Vistas (SV). This parcel, which is located just south of the Superstition Mountains in Pinal County, has an area of 275 square miles—enough land to provide housing for 900,000 new Phoenix metro-area residents at current population densities.

The aspects of future urban living discussed in this paper are those important for land-use planning—density, neighborhood design, transportation demand, etc. Very little attention will be given to the interior of homes. Also, since the SV parcel is currently undeveloped, emphasis will be placed on changes in urban structure that can be accomplished in greenfield developments rather than the in-fill of urban cores.

Arizonans have been divided in their feelings about growth and what to do about it, especially during the past two decades. To complicate matters, the debate over the best responses to growth has been drawn along overly simplistic lines—the economy versus the environment. Arizonans who follow the myriad issues related to urban growth closely are becoming convinced that the discussion needs to be recast in a new light.

Scholar Leo Marx coined the phrase “the machine in the garden” in 1964 to describe the relationship between nature and technology. Considering much of the writing about Arizona’s growth, it seemed an apt title for this volume of Arizona Policy Choices. "The Machine in the Garden" presents growth policy choices for Arizona along a continuum: Yesterday’s Growth—the policies that have been used in the past; Today’s Growth—the “smarter” approaches from around the country; and Tomorrow’s Growth—cutting edge thinking about the economy and experiments in urbanism and governance.

This publication offers comparative data and analysis on 10 public policy issues. With its scope and detail, "How Arizona Compares" will be of interest to many throughout Arizona and strives to encourage leaders and residents to discuss and move ahead on the state's most pressing public policy issues. The intent is for this publication to be studied and used for dialogue and action. The following sections are included: (1) Polishing the 48th Star; (2) Inside "How Arizona Compares"; (3) Arizona's Land and People; (4) Crime and Punishment; (5) Health and Health Care; (6) Education; (7) Business Futures; (8) Families and Incomes; (9) Signal Measures on Hot Topics; (10) Government; (11) Arts and Culture; (12) Housing; (13) Transportation; and (14) Environment. A list of selected sources is appended.

Arizona Ideas includes notions large and small, homegrown and borrowed, current and historical. From A-Z, every one -- whether originally born here or adapted from elsewhere-- contributes to the state’s competitive position. Arizona Ideas also explores the roots of Arizona’s tradition of self-criticism --some call it a sense of insecurity or inferiority in comparison to other places -- that often surfaces in discussions of public policy. This observation has provoked considerable debate, but few would deny that this perspective exists. It is time to debate this idiosyncrasy out in the open and find better ways of moving the state ahead.

States have always administered federal programs. But, states usually have had very little say in how they carried out programs. All states could generally do was follow the rules laid out by federal agencies. But now, devolution is giving states more power over programs. And, in general, Americans have said that they approve of the idea. A 1998 nationwide poll, funded by The W. K. Kellogg Foundation, showed that a majority of Americans perceive devolution to be a positive development for the country.

Arizonans have gained a reputation for their low opinion of government, despite -- or perhaps because of -- the major role played by all governmental levels in residents’ daily lives. This view was reflected in the responses to this segment of the survey, as panelists generally gave low ratings to the government services they were asked to judge. This was especially true of lower-income panelists. But the respondents’ low ratings might not always have been based upon personal experience: Few panelists said they had sought information from government or community agencies. This may be due to the increasing popularity of the Internet as a self-help source, but it could also mean that relatively few residents need the services or know they are available. In any case, more than half of those who did seek information said they were satisfied with the result. Panelists were not dismissive of all collective efforts at social betterment. They expressed high levels of agreement that good community-based programs can prevent many social problems, from drug and alcohol addiction to child abuse and juvenile delinquency. Asked how they themselves would distribute public funds for social problems, most respondents choose programs for children, affordable housing, and health insurance.