It’s a question no one asks: How big should Manteca ultimately get?

Given the current economic climate it might sound a tad crazy to talk about drawing ultimate growth lines in the proverbial sand. After all, limit growth and you limit economic prosperity, right?

Actually an argument can be made that growth in the form of sprawl is a drag on a local economy.

It becomes more expensive to provide basic municipal services with the less housing units you have per acre. You need to keep widening roads and building more major streets to move people between neighborhoods, jobs, and shopping. Blight conditions grow as older areas are abandoned by retailers and others given the financial incentives to build on available raw land. It pencils out better than re-investing in developed areas.

That would change if you had an ultimate growth limit boundary where no urbanization beyond could occur. It would send the value of raw land up within the city limits as it becomes a static commodity.

Some may argue that would scare away potential employers that need big business parks. No problem. Make land use restrictions in terms of ultimate development boundaries apply to residential and commercial and not business parks.

Besides, the fallacy of job centers surrounded by homes as sound planning needs to be exposed. In the Central Valley the job centers are going to involve extensive trucking and processing. It isn’t exactly a place you want to live down the street from. Again, Manteca is not Pleasanton. There are two distinct economic realities on opposite sides of the Altamont Pass.

It’s doubtful back in 1970 that very many Modesto residents clamored for their city to top 210,000 residents by 2010. In 1970, Modesto had 61,712 residents or 8,000 less than Manteca does today. Did unbridled growth improve the unemployment rate or reduce crime and poverty? Did it ease congestion? Did it make municipal finances more viable?

Manteca needs to escape post-World War II California growth patterns. Bigger isn’t necessarily better. Quality of life plus long-term costs of providing urban services must be taken into account.

Ultimate urban limits are needed and not simply “spheres of influence” that change every 10 years when general plans are updated.

Manteca may indeed connect one day with Stockton and Ripon along the Highway 99 corridor. Ripon and Manteca are already discussing the creation of a green belt to make sure everything doesn’t become one big blob.

Manteca can’t grow farther west thanks to Lathrop.

The city does, though, need to draw real limits and stick to them in the east as well as to the due south toward the Stanislaus River.

South of Manteca should be a no brainer. Urbanization should not occur in the existing 100-year flood plain. There also needs to be a transition zone much like it is now with small parcels of five acres or less. That way urbanization slowly gives way to farming. Rest assured those living in a semi-rural zone backed up to farmland are going to be much more tolerant of accepted farming practices than those in a typical subdivision.

There needs to be an ultimate boundary to the east. Given how Austin Road already is broken up with small parcels that aren’t conducive to large-scale development, that eastern boundary might be best set a quarter of a mile east of Austin Road.

Once ultimate boundaries are set, Manteca can determine with more precision the infrastructure that is needed to ultimately support future urbanization.

Such a plan would add value to existing development which in turn would protect them from sliding into blight.

Manteca can create a more vibrant city or it can go the sprawl route as Modesto did.