Smart Growth at Century's End: The State of the States

Urban Lawyer

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 601-644

  Salkin, Patricia E ^a  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0007712971     PISSN: 00420905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (266)

1. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD, THE COSTS OF SPRAWL - REVISITED (1998). The study, authored by Robert Burchell et. al., contains references to approximately 500 studies on sprawl published between 1970 and 1998.
2. See Neal Pierce, Sprawl Rises as Issue: But Will Anything Change? COUNTY NEWS, Oct. 12, 1998, at 25.
3. ROBERT BURCHELL, IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE NEW JERSEY INTERIM STATE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, REPORT II: RESEARCH FINDINGS (Feb. 28, 1992).
4. See FARMLAND PRESERVATION REPORT (Oct. 1998), which reports that the Pennsylvania Environmental Council has retained Clarion Associates to conduct a cost of sprawl study.
5. MAINE STATE PLANNING OFFICE, THE COST OF SPRAWL (May 1998).
6. WILLIAM FULTON, BEYOND SPRAWL: NEW PATTERNS OF GROWTH TO FIT THE NEW CALIFORNIA (1995).
7. 1998 N.H. Laws 197 (H.B. 1238).
8. SIERRA CLUB, THE DARK SIDE OF THE AMERICAN DREAM: THE COSTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF SUBURBAN SPRAWL (1998); see www.sierraclub.org.
9. Id.
10. See Porter, 4 GROWTH MGMT. REP. no. 4 (1998), at 3, citing Consumers Talk Green, Act Brown, USA TODAY, April 22, 1998.
11. See Porter, 4 GROWTH MGMT. REP. no. 4 (1998), at 3, citing Consumers Talk Green, Act Brown, USA TODAY, April 22, 1998.
12. 〈http://www.state.nj.us/inaug〉.
13. Pierce, supra note 2, at 25.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. See Who Pays for Sprawl?, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REP., April 27, 1998.
17. Smart Growth Bill Bow to Reality: Fight Sprawl or Watch it get Worse, BUFFALO NEWS, May 3,1998, at H-2.
18. Sharon O'Malley, Smart Growth, and Philip Langdon, Sprawl, BUILDER, July 1998.
19. Sharon O'Malley, Smart Growth, and Philip Langdon, Sprawl, BUILDER, July 1998.
20. http://www.sprawlwatch.org
21. See generally SMART GROWTH NETWORK, GETTING SMART! (Nov. 1998).
22. INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION WITH GEOFF ANDERSON, WHY SMART GROWTH: A PRIMER, (1998).
23. Geoffrey Anderson & Harriet Tregoning, Smart Growth in Our Future?, ULI ON THE FUTURE: SMART GROWTH: ECONOMY, COMMUNITY, ENVIRONMENT (1998), at 10.
24. SMART GROWTH NETWORK, SMART GROWTH NETWORK PROGRESS REPORT: MOVING SMART GROWTH FROM THEORY TO POLICY & PRACTICE (Dec. 1998), at 12.
25. Anderson & Tregoning, supra note 21, at 4.
26. Id. at 10.
27. Elaine Harris, Gore Shares 21st Century Vision for Cities, Calls for Partnerships, NATION'S CITIES WKLY., December 14, 1998.
28. Id. at 5.
29. For a discussion of the proposals and activities in each of these states, see Patricia E. Salkin, Statewide Comprehensive Planning: The Next Wave, in STATE & REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING: IMPLEMENTING NEW METHODS FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT (1993).
30. H.R. CON. RES. 2361 (Az. 1998).
31. In addition to establishing the Commission, the Act adds new elements to turn land-use plans into growth management plans; requires greater public participation in the creation of general plans; elevates the importance of general plans in local and county jurisdictions; requires that zoning decisions conform to the general plans; and provides a mechanism for the acquisition and preservation of open spaces, including funding therefore.
32. H.R. CON. RES. 2027, 2d Leg. Sess. (Ariz. 1998).
33. December 1, 1998 (Arizona).
34. H.R. CON. RES. 2027, 2d Leg. Sess. (Ariz. 1998).
35. S. 1238, Ch 145 (Ariz. 1997).
36. "Governor Celebrates the Passage of Growing Smarter," Agenda for Growing Smarter Press Conference, June 12, 1998; see http://ww.governor.state.az.us/news/releases/6-12-98.
37. Subcommittees have been organized around the following eight topics: changes in the State Land Department's mandate and exchange authority; reforms of municipal and county land-use statutes; creation of programs to purchase development rights and conservation easements; reforms to regional planning processes; concepts to improve the management of urban and rural growth patterns; programs to promote urban infill, revitalization and redevelopment; programs to promote rural economies; and programs to increase federal funding of the Land & Water Conservation Fund. See Growing Smarter Brochure, Draft #3 2/22/99 (on file with author).
38. Growing Smarter Brochure, Draft #3 2/22/99.
39. Id. As early evidence of their intention to involve the public, the Commission has established a website donated by the Arizona Planning Association. It can be found at http:/www.azplanning.org.
40. SMART GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTION CENTER, SMART GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT: A WORK IN PROGRESS (July 1996). The governor's plan outlined specific elements of a locally driven, bottom up approach for creating a vision for Colorado and shaping the state's future.
41. Id.
42. Id. See also State of Colorado's website http://governor.state.co.us/smart growth/, which defines the Smart Growth and Development Initiative as, "a forum in which public discourse has progressed beyond the simplistic notions of 'pro-growth' and 'no-growth,' by developing partnerships among state and local governments, key stakeholder groups, and citizens. This grass roots process of developing local, regional and statewide visions, and the strategies to achieve them, continues throughout Colorado."
43. Id.
44. SMART GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT, INTERREGIONAL COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO, FINAL DRAFT Doc. (Nov. 9, 1995).
45. Andrew Simons, State Offers Grants to Aid Local Growth, DENVER POST, Mar. 8, 1998.
46. See Smart Growth Network, Spotlight on Smart Growth Activities, Getting Smart! Vol. 1, No. 1 at 6 (1998).
47. SHAPING DELAWARE'S FUTURE (Newsletter of the Cabinet Comm. on State Planning Issues, Del.), Feb. 17, 1995.
48. Id.
49. Id.
50. Interactive open houses were scheduled to keep the dialogue going. Id.
51. SHAPING DELAWARE'S FUTURE (Newsletter of the Cabinet Comm. on State Planning Issues, Del.), Apr. 1995.
52. (1) Directing state investment and future development to existing communities, urban concentrations, and designated growth areas; (2) protecting important farmland from ill-advised development; (3) protecting critical natural resource areas from ill-advised development; (4) developing methods for assessing the fiscal impact and cost-benefit analysis of development for use by both state and local governments when considering land-use policies and infrastructure investment; (5) streamlining regulatory processes and providing flexible incentives and disincentives to encourage growth in desired areas; (6) encouraging redevelopment and improving livability of existing communities and urban areas, and guiding new employment into under-used commercial and industrial sites; (7) providing high quality employment opportunities for citizens with various skill levels, and attracting and retaining a diverse economic base; (8) protecting the state's water supplies, open spaces, farmlands, and communities by encouraging revitalization of existing water and wastewater systems and the construction of new systems; (9) promoting mobility for people and goods through a balanced, multimodal transportation system; and (10) providing access to educational opportunities and health care for all Delawareans. Id. at 8-15.
53. Exec. Order No. 29
54. 1995 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT TO THE CABINET COMMITTEE ON STATE PLANNING ISSUES, DELAWARE OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING COORDINATION (July 1996).
55. 70 Del. Laws 270 (1995).
56. Id.
57. Anthony DePrima, PLANNING, February 1997, at 34.
58. Id.
59. Press Release from Delaware Public Policy Institute (Feb. 5, 1997) (on file with author).
60. CHOICES FOR DELAWARE, THE FUTURE OF LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE (May 27, 1997) (prepared by Simeon, Larsen and Marsh).
61. The issue categories were: Adequate Public Facilities, Infrastructure Capacity and Demand, Character and Quality of Planning, Patterns of Development, Plan Implementation, Agriculture, Equity, Affordable Housing, Certainty and Property Rights. Id. at 2.
62. The recommended programs consist of: Delaware Conservation, Development and Redevelopment Plan; Statewide Planning Database; Required Municipal Comprehensive Plans; Expanded Requirements for County and Municipal Comprehensive Plans; School Districts; Transfer of Development Rights; Statutory Sunsetting/Vesting; Comprehensive Plan Implementation; Delaware Quality Development; Transportation Funding; State PAR Funding; Rural Land Residential Density; Transportation Level of Service Standards; Comprehensive Wastewater Treatment Standards; and Additional Revenue Sources.
63. 70 Del. Laws 522 (1996).
64. Correspondence on file with author, "Shaping Delaware's Future" chronology, Donna Sharp, Planner, Office of State Planning.
65. Correspondence on file with author, "Electronic LUPA transmission speeds agency response time, eliminates most faces," Donna Sharp, Planner, Office of State Planning.
66. Id.
67. http://www.state.de.us/planning.
68. See Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination, Legislative Update, July 8, 1998.
69. H.R. 394, 139th Leg. (Del. 1998).
70. H.R. 395, 139th Leg. (Del. 1998).
71. H.R. 396, 139th Leg. (Del. 1998). The Act was written to reinforce the importance of municipalities to the state as the historical focus of much of the state's early development and as a potential focus for new development. It also recognizes that unplanned and uncoordinated growth of municipalities can be detrimental to the long-term goals of the state and the counties. The Act redefines the purpose and content of municipal comprehensive plans to municipal zoning provisions, and gives the plans the force of law once adopted. It also adds reporting, review and revision requirements. See Delaware Office of State Planning and Coordination, Legislative Update, July 8, 1998.
72. The 1998 version of the bill, H.B. 397, "would have enabled the counties to develop Intergovernmental Coordination Zones in which land use decisions could be coordinated between municipalities and the counties." See DELAWARE CHAPTER, AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION & STATE OFFICE OF PLANNING COORDINATION, DELAWARE PLANNING NEWS BULL., Summer 1998.
73. The 1998 version of the bill was H.B. 212. According to a published report by the State Office of Planning Coordination, Governor Carper is considering issuing an executive order in 1999 calling for a state plan. See Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination, Legislative Update, July 8, 1998.
74. H.R. 213 (1998).
75. H.R. 215 (1998).
76. THE OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING COORDINATION, 1997 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT TO THE CABINET COMMITTEE ON STATE PLANNING ISSUES (July 1998).
77. Id. at 9.
78. Id. at 8.
79. Id. at 7.
80. Id. at 11.
81. Thus, there are two fundamental . . . land use trends in . . . Delaware . . . . The first is that, on the one hand, land use activities are becoming more spread out, densities are declining and more land is being used for each activity. The second contrasting trend is that in travel time, time-distance, the travel time between land uses is shrinking functionally bringing everything closer. See supra note 74, at 11.
82. Id. at 34.
83. H.R. 394, 139th Leg. (Del. 1997).
84. See supra note 68. The version of the bill that passed was a substitute, rewritten to emphasize coordination, rather than consolidation or centralization of data and GIS activities. See letter on file with author from Donna Sharp, Office of State Planning Coordination, Feb. 8, 1999.
85. See supra note 69. This bill redefines the purpose and content of municipal comprehensive plans, it sets minimum standards, links the plan to municipal zoning provisions, and gives the plan force of law once adopted. Reporting, review, and revision requirements are also part of the package.
86. Letter on file with author from Donna Sharp, Office of State Planning Coordination, Feb. 8, 1999. The letter reiterates, "State efforts to control growth and limit sprawl will continue to make municipalities the focus of development and redevelopment in Delaware."
87. The governor is the recipient of the American Planning Association's 1999 National Award for Distinguished Leadership for an Elected Official. In January 1999 he was also awarded the national achievement award from the American Farmland Trust for his role in farmland protection.
88. Id.
89. H.R. 3322 (Haw. 1998); S. 3150 (Haw. 1998).
90. James Lawlor, From the States, PLANNING (Mar. 1998), at 40.
91. COMMISSION ON URBAN PLANNING, GROWTH MANAGEMENT OF CITIES, AND PROTECTION OF FARMLAND, IOWA, PROGRESS REPORT, January 1998.
92. Id. at 1. The Commission consists of 17 citizen members and 4 legislators.
93. The purpose of the study is to: review county land-use inventories; survey the status of Iowa farmland and natural areas; determine the extent to which areas have been converted to residential, commercial, or industrial use; report on the agricultural quality of farmland converted to residential, commercial, or industrial use; survey problems facing the state's cities; evaluate the effectiveness of current state, regional, and local planning and zoning laws and assess their impact on the farmland, natural areas, and cities of the state; review model legislation and studies on farmland protection and urban planning; collect information on states that have undertaken reform efforts and have effective programs; propose innovative and cooperative planning and land-use approaches that will protect farmland; accommodate and guide growth and development, ensure the planning and construction of adequate supporting services and infrastructure including utilities, storm water management systems, and transportation; provide opportunities for or eliminate barriers to affordable housing; protect the environment; and minimize exposure to natural hazards. Id. at 2.
94. STATE OF IOWA, FINAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON URBAN PLANNING, GROWTH MANAGEMENT OF CITIES, AND PROTECTION OF FARMLAND, available on the General Assembly's webpage at http://www.legis.state.ia.us.
95. Id. at 6.
96. Id.
97. Id.
98. STATE OF IOWA, FINAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON URBAN PLANNING, GROWTH MANAGEMENT OF CITIES, AND PROTECTION OF FARMLAND (Jan. 1999).
99. Telephone Interview with Stewart Huntington, Iowa State University (Jan. 22, 1998).
100. The Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act Amendments of 1992, MD. ANN. CODE, ZONING & PLANNING, art. 66B.
101. Id.
102. Id. at § 306(b): [T]he commission shall implement the following visions through the plan described in § 305 of this article: (1) Development is concentrated in suitable areas; (2) Sensitive areas are protected; (3) In rural areas, growth is directed to existing population centers and resource areas are protected; (4) Stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and the land is a universal ethic; (5) Conservation of resources, including a reduction in resource consumption, is practiced; (6) To assure through (5) of this subsection, economic growth is encouraged and regulatory mechanisms are streamlined; and (7) Funding mechanisms are addressed to achieve these visions.
103. James T. Noonan & Gail Moran, Implementation of Maryland's Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act, FAU/FIU JOINT CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND URBAN PROBLEMS, at 14.
104. Id.
105. (1) Local governments should retain primary responsibility for land-use decisions; (2) each region of the state is different, thereby eliminating a one-size-fits-all approach; (3) the state should consider the growth implications of all of its actions, including infrastructure funding; (4) the state should coordinate land-use efforts which affect economic development, interjurisdictional conflicts, regional arrangements, and environmental issues. ECONOMIC GROWTH, RESOURCE PROTECTION, AND PLANNING COMMISSION 1996 ANNUAL REPORT, vol.1, at 3-4 (1996).
106. Id. at 5-6.
107. Id. at 8.
108. Id. at 7-8.
109. MD. ANN. CODE, STATE FIN. & PROC. § 5-7B-01 (1997).
110. Id.
111. Maryland municipalities, existing communities, industrial areas, and planned growth areas designated by counties will receive priority funding under Smart Growth. Id.
112. MD. ANN. CODE, NAT. RES. § 5-9A-01 (1997).
113. Redevelopment Bond Act, MD. ANN. CODE art. 41, § 14-805 (1997).
114. MD. ANN. CODE, art. 83A, § 5-1101 (1997).
115. The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development implements this demonstration program.
116. Id.
117. Exec. Order 01.01.1998.04. See also 4 GROWTH MGMT. REP. no. 4 (1998). The order requires state agencies to: • give priority to central business districts, downtown cores, empowerment zones and revitalization areas when funding infrastructure projects or locating new facilities; • review, evaluate and coordinate programs, services and activities in Priority Funding Areas to enhance and support community revitalization; • work with local jurisdictions to ensure that programs and activities in rural areas will sustain the character of villages in the area; • encourage locating workshops, conferences and other meetings in priority funding areas and support available businesses in these areas when planning such activities; and • encourage federal agencies to adopt flexible regulations and standards which are more responsive to state and local policies and can be used to support the Smart Growth policies.
118. Id.
119. Telephone conversation with Gail Moran, Maryland Office of Planning, October 23, 1997.
120. Id. See also http://222.op.state.md.us/smartgrowth/.
121. Id.
122. Id.
123. The Office of Planning has aggressively been pursuing the use of computer technology to improve planning assistance. For instance, "drawing" software shows localities the results or impacts of their local planning decisions while GIS is being used to guide regional decisions such as transportation and watershed protection. MARYLAND OFFICE OF PLANNING ANNUAL REPORT, 1995/1996.
124. See http://www.op.state.md.us/smartgrowth.
125. For example, "Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation: A Legacy for Our Children" is a 16-page color guide for the public written, designed and produced by the Maryland Office of Planning.
126. See BOWERS, FARMLAND PRESERVATION REPORT at 4 (Feb. 1999). For a general discussion of Maryland's approach to smart growth and transportation, see David L. Winstead, Smart Growth, Smart Transportation: A New Program to Manage Growth in Maryland, 30 URB. LAW. 537 (1998).
127. See BOWERS, FARMLAND PRESERVATION REPORT at 4 (Feb. 1999). For a general discussion of Maryland's approach to smart growth and transportation, see David L. Winstead, Smart Growth, Smart Transportation: A New Program to Manage Growth in Maryland, 30 URB. LAW. 537 (1998).
128. See Salkin, supra note 27.
129. See Mass. Exec. Order 385 (1996).
130. Governor John Engler, Michigan's Environment and Relative Risk (June 1992).
131. Toward Integrated Land Use Planning, 14 PLANNING AND ZONING NEWS NO. 5, Mar. 1996, at 5-6.
132. Id. at 6.
133. Id. at 8.
134. Id. at 8-9.
135. Id. at 11-12.
136. Toward Integrated Land Use Planning, 14 PLANNING AND ZONING NEWS NO. 5, Mar. 1996, at 12.
137. The Municipal Planning Act; the Township Planning Act; the County Planning Act; the Regional Planning Act; the Township Rural Zoning Act; the County Rural Zoning Enabling Act; and the City-Village Zoning Act, House Republican Policy Committee Task Force Report on Land Use, at 3 April 1994.
138. Id.
139. John M. DeGrove, State Growth Management Systems That Integrate and Coordinate Land Use Planning: An Overview, Land Use Issues and Alternatives, 14 PLANNING AND ZONING NEWS NO. 3, January 1996, at 9.
140. Id. at 10.
141. H.R. 5149 (Mich. 1997). This bill was introduced into the legislature on September 30, 1997. No further action was taken.
142. H.R. 4034 (Mich. 1997), amends 1983 Mich. Pub. Acts 285, MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 125.31 & 125.33.
143. Among the planning and development goals outlined are: The development of coordinated sustainable economic strategies; The protection of natural resources; The creation of liveable neighborhoods; The development of a more coordinated and efficient housing, transportation and public education systems.
144. S. 383 (Nev. 1997).
145. Ed Vogel, Legislative Wraps Long, Costly Run, LAS VEGAS REV.-J., July 8, 1997.
146. Susan Greene, Panel Ready to Take on Growth-Related Issues, LAS VEGAS REV.-J., Sept. 9, 1997.
147. 1998 N.H. Laws 197 (H.B. 1238). In its statement of purpose, the law asserts that sprawl has disrupted the traditional character of New Hampshire Communities, contributing to a loss of "a sense of place."
148. Land Use Management and Farmland Preservation Study, Final Report (Oct. 1998).
149. Senate Joint Memorial 34 (1996).
150. Ken Hughes, Growth in New Mexico: Impacts and Options, N.M. LOC. GOV'T DIV. (1996).
151. The report points out that this amounts to the combined current populations of Albuquerque, Las Cruses, Santa Fe, and Roswell. The report also claims that New Mexico will be the second most favorite place in the country after California. Id.
152. Id. at 99-112.
153. Id.
154. Id.
155. The Arizona report addressed: developing a statewide vision that incorporates goals for Arizona's future in managing growth and protecting the environment; and the adoption of the Four C's - coordination, collaboration, cooperation and common sense. Id. at 55-59.
156. Correspondence on file with author, Dan Hughes, dated Nov. 13, 1997.
157. Id.
158. Id.
159. S. 793 (N.M. 1997).
160. H.R. 340 (N.M. 1997).
161. H.R. 922 (N.M. 1998) (was supported by New Mexico first).
162. 1000 Friends of New Mexico is a bi-partisan organization whose goals reflect a basic desire to address land and water-use issues in New Mexico, as well as to protect the traditions and values endemic to the state, through the use of public forums and prepared reports. It is patterned after similar groups in California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Oregon, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN, Sept. 21, 1997.
163. Telephone conversation with Lora Lucero of 1000 Friends of New Mexico, Oct. 30, 1997.
164. Id.
165. Id.
166. Id.
167. The state should strive to: incorporate economic development into growth management packages; use public dollars to encourage community redevelopment; streamline state and local permitting; document fiscal impacts of growth; document existing contradictory and conflicting state policies, programs, and processes; view environmental quality and quality of life as economic assets; promote diverse small businesses; put a premium on human resources; use collaboration as a decision-making tool; and recognize that growth and development are not synonyms. 1000 Friends Panel, Talking Points, Nov. 15, 1997 (on file with author).
168. Local Government Division, Planning Survey of New Mexico Local Governments, Sept. 5, 1997.
169. Id. at 6-7.
170. Id. at 7.
171. Id. at 8.
172. (1) Pay for infrastructure as you grow, not after; (2) focus public investments on designated growth areas; (3) zone for smaller lot sizes; (4) buy lands to preserve open space; (5) fill in land already served by infrastructure; (6) manage growth on a multi-jurisdictional basis; (7) preserve rural farmland; (8) designate a community growth boundary; (9) think skinny streets and small parking lots; and (10) promote neighborhood development with mixed use zoning.
173. New Mexico Chapter of the American Planning Association, "Policy Guide on Growth Management and Planning Enabling Legislation," Adopted by the Membership on October 1, 1998. The three other policy guides adopted address water planning, affordable housing, and infrastructure financing.
174. Id. The 15 points are: 1. Provide state goals for areas of statewide concern or interest. 2. Ensure adequate funding and support to facilitate the planning process. 3. Eliminate inconsistencies and conflicts in the current enabling laws. 4. Require an integrated and mandatory planning framework for all levels of government (state, regional, counties and municipalities) while recognizing the varying capacities of each. 5. Provide clear direction on the substantive requirements of local comprehensive plans (with required and optional elements, level of specificity for each element and internal consistency between different elements). 6. Provide clear procedural requirements for adoption and revision of comprehensive plans, including early, continuing and meaningful public participation in the process. 7. Require consistency between a community's plan, regulations and development decisions. 8. Require a streamlined development review process that provides a measure of certainty and predictability to all stakeholders. 9. Provide effective processes for planning and cooperation at the regional level. 10. Require that new development be phased in with the provision of adequate public faculties, services and infrastructure, while addressing infrastructure rehabilitation and deficiencies in already developed areas with adequate funding. 11. Provide clear statutory authority for communities to use innovative tools to accomplish the goals and policies in their comprehensive plans (such as unified development ordinances, adequate public facility ordinances, urban service areas, urban growth boundaries, transfer of development rights, development impact fees, environmental review and mitigation monitoring processes). 12. Ensure that local and regional plans are consistent with state planning goals, encouraging flexibility and local autonomy to best address the challenges at the local level. 13. Provide both incentives and disincentives to ensure that communities undertake meaningful planning for the 21st century. 14. Provide a level of review (either at the state or regional level) to ensure that local comprehensive plans are consistent with statutory requirements. 15. Reinvigorate a state planning office to coordinate state-wide planning activities at all levels and to provide necessary technical assistance and review.
175. New Mexico Chapter of the American Planning Association, Newsletter (Dec. 1998).
176. The author served as consultant to the Land Use Committee.
177. Part II of the report, titled Managing and Investing in the Region's Assets: For a Stronger Economy and a Better Qualify of Life, suggests strategies for integrating land use, economic development, and transportation planning.
178. The Forum was hosted by the Government Law Center of Albany Law School.
179. A. 10038 (N.Y. 1998) (A. Hoyt).
180. S. 7256 (N.Y. 1998) (Sen. Rath).
181. S. 1367/A.1969 (N.Y. 1999-2000). See also Susan Schulman, Curbing Sprawl is the Goal of Rath-Hoyt Proposal, BUFF. NEWS, Jan. 4, 1999, at C1. According to the yet unfiled draft of the sponsor's memo, it is evident that the legislation is modeled on the Maryland Act. It calls upon the governor to develop a smart growth economic strategy and it creates a seventeen member economic competitiveness task force.
182. S. 1367/A. 1969 (N.Y. 1999-2000). The bill suggests a number of items that may be included in such a strategy including: guidelines for local and regional identification of priority funding areas for eligible state funding; an arrangement for a collaborative compact process for local governments; identification of projects that have an impact on settlement patterns; recommendations for organizing regional compacts to implement the smart growth strategy; and identification of any necessary state organizational changes.
183. Id.
184. Among their functions and duties are: evaluating the effectiveness of current state, regional and local infrastructure policies; surveying stakeholders; reviewing model legislation, studies, and the cost of sprawl; identifying data collection and analysis; proposing a GIS strategy; and proposing innovative and cooperative economic development planning and land-use approaches. See S. 1367/A. 1969, § 160-ccc.
185. A February 22, 1999, program on smart growth presented by Rochester Mayor William Johnson, Jr., is the annual Crawford Lecture on Municipal Law at Albany Law School. That same evening, the Government Law Center of Albany Law School, along with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, hosted an invitational dinner for members of the legislature, the governor's cabinet, and key stakeholders. On March 3 and 4, 1999, a major statewide conference on smart growth was held at the Empire State Plaza. The conference was chaired by the Secretary of State of New York and featured members of the legislature and executive branch. It was co-sponsored by dozens of interested organizations. On April 13, 1999, the Government Law Center sponsored a legislative breakfast program for members of the legislature concerning smart growth for New York.
186. The task force was created by Governor Voinovich via executive order in 1996. It issued its report in 1997.
187. Neal Pierce, Fighting Sprawl: A New Civil Rights Movement?, COUNTY NEWS, Nov. 23, 1998, at 5.
188. EcoCity Cleveland, Ohio Smart Growth Agenda (1998).
189. Pierce, supra note 184 at 5.
190. Salkin, supra note 27.
191. Pa. Exec. Order No. 1997-4 (1997).
192. See Smart Growth Network Progress Report: Moving Smart Growth from Theory to Policy & Practice, ICMA/EPA/ULI (1998).
193. Exec. Order No. 1999-1 (1999) (Governor's Land Use Announcement 1-7-99, press release and Executive Order).
194. The following eight policies are enumerated: 1. Soundly planned growth is in the best long term interests of the Commonwealth and should be encouraged at all levels of government. 2. Farmland and open space are valued Commonwealth natural resources and reasonable measures for their preservation should be promoted. 3. Development should be encouraged and supported in areas that have been previously developed or in locally designated growth areas. 4. Because land use decisions made at the local level have an impact that expands beyond municipal boundaries, regional cooperation among local governments should be encouraged. 5. The constitutional private property rights of Pennsylvanians must be preserved. 6. The Commonwealth shall work to improve the understanding of the impact of land use decisions on the environmental, economic and social health of communities. 7. Sustaining the economic and social vitality of Pennsylvania's communities must be a priority of state government. 8. Infrastructure maintenance and improvement plans should be consistent with sound land use practices. See id.
195. Specifically, the executive order charges the Center with developing an inventory of sound land-use practices and making it readily available; providing technical assistance and education to localities in implementing the objectives of the executive order; encouraging intermunicipal cooperation in planning and zoning; working with other state agencies to develop strategies to advance the agenda; working to help incorporate the statewide greenway plan into local and regional planning strategies; creating an advisory committee; and reporting to the governor, including the submission of recommendations in further support of the goals.
196. Exec. Order No. 1999-1 (1999).
197. Pub. Ch. 1101 (Tenn. 1998): S. 3278/H.R. 3295.
198. Id. at § 3.
199. Id. at § 5.
200. University of Tennessee Institute for Public Service and The Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Growth Policy, Annexation, and Incorporation under Public Act 1101 (Aug. 1998).
201. Utah Tomorrow 1996 Annual Report.
202. Id.
203. We, the people of Utah, stand at the edge of a new frontier. In a world of rapid economic, social, environmental, and technological change, we confront bold challenges and rich opportunities. Building upon our diverse cultures, our pioneering spirit, and our belief in the inherent worth of every person, we seek to: NURTURE a tolerant, just, and compassionate society that honors integrity, values strong families, welcomes diversity, and promotes positive moral values. EDUCATE our citizens by providing an environment that supports life-long learning and occupational skills and that enables Utahns of all ages to reach their potential as productive and responsible individuals. BUILD a statewide economy and infrastructure that supports a broad spectrum of opportunity for all citizens while advancing the standard of living and maintaining a high quality of life. ENHANCE our local and global environment through prudent development, conservation, and preservation of our natural resources while protecting public health, and preserve our sustainable food and fiber resources. PROMOTE personal well-being by encouraging healthy lifestyles and disease prevention, and by supporting access to quality health care at an affordable cost for all Utahns. UNDERSTAND our diverse human heritage, nurture and protect Utah's cultural resources, and create opportunities for cultural education and expression. ENCOURAGE self-sufficiency while helping those with special needs to lead productive, fulfilling lives. PROTECT our society by supporting a justice system that allows Utahns to enjoy a quality lifestyle consistent with the rights and liberties guaranteed under the United States and Utah Constitutions. ASSURE open, just and accountable government. STRENGTHEN our free enterprise system while providing a reasonable regulatory environment that protects our citizens. PREPARE ourselves, our state, and our children for the challenges of tomorrow, today. Id.
204. The key areas are: culture, economic development, education, environment and natural resources, free enterprise and regulatory systems, government, health and safety, human services, infrastructure, and justice. Id.
205. Id.
206. Id.
207. Local Government Planning Project, Planning for Utah's Rural Counties, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget in conjunction with Utah Association of Counties.
208. Id.
209. Open Space: The Land That Legislators Forgot, 1997 Utah Legis. Sess. (Mar. 9, 1997).
210. Id.
211. Id.
212. Id.
213. Guvs Hear Experts' Pitch to Preserve Open Spaces: Leavitt Wants to Change Growth Trends, SALT LAKE TRIB., September 30, 1997.
214. S.B. 243, Task Force on Air-Quality, Transportation, and Land-Use, 1996 Utah Legis. Sess., repealed December 31, 1996.
215. Id.
216. Managing Growth: Don't Plan on It with Legislature; Lawmaker Suggests Grass-Roots Action; Growth Is Thorny Issue in Legislature, SALT LAKE TRIB., May 15, 1997.
217. Open Space: The Land that Legislatures Forgot, 1997 Utah Legis. Sess., March 9, 1997.
218. S.B. 189 (Utah 1998).
219. H.B. 430 (Utah 1998) (a placeholder bill relating to the governance of county service areas); S.B. 16 (Utah 1998) (requiring municipalities and counties to establish a planning commission are currently awaiting action in the House).
220. H.R. 285 (Utah 1998) (appropriates $175,000 to the Office of Planning and Budget to match funds for local governments to develop and implement land-use plans); S.B. 213 (Utah 1998) (appropriates $60,000 to the Office of Planning and Budget to invest in training of local officials in planning, technology, and growth management); and UT H.B. 74 (provides for the creation of agricultural protection areas in cities and towns).
221. James Lawlor, From the States, 63 PLANNING NO. 12 (Dec. 1997).
222. James Lawlor, Briefly Noted, 26 LAND USE L. REP. NO. 22, 175 (Oct. 28, 1998). See Lawlor, From the States, 64 PLANNING NO. 12 (1998).
223. James Lawlor, Briefly Noted, 26 LAND USE L. REP. NO. 22, 175 (Oct. 28, 1998). See Lawlor, From the States, 64 PLANNING NO. 12 (1998).
224. Lawlor, From the States, supra note 219.
225. Id. at 37.
226. S.J. RES. 177 (Sen. Mary-Margaret Whipple) (1998).
227. James Lawlor, From the States, 64 PLANNING NO. 3 (Mar. 1998).
228. Exec. Order No. 236
229. Id.
230. Id.
231. Mark Bugher, chair of the Council, split the task force into three teams charged with the following tasks: (1) to collect and evaluate information regarding land-use planning and programs in other states; (2) to document Wisconsin state and local involvement in land use and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses in current practices; and (3) to collect public sentiments and expert opinions regarding land-use procedures and options in Wisconsin. See WISCONSIN STRATEGIC GROWTH TASK FORCE, LAND USE ISSUES FACING WISCONSIN: A REPORT FROM THE WISCONSIN STRATEGIC GROWTH TASK FORCE (Dec. 1995).
232. STATE INTERAGENCY LAND USE COUNCIL, PLANNING WISCONSIN: REPORT OF THE INTERAGENCY LAND USE COUNCIL TO GOVERNOR TOMMY G. THOMPSON (July 1, 1996) [hereinafter WISCONSIN REPORT].
233. The Wisconsin report's four questions embodying sound land-use strategy are: 1. What steps can state government take to facilitate land use planning in Wisconsin? 2. How can county and municipal land use planning be improved? 3. What new tools can we use to improve land use planning? 4. How can citizen participation in land use planning be enhanced? Id.
234. Id. at 4-6.
235. Id.
236. Id. at 7-10.
237. WISCONSIN REPORT at 7-10.
238. The goal should be to equip counties and municipalities with tools that they need to develop their own land-use plans. Id. at 11-13.
239. Id.
240. Id. at 14-15.
241. Id.
242. To date, land use has not been a political issue in Wisconsin but rather has evolved as a result of local interest and media attention. The legislature has thus far been generally uninterested in the report and its progeny. Telephone Interview with Mark Bugher, Department of Administration in Madison, Wisconsin (Jan. 28, 1998).
243. Id.
244. Id.
245. Id.
246. STATE OF WISCONSIN JOINT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON LAND USE POLICIES, COMM. REPORT NO. 12 ( Jan. 12, 1998).
247. The three issues for further review are: (1) Models for conflict resolution should be developed; (2) the ability of Wisconsin local government to be involved in planning with communities of bordering states should be determined; and (3) there should be a distinction between the land-use programs of urban and rural areas. See id. at 23.
248. 1 ON COMMON GROUND NO. 1 (Fall 1997).
249. Ruth Eckdish Knack, Go Badgers, Fight Sprawl, 63 PLANNING 14 (May 1997).
250. Id.
251. Id.
252. Ten growth scenarios were generated. The scenarios were then fed into a computer to analyze what type of transportation system would be needed for each alternative. Id. at 15.
253. Id.
254. Knack, supra note 245, at 16.
255. Id.
256. Id.
257. See SMART GROWTH NETWORK PROGRESS REPORT at 19 (Dec. 1998). A section of the report profiles smart growth initiatives and coalitions in: Austin, Texas; King County, Washington; and in Northern and Southern California.
258. See id. at 19-21 for a description of the missions of each of these new coalitions. These groups represent the next wave of the "1000 Friends" groups which were instrumental in shepherding many of the land-use reforms of the 1980s.
259. Patricia E. Salkin, Political Strategies for Modernizing State Land Use Statutes, 8 LAND USE L. & ZONING DIG. (Aug. 1992).
260. See Salkin, supra note 27.
261. This research was conducted by the author with the assistance of a grant from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Research. Methodology included site visits and telephone interviews with key stakeholders in about ten states.
262. See Neal R. Pierce, Fighting Sprawl! A New Civil Rights Movement?, at 2 (Oct. 26, 1998) (the author reminds, "Historically great causes have come from the people. Politicians chiefly confirm and implement.").
263. STUART MECK, MODERNIZING LAND USE STATUTES, Part II (forthcoming Am. Plan. Ass'n).
264. Jim Chaffin, Opening remarks for "Partners for Smart Growth" Conference, (Dec. 1997). See Michael Pawukiewicz, What is Smart Growth?, URB. LAND (June 1995), at 45.
265. Jim Chaffin, Opening remarks for "Partners for Smart Growth" Conference, (Dec. 1997). See Michael Pawukiewicz, What is Smart Growth?, URB. LAND (June 1995), at 45.
266. Pawlukiewicz, supra at 46.