from mandate to smart growth the evolution of growth management in the united states n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
From Mandate to Smart Growth: The Evolution of Growth Management in the United States PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
From Mandate to Smart Growth: The Evolution of Growth Management in the United States

From Mandate to Smart Growth: The Evolution of Growth Management in the United States

194 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

From Mandate to Smart Growth: The Evolution of Growth Management in the United States

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. From Mandate to Smart Growth:The Evolution of Growth Management in the United States Jesse J. Richardson, Jr.Department of Urban Affairs and Planning Virginia Tech Regional Research Institute Seminar Series West Virginia University 1 March 2002

  2. Types of Contemporary Growth Management Regulations • Adequate public facilities requirements • Manage growth by (1) ensuring availability of public services; (2) affects location of development through “incentives” • Growth phasing programs • Regulates the location and timing of new development, based primarily on the availability of public facilities • Urban growth boundaries • Line drawn around a city to define the limits of urban growth • Rate-of-growth programs

  3. Hawaii (1961) • state plan • unique in many ways • some dissatisfaction with limited local role • state land use commission decides boundaries of urban, rural, agricultural and conservation land • low vacancy rates, high land prices- cause?

  4. Vermont (1970) • state permitting process for large-scale development • nine regional commissions • statewide goals • permits must be consistent with statewide goals and local plans and capital programs • failed to produce statewide land use plan • in 1988, they tried again with statewide goals and required local plan consistency • incentives for local govts to participate: financial assistance, impact fees, state agency compliance • lots of opposition to 2nd effort; third try watered legislation down further

  5. Oregon (1973) • Nineteen state goals • Local comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances must further these state goals • Urban Growth Boundaries • Designed to have enough buildable land for all housing needs for next 20 years • Extensive studies must be done: population, etc. • Reviewed every 5 years and adjusted, if necessary • High densities mandated • Exclusive Farm Use Zones • Large lot zoning required • Very few uses allowed besides farming • Residences must be related to farm unless exceptions process applied

  6. land conservation and development commission (LCDC) • state-wide planning goals • local govts must adopt comp plans that are (i) coordinated with each other; and, (ii) in compliance with state goals • primary objectives: contain urban sprawl and preserve forests and farmlands • urban growth boundaries

  7. Florida (1975) • local govts must prepare comp plans • state comp plan • local govts must adopt land use maps with measurable goals, objectives and policies • comp plans must be consistent with state goals (risk of losing state funds) • local govts must develop ordinances that implement and are consistent with comp plan • concurrency: cannot grant land development permit unless public facilities will concurrently be available to meet the needs of that development

  8. New Jersey (1985) • state development and redevelopment plan • cross acceptance: the comparing of planning policies among govtl levels to achieve compatibility between local, county and state plans • counties act as coordinating bodies between municipalities and state planning commission • growth directed to urban areas and compact areas in rural and environmentally sensitive areas

  9. Maine (1988) • 10 statewide GM goals • all municipalities must adopt comp plans consistent with these goals by 1996 • voluntary certification process- impact fees and state funds • invalidation of zoning ordinance if no new comp plan

  10. Washington (1990/1991) • applies only to certain growth counties • counties must coordinate plans with constituent cities • regional hearing boards for compliance

  11. Maryland (1998) • “Smart growth”: Beginning October 1, 1998, the state will not providing funding for "growth related projects" except in "Priority Funding Areas" (PFAs) • Priority Funding Areas: • Generally, already developed • Water and sewer a key • Local governments designate PFAs, subject to criteria set out by the state

  12. Rural Legacy Program • "…to enhance natural resource, agricultural, forestry, and environmental protection … while maintaining the viability of resource-based land usage and proper management of tillable and wooded areas through accepted agricultural and silvicultural practices for farm production and timber harvests" • State provides funding for purchase of development rights, etc. • Agricultural production (along with forestry and "natural resources") is one of eight criteria considered

  13. 5 C’s of Growth Management • Comprehensive plan • Consistency • plan and implementing regulations • internal • intergovernmental • Concurrency • Coordination • Cooperation

  14. Conclusions: • Growth management is moving toward incentives and away from mandates • Mandates are not generally effective Incentives may be more economically efficient and more effective • The market has a huge impact on growth management and should be considered in any smart growth efforts