1 / 14

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. Jesse J. Richardson, Jr. Department of Urban Affairs and Planning Virginia Tech. Regional Research Institute Seminar Series West Virginia University 1 March 2002.

Télécharger la présentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


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

More Related