1 / 19

State Growth Management Programs

State Growth Management Programs. March 23 and 30 CP 6016/LAW 7242. Overview. Major State Program Components Historical Classification Program Characteristics – State by State. Major State Program Components. State planning (Florida, New Jersey) Regional planning (Georgia, Vermont)

armani
Download Presentation

State Growth Management Programs

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.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. State GrowthManagement Programs March 23 and 30 CP 6016/LAW 7242

  2. Overview • Major State Program Components • Historical Classification • Program Characteristics – State by State

  3. Major State Program Components • State planning (Florida, New Jersey) • Regional planning (Georgia, Vermont) • Areas of Critical State Concern (Florida; Oregon?) • Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) • Local planning mandates (multiple states) • UGBs (Oregon, Washington) • Concurrency (Florida, Washington) • Functional Planning • State Agency Coordination

  4. Historical Classification QUIET REVOLUTION PROGRAMS Hawaii (1961). Land Use Law (Act 187). Land classification (inspiration and prototype of quiet revolution) Oregon (1969). Senate Bill 10 (replaced by SB 100 in 1973) Tahoe Bi-State Planning Compact (1969) (California and Nevada) Vermont (1970). Act 250; regional environmental commissions New York (1971). Adirondack Park Agency Act Florida (1972). Environmental Land and Water Management Act • Quiet Revolution (1961- early 1970s) • “Second Wave” (1980-1988) • “Third Wave” (1989-1997) • Fourth Wave (Smart Growth) (1998-) QUIET REVOLUTION CHARACTERISTICS • 1960-1969 or early 1970s • Mostly single-purpose environmental mandates (e.g., shorelines) • Environmental considerations dominated • Coercive models dominant • Model Land Development Code most influential (ACSC and DRI)

  5. Historical Classification SECOND WAVE PROGRAMS Florida (1985). Growth management act. Concurrency; consistency; compact growth. Rule 9-J5 (1986) New Jersey (1985). State Planning Commission and State Plan; affordable housing forced by Court system Columbia River Gorge Commission (1986). Oregon and Washington Maine and Rhode Island (1988). Vermont (1988). Growth Management Act -Act 200 (Regional Planning) • Quiet Revolution (1961- early 1970s) • “Second Wave” (1980-1988) • “Third Wave” (1989-1997) • Fourth Wave (Smart Growth) (1998-) SECOND WAVE CHARACTERISTICS • Florida was the leader during this era. Emphasis on public facilities planning; growing concerns with sprawl • Advent of administrative rules • Introduction of collaboration models, but experience with enforcement of coercive mandates • Increased use of study commissions • Permit streamlining in Oregon

  6. Historical Classification THIRD WAVE PROGRAMS Georgia. Growth Strategies Commission, Georgia Planning Act of 1989. Service Delivery Strategies Act (1997) Washington. Growth Strategies Commission and Growth Management Acts of 1990 and 1991. Land Use Study Commission (1995) Florida. Governor’s Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns (1989); 1993 law changes Oregon. Urban Growth Management Study (1991) Maryland (1992). Planning Act; Smart Growth (1997) • Quiet Revolution (1961- early 1970s) • “Second Wave” (1980-1988) • “Third Wave” (1989-1997) • Fourth Wave (Smart Growth) (1998-) THIRD WAVE CHARACTERISTICS • Emphasis on monitoring and evaluation; technical assistance • Emphasis on urban sprawl and livable communities • APA’s “Growing Smart” project began to influence state efforts • Model code provisions still persist • Emphasis: intergovernmental coordination

  7. Historical Classification FOURTH WAVE PROGRAMS Tennessee (1998). Senate Bill 3278. Annexation law; Mandates urban growth boundaries but no state oversight Georgia (1999). Georgia Regional Transportation Authority Act. Greenspace Program (2000). GRTA DRI Rules (2002) APA’s Legislative Guidebook adopted; many programs spawned by increased Focus given by Growing Smart project • Quiet Revolution (1961- early 1970s) • “Second Wave” (1980-1988) • “Third Wave” (1989-1997) • Fourth Wave (Smart Growth) (1998-) FOURTH WAVE CHARACTERISTICS • Continuation of concern for curbing sprawl and promoting livable communities • A loud rather than quiet revolution • Exponential increase of state interest in growth management

  8. Hawaii • The Aloha State • “inspiration and prototype of quiet revolution” • Catalyst(s): Preservation of agriculture • First state plan was in 1957 (six islands, four counties) • Act 187 established an independent Land Use Commission with authority to divide all land into three land use classes: urban, conservation and agriculture • The power to zone shall be exercised by the state...” Rural district added in 1963; permanent districts established 1964 • State plan in 1975 (adopted 1978 legislatively as Act 100)

  9. Vermont • The Green Mountain State • Catalysts: ski industry and 2nd home development, unattractive development scarring mountainsides • Regional planning commissions since the mid-1960s • Land Use and Development Bill (Act 250) in 1970; Permit process • Eight district commissions and a state environmental board • Vermont’s General Assembly approved Land Capability and Development Plan (Act #85) (1973) • Vermont’s Growth Management Act (1988): 32 goals in the legislation, including those from Act 250 (later reduced back to 12 goals – mandatory local planning dropped from legislation but mandatory regional planning

  10. Florida (Quiet Revolution) • The Sunshine State • Catalysts: Problems of polluted water and loss of beach access, sense of crisis with severe drought, 1970-71 • Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 (Chapter 380, Florida Laws) which established two programs recommended by the Model Land Development Code: areas of critical state concern and developments of regional impact • Local comprehensive planning act (1975). Did not live up to its hopes and aspirations. • Preparation and submittal of a state plan in 1978. “Filed on the proverbial shelf”

  11. Florida (Second Wave and Beyond) • State and Regional Planning Act of 1984 • Growth Management Act of 1985 • Rule 9J-5 (including anti-sprawl rule) • Mid-1990s the state adopted and strengthened its antisprawl rule. Under state rule 9J-5, the Florida Department of Community Affairs can reject a local plan or plan amendment on the grounds that it fails to discourage sprawl • Three “Cs”: consistency, concurrency, and compactness • Sustainable communities demonstration program

  12. Oregon • The Beaver State • Catalysts: Gov. Tom McCall: “sagebrush subdivisions” and “coastal condomania” • SB 10 (1969) • SB 100 (1973): Land Conservation and Development Commission, statewide planning goals; mandatory urban growth boundaries • Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) – land use court • 1000 Friends (advocacy) • Revisiting tool initially enabled: areas of critical state concern

  13. New Jersey • The Garden State • Catalysts: crowded roads, dirty air, inadequate water, sewer and solid waste systems, loss of open space and wetlands • Hackensack Meadowlands District and Development Commission (1968) • Mt. Laurel decisions on affordable housing (1975; 1983) • Pinelands Regional Commission (1979) • State Planning Act (1986) and state plan (1988) (and fiscal analysis thereof) • “Cross-acceptance” instead of local plan mandate and consistency req. – a process of comparing planning policies among governmental levels with the purpose of attaining compatibility between local, county and state plans

  14. New Jersey Policy Map

  15. Maine • The Pine Tree State • Unorganized territories • Site Location of Development Act (1969) like Vermont’s Act 250 • Land Use Regulation Commission (1971) • Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act (1971) • Growth Management Act of 1988 – statewide planning goals and mandate for local comprehensive planning • State planning office abolished in 1991, partially restored 1992 • Comprehensive planning is now voluntary rather than mandatory

  16. Georgia • The Peach State • Catalyst (water supply among others) • Growth Strategies Commission • Georgia Planning Act of 1989 • Mandatory regional planning; disincentives for lack of local planning • DRI; regionally-important resources • “Florida light”

  17. Washington • The Evergreen State • Shorelines and SEPA (1971) • Growth Management Act (1990 and 1991) • Critical areas and designation of resource lands (all local govts.) • Not all cities and counties required to plan • Growth Management Hearings Boards • Regulatory Reform Act (1995)

  18. Maryland • The Old Line State • Interstate agreement to protect Chesapeake Bay (1987) • Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act of 1992 created new goals to guide the state’s future; required that all local plans be consistent with state visions • 1997 – Gov. Glendening and Smart Growth Acts, including priority funding areas

  19. Tennessee • The Volunteer State • First mandatory urban growth areas in the south • Growth management provisions are part of the state’s annexation laws • Counties must have established planned growth areas and prepare a growth plan by July 1, 2001 • Evaluation: generally not good at all

More Related