Growth Management in other States

1. Growth Management in other States • GM has become increasingly popular to states interested in managing what many perceive to be out-of-control growth. Many different models have been tried. • Almost all of the various models have attempted to combine planning efforts, regulatory techniques, and financial incentives/disincentives to achieve their goals. • The Models • Oregon’s UGB and Comp Planning Approach • New Jersey’s State-Local Planning Approach • Georgia’s Bottom-Up Carrot Approach • Washington’s Comprehensive Planning Approach • Maryland’s Smart Growth Initiative • Tennessee’s Amalgamated Approach

2. Oregon’s UGB and Comp Planning Approach Brief History: Oregon’s GM efforts resulted from the Land Conservation Act of 1973. One of the earliest state-level GM efforts. The Basic Mechanisms Behind GM: 1) A comprehensive plan directed towards established state goals is required of all cities and counties. 2) In addition, the act requires the designation of 20 year Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) outside of which land is to remain undeveloped. 3) The Land Conservation and Development Commission reviews all plans for conformance with state goals. Local decision making must be consistent with an “acknowledged” plan. The Carrot and/or Stick: Loss of state revenues from gas, cigarette, and liquor taxes can be withheld with no plan developed or acting inconsistently with the plan. For more info: www.lcd.state.or.us/

3. New Jersey’s State Planning Approach Brief History:The New Jersey State Planning Act was passed in 1985. The Basic Mechanisms Behind GM: 1) A state planning commission was created to develop a “state plan”. This plan is intended to guide future development in NJ. 2) “Cross-acceptance” between local governments allows for negotiation over aspects of the plan. Negotiations are led by county governments. 3) Regional planning efforts were pushed and goals for development within the state were laid out. The Carrot and/or Stick: New Jersey’s model has relied primarily on consensus building at the local level to generate support for the plan. No major sticks. For more info: http://www.nj.gov/dca/osg/

4. Georgia’s Bottom-Up Carrot Approach Brief History: Georgia passed the Georgia Planning Act in 1989. A three-tiered system was established to coordinate planning efforts (very similar to Florida’s approach). The Basic Mechanisms Behind GM: 1) The state sets goals and minimum standards for development. 2) Regional areas (mandatory) make plans consistent with these, with plans and input from local governments (optional). 3) Regional agencies review the plans for consistency across plans and with state goals. 4) Capital improvement plans (CIP) are required, consistent with comp plans. 5) A State Plan is developed after local plans are developed. The Carrot and/or Stick: State provides money to help with planning efforts and to push adoption of plans by certain dates. After plans have been approved, impact fees/exactions can be levied. Certain funds can be withheld, but these are relatively small amounts. For more info: www.dca.state.ga.us/planning/coordinated.html

5. Washington’s “Triggered” Planning Approach Brief History:In 1990, Washington state passed their GM Act. The Basic Mechanisms Behind GM: 1) All cities/counties must have a comp plan, but only large and/or fast growing cities and counties must adopt “consistent” comprehensive plans. 2) Twenty-year urban growth areas need to be identified, outside of which only non-urban growth is allowed. 3) Regional commissions review “triggered” plans for consistency with state goals. Commission also resolves disputes. The Carrot and/or Stick: Incentives include financial and technical assistance. Disincentives include loss of sin tax and gas tax revenues, as well as loss of state infrastructure funds. For more info: www.ocd.wa.gov/info/lgd/growth/

6. Maryland’s Smart Growth Initiatives Brief History: Maryland’s Smart Growth Initiative is very recent, having been passed in 1997. The Basic Mechanisms Behind GM: 1) “Priority funding areas” (PFAs) are the heart of the program. Central city areas and areas identified for future growth are supposed to receive the vast majority of state dollars for infrastructure and planning. 2) Other concurrent programs also are intended to focus efforts in areas where growth makes sense. (Brownfields program, LNYW program) 3) Open space preservation is another initiative. The Carrot and/or Stick: Areas designated for growth are supposed to have priority for funding. No significant sticks. For more info: http://www.op.state.md.us/smartintro.htm

8. Tennessee’s Growth Policy Initiative • Brief History: Tennessee’s growth policy initiative is also very recent, having been passed in 1998. • The Basic Mechanisms Behind GM: • No state comp plan, but legislation laid out broad GM goals to guide development in the state, including: --Establish incentives to annex or incorporate where appropriate --Match the timing of development to the provision of services --Minimize urban sprawl • A mandated local planning process that requires the merging of land use and annexation policy. Legislation lists eight required goals. • Urban growth boundaries are a requirement of the legislation. • Uses a version of “cross-acceptance” to build regional support. • The Carrot and/or Stick: Non-compliance will result in the loss of “pass-through” revenues. State planning assistance and grants available. • For more info: //http://www.state.tn.us/tacir/Portal/default.html

9. Summarizing State Growth Management Efforts Efforts at Growth Management from the state level have generally had the following characteristics: Based in Comp Planning State Plan with State Goals Focus on landuse, regulations Underfundedplanning efforts State or Regional oversightof local plans Consistency requirements1) other plans2) state goals Small or unclearrole of infrastructure, but a role that is growing over time Early  “Sticks”Recent  “Carrots”