State planning reforms make gains

A growing number of governors and state legislatures introduce bills to update planning statutes and promote smart growth principles. By sheer volume alone, the state-level activity on planning reform is impressive. Between 1999 and 2001, lawmakers introduced more than 2,000 planning bills. In 2001 alone, 27 governors made specific proposals concerning planning and smart growth. The rise in activity is documented in a new report from the American Planning Association (APA), Planning for Smart Growth: 2002 State of the States, which also notes that reform activity is spreading inland from high-growth states on the coasts. “One of the most interesting trends is that for the first time states in the heartland are pursuing planning reform,” says Stuart Meck of APA. “Even through the recession people keep talking about smart growth” in the state legislatures. In many cases, however, words were not translated into action — only 20 percent of the more than 2,000 bills were approved. The report concludes that about one-quarter of states are implementing “moderate to substantial statewide comprehensive planning reforms,” while one-fifth are pursuing statewide amendments that strengthen local requirements or are working to improve reforms already on the books (see map). Absence of statewide reform is most pronounced in Western states from Oklahoma to Montana. While the quantity of proposals is encouraging, its not always easy to pin down their quality. “Planning reform” does not necessarily imply that smart growth principles — a hard-to-define phrase to begin with — are central to the legislation. Task forces and study committees proliferate, but in many cases recommendations are more plentiful than actions. In North Carolina, for example, the Commission to Address Smart Growth, Growth Management, and Development Issues came out with a report last year, which recommended, among other things, that the state develop a smart growth vision and goals, that state and local governments coordinate their planning, and that a network of researchers be created. Meck points to this report as one of the best smart growth initiatives in 2001, but lawmakers have yet to develop bills that would turn the good intentions into law. A central finding in Planning for Smart Growth is that smart growth initiatives enjoy most success in states that have already modernized their planning and zoning statutes. “Just enacting a statewide smart growth law may not be enough,” the report states. “Effective implementation requires a clear connection between the goals and requirements of the act and what local governments actually do through their local comprehensive plans and land development regulations.” State of some states Statewide smart growth laws have garnered attention for some years in Maryland, Wisconsin, Washington, and elsewhere, but the APA report provides clues to where the next wave of legislation will come from. Executive orders and legislative proposals enacted in 2001 are in some cases just baby steps toward change, but they are evidence of the willingness to reassess outmoded planning statutes. In Arizona, the “Growing Smarter Plus Act” authorizes municipalities to develop incentives for infill development, and a Growing Smarter Oversight Council has been charged with overseeing how effective the legislation is. California Gov. Gray Davis signed an executive order that directs the California Department of General Services to construct state buildings in central cities or reuse old buildings. The order also stipulates that facilities be located within reach of transit and affordable housing. Meanwhile, in the State Assembly, a group of lawmakers has formed the Smart Growth Caucus. Gov. Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware enacted the “Livable Delaware” initiative, which includes funding and technical assistance for municipalities to develop comprehensive plans. The General Assembly also approved bills that authorize grants for brownfield remediation and tax credits for rehabilitation of historic structures. The Indiana Land Use Forum was established in 2001 by executive order. The Forum is charged with recommending how the state can collaborate with local government and the private sector to create balanced land-use policies. Gov. Paul Patton of Kentucky is one of several governors to create a Smart Growth Task Force, and in 2001, the state became the first to pass legislation that mandates training programs for planning commissioners, zoning administrators, and other planning officials. Michigan lawmakers rejected the proposed Community Planning Act, which would have required coordination of land-use planning between state, local, regional, and federal agencies, but they did pass a package of bills that at least allows towns and villages to review and comment on development proposals in neighboring communities. Intergovernmental cooperation also topped the planning agenda in Missouri, where an executive order established a commission to promote state-local partnerships in land-use planning. In New Hampshire, the “Grow Smart NH” initiative requires state agencies to consider how a project might contribute to sprawl before distributing grants, building new roads, or constructing state buildings. The initiative also encourages brownfield redevelopment and strengthens master-planning requirements for new communities. Planning for Smart Growth points out several trends that remain consistent in the most active states. 1) Effective legislation needs strong, charismatic leadership from a governor or a key legislator. 2) Smart growth reform has to be linked with a wide range of quality-of-life issues. 3) Successful initiatives require building bridges between constituencies. 4) In states with strong legislation, misinformation campaigns and other backlash responses are common. 5) Task forces are the most common way for legislators to breach the issues, but task forces are also sometimes a way to avoid or delay action. 6) Comprehensive approaches to planning may yield the best results, but piecemeal reforms are often more practical and politically palatable. Tool for change In concert with its overview report, APA has released the first version of its Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, a compendium of ideas, guidelines, and model procedures, definitions, and language intended to help public officials, planners, and citizens reform and update state planning statutes. According to Stuart Meck, the project’s primary investigator, 13 states have already adopted ideas from draft versions of the guidebook. He adds that the book suggests approaches that have a proven track record. For example, the guidebook offers a model for a statewide Smart Growth Act which is an adaptation and refinement of the act enacted in Maryland in 1997. In addition to the actual statutory language, a user of the guidebook will find commentaries that provide historical and legal background and outline why the model statutes were drafted in a particular way. In many cases, the guidebook offers several alternative approaches. Over the past seven years, APA staff has developed the guidebook in collaboration with a 13-member directorate consisting of representatives of national organizations such as the National Governors Association, the US Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties. Funding for the $2.4 million manual has come from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and other federal agencies, as well as from several private foundations. The 1,450-page document is about the underpinnings of smart growth, i.e., the legal language that enables the adoption of progressive land-use regulations. It is not, however, the place to look for specific guidelines that regulate the built environment. Planners and officials interested in encouraging New Urbanism will find language for a traditional neighborhood development district, but the guidebook can only introduce general principles, in this case based largely on the language found in the TND ordinance from Austin, Texas. It is up to local governments to formulate specific design standards based on these principles — the first element of the guidebook’s underlying philosophy is that no one-size-fits-all approach exists. Another area of particular interest may be the section that explores how states have established financial incentives for smart growth. One drawback to the Growing Smart guidebook is that it does not introduce a concise definition of “smart growth” at the outset. The introduction offers two contrasting scenarios of metropolitan growth, one without comprehensive and coordinated planning and one with, but these provide only a vague sense of what smart growth might mean in the real world. So what does APA mean by “smart growth?” The answer appears toward the end of the guidebook, and includes the following principles: using land more efficiently through compact development, infill, and moderation in street and parking standards; placing residential, commercial, and civic facilities within walking distance of each other; providing housing choices for all ages and income groups; supporting alternatives to the automobile; connecting development to existing infrastructure and integrating land-use and transportation policies; and improving the review process to encourage developers to apply smart growth principles. It has not taken long for the report to draw criticism from business groups and property rights advocates. At a congressional hearing in March, Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, expressed concern that local authorities would lose control over planning if land-use plans were to follow state goals and regional plans, and other opponents contended that small business and property rights organizations were deliberately excluded from the directorate. Both Planning for Smart Growth and the Growing Smart Legislative Handbook are available for download on the site www.planning.org/growingsmart/index.htm.