Estate Agency Act and How It Affects the Trends and Developments

							Planning and Zoning
Statute Reform
and Growing SmartSM

Stuart Meck, FAICP/PCP
Senior Research Fellow
American Planning Association
Chicago
smeck@planning.org

       Michigan Land Use
       Leadership Council
       Lansing, Michigan
         April 14, 2003
Are we using too much
land as population grows?


  Between 1994 and 1997,
  5.23M single family homes
  were built in the U.S. on lots
  totaling 9.73 million acres.
  2.43M acres were used for
  single-family development
  each year

  Sources: U.S. Census and HUD, American
  Housing Survey (1999)
34% of new single-family homes
were on lots of 1 acre or greater,
consuming 91% of the land area
for all new lots.

     Total acreage by lot size, 1994-97, U.S.

     In thousands
           6,000

           5,000
           4,000

           3,000
           2,000

           1,000
               0
                    <1/8




                                                             5-10
                                               1/2-1
                           1/8-1/4
                                     1/4-1/2


                                                       1-5


                                                                    10-22+ Ac.




Source: U.S. Census and HUD, American Housing
Survey (1999)
How much land would be
saved if new homes in the
U.S. would be built at
slightly higher densities?

 New home construction in
 1994-97 in the U.S.
 consumed 2.43 M acres/
 year; 9.73 M acres total
 Same number of units on 1/2
 acre or less = 1.99 million
 acres/year saved; 7.99 M
 acres over 4 years

  Sources: U.S. Census Bureau and HUD
   American Housing Survey (1999); calculations by
  APA
Urbanized area densities
drop in Michigan

  Urbaniz- Housing Housing          %
  ed area   units/  units/        Change
           square  square
            mile--  mile--
            1990    2000
  Ann        1,190.5    921.4     -22.6%
  Arbor

  Detroit    1,307.0   1,256.9    -3.8%

  Grand       753.3     815.0      8.2%
  Rapids

  Jackson     722.4     663.8     -8.1%

  Kalama-     780.0     736.9     -5.5%
  zoo

  Lansing    1,062.0    923.6     -13.0%

  Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000
A Sea Change in Our
Attitude Toward Growth
and Change

  Metropolitan areas are
  flattening out, i.e., using
  more land per capita
  Widespread recognition and
  concern regarding post-WW
  II dispersed development
  patterns
  The scale and accelerated
  pace of the change made
  noticeable by a sustained
  economic development boom
Development boom is
causing a rethinking of the
tools used to manage
growth

Clear parallels to post WWI
period.
In the 1920s, American cities
were being constructed and
reconstructed.
Concern in 1920s over
impact of development in
American cities—population
congestion, traffic, sharp
land-use conflicts
Conditions led to the
development of the
nation’s first model
planning laws in the
1920s by the U.S.
Commerce Department:
The Standard State
Zoning Enabling Act and
the Standard City
Planning Enabling Act.
Trends in planning
legislation in the U.S.
 Early systems based on
 Standard Acts aimed at
 mitigating nuisances of land
 uses
     Land viewed as a commodity;
      zoning conserves value,
      investment
     Uniform national framework
     Land use was an urban and
      local problem; little recognition
      of regional or state impact
     Laws provided process, but
      not substance
Trends in planning
legislation in the U.S.
  The Quiet Revolution in Land Use
  Control (U.S. Council on
  Environmental Quality, 1971),
  emphasized state and regional
  roles in land use
  States emerged almost unnoticed
  as players in the land-use arena
  in early 1970s
  New laws protected coastal
  areas, wetlands, and basins,
  ensured affordable housing.
  Key concept: land viewed as a
  resource
Trends in planning
legislation in the U.S.

  “Quiet Revolution” states
  included:
      Hawaii (statewide zoning)
      Massachusetts (affordable housing
       appeals)
      Vermont (statewide planning)
      Maine (Site location law)
      Minnesota (for Metro Council)
      New Jersey (Hackensack
       Meadowlands Commission)
      Wisconsin (shoreland protection)
      Others
Trends in planning
legislation in the U.S.

  Growth management movement
  from early 1970s focused on
  timing, location, and
  characteristics of development.
   Ramapo (NY 1972) and
  Petaluma (CA 1975) cases were
  major court decisions.
  Key concepts:
      New development should be
       supported by adequate public
       facilities.
      Urban development should be
       matched by urban services.
      Recognition that public investment
       affects pace of development.
Trends in planning
legislation in the U.S.

  Contemporary smart growth
  legislation stresses compact
  development patterns, farmland
  preservation, and state
  incentives.
  Key states:
      Oregon
      Washington
      Maryland
      Tennessee
      Wisconsin
      New Jersey
What prompted these
changes in these states?

  Each state had a turnkey
  issue: traffic, environment,
  open space, political,
  administrative
  Heighten public concern
  about effects of change on
  communities
  Governor, legislature, or
  advocacy groups assumed a
  leadership role
Turnkey Issues in States

Florida: Environmental protection;
sprawl; cost of services
Maryland: Fiscal stress; inefficient
development patterns
New Jersey: Environment, housing,
intergov. coordination, economic
development
Oregon: Environmental protection,
ag land preservation, quality of life
Rhode Island: Development control
standards; intergovernmental issues
Tennessee: Bad annexation law; ag
preservation
Washington: Rapid growth; sprawl;
quality of life
Oregon (1973)
 Turnkey issues:     Some state
 environment,        monies depend
 farms, quality of   on plan
 life
                     Extensive ag and
 19 statewide        forest protection
 goals

 LCDC                Land Use Board
                     of Appeals
 Mandatory local
 plans               Heavy emphasis
                     on public
 State-local plan    participation
 consistency

 Goal 14: UGBs
Florida (1973 onward)

 Critical areas    State review and
 protection        approval of local
                   plans against
 Developments of   regs and state
 regional impact   goals


 Mandatory         Growth mgmt.
 planning and      commission
 implementation    (2001) focuses
                   on schools and
                   “full cost
 Consistency       accounting of
                   development”
 Concurrency
Washington (1990)
 Turnkey issues:      Mandatory plan
 rapid growth,        elements:
 sprawl, quality of   housing,
 life                 utilities,
                      transportation
 Fast growing
 cities, counties     Critical areas
 must plan            protection

 Intergovernment      No state review
 al cooperation       of local plans

 Urban growth         3 Growth Mgmt.
 boundaries           Hearings
                      Boards
Tennessee (1998)
 Turnkey issues:    Dispute
 loss of farms,     resolution panel
 annexation         available

 Comprehensive      Ag preservation
 state growth       a major goal
 policy
                    State funds
 City/County        contingent on
 collaboration on   plans
 plans and UGBs
                    Annexations
 Land-use           allowed only in
 decisions must     boundaries
 be consistent
Wisconsin (1999)

 Legislation      Smart growth
 pushed by a      requirements
 coalition of     for state aid;
 planning, real   must address
 estate, and      certain goals,
 governmental     contain smart
 groups           growth areas
 Mandatory        Cities and
 plan-making,     villages over
 with 9 req.      12,500 must
 elements         adopt TND
 Consistency      ordinance.
Other States’ Programs


  Illinois (2002)
     Local Planning Technical
      Assistance Act defines
      comprehensive plan,
      consistency test
  Maryland (1992 & 1997)
     Local designation of priority
      funding areas (PFA)
     7 state visions reflected in
      local plans
     State limits growth-related
      spending to PFAs
Other States’ Programs


  Pennsylvania (2000)
     New law authorizes joint
      multimunicipal planning, “public
      infrastructure areas”
     Authorizes creation of traditional
      neighborhood development districts
      in a highly detailed statute.
  New Jersey (1985)
     State plan that includes a map
     Extensive intergovernmental review
      system—cross-acceptance
     Gradual impact of plan on state agency
      action—e.g., use of onsite systems
     Statewide planning for affordable housing
Common Characteristics
of State Programs

  State plan or       Priority funding
  state goals         schemes
  Mandatory           Funding tied to
  planning,           plan compliance
  consistency         Some new state
  State agency        or regional
  compliance with     agencies
  plan                Concurrency,
  State funding for   APFO (WA, FL)
  local planning      TND
  State review of     authorization
  local plans         (WI, CT)
  Compliance          Plan first, before
  between state       using impact
  and local plans     fees
The big questions about
reform efforts

  Will development patterns be
  affected?
  Will development become more
  compact and uses more mixed?
  Will farmland be saved for use as
  farmland?
  Will critical areas be protected?
  Will the housing stock become
  more diverse and affordable?
  Will transit use increase, and
  auto travel and trip length
  decrease?
  Will quality of life be enhanced?
?
What is Growing SmartSM?


  Model enabling statutes for
  planning and zoning with
  commentary
  Contained in a Legislative
  Guidebook (published 2001)
  Intended to replace the Standard
  Acts—the next generation of
  models
  Developed by APA over 7-year
  period.
  Provides a body of evaluative
  research on state planning and
  zoning statutes and specialized
  land-use initiatives
Why planning statute
reform is important

  Need to reflect changing public
  values and legal environment
  Need to account for changed role
  of citizens and more complex
  governmental structure
  Importance of incorporating new
  ideas about what is good
  planning
  Provide new tools, carrots and
  sticks
  Provide certainty and
  predictability in development
  review process, correct abuses
What is the philosophy of
Growing SmartSM

  No one-size-fits-all
  Model acts are modular,
  work like a Lego set
  Tight/loose qualities
      Provide substantive direction
       on plan-making and land
       development control--not just
       “enable”
      Flexibility in structure,
       organizing for planning
Who sponsored Growing
SmartSM?

  Henry M. Jackson Foundation
  Annie E. Casey Foundation
  HUD
  FEMA
  USEPA
  USDOT--FHWA and FTA
  USDA--RECDA
  Siemens Corporation
  American Planning
  Association
What’s in the Legislative
Guidebook?
  Options for initiating planning
  statute reform
  State and regional planning,
  including affordable housing
  Areas of critical state concern,
  DRIs
  Local comprehensive planning
  Local land development control
  Administrative and judicial review
  of land-use decisions
  Specialized land use controls—
  TDR, local critical areas control,
  TDM
  Regional tax-base sharing
What’s in the Legislative
Guidebook?
 Integration of state
 environmental policy acts with
 local planning and regulation
 Redevelopment
 Tax increment financing
 Tax abatement
 State-level geographic
 information systems
 Public records of plans, land
 development regulations, and
 development permits
 Urban growth area designation
 and land market monitoring
What’s in the Legislative
Guidebook?

  Smart Growth Act (adaptation of
  Maryland statute)
  Development incentives for
  affordable housing, good
  community design, and open
  space donation
  PUD with TND standards
  Historic preservation and design
  review authorization
  Unified development permit
  review process for land-use
  decisions
More about Growing
SmartSM

  Legislative Guidebook is available
  at www.planning.org
  15 states have either adopted
  legislation (AZ, IL, NH, PA, TN,
  and WI) or considered bills (CO,
  DE, HI, IL, KY, MI, NC, NY, OK,
  VT, and PA) containing language
  from the Guidebook
  User Manual also available to
  help navigate through Guidebook
  and design state-specific
  program
Some suggestions for
Michigan

  Read and evaluate previous
  studies, applicable statutes
  Understand factors that
  made other states’ programs
  work or fail
  Focus on fundamentals
  Define state role, interests
  Fix what’s broken first before
  proposing innovations