State Growth Management Summaries
Eight states with comprehensive growth management legislation were reviewed and summarized;
The eight states are listed below and linked from the left. (Click a state name to jump to that plan)
q Florida
q Georgia
q Maine
q Maryland
q Oregon
q Vermont
Florida
Since 1972, Florida’s growth management programs have
been evolving to become some of the most effective programs in the country.
In the 1970’s Florida experienced not only
rapid growth and development, but also the subsequent environmental
problems, the most significant being a water crisis.
Recognizing that the South Florida basin could only support a limited
number of people while maintaining a quality environment, Governor Askew (D)
passed several key pieces of legislation that aimed to protect critical and
sensitive environmental resources: (1)
the Water Resources Act (a key element in the success of the state’s growth
management strategy: (2) The Comprehensive
Planning Act (greatly strengthened the state’s role in planning by
establishing the Division of State Planning in the Department of Administration);
and (3) the Land Conservation Act of 1972 (issued $200 million in bonds to
buy environmentally endangered lands). The
three acts mutually support successful growth management
in the state.
A key concept in Florida’s growth management strategy is consistency
among state, regional, and local plans. The
1975 Florida State Comprehensive Planning Act mandated that all local government’s
prepare, adopt, and implement comprehensive plans. However, local plans contained only vague goals
and policies, and most did not have a map component. In 1985, the State and Regional Planning
Act required state agencies to prepare strategic plans. The state agency plans were combined to create
the State Comprehensive Plan. The
purpose of the State Plan is not to have the state designate uses for specific
portions of the state or for specific parcels. Rather, the plan outlines 25 goals and over
360 strategic policies. The Local
Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1985 required that the state review
local comprehensive plans to determine that they are consistent with State
and Regional Plans. This act also
required that proposed development projects be evaluated based on their “concurrency”
with existing infrastructure. Developments
are not approved unless adequate public facilities are in place to meet the
needs for that development.
Florida’s Land Management Act allows the state to reassert
its authority over land use in Areas of Critical State Concern and also over
projects deemed as Developments of Regional Impact (DRI). Areas of Critical Concern are defined as land
that has special environmental, historical, archaeological, and other state
or regional importance. The DRI process
subjects projects such as airports, large housing projects or projects that
cross multi-jurisdictional boundaries to special review by the regional planning
authority, and possibly by the governor and cabinet. If a project is considered a DRI, the local
government must determine whether to allow the development. If it is allowed, the Regional planning agencies
are given an active role.
Adequate funding to monitor compliance with the Land Management Act and consistency among state, regional, and local plans are some of Florida’s biggest downfalls in an effective growth management strategy. While great accomplishments have been achieved, growth management in Florida would be more successful if the state took a more direct role in implementing the land-and growth-management system.
Georgia
Utilizing strong gubernatorial leadership and an open
process, Georgia adopted the very inclusive Georgia Planning Act of 1989. Several factors lead Georgia to the point
of adoption. First, fewer than 20%
of Georgia’s 700 city and county governments had a coordinated and comprehensive
approach to land use. Second, there
was acknowledgement that benefits from planning and economic development was
necessary. Finally, it became clear
that there was a need for more than just local review of various environmental
issues. By 1987 Governor Harris appointed
a 35 member Growth Strategies Commission.
The Commission was given 18 months to devise a statewide
growth strategy. Four different task
forces, along with trained facilitators helped to develop the strategy reports.
These reports became the foundation of the 1989 Georgia Planning Act.
The Act took effect in October 1990 with full completion of the process
in 1995. Five major target areas were identified: a three-tiered statewide
planning system; human needs including human resources and education; protection
of the environment; strengthening local communities; and building capacity
for growth.
The chief planner is the governor who works through
the Department of Community Affairs. This
is the state or first level of the three-tiered, bottom-up, top-down system.
This department is responsible for overseeing local planning performances,
while providing technical assistance. In
addition, the department through local or regional nominations designates
the Regionally Important Resources (RIR) and establishes a review procedure
for Developments of Regional Impact (DRI).
At the regional level, the regional planning agencies
are responsible for reviewing local plans for compliance with the established
state standards. They also review
the RIR’s and the DRI’s in addition to mediating any conflicts that may arise
in regions, concerning local plans.
At the third or local level, financial incentives
are provided for participating local governments that adopt acceptable comprehensive
plans within a designated time frame. A one-cent sales tax increase provides $5 million
in state grant money. Zoning control
remains at the local level, but localities are required to set regulations
consistent with minimum state standards. Localities are also required to develop capital improvement plans
consistent with local comprehensive plans.
By complying with and adopting the minimum state standards, localities
may become a Qualified Local Government and may then levy impact fees. Even though the Georgia Planning Act directly
addresses housing issues, localities are required to adopt a housing element
within their comprehensive plans.
Unfortunately, weakened gubernatorial support has reduced
the effectiveness of the Georgia Planning Act of 1989.
Maine
Maine experienced little of the growth pressures that
were sweeping the U.S. in the 1970’s. However,
in the 1980’s, the state realized that incoming growth pressures were a "threat
to quality of life due to unrestrained development".
It was then that Maine chose to implement programs to accommodate growth
while protecting natural resources.
After intense negotiations and immense public input,
the State passed the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act in
1989. The Act created the office of
Comprehensive Planning within the existing Department of Economic and Community
Development. Its purpose was to review
and comment on local plans, but not approve them. The office also provided technical and financial assistance to localities
in creating their plans. The Act established
a review process for local plans to be evaluated based on their consistency
with state goals. An emphasis on regional
consistency among neighboring localities was a significant component of the
Act. The Act also included 10 state
goals that local plans must link their recommendations to and certain state
agencies also had to comply with. The state goals related to water quality, forest and agricultural
lands, critical areas, transportation and housing.
The Act specifically focused on local programs, namely
the inventory and analysis of demographic projections and infrastructure needs.
Policy development consistent with state goals was to be linked to the
inventory and analysis. Localities
were to define an implementation strategy that required land use and other
significant ordinances be adopted within one year of the law’s adoption.
Localities that adopted comprehensive plans that meet
state established criteria were eligible for certain programs and funding. For example, in the future only those localities
with certified growth management programs would be eligible to mandate impact
fees and other local fees related to land use regulation, such as site review
and subdivision fees. One of Maine’s
state goals called for localities to ensure affordable housing opportunities
for all citizens. Each municipality
was to be sure that 10% of all new residential development met the definition
of affordable housing. The state goal required localities to develop strategies employing
devices such as density increases, public acquisition of sites, and the use
of existing subsidy programs to advance the affordable housing goal.
Unfortunately,
lack of adequate funding due to the recession caused the legislature to discontinue
the programs and the office in 1992.
Maryland
The Maryland General Assembly adopted
the Smart Growth Initiatives in 1997. These
initiatives are made up of several programs that collectively seek to curb
the growth of sprawling development into Maryland’s rural areas and also to
revitalize older, developed areas. As
with most states with strong growth management programs, Maryland’s success
in passing the Smart Growth legislation was made possible by strong leadership
from Maryland governor, Parris Glendening.
“Priority Funding Areas” lie at the heart of Maryland’s
Smart Growth Initiatives. This legislation
gives priority for state funding to areas already developed or designated
for future growth. These are locations
that the state and local governments have decided would be most appropriate
for future economic development and growth, with minimal sprawl effects.
Areas must meet several guidelines in order to qualify as a Priority
Funding Area. These guidelines include intended use, availability
of sewer and water systems, and permitted residential density.
Several other programs in the 1997 legislation support
locally-identified development areas. There
is the Brownfields Program to attract commercial and industrial developers
to sites that have already been developed. This program contains the Brownfields Revitalization Incentive Program
to offset some of the problems associated with brownfield redevelopment, such
as contamination clean-up and liability issues. Also included in the Smart Growth Initiatives
are amendments to the 1996 Job Creation
Tax Credit Program. These amendments
encourage small business development and job growth in areas with an available
labor force and also make more efficient use of existing infrastructure.
The “Live Near Your Work (LNYW)” Program encourages employees to purchase
homes near their workplace. This program
was enacted to stimulate home ownership in certain communities around the
state. The program provides a minimum of $3,000 to
those who purchase homes in the designated areas. The State not only provides resources to this program, but also
participates as one of the major employers.
Another goal of the Maryland Smart Growth Initiatives
is the preservation of open space and undeveloped land and the balance of
this land with developed areas in the State.
The Rural Legacy Program works at redirecting existing State funds
into a land dedication program designed to limit the impacts of sprawl on
agricultural lands and natural resources.
Through this program the State expects to protect approximately 240,000
acres of resource lands by the year 2011.
Although this legislation is new and many effects of
the Initiatives are still unknown, the Maryland Smart Growth Initiatives are
considered landmark legislation in the fight against sprawl. Early indicators show that the program is a
success and many states have begun to model their growth management strategies
after the Maryland example.
New
Jersey
The New Jersey State Planning Act was
enacted in 1985. This act created
the State Planning Commission and mandated that the Commission prepare and
adopt a State Development and Redevelopment Plan by July 2, 1987. By the fall of 1988, the Plan was available
to begin a process called “cross-acceptance.”
This process is unique to New Jersey’s growth management plan and involves
a period of review by and negotiation among the planning units across the
state and the harmonizing of local and county plans with the provisions in
the state plan. The goals of the New
Jersey State Planning Act were to curb suburban sprawl, concentrate development,
steer new growth to mixed-use centers along transportation corridors, and
to spur new growth in older urban areas.
The State Planning Commission developed
a five-part growth management system to aid in reaching the goals set forth
in the Act. A “tier system” growth
management structure was created to delineate categories designated either
for limited growth or as areas where development was targeted. An emphasis on regional planning was established with the “Regional
Design System.” This system organized
growth within each of the tiers. State
goals were set to guide the regional and local planning process through the
“Statewide Strategies and Policies.” These policies were to help achieve the goals that were common throughout
the tiers by coordinating the government at all levels. The “Monitoring and Evaluation System” was
enacted to assess the effectiveness of the State Development and Redevelopment
Plan in achieving the state goals. And
finally, the “Cross-Acceptance Process” was designed to assure an intergovernmental
approach to creating the final Plan.
New Jersey has not been effective in developing
a system of sticks and carrots to assure local compliance with the State Development
and Redevelopment Plan. No central
mechanism has been developed in the State that has regulatory powers to enforce
compliance. Currently the State is
using persuasion and the implications of state infrastructure finance policies
to obtain local compliance. The State
also suggests that the judiciary might play a role in reviewing local decisions
not to participate as their general welfare and relationship to the state
plan affects the entire state.
Oregon
Oregon enacted its acclaimed growth management law,
the Land Conservation Act (LCA), in 1973.
Its passage was a reaction to heavy suburban growth in the Willamette
Valley and the state’s northwestern coastline with its accompanying problems
(traffic congestion, air pollution, sewage pollution, etc.) during the 1960’s
and early 1970’s. Strong leadership
by Governor Tom McCall and Senator/dairy farmer Hector Macpherson led to the
law’s enactment.
The LCA demands that every city and county
in Oregon develop a comprehensive plan in conformance with nineteen state
goals established by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC).
These goals include preserving agricultural lands (Goal 3), conserving
forest lands to ensure a viable forestry industry (Goal 4), conserving open
space (Goal 5), providing affordable housing (Goal 10), and providing for
an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use (Goal 14).
Goal 14 has become one of the most renown as the LCDC read it to require
all incorporated cities to adopt urban growth boundaries outside of which
land is to remain rural. Although
their actual effects are in dispute, UGB’s theoretically stifle urban sprawl
and promote urban forms characteristic of higher-density, more likely to be
transit-oriented, and less likely to lead to urban decay as new development
is largely directed to existing areas.
The
LCDC is charged with reviewing each locality’s plan for conformance with the
state goals. This process is known
as acknowledgement. Once a locality’s
plan is acknowledged, it must alter its land use and zoning regulations to
be consistent with the plan within a period of one year. Subsequent decisions and actions of the locality are also required
to be consistent with the plan. In
addition, state agencies are required to conform with acknowledged comprehensive
plans.
If a locality fails to receive acknowledgement
of its comprehensive plans or land use regulations or is determined by the
LCDC to have acted inconsistently with its plan, it can lose state revenues
and grants and be subject to sanctions. Revenues from gas, cigarette, and liquor taxes
can be withheld by the state. Since
compliance with the LCA is required by state law, the LCDC can also seek a
variety of enforcement and court orders that carry legal or equitable remedies.
To activate its enforcement powers, the LCDC must issue an order demanding
that a local government, state agency, or special district bring its comprehensive
plan, land use regulations, and land use decisions into compliance. The order must specify the nature of the violation
as well as the corrective action needed.
Vermont
In 1970, Vermont initiated its first move toward growth
management with the passage of Act 250. Unfortunately,
due to underfunding and understaffing, the legislation for adoption of a temporary
plan to guide the beginning regulatory process never fully materialized.
The plan included a land capability and development plan combined with
a state land planning law. By the 1980’s, growth pressures led to reconsideration
for an effective growth management plan for the state.
Governor Madeline Kunin, through an executive order
in 1987, created the 12 member Commission on Vermont’s Future to develop “a
new stimulus to plan for desirable and orderly growth”…”with a particular
focus on planning at the regional level where local and state interests can
be reconciled most effectively”. The
Commission was charged with: reviewing Vermont’s growth patterns; the effectiveness
of existing programs and laws addressing growth issues; propose state principles
and goals to preserve Vermont’s valued character (agriculture); and also to
propose ways of providing jobs and housing for state residents; followed by
recommendations to guide local, regional, and state action.
Consensus was developed through a series of public hearings.
Issues that came to light through the public hearing process are: a
steep decline in farms and farming, no protection for natural resources through
effective growth management, inflationary housing prices with a lack of affordable
housing, and with economic growth in the low-wage sector.
After the Commission’s report, the Growth Management
Act of 1988 (Act 200) took effect. Originally,
32 planning goals were established. However, in 1990, the 32 goals were compressed
into 12 specific, but simpler goals for the state, state agencies, regional
planning commissions, and towns. Financial
incentives are provided for developing the non-mandatory town comprehensive
plans. When towns do adopt comprehensive
plans that are consistent with the state’s goals they receive additional state
funds, technical assistance, and influence over state policies that are applied
locally.
The key components of Act 200 include financial incentives
and two housing measures. The financial
incentives include a property transfer tax increase from .5% to 1.25% with
a $100,000 exclusion for principal residences and working farms.
The two housing components include significant support to a trust fund
for aiding affordable housing. The second component includes requirement of
local and regional authorities to provide sites for a variety of housing types.
Unfortunately, property rights advocates joined
forces and were effective in removing the consistency requirements of local
planning. Still the towns are left
with the “incentives” package.
Washington
In 1990 Washington joined a growing number of states
with comprehensive growth management legislation by passing the Growth Management
Act (GMA). The catalysts for the law
were high population growth during the 1970’s and 1980’s, particularly in
the Central Puget Valley, and high public infrastructure costs to support
the growth, which was largely taking the form of low-density sprawl. Oregon’s high-profile Land Conservation Act
also provided Washington with an influential example of a successful growth
management law.
The GMA requires that cities and counties with growth greater
than 20% in the past 10 years, or with 50,000 people + 10% growth over 10
years, adopt comprehensive land use plans.
Plans must consider the following elements: the uses of land, existing
and projected housing needs, existing and projected public facility needs,
existing and projected utility needs, open space corridors, and existing and
projected transportation needs consistent with land use. Localities are also required to define urban
growth areas based on 20-year growth forecasts outside of which only non-urban
growth is allowed. A locality’s subsequent
development regulations must be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Plans may be modified only once a year.
Washington’s Growth
Management Commission reviews plans for consistency with the goals. The Commission’s enforcement powers include
incentives in the form of financial and technical assistance, and disincentives
including loss of eligibility for state infrastructure grants and loans as
well as loss of sales, liquor, and gas tax revenues. State agencies are required
to comply with approved comprehensive plans.
The GMA encourages Washington localities to use innovative
growth management techniques like cluster housing, planned unit developments,
impact fees, transfer of development rights, and to form regional transportation
organizations. The GMA also has a
concurrency requirement that can block new development if necessary.
Washington later passed the Shoreline Management Act, which
requires coastal communities to develop an inventory of their shorelines and
a master program for their regulation in accordance with state economic and
conservation goals.