Overview of Growth Management Tools and Programs from Across the U.S. Patricia E. Norris Michigan State University NPPEC, September 23, 2003

Context: Andy assigned to me, and I accepted, an impossible task. “Overview of Growth Management Tools and Programs from Across the U.S.”

Growth Management Tools and Programs  Sprawl  Growth management  Federal programs and growth  Institutional change and incentives more than a marginal change  Ongoing policy debates  Our challenge

Sprawl  “I’ll know it when I see it.”  the process in which the spread of development across the landscape far outpaces population growth (Ewing, Pendall and Chen 2002)  Landscape has a population widely dispersed, low density rigidly separated home, shops and workplaces road network with huge blocks and poor access lack of well-defined, thriving downtowns or town centers

Growth Management  the deliberate and integrated use of planning, regulatory and fiscal authority of state and local governments to influence the pattern of growth and accommodate development that achieves broad public goals (Nelson et al. 2002)  Contrast with growth controls, which limit or ration development

Federal programs and growth  National attempts at land use planning failed 1968 – 1975  Federal influences on land use are generally indirect, but can be powerful  The 800 lb. gorillas transportation housing

Recent changes in federal law  ISTEA, TEA-21 and SAFETEA 1991 – states can apply federal highway funds to mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects 1998 – piloted a program of research and grants to investigate transportation and community and system preservation 2003 (proposed) – transportation-related land use planning and growth management by regions and states can receive federal grants

Proposed: Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program  States, local governments and metropolitan planning organizations eligible for grants to: improve the efficiency of the transportation system reduce environmental impacts of transportation reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments ensure efficient access to jobs, services and shops examine private sector development patterns and investments that support these goals

Location Efficient Mortgages  pilot program in Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco Bay area, and Los Angeles County  Location efficient neighborhoods residents can walk to stores, schools, recreation and public transportation transportation costs are lower  Reduced transportation costs figured into mortgage qualification (Institute for Location Efficiency and Fannie Mae)

Smart Growth  enhances and assures neighborhood livability  does not depend upon automobile for transport  focuses on needs of existing communities first  enables all residents to be beneficiaries of prosperity  costs less to support so lower taxes  protects open space (Smart Growth America)

Downtown Revitalization  Situation: large stock of residential and commercial buildings in need of rehabilitation  Problem: state building codes and construction standards designed to address new construction  Solution: New Jersey wrote a new Rehabilitation Subcode buildings judged on meeting the requirements to provide a safe building basis for a national model code (HUD)

Focused Growth and Development  Situation: Sprawl  Problem: Costs of services, community, loss of downtowns  Solution: Maryland’s Smart Growth agenda limits expenditures of state funds for schools, roads, sewer and water development to “Priority Funding Areas” targets state buildings, economic development funds, housing loans and industrial development financing to PFAs

Focused Growth and Development  Situation: School buildings in older neighborhoods need repair or are too small so communities build big new schools on large sites in remote areas  Problem: states use percentage-based rules to allocate funds for school construction, e.g. “60 percent rule”  Solution: Pennsylvania and Maryland no longer use percentage based rules; Maryland provides incentives to maintain and renovate existing schools

Open Space Protection  Situation: Large areas of open space are being developed or fragmented by development  Problem: Agriculture, ecosystems, critical habitat are sacrificed  Solution: New Jersey amended constitution to provide up to $200 M per year to open space protection purchase in fee simple and add to public land purchase development rights purchase in fee simple, restrict deed, and re-sell

Open Space Protection  Situation: PDR programs are expensive and regulations are politically challenging  Problem: Rural zoning ordinances  Solution: Cluster development, including conservation design, appeases landowners’ property rights concerns and addresses open space concerns public and private interests have developed resource manuals and guidebooks to assist local planning commissioners in modifying zoning ordinances

On-going policy debates  Dillon’s rule or home rule?  Regional cooperation  Open space protection – permanent or temporary?

Our challenge:  Funds allocated for downtown revitalization are not available for open space preservation  Challenge for growth management programs is finding the right balance across tools and programs  Key to finding that balance is public understanding of alternative approaches, their costs, their benefits, and the trade-offs that may be necessary  Public policy education is necessary to assure public understanding