Despite the history of municipal control over its own land use decisions, the pall of county and state interference has always hung over cities and towns. As the Supreme Court confirmed in the seminal Euclid zoning case back in 1926, localities are “creatures of the state.” Yet, as land use planning has become more intricate, scientific and exact, taking the long and wide views of metropolitan growth has meant that each site plan and subdivision application considered by local land use boards receive increasing scrutiny from higher governmental powers. As mentioned in my last post, the scarring effects of sprawl contributed greatly to the movement towards a more regional outlook of land use decision making. Beginning in the 1990’s, and into the current decade, this crusade fell under the umbrella of the “smart growth” movement, which undertook various approaches around the country to wrestle control from municipal land use boards.
For instance, in Maryland, Governor Parris Glendening pushed through the Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation initiative in 1997, an attempt to discourage development on the urban fringe by cutting off state service money for these projects. Yet, the program has since wallowed under the tutelage of current governor Robert L. Ehrlich. Nonetheless, private groups such as 1000 Friends of Maryland are attempting to breathe new life into the program. In New Jersey, then Governor James McGreevey, before his “confession” (it should have been “confessions,” considering the accusations of graft carefully swept under the rug with his other bombshell – but that’s another story), attempted to carve up the state into areas, from urban to rural, and assign levels of preferences the state would provide when new developments were proposed within each. Although this proposal died, another regional body sprung to life, the Highlands Commission. Assigned to oversee the northwest quadrant of the state, the Commission has been granted powers to review all applications for new projects in the region. Its companion organization, the Pinelands Commission, which has similar regional power in a portion of the southern part of the state, has been in operation for over two decades.
But when it comes to a metropolitan region that has embraced the concept of a regional approach to land use, look no further than Portland, Oregon. Aided by a state land use framework, Portland created a regional structure of review back in the 1970’s, with the Metro Council overseeing its growth needs. The Metro Council is the only regional government in the United States with a home-rule charter and directly elected representatives. The Portland area also adopted an urban growth boundary, a line beyond which development cannot occur, to keep projects on the fringe within a defined area set aside for new construction on previously green land. And yet despite its successes, Portland is a model that largely stands alone, rather than an example setter for other metropolitan areas that have followed in its path. There are other states that have comprehensive approaches, such as Hawaii. But regionalization inches along in piecemeal advances. For instance, see the advocacy group Smart Growth Network’s pamphlet “This is Smart Growth,” which charts victories on a development by development basis.
With all the talk of more unified, far-reaching land use planning, America still resists the urge to regionalize. Municipalities enjoy their relative autonomy to plan based on their own selfish needs. This is not to say there aren’t good things in this arrangement. The highly democratic system solicits everyone’s voice. But there is a need for a system of even greater inclusion in today’s highly mobile society, where people find themselves using the services of many different municipalities over the course of a day (to live in, to work in, to shop in, to play in, etc.). Why not open up the worldview when it comes to the next big project coming to town? Sure, this approach invites the probability of additional bureaucracy, and added time and expense, but isn’t the land use approval process pretty costly and expensive already? Isn’t the perception that it’s getting worse? Why not get better planning decisions out of a process for which that is the purpose? Next time, we’ll look at the current state of affairs on the board level, and discuss how “bad” it really is.
For instance, in Maryland, Governor Parris Glendening pushed through the Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation initiative in 1997, an attempt to discourage development on the urban fringe by cutting off state service money for these projects. Yet, the program has since wallowed under the tutelage of current governor Robert L. Ehrlich. Nonetheless, private groups such as 1000 Friends of Maryland are attempting to breathe new life into the program. In New Jersey, then Governor James McGreevey, before his “confession” (it should have been “confessions,” considering the accusations of graft carefully swept under the rug with his other bombshell – but that’s another story), attempted to carve up the state into areas, from urban to rural, and assign levels of preferences the state would provide when new developments were proposed within each. Although this proposal died, another regional body sprung to life, the Highlands Commission. Assigned to oversee the northwest quadrant of the state, the Commission has been granted powers to review all applications for new projects in the region. Its companion organization, the Pinelands Commission, which has similar regional power in a portion of the southern part of the state, has been in operation for over two decades.
But when it comes to a metropolitan region that has embraced the concept of a regional approach to land use, look no further than Portland, Oregon. Aided by a state land use framework, Portland created a regional structure of review back in the 1970’s, with the Metro Council overseeing its growth needs. The Metro Council is the only regional government in the United States with a home-rule charter and directly elected representatives. The Portland area also adopted an urban growth boundary, a line beyond which development cannot occur, to keep projects on the fringe within a defined area set aside for new construction on previously green land. And yet despite its successes, Portland is a model that largely stands alone, rather than an example setter for other metropolitan areas that have followed in its path. There are other states that have comprehensive approaches, such as Hawaii. But regionalization inches along in piecemeal advances. For instance, see the advocacy group Smart Growth Network’s pamphlet “This is Smart Growth,” which charts victories on a development by development basis.
With all the talk of more unified, far-reaching land use planning, America still resists the urge to regionalize. Municipalities enjoy their relative autonomy to plan based on their own selfish needs. This is not to say there aren’t good things in this arrangement. The highly democratic system solicits everyone’s voice. But there is a need for a system of even greater inclusion in today’s highly mobile society, where people find themselves using the services of many different municipalities over the course of a day (to live in, to work in, to shop in, to play in, etc.). Why not open up the worldview when it comes to the next big project coming to town? Sure, this approach invites the probability of additional bureaucracy, and added time and expense, but isn’t the land use approval process pretty costly and expensive already? Isn’t the perception that it’s getting worse? Why not get better planning decisions out of a process for which that is the purpose? Next time, we’ll look at the current state of affairs on the board level, and discuss how “bad” it really is.
No comments:
Post a Comment