Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs Policy Research Project Report Number 145 Innovative Initiatives in Growth Management and Open Space Preservation: A National Study Project directed by Robert H. Wilson Robert Paterson A report by the Policy Research Project on State and Local Government Initiatives for Growth Management and Open Space Preservation The LBJ School of Public Affairs publishes a wide range of public policy issue titles. For order information and book availability call 512-471-4218 or write to: Office of Communications, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, Box Y, Austin, TX 78713-8925. Information is also available online at www.utexas.edu/lbj/pubs/. Library of Congress Control No.: 2003115308 ISBN: 0-89940-758-7 ©2003 by The University of Texas at Austin Printed in the U.S.A. All rights reserved Cover design by Doug Marshall LBJ School Office of Communications Policy Research Project Participants Students Annette Coussan, B.A. (History), University of Louisiana Amanda Dewees, B.A. (Biology), Scripps College Rebecca Epstein, B.A. (Social Relations), Michigan State University Byron French, B.S. (International Business), Trinity University Nathan Hutson, M.A. (Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies), University of Texas at Austin Kirsten Jelic, B.A. (Political Science), University of Georgia Juchul Jung, M.U.P. (Urban Planning), Texas A&M University David Knoll, B.A. (Civil/Environmental Engineering), Dartmouth College Monica Martinez, B.A. (Comparative Literature), UC Berkeley Mark Mazzola, M.S. (Community and Regional Planning), University of Texas at Austin M. Catherine McGuire, B.M. (Music Theory), University of Texas at Austin John Miller, B.A. (Political Economy and Economics), Tulane University Mona Nichols, B.A. (History); B.B.A. (International Business), University of Texas at Austin Adeline Park, B.A. (Sociology), UC San Diego Anuradha Parmar, B.A. (Architecture), School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, India Ellen Wilmer, B.A. (Anthropology), University of Massachusetts at Amherst Project Directors Robert H. Wilson, Ph.D, Mike Hogg Professor in Urban Policy, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin Robert Paterson, Ph.D, Associate Dean for Research and Operations, School of Architecture, The University of Texas at Austin Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................... .ix List of Figures ............................................................................................................... xi Foreword ....................................................................................................................... xiii Preface ........................................................................................................................... xv Chapter 1. Land Use Challenges and Public Policy: An Introduction .......................... I Congressional Interest .......................................................................................... 2 The Project ........................................................................................................... 3 Land Use Challenges ........................................................................................... 7 Intergovernmental Relations ................................................................................ 14 The Federal Government Role ............................................................................. 16 The Report ...........................................................................................................23 Chapter 2. Evaluating Program Effectiveness: Cross-Case Analysis .......................... 27 Growth Management Approaches ....................................................................... 28 Growth Management Systems ............................................................................. 30 Smart Growth Programs ...................................................................................... 34 Brownfield Redevelopment Programs ................................................................. 36 Open Space Approaches ........... ~ .......................................................................... 37 Fann.land Conservation Programs ........................................................................ 37 Ecosystem Protection Programs ......................................................................... .43 Greenbelt Conservation Programs ...................................................................... .47 Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 50 Chapter 3. The Influence of Intergovernmental Relations ............................................ 56 Models of Intergovernmental Relations ............................................................... 56 Instruments of Intergovernmental Relations ........................................................ 62 Intergovernmental Relations and Program Effectiveness: Empirical Evidence ........................................................................................ 65 Interpreting the Effect of Intergovernmental Relations ....................................... 67 Conclusions ..................... : .................................................................................... 70 Chapter 4. Accomplishments, Challenges, and Opportunities ..................................... 73 Accomplishments and Unresolved Problems ...................................................... 73 Factors Leading to Initiative Adoption ................................................................ 76 Implementation: Characteristics of Effective Cases ........................................... 77 The Federal Role in Transferability of Initiatives and Recommendations .......... 82 Concluding Thoughts ........................................................................................... 85 Appendix 1. Research Methods .................................................................................... 87 Selection of Initiatives ......................................................................................... 87 Case Study Protocol ............................................................................................. 88 Appendix 2. Study Survey ............................................................................................ 90 Appendix 3 .1. Emeryville Brownfield Pilot Project.. ................................................... 101 Appendix 3.2. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ........................................ 111 Appendix 3.3. The San Diego Growth Management System ....................................... 122 Appendix 3.4. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)........................................... 133 Appendix 3.5. City of Boulder ...................................................................................... 143 Appendix 3.6. Colorado Office of Smart Growth ......................................................... 157 Appendix 3.7. The Brandywine Conservancy .............................................................. 169 Appendix 3.8. Livable Delaware ......................................... : ........................................ 179 Appendix 3.9. Apalachicola River and Bay.................................................................. 190 Appendix 3.10. City of Orlando Growth Management Plan ........................................ 205 Appendix 3.11. Bluegrass Tomorrow ........................................................................... 221 Appendix 3.12. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government .................................. 231 Appendix 3.13. Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) ......241 Appendix 3.14. Montgomery County Farmland Preservation ...................................... 250 Appendix 3.15. Upper Mississippi American Heritage River Initiative ....................... 259 Appendix 3.16. Livable Communities .......................................................................... 267 Appendix 3.17. Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan ..................................... 275 Appendix 3.18. New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan.................. 283 Appendix 3.19. Metropolitan Regional Services (Metro) ............................................ 293 Appendix 3.20. Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program ............... .305 Appendix 3.21. Lancaster County Agricultural Preservation Program ........................ 316 Appendix 3.22. Lower Delaware River Wild and Scenic River. .................................. 331 Appendix 3.23. Harbor Town ....................................................................................... 345 Appendix 3.24. Chattanooga Smart Growth Project .................................................... 352 Appendix 3.25. Gateway District ................................................................................. .360 Appendix 3.26. Mountainland Association of Govemments ........................................ 368 Appendix 3.27. Reston: A New Town Enters a New Era............................................. 376 Appendix 3.28. Virginia Outdoors Foundation ............................................................ 386 Appendix 3.29. Vermont Growth Management Act-Act 200 .................................... 396 Appendix 3.30. City of Burlington ............................................................................... 405 Appendix 3.31. Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program ...................... 415 Appendix 3.32. Washington State Growth Management Act.. .................................... .428 Appendix 4. Accomplishments and Problems of More Effective Initiatives ............... 441 Appendix 5. Effectiveness in Achieving Program Objectives ...................................... 447 List of Tables Table 1.1. Case Study Selections .................................................................................. 5 Table 1.2. Land Use.Terminology ................................................................................ 11 Table 1.3. Federal Roles in Growth Management Case Studies ................................... 17 Table 1.4. Federal Roles in Open Space Preservation Case Studies ............................ 18 Table 2.1. Case Study Classification ............................................................................ 27 Table 2.2. Growth Management Strategies and Policy Actions ................................... 29 Table 2.3. Open Space Strategies and Policy Actions .................................................. 39 Table 3.1. Classification of Case Studies by Intergovernmental Relations .................. 58 Table 3.2. Intergovernmental Relationship Tools ......................................................... 63 Table 3.3. Federal Relationship Tools .......................................................................... 64 Table 4.1. Most Common Implementation Barriers ..................................................... 78 Table 4.2. Suggested Roles for the Federal Government ............................................. 83 x List of Figures Figure 1.1. Case Study Location Map ..........................................................................6 Figure 3.1. Inclusive Authority ..................................................................................... 56 Figure 3.2. Coordinate Authority .................................................................................. 57 Figure 3.3. Overlapping Authority ................................................................................ 57 Figure 3.4. Regional-Local (Coordinate Authority) ..................................................... 58 Figure 3.5. State-Regional-Local (Coordinate/Inclusive Authority) ............................ 59 Figure 3.6. Federal-State-Local (Inclusive Authority) ................................................. 60 Figure 3.7. Local (Overlapping Authority) ................................................................... 60 Figure 3.8. Nongovernmental (Coordinate Authority) ................................................. 61 Foreword The Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs has established interdisciplinary research on policy problems as the core of its educational program. A major part of this program is the nine-month policy research project (PRP), in the course of which two or more faculty members from different disciplines direct the research of ten to thirty graduate students on a policy issue of concern to a government or nonprofit agency. This "client orientation" brings the students face to face with administrators, legislators, and other public officials active in the policy process and demonstrates that research in a policy environment demands special talents. It also illuminates the occasional difficulties of relating research findings to political realities. This report presents the findings of a project undertaken by the LBJ School and the Community and Regional Planning Program for the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on local growth management and open space initiatives in the United States. The CRS has found considerable congressional interest on the question of and use policy and how it impacts quality of life. The topic presents a particularly interesting case of policy analysis given the complex intergovernmental relations involved as well as the active participation of nongovernment actors, including nonprofit organizations and private enterprise. The LBJ School has complete five studies for CRS and we look forward to further collaboration in coming years. The curriculum of the LBJ School is intended not only to develop effective public servants but also to produce research that will enlighten and inform those already engaged in the policy process. The project that resulted in this report has helped to accomplish the first task; it is our hope that the report itself will contribute to the second. Finally, it should be noted that neither the LBJ School nor The University of Texas at Austin necessarily endorses the views or findings of this report. Edwin Dom Dean Preface Local Initiatives in Growth Management and Open Space Policies: A National study is the second of two projects undertaken for the Congressional Research Service (CRS) by the Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) School of Public Affairs and the Community and Regional Planning Program at the University of Texas at Austin. The first project, State Growth Management and Open Space Preservation Policies (Policy Research Project Report Series, no.143, LBJ School of Public Affairs, 2002), identified policy approaches adopted by state governments since 1990 to address the issues of growth management and open space preservation. In the second project, the focus of this report, 32 innovative initiatives in 15 states were assessed. The role of the federal government in these cases was a prominent element of the analysis. The project, conducted between September 2002 and June 2003, involved 11 students from the Master of Public Affairs Program of the LBJ School and 5 students from the graduate program in Community and Regional Planning. Two professors served as project directors. CRS provided funding for the field research component of the project. The Mike Hogg Professorship and the School of Architecture provided funding for the production and publication of this report. We also wish to recognize Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, Professor of City Planning, Public Policy and International Affairs, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and Dr. Frederick R. Steiner, Dean, School of Architecture, The University of Texas at Austin, national experts on the issues of growth management, who served on the advisory committee of the project. Finally, we would like to express our appreciation of Jeff Zinn, the CRS program officer on the two growth management projects. Jeff has been a valuable colleague in all elements of the project. We hope this report will contribute to the efforts of CRS and others in promoting national debate on this very important policy issue. Chapter 1. Land Use Challenges and Public Policy: An Introduction Abundant open space is a defining characteristic of the United States, indelibly affecting the nation's history and cultural identity. Where it was once regarded as an obstacle to Manifest Destiny, a challenge to be overcome, in the decades following World War II national sentiment concerning open space has changed. After witnessing the rapid expansion of suburbs onto land once considered the countryside, many citizens believe that today, in 2003, the major challenge associated with open space is its protection. But it is not just the loss of open space that has caused many to question contemporary land use practices in this country. Growth that is poorly planned can place undue pressure on communities, causing infrastructure development costs to soar, traffic and congestion pressures to mount, and a host of other community problems. On the other hand, economic progress is as important a hallmark of U.S. culture as open space. And while the impetus to protect the natural, scenic, and historical value of land is strong, so is the need to sustain economic progress and prosperity. For many, land development is essential to maintaining the nation's economic vitality. Recognizing that open space protection and growth management are areas of strong citizen interest as well as issues that are often in conflict, state, regional, and local governments across the nation have adopted growth management and open space preservation initiatives to decrease the externalities of haphazard development spurred by growth in order to sustain or enhance a community's quality of life. Growth management initiatives to control land use and development emerged during the 1960s to address the impacts of unplanned development. The most recent trend in growth management is Smart Growth, defined as "economic growth that consciously seeks to avoid wastefulness and damage to the environment and communities." Open space preservation initiatives exist to protect the scenic and natural beauty of the landscape in both rural and urban settings by preserving natural landscapes and agricultural lands and by encouraging the creation of parks. Often, open space policies and programs are used in conjunction with growth management initiatives. Most growth management and open space initiatives attempt to answer an extraordinarily complex question: How can communities accommodate new residents and businesses without sacrificing the important historical character, natural beauty, and cultural values that contribute to an area's quality of life? This question involves numerous and more specific others: Where should new neighborhoods and roads be developed? How can local zoning ordinances be changed to support growth management goals? How can a program's limited funding be allocated to best serve the community's goals? What are the environmental implications associated with capital improvement projects? How can the natural beauty of a region be protected before growth pressures emerge? Equally as important as how growth management and open space preservation should be accomplished is the question of whom should be responsible for doing so--the government, a nonprofit entity, or the private sector? Ifgovernment is best suited to address these concerns, then which level of government-federal, state, or local, or a combined effort of any two or all three? These are but a few ofthe complicated issues surrounding growth management and open space preservation in the United States. and over the years, numerous communities across the nation have chosen to struggle with them. Of these efforts, several noteworthy successes--many of them among the cases studied for this report-demonstrate that thoughtful and active communities can make a difference. Congressional Interest There are many reasons why Congress would want to explore the complementary topics of growth management and open space preservation. Interest may be spurred from the bottom up---the result of grassroots concern with a community's development. The issue may also be of interest to a member of Congress concerned with homeland security and natural disaster mitigation, both of which involve the spatial orientation of population centers, a topic fundamental to land use policy. Finally. because many federal actions often impact state and local land use policies, Congress may wish to know more about growth management and open space preservation as it deliberates on such issues as transportation, taxation, housing, and numerous other topics that bear upon the issues. While this study will increase Congress' knowledge of open space preservation and growth management efforts across the nation, many members are already conversant with the topics. Three congressional groups, the Livable Communities Task Force, the Senate Smart Growth Task Force, and the House Sustainable Development Caucus, have formed to consider congressional action to promote growth management and open space preservation principles and practices through actions like restructuring federal tax policies, promoting environmental protection through incentives, and allowing local governments more flexibility in using federal community development funds. Land use issues come before Congress on a regular basis. However, the topic tends to become diffused through the various federal agencies and departments that address the issue's many facets-the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the National Parle Service, to name a few. ­ Also, Congress• attention to land use issues is often diverted by other budgetary priorities, especially when federal funds are scarce. The result is that past congressional attention to growth management and open space preservation issues has been rather piecemeal and episodic. Nevertheless, there has been increasing congressional interest in these topics. This chapter will describe policy issues surrounding land use in the United States and delineate basic approaches and viewpoints on growth management and open space preservation. An overview of the challenges faced by growing communities will be presented, followed by discussion on how growth management and open space preservation assists communities. The chapter also discusses the research methodology used in this study and introduces the concepts and terms discussed in subsequent chapters of the report. It concludes with an overview of the federal roles in each of the 32 case studies. 2 The Project The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has found bipartisan interest in growth management and open space preservation issues, and this report provides members with information on innovative state, regional, and local growth management and open space programs. Also, it will assist Congress in understanding the connections among growth management and open space preservation policies implemented at the local and state level and the federal role affecting those policies. To guide its research, the study team set out to answer the following five key questions about growth management and open space preservation: 1. Do growth management and open space initiatives really matter? What are their accomplishments and what problems do they share? 2. What are the common events and actions that explain how more effective initiatives first appeared? 3. What aspects of growth management and open space initiative development and implementation led to greater effectiveness over time? 4. What role can the federal government play to help state, regional, and local efforts to manage growth and preserve open spaces? 5. What lessons may be transferred to other locations? How could the federal government assist in that transfer? What is the congressional role in the federal response? The 2002-2003 Study This project, the 2002-2003 study, is the second half of a two-year study initiated in July 2001 at the request of CRS. Two professors and 16 graduate students in the LBJ School of Public Affairs and the School of Architecture's Community and Regional Planning Program at the University of Texas at Austin composed the 2002-2003 study team. During the initial phase of the project, the 2001-2002 study, the research team created an inventory of state policies and programs directly related to growth management and open space. Researchers identified state legislation, executive orders, citizen initiatives, and other related measures-mandatory and voluntary-that were enacted since 1990 to promote growth management and preserve open space. The inventory revealed the national scope of such initiatives and helped researchers identify states most actively addressing the issues. The findings from the 2001-2002 study were the basis for the second year's research project, the production and analysis of case studies from the 15 states most actively addressing land use issues with policies, programs, and projects. The federal government does not directly regulate land use, outside of the management of federal public lands. As a result, the policies, programs, and projects discussed in the study operate primarily through state and local government because (1) land use issues are inherently a concern of local government, and (2) state governments assign the authority to regulate land use to local governments through Home Rule Authority and through zoning enabling acts. Strong state and local control over land use issues generates great diversity across the country in growth management and open space protection methods, which meant that the range of cases chosen for the 2002-2003 study needed to represent the types of 3 activities found throughout the states. To assist in choosing an adequate selection of cases, researchers began their selection of cases by categorizing a list of study candidates according to several criteria: issue addressed, primary approach used, primary intergovernmental relationship, types of project partners, geographic scale of the program, and character of federal government involvement. In addition to these criteria, the initiative's maturation and ability to be transferred to another setting were also important characteristics taken into consideration during the selection process. The selection process provided researchers with 32 cases--or initiatives as they are collectively referred to in the report-for study (see Appendix 1 for an extended discussion of the case study selection process and research methods). 1 These initiatives fall into three main categories depending on the extent of their goals: policies, programs, or projects (see Table 1.1). At one end of the spectrum are policies with long-term, general objectives; at the other end are projects, which have a comparatively short timeframe and a focus on measurable outcomes. Projects also tend to have a more limited scale than the other types of initiatives. Programs, a third type of initiative examined, take on characteristics of both policies and projects, having long-term goals while placing more emphasis on implementation methods in order to achieve results in an abbreviated time period. Table 1.lCase Study Selections Case Study* 1 2 ---­ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PROGRAMSTATE Emeryville Brownfield Pilot Project California ~:MidpellinsU!aRegional-Opiii Space Distric_t_________ California ------·+ ·-----·----·--------------------··-·----·­ California San Diego Growth Management System California/Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Colorado City of Boulder Colorado Colorado Office of Smart Growth Delaware/Pennsylvania Brandywine Conservancy Delaware Livable Delaware Florida Apalachicola River and Bay lO----t-Flori_da --ityof _ --------­ -___________+-C___ofiando GroWth Management Plan ----·-----------·-·---------·--------··--···--------···--··-----------·-·-··-·---··----------·--·---· 11 Kentucky Bluegrass Tomorrow If____ Kentucky ---Lexington-Fayette Urb_an_ C_o-un--cyGoVernment_________ 13 Maryland -Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation­·-·---.--------(MALPF) ------·---------­ 14 Maryland Montgomery County Fannland Preservation Minnesota Minnesota Livable Communities 17 New Jersey The Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan 18 New Jersey New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan 19 Oregon Metropolitan Regional Services (Metro) 20 Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program (TGM) 21 Pennsylvania Lancaster County Agricultural Preservation Program 22 Pennsylvania Lower Delaware River Wild and Scenic River 23 Tennessee Harbor Town ~-­ T elinessee-_ --Chattanooga Smart GioWtb Project --------··-·--·-···-·-··-­ 25 Utah Gateway District 27 Virginia -·· Reston: A New Town Enters a New Era 28 Virginia Virginia Outdoors Foundation 29 Vermont Vermont Growth Management Act-Act 200 Vermont City of Burlington Washington Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program Washington Washin~on State Growth Management Act *Numbers used for case study location; see Figure 1.1. Figure 1.1. Case Study Location Map Note: Numbers on the map correspond to the case study numbers in Table 1.1. Statewide programs are shown in large numerals, while ~COUDl)' « regional programs are marked in smaller numerals and a dot. 6 Land Use Challenges Many governmental efforts in growth management and open space preservation are initiated in response to challenges related to high population growth rates; specifically, some community members believe that haphazard, unregulated development threatens their area's quality of life. However, a broad consensus in a community that unmanaged growth constitutes a problem may not emerge. In some areas, especially in the sparsely populated American West, citizens may uniformly agree that any growth is good growth. For these communities, the economic growth that accompanies development is highly desirable. In other locations, the positive externalities of unrestrained growth, especially new jobs and homes, may outweigh, in the minds of citizens, any negative impacts of growth. Furthermore, the demand for a large home on a large lot, a mainstay of the "American Dream" and desired by millions, is reinforced by the perception of better schools and lower crime rates in suburban areas. Those proponents of unregulated growth feel that the right to develop one's land and to live in one's preferred location is a manifestation of free choice and opportunity. Viewed in this light, population growth and development do not generate problems requiring government intervention. Citizens opposed to this view feel that unrestrained growth negatively affects quality of life through the loss of agricultural, historical, and environmentally sensitive lands, costly infrastructure expansions, increased traffic, decreased connectivity, and social isolation. This section provides a general introduction to land use issues associated with growth in the U.S. and introduces the relevant terminology and policy approaches. Geography does not normally separate citizens who hold opinions on either side of the growth management debate. Often, the distance between those who approve land use regulation and those who do not is equivalent to the drive from the urban residential center to the surrounding suburbs. And while many urban communities may be unvarying in their preference for land use regulation, the adjacent county or town may think otherwise. F"Qrthermore, sharp division of opinion on the issue may exist between residents of a single jurisdiction. The result is that the topic of growth management and open space preservation has become highly politicized, with candidates running on platforms of "no growth" or "growth management" against those with agendas devoted to "less land use regulation and government intervention." The issue, then, becomes how to balance individual preference with the public's desire for land use management, with each community crafting its own, unique response to this question. To better understand the growth management and open space preservation debate, further definition of three core topics is needed-urban sprawl, open space, and land use regulation. What Is Urban Sprawl? Residential development on the urban fringe accelerated rapidly after World War II. Federal policies supported this growth pattern. The interstate highway system, for example, facilitated the movement of manufacturing employment from city centers, and increasing rates of automobile ownership made residential location possible in what were once primarily rural areas. Research also suggests that federal policies related to desegregation and housing may have hastened migration to the suburbs. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgages facilitated the growth of predominantly white suburbs through the policy of redlining. While redlining, the refusal to serve particular geographical areas because of the race or income of an area's residents, no longer continues legally today, the legacy of this practice has left poor minorities concentrated in many urban centers. Over time, the migration from compact city centers led to a general disinvestment in the urban core and a propensity for new urban development to consume ever-increasing amounts of undeveloped land, a phenomenon now commonly referred to as sprawl. By definition, sprawl is unplanned growth of low-density urbanized development within an urban area or just beyond the urban fringe. The use of land beyond the urban fringe is transformed from rural to urban because it may represent a less-expensive option for development within an already urbanized area. Sprawl is manifest in leapfrog development, dependence on single-occupancy vehicular travel, and unresolved land use issues between adjacent governmental jurisdictions-all phenomena observed in contemporary U.S. cities and suburbs. This development pattern may lead to traffic congestion, degradation of the natural environment, and inefficient use of infrastructure, among other impacts. An ubiquitous manifestation of sprawl is the increased traffic and congestion within metropolitan areas. The increasing spatial dispersion of people and businesses in metropolitan areas has generated increased demand for travel. Between 1983 and 1990, the national average length of work commutes increased by 36 percent. From 1980 to 1995, for every increase in population of one person, 1.29 automobiles were added. In 2003, over 100 million individuals drove their own automobiles to and from work, whereas a little over 40 million did so in 1960. Individuals may prefer to travel in their automobiles because it is more private and convenient, but this preference indisputably leads to further traffic congestion. Degradation of the environment due to sprawl may include loss of habitat for wildlife, higher pollution levels, or decreasing amounts of agricultural lands and natural landscapes. In addition, increases in impervious cover, such as rooftops and paved surfaces, can lead to degradation of water quality. Building on the urban fringe is nevertheless appealing for many; low-density development provides property owners private open space to be used at their own discretion. The infrastructure needed to accommodate sprawling development costs cities approximately 20 percent more than utilizing existing infrastructure for new development. When new development occurs on a site at the periphery of a city, infrastructure, such as roads and utilities, must be extended even though underutilized infrastructure may exist in other locations. Impact fees and charges assessed against newly developed property attempt to recover some share of the cost incurred by a local government in providing the infrastructure at the city's edge. Both inner-city residents and new development residents question the fairness of infrastructure financing. On one hand, when impact fees and charges do not cover the entire cost of infrastructure provision, residents in the central city question the fairness of their taxes being applied to the construction of roads, schools, and sewers that they will never use. However, those residents of the new developments argue that the population at large will benefit from the growing suburban community, albeit indirectly. The issue of fairness in infrastructure finance leads to broader issues of equity in metropolitan growth patterns. Anti-sprawl advocates argue that rapid suburban expansion unfairly burdens inner-city residents in a number of ways. The economy of central cities may decline as development in the suburbs draws commercial enterprises and residents 8 away from the city center, decreasing the availability of jobs in center-city communities and the tax base. In addition, potential inequities of this system may appear in certain services, such as police and fire protection. These services are sensitive to response times rather than numbers of individuals served, and the less densely populated areas are more costly to serve even though all residents in the jurisdiction incur the same tax rates. Finally, much debate revolves around the fairness of housing patterns in the metropolitan areas. Some suburban jurisdictions have adopted policies, such as large lot size, that prevent the provision of affordable housing. This type of policy, known as exclusionary zoning, has been found illegal, but issues of housing affordability and options afforded to lower-income populations are relevant in most metropolitan areas. What Is Open Space? Americans place a high cultural value on open space. The country's historical expansion westward helped shape this value and the natural beauty of the landscape contributed to America's rich history of conservation. In a sense, westward expansion may have been the precursor to unregulated growth, as the shared open space of the American frontier was eventually converted into privately owned residential property. Indeed, the preference for privately owned land has led to a rate of urban land consumption in the United States that far exceeds the country's population growth. This trend is even occurring in the northeast, which has historically had greater population densities. However, planners and policymakers have found that Americans' appreciation for open space can be an asset if harnessed to achieve more efficient land use. Across the country, numerous ballot initiatives have demonstrated that Americans are often willing to devote significant tax reserves to fund the preservation of open space. This does not necessarily indicate a uniform pattern or consensus throughout the country. On the contrary, while the term "open space preservation" is generally viewed favorably, sharp local and regional differences exist as to which types of open space take priority. Forms of open space may include agricultural lands, preserved lands, or parklands. Farmers and ranchers need open space for livestock grazing, crop production, orchards, and nurseries. Preserved lands protect the natural environment and help to maintain an ecosystem's natural state. Parks and lands intended for the public are used for recreation and meeting places where citizens may enjoy nature and forge community ties. There is widespread disagreement about what should constitute preserved open space. For example, should land that is not accessible to the public be classified as open space? What about open space being used for an ecologically unsustainable purpose like intensive cattle ranching? Although a consensus on what constitutes open space has not emerged, the loss of great amounts of viable agricultural lands, unique ecosystems, and parklands are certainly dramatic and may decrease quality of life. Between 1992 and 1997, the U.S. lost 17,500 square miles of rural and agricultural land in the form of open space. Furthermore, the Sierra Club reports that the average rate of overall open space decreases annually by 2.2 million acres. In 2000, there were approximately 145,261.20 square miles of rural land remaining in the United States. Though the development of land affords many economic opportunities, it may contribute to the depletion of sensitive ecosystems and parklands, thereby altering the natural landscape. Once certain elements of the land are changed, it is difficult to return the land to its original state. Policy Issue, Approaches, and Tools While not all parties agree that sprawl is a proble~ many states, cities, counties, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) feel that the negative effects of sprawl and loss of open space necessitate some sort ofcommunity response and have chosen to pursue initiatives to address these effects. To carry out these initiatives, these communities have put a variety of land use tools into practice. A community's choice of tools is influenced by the issue being addressed, political context, and prior experience with land use regulation. The following table defines numerous land use tools and other important terminology used in the field of growth management and open space preservation. The definitions of land use tools presented in this study are generally accepted by land use professionals. While this list is not exhaustive, it describes many of the tools and practices found in the cases studied for this report (see Table 1.2). Table 1.2. Land Use Terminology Annexation Process by which cities acquire land and extend their municipal services, regulations, voting privileges, and taxing authority to new territory. Antiquated Subdivisions, which at one time met all regulations, that are deemed Subdivisions as currently inadequate. Connectivity Design of urban areas and the transportation corridors, roads, and pathways that access residential and commercial areas. Conservation Legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust or government Easement agency that permanently limits uses of the land in order to protect its conservation values. It allows continued ownership and use of the land, as well as the ability to sell it or pass it on to heirs. Infill Development Development or redevelopment of vacant or underutilized lands within an already developed area. Land Acquisition Process by which a public agency, private, or nonprofit organization purchases ownership rights of land for either development or preservation. Land Banking Acquisition of land by a government entity to be placed in a temporary holding pattern for future development. New Urbanism Revival of the reordering of the built environment into the form of complete cities, towns, villages, and neighborhoods that involves restoring, repairing, and the use of infill development to create new compact designs for urban living. Nonprofit Land Trust A nonprofit orgamzation that operates independent of government to conserve land by undertaking or assisting with direct land transactions, including land acquisition, conservation easements, and land donations. Phased Growth Technique by which speed and sequence of development is regulated Systems-Adequate in accordance with a community's capacity and willingness to Public Facilities accommodate it. Most often the allowable growth rate is based on the Ordinances expansion rate of public services and utilities to new areas zoned for development. Preferential Preferential assessment is a reduction in the gross taxable value of Assessment property, which is based on existing use of the land, specific property type, and certain eligibility requirements. Purchase of Voluntary approach to growth management and open space Development Rights preservation in which landowners sell to the government the development potential of their property, which is then devoted to conservation easements. Rural Growth Rural Growth Management is the application of law and design to Management preserve and protect open space, natural resources, and farmland to direct development patterns compatible with these areas. Sensitive Areas Land Preservation A system in which people and property are protected from natural hazards, where the inherently mitigating qualities of natural environmental systems are maintained, and where development is desiimed to be resilient in the face of natural forces. Tax Base Revenue Sharing Mechanism that pools the property taxes of the municipalities of a region and redistributes the funds. Transfer of Development Rights System in which development rights are transferred from one piece of property to another. TDRs enable continued farming and development without further purchases of land. Transit Oriented Development Mass transit system accommodated by residential and commercial urban design that facilitates the use and efficiency of the transit system. Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Physical point at which development is halted and beyond which point urban services do not extend. The boundary is determined by law or ordinance as a containment for urban development and to protect open space. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Amount of miles traveled per vehicle per a specific period of time. Sources: (Annexation) Austin City Connection, Annexation. Online. Available: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/annexation/. Accessed: March 1, 2003; (Conservation Easements) Land Trust Alliance, Conservation Options for Landowners. Online. Available: http://www.lta.org/conserve/options.htm. Accessed: March l, 2003; (Infill Development, Nonprofit Land Trust, Purchase ofDevelopment Rights, Tax Base Revenue Sharing, Transfer of Development Rights, and Urban Growth Boundary) Growth Management Toolbox: A Better Way to Live, Growth Management Glossary. Online. Available: http://www.vapreservation.org/growth/glosl.htm. Accessed: May 15, 2003; (New Urbanmn) NewUrbanism.org, New Urbanism. Online. Available: http://www.newurbanism.org/pages/416429/index.htm. Accessed: March 1, 2003; (Phased Growth Syste~AdequatePublic Facilities Ordinances) Arthur C. Nelson and James B. Duncan, Growth Management Principles and Practices (Planners Press: Chicago, 1995), p. 95; (Preferential A~nt) Chatham County, Georgia, Board of Assessors, Preferential Assessment. Online. Available: http://www.chathamcourts.org/assessor/preferential_assessment.html. Accessed: March l, 2003; (Vehicle Miles Traveled) Puget Sound Regional Council, Vision 2020 Glossary. Online. Available: http://www.psrc.org/projects/vision/2020glossary.htm. Accessed: May 15, 2003. Growth management policies are implemented in a variety of ways. They may include voluntary actions, incentive-based programs, mandatory applications of methods, or a combination of these. Incentive-based approaches reward developers or communities for adhering to development strategies that limit the adverse effects of development. Mandatory approaches require developers or communities to comply with laws created to further growth management goals. The method of implementation may be linked to the strength of the agency or organization's ability to regulate development activities. Since nongovernmental organizations do not have regulatory power, they often engage in voluntary or incentive-based programs. Cities, counties, regional agencies, and states may choose a more authoritarian method of implementing a policy, or may choose a voluntary or incentive-based approach based on the political climate of their region. Each land use challenge discussed above can be addressed with a range of approaches or tools. For example, incentives and mandatory requirements can both be used to address infrastructure demands. Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) and Urban Service Areas (USA) create a boundary by not issuing building permits and by not extending infrastructure beyond a predetermined line, beyond which development is not allowed. Impact fees are another example of a mandatory strategy used to manage growth. Incentive-based approaches to curb sprawl encourage cities and counties to manage their growth more aggressively. Withholding transportation funding from projects outside of desired development areas or granting building permits to developers whose plans contribute to the livability and access of communities are examples the incentive-based approach. Mandating consistency between transportation and growth management plans is one method of ensuring that the two do not conflict. An incentive­based approach in addressing traffic congestion is to create a program that provides tax incentives to individuals who live within a certain distance of their jobs. To ensure equity, growth management and Smart Growth must consider affordability and opportunity. Without provisions to ensure social equity, growth management tools that reduce the amount of buildable land hinder market opportunities, thereby driving housing prices upward. Some of these policies adopt strategies to create affordable housing opportunities. Inclusionary zoning, for example, requires developers to include a certain amount of affordable units in a development. Through its Low Income Housing Tax Credit component, the federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 has created an incentive based program that provides a federal tax credit to developers who voluntarily include affordable units. Providing for the protection of prime agricultural land from urban expansion is difficult in a free market economy. Prime agricultural land is often also prime development land, and farmers may benefit as suburbanization increases their land's property value dramatically. In areas experiencing high development pressures, a farmer may find that residential development may be the highest and best use of the land, even over crop production. In a locality that does not value its rural heritage or recognize the value of its soil, real estate developers may acquire farmland. Many farmers in this situation claim their best crops are houses. Not only may the preservation of open space retain the agricultural lands and rural character of communities, it may also contribute to the livability of urban communities. Open space may counter the effects of traffic, pollution, and overcrowded cities or serve as a buffer between communities. Open space may also shape metropolitan growth when used in conjunction with growth management programs where an mban area's growth may be contained. Such urban containment programs establish a boundary that separates urban development from rural land, thereby preserving open space. In these programs, urban areas develop with the use of infill and mixed-use development rather than by expanding their suburban areas. Communities use these tools and others discussed in Chapter 2 in growth management and Smart Growth policies and programs to maintain or enhance their quality of life. Depending on the priorities within the region, the perceived severity of the problems, and the strength of the state, regional, cotmty, or city government's ability to regulate land use, certain programs and policies may be more effective. Additionally, some of the most successful growth management programs, to be discussed in Chapter 2, recognize the correlation between managing growth and preserving open space. Intergovernmental Relations The nature of intergovernmental relationships-how responsibilities for program implementation are distributed among different organizations-is affected by the type and scale of the issue being addressed. 2 A neighborhood redevelopment initiative requires a much different intergovernmental relationship structure than an initiative to protect a river that flows through several states. Furthermore, ifthe implementing organization does not communicate well with the surrounding community, it may not be able to secure the funds, legal authority, and public trust needed for its programs to be a success. The success of growth management and open space preservation programs depend on the character of the relationships between government agencies, within government agencies, and between the government and the public. The character of federal government involvement in open space and growth management issues is of particular importance to this research project. Outside the management of federal lands, the federal government has historically had little direct involvement in land use issues since these generally fall tmder the purview of local governments. However, as discussed in this chapter, many federal policies and programs affect the manner in which communities grow and develop, for better or worse. Therefore, the degree of coordination among federal, state, and local actors influences the performance of growth management programs. A Brief History ofIntergovernmental Relations and Land Use Policy The U.S. Constitution defined a federalist system with a distinct division of responsibility between the federal and state government, and tmtil the Civil War the federal government had little direct involvement with local and state governance. 3 In fact, state governments attempted to maintain the separation of federal and state powers as expressed in Dillon's Rule.4 Federal, state, and, to a lesser extent, local governments retained separate spheres of influence through most of the nineteenth century. The federal government became more deeply involved in certain development issues in the late 1800s, and by the early 1900s it had acquired significant amounts of public land for preservation under President Theodore Roosevelt.5 During the Depression years of the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal programs included efforts to promote local development. These included many large-scale public construction projects that became fundamental to national, and especially urban, development.6 In addition, the construction of dams stimulated the growth of the western U.S. through the provision of affordable irrigation water and electricity. Through this period, the federal government's involvement in state and local matters could best be described as complementary and supportive of state and local policies rather than directive.7 After World War II, the federal government expanded its involvement with state and local governments through policies that focused on the nation's built environment. Several federal programs supported state and local governments efforts to meet the post­war demand for housing and physical infrastructure-including the interstate highway system-which led to the rapid growth of metropolitan areas and, especially, suburban development. In addition, the U.S. Congress reorganized in 1946 to form standing committees with jurisdiction on specific issues. These committees provided a conduit for special interest groups to influence federal policy and strengthened ties between different levels of government around specific grant programs.8 By the later half of the twentieth century, "collaboration and cooperation gave way to competition and duplication in both the vertical [between levels of government] and horizontal [among governments of the same level] dimensions of intergovernmental relation."9 As the federal government expanded the number of rules and regulations and introduced new funding programs, policy actors increasingly focused on sources of federal funds. As a result, the independence of policy action by state governments weakened in relationship to that of the federal government. The federal government began to exert greater control over the means by which its funds were spent, requiring extensive documentation and citizen participation for federal projects. For example, the Johnson administration began to require submission and approval of local and state governments' plans before they could receive federal grant funds. 10 State governments argued that documentation requirements were burdensome and did not improve planning efforts. Councils of Governments (COGs) and other regional planning bodies were formed to better coordinate federal programs and take advantage offederal funding incentives. Intergovernmental relationships became more formalized through federal laws, including the 1968 Intergovernmental Cooperation Act and the 1970 Intergovernmental Personnel Act, and many state and local governments established offices to coordinate intergovernmental efforts. 11 Federal control continued to become more burdensome and states began to bargain and negotiate over federal grant conditions, regaining some discretion of action during the Nixon administration.12 By the late twentieth century many state and local programs were intertwined with federal policies and programs through funding or regulation. During this period, a focus on the costs, benefits, and efficiency of government programs became a concern at all levels of government. The shifting intergovernmental context was characterized by a decline in federal aid to state and, especially, local governments, increased performance­based federal oversight of state and local programs, increased state control over local governments, and a greater utilization of public-private partnerships.13 This brief historical overview shows a pattern of increasing involvement of the federal government into issues formerly the responsibility of state and local governments. This general pattern of intergovernmental relations is found in land use policy in particular. With increased urbanization in the early 1900s, conflicts over the use of land began to emerge. The Herbert Hoover Commission drafted the Standard Zoning Enabling Act in 1924, in which land use responsibilities were assigned to local governments, as model land use legislation for states to adopt.14 State and federal governments in the latter part of the century, however, increasingly affected local land use regulation. By the 1990s, due in part to dissatisfaction with local government efforts, a number of states enacted programs to coordinate and even enforce local planning. 15 Effective intergovernmental relations, therefore, are essential for the coordination of policy development and program implementation in land use policy where a single local government is no longer uniquely responsible. The cases examined in this report emphasize not only the importance of cooperation among federal, state, and local governments to achieve effective outcomes, but also the importance of relations between departments of a single jurisdiction, with the public, and with private and nonprofit interests. The Federal Government Role Most of the initiatives examined in this report feature intergovernmental cooperation for implementation. These relationships are forged at different levels of government and some involve nongovernmental organizations. Because growth management and open space issues often encompass areas larger than a single jurisdiction, coordination is often necessary between neighboring jurisdictions. The effectiveness of this coordination will be further described and analyzed in Chapter 3. In this section, the federal government role in each of the 32 cases is delineated by identifying the collaborating agencies and describing the extent of involvement; Chapter 3 will analyze the various intergovernmental relations present in the cases and explore how these interactions relate to an initiative's success. While growth management and open space preservation programs are often initiated at the local level, some cases examined have been affected significantly by federal involvement. This involvement includes federal regulations, incentive-based programs, and mandates and funding. In some instances, nongovernmental organizations are also able to take advantage of federal programs. Characterizing the Federal Roles in Case Studies Federal involvement in the cases can be categorized as either direct or indirect, as defined by this study (see Tables 1.3 and 1.4). A direct federal role is present if the case is based on a federal action or where very specific funding is provided for the initiative. For example, some cases result directly from specific legislation, an executive order, or through a U.S. Supreme Appellate Court decision. Indirect federal involvement occurs when federal agencies provide funding to the implementing agencies and help shape policies, but the federal agencies do not initiate, implement, or oversee the programs. Programs with an indirect link are not contingent on this federal involvement. Often these programs have multiple goals, and the linkages to these federal agencies represent only a fraction of each agency's activities. In cases where several federal agencies affect a program, the federal government usually plays a more tangential role in achieving the initiative's goals. However, one should not disregard the considerable influence of these indirect federal roles, which have been shaping land use policy for decades. Table 1.3. Federal Roles in Growth Management Case Studies Case Studies Direct Federal Roles Emeryville Brownfield Pilot Environmental Protection Project Agency San Diego Growth Management None Found System Colorado Office of Smart None Found Growth Livable Delaware None Found City of Orlando Growth None Found Management Plan Bluegrass Tomorrow None Found Lexington-Fayette Urban County Department of Agriculture Government Livable Communities Supreme Court New Jersey State Development None Found and Redevelopment Plan Metropolitan Regional Services None Found (Metro) Transportation and Growth Department of Transportation Management Program (TGM) Harbor Town None Found Chattanooga Smart Growth None Found Project Gateway District Environmental Protection Agency Mountainland Association of Councils of Government Governments Vermont Growth Management None Found Act-Act200 City of Burlington Environmental Protection Agency Washington State Growth None Found Management Act Indirect Federal Roles None Found Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Transportation Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban Development Internal Revenue Service Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency Department of Transportation Department of Transportation None Found Department of Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency None Found Department of Transportation None Found Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban Development Table 1.4. Federal Roles in Open Space Pn:servation Case Studies Indirect Federal Roles Direct Federal Roles Case Studies Nooe Found Snare District Tahoe Regional Planning National Park ServiceMidpeninsula Regional Open U.S. Supreme Court Agency (fRPA) City of Boulder Forest Service, Congress Bureau ofLand Management. National Park Service. None Found Forest Service Brandy Forest Service, Congress Intemal Revenue Service Wine Conservancy Apalachicola River and Bay National Oceanic Atmospheric Nooe Found Administration Maryland Agricultural Land Internal Revenue Service Preservation Foundation Department of Agriculture (MAI.PF) Montgomery County Farmland Department of Agriculture Intemal Revenue Service Preservation Upper Mississippi American Executive Order Army Corps ofEngineers Herita2e River Initiative The Pinelands Comprehensive National Pad Service, Congress Nooe Found Maiw!ement Plan Lancaste£ County Agricultural Department ofAgriculture Intemal Revenue Service Preservation Program Lower Delaware River Wild and Forest Service, Congress None Found Scenic River Vinrinia Outdoors Foundation None Found Intemal Revenue Service Washington State Coastal Zone National Oceanic Atmospheric Nooe Found Maiw!ement Act Administrations Many of the growth management cases studied are state-level initiatives with no direct federal involvement. These cases, however, feature a large indirect federal relationship, demonstrating state government's ability to utilire the federal framework. particularly as it relates to transportation and housing, in its growth management policies. Those growth management initiatives featwing a direct federal role had highly focused objectives that corresponded to the objectives of a federal agency project or program; for example, the well-defined objectives of the brownfields case studies featured direct federal involvement of the EPA, which sponsors programs specifically related to that issue. The relative increase of direct federal involvement in the open space preservation cases is not surprising given the federal government's history of creating and implementing open space preservation initiatives. The Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manage six hundred million acres of land, approximately 27 percent of all U.S. land.16 Among the cases in this study, the National Park Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture figured most prominently among those federal agencies with a direct federal role in open space protection. In addition, there are many federal initiatives that feature open space protection as a specific goal, such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the Endangered Species Act.17 Those agencies with indirect federal involvement in open space protection, such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Army Corps of Engineers, indicate the potential for federal government to affect open space protection through means other than outright acquisition. The following section provides a brief introduction to the more prominent federal roles found in the cases. The discussion is arranged in order of federal agency or entity with the most direct involvement in the cases studied. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) • Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) • Montgomery County Farmland Preservation • Lancaster County Agricultural Preservation Program • Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Through the Farmland Protection Program (FPP), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) partners with state and local governments to provide financial assistance to purchase conservation easements in order to protect existing agricultural resources. The Natural Resources Conservation Service, a division of the USDA, administers the program.18 These funds are used in tandem with state and local funds to purchase development rights in several case studies. The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, which utilizes a planning policy that is primarily focused on growth management, also uses this program to preserve open space. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) • Brandywine Conservancy • Lancaster County Agricultural Preservation Program • Virginia Outdoors Foundation • Livable Delaware • Montgomery County Farmland Preservation • Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Several of the cases that collaborate with the USDA through the FPP utilize the policies of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). IRS tax laws related to the purchase and donation of conservation easements encourage land preservation. In the case of agricultural land preservation, an IRS revenue ruling allows a farmer who receives money from a conservation easement to deduct his or her basis-what the farmer paid for the farm plus any improvements, minus depreciation-from the easement payment for the purpose of reducing federal capital gains tax. 19 The IRS also allows the use of an easement payment in a like-kind exchange-allowing the landowner to use the easement money to acquire real estate involved in business, trade, or investment and to defer any capital gains taxes that might be due.20 Those who donate conservation easements have the opportunity for tax savings as well. Thirty percent of the value of donated conservation easements can be deducted from donor's income for up to six years. While this could potentially result in large income tax savings, many of those who donate with lower incomes fail to recognize the full benefit of the tax savings because they are unable to deduct the full amount of the donated easement over the six-year period. There are other potential income tax benefits from donating easements. Farms with donated easements are valued at a lesser rate for estate tax purposes. In addition, in 1997, Congress revised the IRS Code to grant further reductions in the value of taxable estates located within 25 miles of a metropolitan area, a national park, a wilderness area, or within ten miles of an Urban National Forest.21 While several IRS policies related to easement purchases and donations are discussed in this report, there are likely many others that bear upon this issue. Both the Brandywine Conservancy and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation are nongovernmental organizations that use these tax incentives as their primary means by which to preserve agricultural land. National Park Service (NPS) • Midpenninsula Regional Open Space District • City of Boulder • Lower Delaware River Wild and Scenic River • The Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan The National Park Service (NPS) implements federal policy for preserving, purchasing, and managing open space. Additionally, it provides educational support and promotes community involvement in several of the cases studied. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is directly funded through the NPS Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). L WCF provides matching funds to states and local governments for the acquisition and development of public recreational facilities.22 The City of Boulder coordinates with NPS due to the vast amount of federally owned land in the vicinity. In the Lower Delaware River Wild and Scenic River and in the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan cases,.NPS coordinates with the community, offers educational assistance, and provides some funding for land acquistion and community programs. Forest Service (TRP A) • Tahoe Regional Planning Agency • City of Boulder The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRP A) has an ongoing relationship with the Forest Service. 23 The Forest Service and TRPA must coordinate with one another in order to ensure consistency between policy objectives within the region. Within TRPA's jurisdictional boundary, the Forest Service's Lake Tahoe Basin Unit purchases land for conservation. TRPA has some regulatory powers over the Forest Service for permitting; however, the Forest Service has regulatory oversight in instances of federal permitting. The Forest Service also facilitates community organization and helps educate the public about the plan. Congressional Action • Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) • Lower Delaware River Wild and Scenic River • Brandywine Conservancy Congressional involvement in each of these cases revolves around environmental concerns or loss of open space. Congress sought to protect an ecological resource through the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968.24 The intent was to provide a balance between traditional federal actions on rivers and waterways, such as the construction of dams and levees, with a program that would preserve selected rivers or river segments. The Lower Delaware River became a Wild and Scenic River in 2000. Congress ratified the bistate compact that formed Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) in 1970 to protect the ecologically sensitive area surrounding Lake Tahoe. Since the lake is situated in two states, the compact's ratification was necessitated by the Interstate Commerce Clause. In 1978, Congress created the nation's first national reserve, the New Jersey Pinelands. Similarly, Congress was indirectly involved with the Brandywine Conservancy by providing funding for the founding of the Brandywine Battlefield Park. The Brandywine Conservancy, an environmental management nonprofit, played an integral role in establishing the park. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • City of Boulder The vast amount of federally owned land on the outskirts of the city of Boulder required the city and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to occasionally coordinate their activities. Boulder has swapped land with the BLM in order to pursue both parties' objectives. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) • Apalachicola River and Bay • Washington State Coastal Zone Management Act In another attempt to protect sensitive ecological areas, the Coastal Zone Management Act was passed by Congress in 1972. Its primary purpose is to encourage coastal states to preserve and protect coastal resources such as wetlands, floodplains, beaches, and sand dunes through individual coastal zone management programs. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) implements the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). NOAA administers some of the programs directly, such as Apalachicola River and Bay, while in Washington State, the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), a division of NOAA, oversees the program.25 In addition to providing grants to the states to implement their programs, the CZMA requires federal agencies to comply with state coastal zone management programs to ensure consistency with each agency's goals. Executive Order • Upper Mississippi American Heritage River Initiative The Upper Mississippi American Heritage Initiative was created by executive order in 1997 to assist river communities by providing access to financial and educational assistance. The program is administered by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), but the only federal funding it receives originates in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which incurs the salary of the only paid employee, the river navigator, who directs the program. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Elneryville Brownfield Pilot Project • Gateway District • New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan • Chattanooga Smart Growth Project The Emeryville Brownfield Pilot Program and the Gateway District projects are directly linked to the EPA. The EPA's Brownfield :Economic Redevelopment Initiative attempts to empower communities to rehabilitate or remediate brownfields for reuse. The Emeryville Brownfield Pilot Program and the Gateway District case studies are both pilot programs, but the Gateway District has become a Showcase Community. The Showcase Community effort involved an EPA employee joining the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency staff under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) of 1970, which allows federal employees to work in non-federal sectors. The New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan and the Chattanooga Smart Growth Project receive more limited funding from the EPA. U.S. Department ofTransportation (USOOT) • Transportation and Growth Management Program (TGM) • Mountainland Association ofGovernments • New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan • Metropolitan Regional Services (Metro) • Livable Delaware • Reston: A New Town Enters a New Era Most of the growth management programs received ISTEAffEA-21 funds through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Authority (FfA}, which are part of the U.S. Department ofTransportation (USDOT). Oregon's Transportation and Growth Management program. for example, requires coordination between the goals of growth management and transportation to ensure consistency, and decisions concerning the utilization of USOOT funds are critical to this effort. U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development (USHUD) • San Diego Growth Management System • City ofBurlington • Chattanooga Smart Growth Project • Colorado Oftice ofSmart Growth • Livable Communities • City ofOrlando Growth Management Plan • Bio~Tomorrow • Washington State Growth Management Act The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (USIIlJD) provides funding in several of the cases studied in much the same manner as the USDOT. HUD provides funding for public housing under Section 8, Fair Housing Act (FHA) Loans, and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG).26 CDBG funds to improve inner city conditions are important in the San Diego Growth Management System, the City ofBurlington, Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Agency, and the Colorado Office of Smart Growth cases. The federal government provides cities with substantial discretion in using funds, which may support affordable housing, low-interest loans, or infrastructure improvements. The Minnesota Livable Communities Program was created after a 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Hollman v. Cisneros Public Housing) ordered significant funding to be directed to counter housing segregation in Minnesota. Councils of Government (COG) • Mountainland Association of Governments • Metropolitan Regional Services (Metro) Federal legislation that created Councils of Government under the Johnson administration attempted to ensure coordination of federal policies with local government actions. COGs are composed of local governments-cities, counties, and special districts-that collaborate on issues that cross local boundaries. 27 The effectiveness of COGs has been mixed, and in most areas of the county their role is quite limited. The Mountainland Association of Governments, one of the remaining COGs in Utah, comprises a three-county region. An encouraging trend in the U.S., however, is the reestablishment of regional land use authority. Metropolitan Regional Services (Metro), for example, a home-rule, regionally elected government, replaced the Portland m~tropolitan area COG. The Report This report organizes the project's analysis in three chapters. The following, Chapter 2, presents an analysis of the 32 cases. The chapter categorizes the 32 initiatives into six groups based on their primary objectives. For each of the six, the same set of themes-program adoption, growth management and open space preservation tools, funding sources, and implementation processes-is discussed. Additionally, the chapter uses a system that defines more effective and less effective programs to obtain a greater understanding of the characteristics of a successful growth management program. (The 32 case studies are found collectively as Appendix 3.) Chapter 3 examines the intergovernmental context in which the cases exist by first identifying five models of intergovernmental structure as a framework for analyzing implementation ·of the 32 initiatives. The frequency of occurrence of the models and of four sets of intergovernmental tools is identified and discussed. Then the extent to which the intergovernmental structures and tools is associated with effectiveness is analyzed and interpreted. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the federal roles in the intergovernmental context present in the cases. Finally, Chapter 4 will present the conclusions of the study, answering the five research questions posed at the beginning of this chapter. In addition to the direct outcomes, it will analyze the secondary effects, the controversies surrounding the issues, the role of leadership and public participation, and evaluate implementation processes. The chapter addresses recommendations that were suggested in interviews with program implementers, stakeholders, and public officials and discusses the results of the study' s questionnaire analysis. Notes 1Each of the researchers was assigned a state-with the exception of California, which was assigned two researchers-and tasked with finding two successful policies or programs within the state, either growth management or open space oriented, to be the subject of two case studies. 2 Jeffrey Zinn, Managing Regional Growth: ls There a Role for Congress? CRS Report for Congress (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, January 4, 2001 ), p. 2. Online. Available: http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRS/detail.cfm. Accessed: April 10, 2003. 3 Beryl A. Radin et al., New Governance for Rural America: Creating Intergovernmental Partnerships (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1996), pp. 19-29. 4 Deil Wright, Understanding Intergovernmental Relations, 3rd ed. (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1988), p. 68. 5 Theodore Roosevelt Association, Theodore Roosevelt: A BriefBiography. Online. Available: http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/biotr.htm. Accessed: May 6, 2003. 6 Wright, Understanding Intergovernmental Relations, p. 71. 7 Ibid., pp. 71-73. 8 Ibid., pp. 72-75. 9 Radin et al., New Governance, p. 21. 10 Wright, Understanding Intergovernmental Relations, p. 78. 11 Ibid., p. 14. 12 Radin et al, New Governance, p. 23. 13 Wright, Understanding Intergovernmental Relations, pp. 99-100. 14 American Planning Association, Pathways in American Planning History: A Thematic Chronology, 1920-1939. Online. Available: http://www.planning.org/pathways/1920-39.htm. Accessed: May 5, 2003. 15 Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, State Growth Management and Open Space Preservation Policies, Policy Research Project Report Series, no. 143 (Austin, TX, 2002), pp. 31-52. 16 Linda E. Hollis and William Fulton, "Open Space Protection: Conservation Meets Growth Management," The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy (April 2002), p. 10. Online. Available: http://www.solimar.org/pdfs/hollisfultonopenspace.pdf. Accessed: June 20, 2003. 17 Ibid., pp. 10-19. 18 USDA National Resource Conservation Service, Fannland Protection Program. Online. Available: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/fpp/. Accessed: March 10, 2003. 19 IRS Revenue Ruling 77-414 (1977). 20 Tom Daniels, "Saving Agricultural Land with Conservation Easements in Lancaster County," in Protecting the Land: Conservation Easements Past, Present and Future, eds. Julie Ann Gustanski and Roderick H. Squires (Island Press: Washington, DC, 2000), pp. 178-179. 21 James Monke and Ron Durst, The Taxpayer ReliefAct of1997: Provisions for Fanners and Rural Communities, Agricultural Economic Report Number 764 (United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, July 1998), pp. 17-20. 22 National Park Service, Land and Water Conservation Fund. Online. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/LWCF/. Accessed: March 11, 2003. 23 The Forest Service is a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 24 Public Law 90-542, as amended (1968). 25 EH-41 Environmental Law Summary, The Coastal Zone Management Act. Online. Available: http://tis.eh.doe.gov/oepa/law_sum/CZMA.HTM. Accessed: March 10, 2003. 26 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Programs. Online. Available: http://www.hud.gov/funds/index.cfm. Accessed: March 11, 2003. 27 Texas Association of Regional Councils, "What is a COG?" Online .. Available: http://www.txregionalcouncil.org/. Accessed: April 5, 2003. Chapter 2. Evaluating Program Effectiveness: Cross-Case Analysis Case studies of 32 open space and growth management policies, programs, and projects were undertaken in this project and incorporate a broad range of approaches, tools, and organizational structures and appear to achieve their program objectives in different degrees. (The case studies can be found in Appendixes 3.1 through 3.32.) The purpose of this chapter is to explore program effectiveness in a variety of contexts. The analysis answers several important questions, including: (1) What conditions and events help to explain an initiative's successful initiation and sustained implementation over time? (2) What combination of strategies, policy tools, funding approaches, and enforcement mechanisms help us understand why some initiatives are more effective than others? (3) How transferable are these approaches to other states and communities? and (4) What are the key lessons learned across all cases studied? To facilitate the analysis, the 32 open space and growth management cases were clustered into six groupings based on their shared program objectives (see Table 2.1). Table 2.1. Case Study Classification Open Space Categories Farmland Preservation Ecosystem Preservation Greenbelt Preservation Growth Management Categories Growth Management Systems Smart Growth Programs Brownfield Redevelopment The agricultural land preservation programs use a variety of tools, the most common being a system of tax credits to help farmers offset development pressures. An additional tool found in many of the cases was purchase of development rights programs, where government agencies or nonprofit land trusts pay landowners for the development rights of a parcel. Greenbelt preservation programs focus on open space in and around a city and are a growth management strategy, allowing a measure of control over development patterns. The protection of open space in and adjacent to urban areas often serves multiple functions, including protecting scenic beauty, providing recreational opportunities, reducing exposure to natural hazards, and environmental protection. The ecosystem preservation programs all feature as their main objective natural system protection. Here, regional cooperation is paramount in order to effectively plan and manage effectively entire ecosystems that cross numerous governmental boundaries; these cases encompass multicounty or multistate planning areas. Despite many shared characteristics between growth management systems and Smart Growth programs, the two categories were separated in groups distinguished by their relative timeframe. Growth management systems were largely adopted in the 1970s and 1980s, while the Smart Growth programs were implemented throughout the 1990s into the early 2000s. An important similarity shared by the Smart Growth programs was that they tended to build upon previous growth management efforts, addressing-in many instances-the prior system's weaknesses. For example, Livable Delaware-a program that seeks to control open space throughout the state of Delaware, built directly on earlier growth management efforts put in place by the Delaware Tomorrow Comntission of 1976 and the Quality of Life Act of 1987. Additionally, growth management systems in the case studies tended to be broader in scope, with more emphasis on long-term comprehensive planning, while the Smart Growth programs were narrower in range, with greater emphasis on specific policy tools and development. Brownfield redevelopment, the final growth management category, is treated separately because of (1) the specificity of these programs' goals, (2) the programs' total dependence on the availability of federal funding, and (3) the programs' being subject to the federal liability law. The next section presents the project's findings for each of the six categories using a common set of themes: program initiation; strategies and tools; program support; enforcement mechanisms; transferability; and outcomes. To assist with the analysis, a tools matrix precedes discussion of the two major groupings, growth management and open space protection. The final section summarizes the conclusions regarding the six major themes, with special attention given to the effectiveness of various strategies and tools. Growth Management Approaches To perform analysis of the cases in the growth management category, researchers used a pattern-matching approach. An essential step in performing this exercise was the creation of a matrix of strategies and policy actions (see Table 2.2). The classification of cases according to the range of variables present in the matrix allowed researchers to identify patterns emerging among the various categories and program effectiveness. The researchers defined effectiveness in terms of the success of the program to meet its objectives. Although broader outcomes of cases are discussed in this report, the effective measure was narrower, considering only success in meeting program objectives. This assessment was largely made on a qualitative basis. All the cases chosen had a reputation for efficacy, but the research team found that some cases were more highly effective than others. The researchers relied on the same information gathered for each case study­published reports, interviews, surveys, academic and professional literature-as the basis for assigning effectiveness. The research team extensively compared the 32 cases in order to establish relative measures of effectiveness. It is important to emphasize that the effectiveness score was not derived from a rigorous formal evaluation. When an evaluation existed, it was taken into account but the project did not have the resources required to obtain the data needed for formal evaluations of effectiveness. Nevertheless, after months of research and field experience, researchers felt capable of making informed judgments and the team is confident that for the purpose of establishing patterns among higher performing cases, the procedure was adequate. Cases were rated one through five, with five being highly effectiveand one being less effective. The matrix incorporates several analytical categories. First, strategies and tools are classified by principal focus-urban containment; natural resource preservation; facility adequacy, timing, and planning; and coordinating and integrating processes, plans, and functional assignments. Each tool used in the case was classified as a "P" if the tool served a primary function or an "S" if it served a secondary function. /' ,; / / "/ ,, ;"/ tf' ··' / /~ , ...{)-,; ~· ,1l .,"' ti'. •" /.·"" ~·/ ~/~ ~· /, ;~"'Lt~~//f;; ;¢' /~~ /. ~·'l' ,,/"'/ /L~~/ -~~ /.~/ j>Q,..,($ _;:°//f(/~ _,./'' --" -~ ,l' ~~/ .// -. ,-,. --. -­ Source: Center for Transportation Research , The Un1Y8rclty of Texas at AtMtin, Techniqu# for Mitigating Utblln ~awl, R•.aroh Project 0-4420 (Austin, TX:Texee Department of TrllMportadon, August, 2002), p. 160. onlne. Aoo88Sed: June 20, 2003;.,... of 32 case atudlee. 29 In addition to the strategies and tools, the explanatory power ofother characteristics was explored The cases were defined as existing in a primarily mban or rural setting. When it was impossible to define the setting as primarily urban or rural, cases were interpreted as both mban and rural. A second characteristic believed to be important was the primary level of government responsible for implementation. Cases were assigned as being primarily state, regional, local, or project oriented. This dimension is related to scale of initiatives, which can be considered in both a geographical sense as well as in terms of the scope of the initiative. A project-oriented case refers to instances where the geography and issue addressed are narrowly defined, such as the brownfield projects or planned communities. Growth management systems were created during the early 1970s through the 1990s, as noted in the previous section. The systems are analyud acconting to their level of implementation, ranging from state acts to regional governments, and local growth management efforts. The growth management systems are similar in many respects; however, they differ primarily in funding and regulatory authority. Case Studies: • Metropolitan Regional Servkes (Metro) (Oregon)* • Transportation and Growth Management Program (TGM) (Oregon)* • Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (Kentucky)* • Washington State Growth Management Ad* • City of Orlando Growth Management Plan (Florida)* • Mountainland Association ofGovernments (Utah) • San Diego Growth Management System (California) • New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan • Vermont Growth Management Ad-Ad 200 (*More effective initiatives) Initiation and Implementation States, regions, and localities adopted growth management systems for a variety of reasons: to respond to unprecedented population growth; to mitigate the adverse impacts of that unmanaged growth; to address environmental concerns; to provide adequate infrastructure to support new growth; and to balance economic growth while protecting the cultural and historic landscape ofan area. While growth management allows for a comprehensive program to guide aspects of development, it also can be used to slow growth when boom growth levels occur. San Diego, the City of Orlando, Lexington­Fayette County, and the State of Washington cite rapid population growth and unmanaged development as the main reason for the implementation ofgrowth management systems. The majority of the cases listed infrastructure demands as another impetus for more growth management planning. The structure of the growth management programs varied considerably according to the program objectives. For example, the state growth management acts of Washington, New Jersey, and Vermont seek to encourage and assist local governments in developing comprehensive plans and sound growth management policies, while the systems in Oregon's Metro and Utah's Mountainland Association of Governments were created to address problems extending beyond local boundaries. Regional growth management programs seek to eliminate duplication of local government efforts and provide a stronger role for local government officials in extra-local planning. The local growth management systems of San Diego and Orlando strive to address the accumulated backlog of needs created by the unmanaged growth of previous decades and to provide a better method of planning for the future. Strong gubernatorial or mayoral leadership figured prominently in the adoption and implementation of many growth management programs. The support of political leadership complemented by strong grassroots efforts and public involvement was found to make the programs resilient to changes in the political environment, thus enhancing program effectiveness over time. Strong political leadership was exemplified in the San Diego Growth Management System at the time of adoption by support from then-mayor Pete Wilson and later from Mayor Roger Hedgecock. Although San Diego was, and still is, a counciVmanager form of government, Wilson enjoyed a strong mayoral role and steered the city government toward growth management measures. Whenever strong political support of a program ebbed, so too did the program's effectiveness. Another example is found in Oregon, where strong gubernatorial leadership was important to both the Metropolitan Regional Services and the Transportation and Growth Management Program. Unlike San Diego, many stakeholder groups were involved in the adoption process. Nonprofit groups such as 1000 Friends of Oregon were instrumental in providing leadership outside of government at both the adoption phase and over time. This multiple stakeholder involvement coupled with continued public involvement has been very influential in the program's effectiveness. Strategies and Tools Comprehensive planning and the creation of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) and Urban Service Areas (USAs) have been the principal tools used by growth management systems. Comprehensive planning extends the temporal planning horizon and through land use maps builds a shared vision of a preferred future. The combination of planning vision and varied planning tools, such as urban containment, facility planning, and planning coordination, produce greater overall program effectiveness, as is evident in highly successful programs such as Oregon's Metro, the City of Orlando, and the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. UGBs or USAs are used in Washington, New Jersey, and Lexington-Fayette County (Kentucky). In Oregon, the UGB and the USA are the primary policy tools employed by localities to limit sprawl. Orlando uses a USA in conjunction with Orange County and shares authority in a joint planning area. Like Orlando, Washington cities must coordinate with the surrounding counties to delineate USA limits. Another policy tool often used in conjunction with urban containment strategies is facility planning. Many local governments, faced with revenue constraints, have shifted a share of facility and infrastructure financing to the private sector. 1 In San Diego, for example, Proposition 13 effectively froze the property tax revenues for the city at the 1978 level. Officials developed special benefit assessment districts to serve as a source of funds for infrastructure needed in the post-Proposition 13 era. City officials require new development to incur directly the costs of any new public facilities required by that development. For Lexington-Fayette County, the infrastructure element of the comprehensive plan provides a development schedule to guide the timing of planned projects, in which private sector can accelerate the construction of needed facilities through a front-end agreement. These policies helped ameliorate the public facilities crises experienced during the consolidated city-county government area. Program Support A variety of taxing mechanisms are used in growth management programs that can have positive or negative impacts, depending on context. With voter approval, Oregon's Metro has the ability to levy property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes to fund its efforts. However, at present, the primary source of its funding is from fees charged for city services. Metro has the authority to diversify funding sources, making it less susceptible to changes in the program environment, should it choose to implement those revenue strategies. On the other hand, Washington's voter approved anti-tax initiatives are a major factor contributing to the 2003 budget deficit, which is expected to deepen during the current slow economic growth period. Competition for federal and state funds exists between programs within a state and can adversely affect a program's ability to achieve its objectives. The Utah Mountainland Association of Governments must compete statewide and nationally for . program funding without the support of a lobbyist, often resulting in a loss of funds for the organization. Some restrictions on federal funds, like the transportation funds employed in Utah that require the application of funds within a year of receipt, may not be capable with projects where implementation occurs over several years. Elected officials in Utah seem to place a lower priority on funding for growth management projects. Lack of adequate funding is largely responsible for the moderate effectiveness in completing the Mountainland Association of Governments' objectives. The major source of funding for growth management systems is state and local governments and, as a result, local economic conditions can affect the implementation of growth management initiatives. Budget shortfalls in 2003 in Washington, Oregon, and Kentucky may prove harmful to the growth management programs. Enforcement Mechanisms Many states have developed growth management acts that assert the state's role in managing the development process but often lack proper regulatory mechanisms for enforcement, rendering them ineffective. Without a proper regulatory mechanism, growth management systems are based on voluntary acceptance by local governments as seen in New Jersey and Vermont. The New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan has no implementation or regulatory mechanism, resulting in little progress to date in achieving the plan's objectives. The mechanisms to implement the state plan include only incentives and grants provided by the state, which may not be sustainable over time. While the plan defines strategies for land use and growth within designated areas, without regulatory enforcement the act is largely ineffective. Unless a locality is both well funded and has the political leadership to further the objectives of the growth management statutes, the state program will not be effective. The Vermont State Program known as Act 200 concentrates on regional planning within the state, but due to limited regulatory authority the legislation has yielded few results. Growth management programs with strong regulatory authority to protect the environment tend to be more successful. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) does not have authority to enforce compliance of local plans or regulations with the act, but if a local plan does not comply with the GMA, citizens, interest groups, the Washington Association of Businesses, and state agencies may appeal to one of the three regional Growth Management Hearings Boards. Although Washington's, Vermont's, and New Jersey's growth management plans support diverse urban containment strategies and planning goals, the acts' effectiveness is linked directly to the ability to regulate planning, making the Washington Growth Management Act the most successful. Transferability Both the successes and shortfalls of these growth management systems offer lessons for growth management efforts in other localities. The public education aspects of programs, as in the case of Oregon, could easily transfer. But the successful Metro and Transportation and Growth Management Program, centered on the state's integrated state planning requirements, would be difficult to transfer to areas with differing political cultures and contexts. The majority of the programs studied indicate strong political support is critical to both implementation effectiveness and program longevity; an element that is likely necessary for successful programs elsewhere. Public consensus has been important to the success of many programs. Local challenges, like rapid population expansion and unregulated growth, can generate common concerns and thereby spawn consensus among a local population. Outcomes Inadequate regional cooperation was problematic in several of the local growth management programs. After local growth management measures were adopted in a city, leapfrog development into surrounding counties occurred in several cases. In the City of Orlando, for example, lack of coordination in concurrency requirements resulted in leapfrog development into several adjoining counties. Additionally, shared resources crossing jurisdictional lines, such as water and open space, also require some type of regional cooperation. While development in watersheds may be regulated in one county, unless cooperation is achieved in other jurisdictions sharing the watershed the resource remains at risk. A number of the comprehensive plans state that urban water management plans are not developed in conjunction with growth management, which may result in the lack of coordination needed to protect these resources. Although state government could force localities within a region to cooperate, the lack of a regulatory enforcement mechanism reduces the potential effectiveness of state growth management programs. Smart Growth Programs Smart Growth programs were initiated for the most part in the late 1990s and early 2000s and tend to have more limited and specific objectives than growth management programs. The major objectives of Smart Growth programs include downtown redevelopment, compact development, and brownfield cleanup for redevelopment. The most common Smart Growth policy tools are comprehensive planning and citizen involvement. The effects of Smart Growth programs involve strengthened capacity to collaborate with other local governments and to build community support through visioning and consensus-building processes. Case Studies: • Harbor Town (Tennessee)* • City of Burlington (Vermont)* • Reston (Virginia)* • Colorado Office of Smart Growth • Livable Delaware • Livable Communities (Minnesota) • Chattanooga Smart Growth Project (Tennessee) (*More effective initiatives) Initiation and Implementation Most Smart Growth programs build upon earlier growth management planning initiatives. Land use policy tools such as infill and brownfield redevelopment reinforce the growth controls of the earlier growth management legislation. Moreover, a number of Smart Growth programs address the limitations created by earlier growth management efforts in such areas as affordable housing. Smart Growth initiatives recognize the need for better regional cooperation. The Colorado Office of Smart Growth, for example, encompasses a number of these Smart Growth initiatives. Created in 2000, the Office of Smart Growth administers planning grants to local governments to undertake cooperative planning initiatives with nearby localities. Unlike Florida and Oregon, Colorado opted to provide planning assistance to smaller jurisdictions to facilitate the creation of local plans and to enhance regional cooperation rather than require state-level policy requirements to dictate mandatory local planning. The Office of Smart Growth, authorized by State of Colorado legislation, also provides a state income tax credit for affordable housing developers as well as a tax incentive for brownfields redevelopment. Like the growth management programs noted earlier, a number of Smart Growth initiatives depend on strong local leadership. Many programs such as the Colorado Office of Smart Growth and Livable Delaware were enacted under governors who emphasized growth management policies. Strategies and Tools The Smart Growth case studies employ a variety of policy tools, including infill development, affordable housing development, multidensity mixed use development, regional coordination, and brownfield redevelopment (see Table 2.2). Affordable housing concerns were prominent in nearly half of the cases, a reaction to a dramatic shortage in housing. In almost every case, these tools are used in conjunction with mixed-use land developments and a system of comprehensive planning. However, few of the cases combine Smart Growth with open space initiatives, such as a Transfer of Development Rights Program or Land Acquisition and Land Banking, in comparison to growth management programs. In addition, Smart Growth efforts tend to utilize more specific programs, such as urban containment programs. Program Support Smart Growth programs often benefit from federal funding. For example, in Burlington (Vermont) the city's Smart Growth Initiative received 40 percent of its total funding from federal grants. Reliance on federal funding sources can help insulate the efforts from local budgetary issues but not necessarily from federal priorities. Although grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Environmental Protection Agency have helped to enhance affordable housing opportunities and waterfront and brownfield development, open space initiatives have not obtained the same level of federal funding and, as a result of reliance on local funding, are more sensitive to changes in local economic conditions. Other Smart Growth case studies received some federal support, but state and local tax revenues account for the most of their budgets, making them more likely to be affected by local economic difficulties as well as shifts in political leadership. Enforcement Mechanisms Enforcement is not a strong element in most Smart Growth programs. The programs tend to emphasize planning grants and technical assistance for project implementation. Stakeholders in Colorado agree that the more regulated growth becomes, the more polarized the issue becomes. However, regional collaboration has not been widely sought within the state due in part to the lack of enforcement by state government of the program's objectives. Transferability A number of elements within Smart Growth programs can be replicated elsewhere in other communities. Affordable housing and brownfield redevelopment efforts, supported by HUD and the EPA, respectively, could be easily replicated in other areas. The land use systems that routinely utilize federal funds in order to accomplish various land use developments and redevelopments have great potential for transferability. The success of Reston, Virginia, regarded as one of the country's most successful examples of New Town development, can be attributed to a series of fortunate factors, including its ideal location along the corridor between Washington, D.C., and Dulles International Airport coupled with an impassioned, wealthy planner. Although hailed by Smart Growth enthusiasts, replication of the Reston experience depends on fairly unique circumstances not likely to be found in most metropolitan areas. Outcomes The majority of the Smart Growth programs evaluate success on an ad hoc basis as measured by project completion. However, in cases such as Burlington's Smart Growth Initiatives, moving from ad hoc projects to policy-driven changes-such as its Open Space Protection Plan-raises additional challenges to achieving outcomes due to uncertainties in funding. The provision of affordable housing is listed as a priority in Minnesota's Livable Communities, Burlington's Smart Growth Initiatives, and Colorado's Office of Smart Growth. Livable Communities has successfully produced over 20,000 affordable housing units and demand for more affordable housings remains strong. Both Livable Delaware and Colorado's Office of Smart Growth administer grants to communities and counties to aid in the development and completion of comprehensive plans. Moreover, the programs achieve a successful balance between state authority and local control. Brownfield Redevelopment Programs Brownfields are abandoned or underused industrial and commercial facilities where redevelopment potential is limited by a high level of environmental degradation. Infill and brownfield redevelopment are examples of urban containment strategies where priority is placed on more intensive use of urban land, but brownfield sites differ due to uncertainties about environmental liability. Case Studies: • Emeryville Brownfield Pilot Project (California)* • Gateway District (Utah)* (*More effective initiatives) Initiation and Implementation The critical factor in the adoption of brownfield programs is the presence of a federal policy. Financiers and developers often avoid investing in brownfields because of the fear of contamination and the associated costs of clean-up. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Brownfields Pilot Project, discussed in Chapter 1, awards local governments grants to plan for brownfield redevelopment. In the two programs, mayoral and city council leadership understood that assistance from the federal program would be crucial to achieving local redevelopment objectives. Program Support In the two cases, federal funding constitutes a significant portion of the brownfield program budgets. Other funding takes the form of matching grant programs from other government agencies and the private sector. As of 2003, the city of Emeryville has received $700,000 in EPA money through the Pilot Project grant, roughly accounting for 15 percent of the annual project budget. Transferability Brownfield redevelopment programs are highly transferable where environmental contamination is present. Although Emeryville and Gateway were the only programs which primarily focused on brownfield redevelopment, other programs incorporating this planning tool included Burlington (Vermont), the State of Colorado, and the New Jersey . Development and Redevelopment Act. Outcomes Although funding is an essential element of successful brownfield redevelopment, local governments and developers also contribute to program effectiveness. In the case of Emeryville, the project marked the first time the city assumed an active role working with a developer and state agencies in a clean-up process. The Emeryville Brownfield Pilot Project raised public awareness through its one-stop shop. The one-stop shop collected groundwater assessment and land use data and incorporated it into an interactive program called OSIRIS that was made available to both developers and community members to facilitate redevelopment. In order to garner additional community involvement, the city created a community task force to encourage stakeholder participation in the Brownfield Pilot Project. This forum enabled constructive dialogue to occur between relevant parties, contributing to the success of the redevelopment process. While the Salt Lake City Planning Department included the public in the planning process for the Gateway District through public meetings, open houses, and planning workshops, members of a nearby neighborhood that participated felt that they were misled and that the development was not executed according to the agreed plans. Open Space Approaches To conduct the analysis of the 14 cases in the open space approaches section, a pattern matching technique was used. As in the growth management approaches section, a matrix was developed and efficiency and effectiveness ratings generated in order to make generalizations about successful programs (see Table 2.3). Farmland Conservation Programs A common challenge found in all the case studies concerned with the conservation of farmland is preserving the historical character of the land without forcing farmers to relinquish their property rights. In the United States, most individuals who have chosen to remain farmers have done so out of a strong attachment for their land and their livelihood.2 However, in recent years many farmers have discovered that the same land that can currently produce only enough revenue through agriculture to sustain a modest existence could instead, if sold to development interests, provide them with substantial wealth. For farmers sympathetic to the appeals made by advocates of open space preservation, this presents a difficult choice. To ensure that their land does not fall to urban use after their death, they could donate their development rights to a nonprofit or government land trust but may also require at least some monetary compensation while they continue to farm. In the following cases, different methods are used to achieve the objective of transferring the development rights for farmland from private citizens to nonprofit or state-controlled land entities. Case Studies: • Lancaster County Agricultural Preservation Program (Pennsylvania)* • Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF)* • Montgomery County Farmland Preservation (Maryland)* • Virginia Outdoors Foundation (* More effective initiatives ,, rt "' ~· / ,/' .~ " ,.; /. ~.. -4>.. ~#/ # ·""' ~// ,.,,l / //' ~ ~/ ~/·/ ,/ ;,, j~ / /' // ,/'/' ./ .. ., --· -.. ----- Souoe: Certer for Tnnportak>n Reeell'Oh, The IJl'ivet9'tyof Tex• lllAUltin, TflOhnlqu•• forMi#ga#ng Urban Sp,.wt, RttHaroh Pfoj«Jt ().4420 (AUltin, TX:Texee Oepstmert cl Trwwportation, AUQUlt, 2002), p. 1&0. °'*'9. Aooeesed: JLtW20, 2003; ~of32 ome studlee. 39 Initiation and Implementation A common catalyst for program adoption in the farmland conservation programs is the need to sustain agricultural land in the face ofmounting urban growth prcsmre. This shared characteristic among the programs is not swprising. as all four studies are situated near densely populated and growing East Coast hubs. Another factor affecting program adoption in each of the case study areas was a strong cultural association with agriculture and open space. Citizens ofboth the state ofMaryland and Lancaster County take great pride in the high quality of their soils and in their fanning economies. which were once the economic mainstays of the areas. In Virginia. open space and fanning are intrinsic to the state's cultural and historical identity. The efficacy ofthese programs tends to result from an accumulation of legislation, over several decades, as opposed to a single action emanating from one watershed event. Legislative involvement in protecting Lancaster County's agricultural lands began in 1968, when the state passed laws allowing for agricultural zoning; the Virginia Outdoors Foundation was established in 1964, and the template for preserving farmland in Montgomery County. Maryland. was established in 1964 by the Wedges and Corridors General Plan. Over the years. all of the areas studied became increasingly vigilant about farm preservation, a trend that was accompanied by an increased sophistication in the tools used to protect agricultural land. Encouraged by greater public awareness and the growing problem of farmland loss, lawmakers strengthened what were weak legislative mandates by increasing funding, bolstering tax incentives, and setting up purchase or transfer of development rights programs. A facilitating factor in the increased sophistication of farmland preservation tools has been the evolving legal literature regarding easements for the purpose of conservation.3 A final shared characteristic of all programs is an emphasis on not only open space protection policies, but on growth management ones as well. 1be strength ofthe connection to growth management is a function of a specific program's context. In particularly densely populated regions, such as Montgomery County. a focus on growth management was an element of the original legislation. In more rural-oriented programs. the interaction with growth management concerns evolved slowly and reactively. as the problems of urban sprawl in the region grew more endemic. This is the pattern observed in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Since successful agricultural land preservation programs eventually must confront urban growth, new programs should incorporate a growth management element before their situation necessitates it. Strategies and ToolslProgram Support In all four cases, the demand for land led to increased property values, resulting in burdensome taxes for farmers. Therefore, it is not surprising all cases used preferential assessment of agricultural land for property taxes as a tool for farmland conservation. After focusing on the tax burdens associated with fanning. the progrmm tended to shift focus to protecting the processes of agriculture. Several programs focused, for example, on preserving a critical mass of farming acres. It is possible to preserve farmland but not the actual farming if commercially viable agriculture in the region becomes vestigial. Protecting the process of agriculture enables farmers to sustain sufficient farming activity to protect farms from nuisance ordinances and to sustain and agriculture-related businesses that farmers rely upon for operation. e.g.. farm equipment and seed and fertilizer retailers. Establishing agricultural zoning laws and, where zoning ordinances were too burdensome to change, allowing farmers to enroll their land as part of an area protected for agriculture were utilized in the Lancaster County case and in the Maryland cases. As the four programs matured and as funding for preservation increased, the tools used to preserve agricultural lands became more sophisticated and more effective. Purchase or donation of conservation easements was used in all of the cases, a powerful tool by virtue of the permanence of protection afforded by the easement. Both the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation and the Lancaster County Purchase of Conservation Easements Program-a component of the state's larger program-are very popular and lack funding sufficient to purchase all the easements offered. The two entities follow different methods of using the purchase of development rights tool. Lancaster County uses a ranking system that gives priority to farms that have superior quality soil and that are near other preserved farms. Maryland, however, bargains with farmers and purchases those easements that are offered at the most affordable prices, ensuring a low per-acre cost to the state. This difference in approach, quality vs. quantity, may be indicative of the comparatively greater role commercial agriculture still plays in the Pennsylvanian economy as opposed to Maryland, which has twice the population density of Pennsylvania. Of the four cases, Virginia has the least-centralized method for determining what land rights come under public control. A less obvious, but powerful tool, used to encourage the donation, rather than the selling, of easements is the federal tax benefit associated with donating land. The federal government allows individuals who donate development rights to take the value of their donation as a deduction from their federal income tax, though the six-year limit on deduction values often prevents small-income farmers from realizing the total tax benefit of their donation. The State of Virginia passed legislation allowing donors to trade their donation credits to a third party should their income be insufficient to absorb the full deduction. While the State of Pennsylvania offers no additional state income tax relief for donated conservation easements, it does address the income tax issues of purchased conservation easements. Enforcement Mechanisms Programs involving the purchase or donation of development rights are constantly at risk of abuse. The possibilities for fraud exist at several levels. For example, in a donation-based program such as the Virginia Outdoors Foundation case, the value of tax deductions emanates from the reduction in land value that the easement produces. Assessments of this value can vary greatly given uncertainty regarding future development in the area. An independent agency, perhaps associated with the recipient land trust, could verify land assessments prior to their submission to the IRS; but this step would incur additional costs and most programs face significant resource constraints. There may also be unwillingness on the part of the recipient organization to question the motives underlying donor's generosity given the possibility of losing a major donation should the donor become disenchanted with the process. A conservation easement represents a permanent agreement which must be monitored and enforced on an ongoing basis. In both PDR and TDR programs, a potential problem associated with regulation and enforcement stems from the heterogeneity of conservation easements. The restrictions placed on development by the sale and donation of development rights are often customized to the particular needs of the buyer, seller, or donor. A land trust that has processed hundreds of sales or donations may have difficulty tracking the particular circumstances of one. Even if an enforcement agency knows exactly what each owner can and cannot do with their land, verifying compliance can become burdensome if it necessitates traveling to each site, many of which may be located in remote regions. PDR and TDR programs are thus inherently built on trust. It may only take one or two public scandals involving the abuse of the system to discredit an otherwise successful approach to farmland conservation. Transferability One imminently transferable aspect of farmland preservation in the cases studied is the federal tax benefit of donating easements. Furthermore, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 allows additional estate and gift tax benefits for those persons who donate easements of land located within 25 miles from a metropolitan area, a national park, or a wilderness area or within 10 miles of an Urban National Forest.4 A less-transferable quality found in the cases studied is the grassroots enthusiasm for agricultural land preservation possessed by the states and localities represented in the cases. Should the strong, positive cultural associations with farming and open space present in the case studies not exist, transferability may be a problem. However, this should rarely prove to be the case. More often, the public simply may not be aware of the relevant issues. Outcomes In the view of the researchers, all four farmland conservation programs score highly on an efficiency scale: the funds which have been provided by the state or the county have for the most part been well used. However, given the rapid rate of farmland loss, an argument can be made that many of these programs are still underfunded. In both Maryland and Lancaster the available program funds are sufficient to purchase only a small portion of the development rights that owners are willing to sell, even at a steep discount. The effectiveness of the programs can be measured objectively by measures such as the total number of acres preserved or the percentage of prime agricultural land under easement. More subjective measures include whether the most attractive or most historically significant land has been preserved. PDR programs obviously give the fund­allocating authority greater latitude in setting priorities than do donation-based programs. All four of the agricultural land preservation programs have an indirect urban growth boundary component which also can be analyzed. In the Montgomery County Wedges and Corridors Plan, the interrelation between agricultural preservation and growth management has been critical to its overall success. The Lancaster government has designated specified growth areas to prevent urban growth from encroaching on farmland. The MALPP has strategically targeted areas where development pressure is greatest. Finally, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation has worked closely with local nonprofits to create easement greenbelts blocking sprawling urban areas. Ecosystem Protection Programs An ecosystem preservation program may face the complex challenge of protecting soil, water, air, flora, and fauna. While the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan aims to protect the entire ecosystem, the others focus mainly on hydrology and habitat. Since ecosystems often cross political boundaries, successful protection often necessitates close cooperation between jurisdictions with different political orientations, population patterns, and resources. Therefore, a preservation program must be a sustained effort. It can not be funded for a brief period and abandoned later. In other words, there is usually no definitive point where the ecosystem can be declared protected or preserved, thus creating a challenge for policymakers who must sustain awareness and support year after year. The two most successful programs studied in this·category are the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), a joint effort between California, Nevada, and the federal government to preserve the unique Lake Tahoe environment from development impacts, and the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (PCMP), a federal-state joint effort to preserve the unique natural and cultural character of the Pine Barrens in New Jersey. Case Studies: • The Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (New Jersey)* • Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) (California)* • Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program • Apalachicola River and Bay (Florida) • Lower Delaware River Wild and Scenic River (Pennsylvania) • Upper Mississippi American Heritage River Initiative (Minnesota) (*More effective initiatives) Initiation and Implementation With the exception of the Apalachicola River and Bay Program, every case studied arose as a legislative response to grassroots demand. In the case of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program, selling of tidelands to private owners sparked concern among citizens that led to the proposal and adoption of the state's Shoreline Management Act (SMA) through a voter referendum in 1972. In the Lower Delaware River and Pine lands cases mounting public support and local government cooperation led to creative arrangements to designate the region for protection. In cases where legislation anticipated broad public concern federal agencies often initiated discussions for protection. Federal involvement in the initial stages of program development was important in all cases studied. In addition, as in the case of the Pinelands, Tahoe Region, Lower Delaware River, and the Upper Mississippi AHR.I, federal representatives are on the commission or board and are an integral part of the decision making process. In fact, the more successful cases in this category, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Pinelands, have had a deeper and more sustained federal involvement in the history of their programs than in the others. In both cases, Congress took a lead role and, not surprisingly, a large amount of federal land falls under the management of these areas. Strong support from political leaders was also important in the initial establishment of some of the programs. For example, in 1976, Governor Dan strongly advocated the development of Washington State Coastal Z.One Management Program. Governor Graham of Florida was also a staunch and devoted champion ofFlorida's efforts to strengthen the Florida Areas ofCritical State Concern Program by requiring localities under the designation to incorporate program objectives into their comprehensive plans by requiring consistency between state, regional, and local plans. Assemblyman Edwin Z'Berg of the California State Assembly strongly advocated for a bistate agreement in the adoption stages of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. However, lack of support by Governor Pawlenty for the growth management issues in the Upper Mississippi American Heritage Initiative posed a serious political challenge to the organizations associated with AHRI. Though the programs differed in terms ofimplementation powers, with some programs having strong regulatory powers and others not, most programs rely heavily upon local partnerships and coordination between federal, state, regional, and local governments as key elements of program effectiveness. The structure and si7.e of the organization are also important to effective coordination, grassroots-level education, communication, and overall implementation. For instance, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Pinelands each maintains a large staff allocated to different committees responsible for implementing the various elements of the program. ensuring effective and efficient implementation and coordination. Programs depend heavily upon the support of the local population and on an ability to communicate effectively with the citizenry. One important factor in the success of the Lower Delaware River Program is the sophistication of the shared community vision behind the program, which is essential to its continued support. On the other hand, one of the main criticisms of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was that it acts in a somewhat clandestine manner, which prevents the public from understanding the agency's mission and functions. Strategies and Tools The case studies show that in most ecosystem preservation cases, due to the complex nature of the task a comprehensive plan or natural area management plan must incorporate a clear statement of the program objectives, the spatial limits of the target area, and the scope of the tasks it hopes to accomplish. The plan is a land use policy document that helps guide future development. In addition, this document acts as the main source of coordination between various agencies and partnerships whose collaborated functioning is important for the successful implementation of the program. Regular monitoring and evaluation are important because the programs often deal with sensitive environments and quality control standards that require constant adjustment to needs. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has very detailed goals and objectives for each of its management zones. Similarly the Pinelands has a comprehensive plan that identifies the allowed building type and density in each of its zones. Both programs have very strict permitting that maintains the required zoning limits, which in luJJl are constantly evaluated through a mandatory review process. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Apalachicola, and the Pinelands carry out extensive research that helps them to monitor program effectiveness. Federal funding is available in most cases for this purpose. In the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Plan, even though a strong implementation structure exists, the lack of a rigorous program evaluation system makes the program less effective than it otherwise could be. In addition, the ecosystem protection programs make effective use of community involvement and public education. Even though most of these programs have regulatory authority, the success of these programs is also dependent upon the awareness of the community about the value of the ecosystem to the economy and environment and the need for its protection. Successful programs focus on educating and encouraging the community to use planning tools to help protect the environment. The Lower Delaware River Program, for example, focused on grassroots-level support for conservation, with education of localities about land use issues and on the general benefits associated with the Wild and Scenic River designation. This effort generated sustained community support which in tum led to the complete implementation of the plan even in the absence of both money and might. Land acquisition is a popular tool in some of these programs and federal funding is available for this purpose. Twenty-three percent of the total ANERR land and 16 percent of the total Pinelands area is protected through land acquisition from federal and state funds. The Forest Service uses land acquisition to achieve TRP A goals. Land banking and TDR are used in the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Lower Delaware, and the Pinelands cases. Additionally, the Pinelands and TRPA use the maximum number of open space preservation tools either individually or in combination with other growth management tools to achieve maximum success in achieving their objectives. Program Support Funding plays an important role in achieving program objectives. The two more successful ecosystem protection programs, the Tahoe Regional Planning Authority and the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan, have a substantially higher funding-to­area ratio than the other programs. A significant portion of the funding for most of the ecosystem protection programs comes from the federal government. Thirty percent of the AHR.I funding, 14 percent of the Washington CZMP funding, and 2 percent of the TRPA funding comes from the federal government. (TRPA receives most of its funding in appropriations from the states of California and Nevada.) Federal funding was thus essential in establishing most of these programs. Apalachicola, in its early stage of development, relied solely on federal funding. AHR.I still draws most of its staff salary indirectly from various federal agencies. The distribution of federal funds in these programs varies. In the case of the Washington CZMP, $1.5 to $2.9 million per annum of federal funding is used for implementation of the plan, development of shoreline management plans, wetlands protection plans, and public information and education. However, very little funding is allocated to research and evaluation. In the case of the Pinelands, while federal funds are allocated for implementation and permanent protection, there are a number of federal grants available for research and evaluation. The Lower Delaware program had the least funding, and while the federal government provided funds for plan development, very little funding was available for implementation. Without funding research and evaluation, the basis for program adoption and evaluating success is weakened. A proper balance between the allocation of funds for implementation, evaluation and research, public awareness and education, technical assistance, and permanent protection must be achieved. In addition, as the program matures, objectives tend to require revisions. In the Pinelands and the Apalachicola, for example, a shift in funding toward growth management and infrastructure improvements in the development zones was the response a changing program needs. Enforcement Mechanisms The two more successful ecosystem programs, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Pinelands, enjoyed a high degree of national awareness and debate regarding their importance. Both programs benefited from extensive research and study as a basis for preliminary planning and program development. Finally, both programs had clear regulatory authority over land use and other matters to be sustained as independent programs. The Apalachicola case suffered because it lacked sufficient regulatory authority to manage land use and its zone of influence did not match the ecological boundaries. Transferability Every ecosystem case history was unique and therefore the ability of agencies to replicate the identical strategies is likely to be quite limited. Some key lessons from these cases, such as the need to integrate different planning tools and coordinate efforts between the various levels of government and between different governments, would likely be quite applicable in other areas. Tahoe Regional Planning Authority and the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan also highlight the importance of strong federal support and sufficient regulatory authority. Finally, awareness within different communities and grassroots-level education are essential to establish a strong and effective program. Outcomes The ecosystem protection programs in rural areas have a higher success rate, perhaps due to a simpler regulatory environment and fewer interest groups involved in growth issues. These programs could develop comprehensive plans or management area plans without needing to confront the full array of urban issues. The plans could focus exclusively on ecosystem protection within that region. Strong federal involvement in the form of federal enabling acts, technical support, and funding was fundamental in establishing these programs. Most of these programs have been successful in preserving open space. However, the biggest ongoing challenge is increasing development pressure. In case of the Apalachicola, zoning ordinances are frequently overridden by variances that undermine the comprehensive plan. In the Pinelands, the desired or targeted growth areas are ill equipped to handle increased density and need infrastructure improvements. The Apalachicola region faces tremendous development pressure, and a fluctuating population due to tourism suggests that a growth management solution will be required to protect the ecosystem. In fact, the growth management aspect of open space preservation programs suggests that the program objectives will require continual monitoring. Ecological boundaries, such as watersheds, habitats, hydrology, and soil are often larger than the planning and management boundaries. Thus, one of the greatest benefits of these programs, in addition to preservation of precious ecosystems, has been enhanced collaboration and communication among scores of private and government organizations. The Lower Delaware case, for example, shows the importance of creating a forum that brings together all interested parties to develop consensus solutions. Increased communication among stakeholders is critical to the plan's continued success. Similarly, the TRPA greatly values partnerships with organizations whose missions contribute to the success of TRPA's planning ·goals. The Grand Excursion 2004 is being organized by AHR.I to bring 40 cities and 15 regional organizations together to promote a unified vision of its river development efforts. Greenbelt Conservation Programs A conserved greenbelt of open land in and around a city can be a valuable resource for myriad reasons. As development pressures increase, the clashes of interest between development interests and those who wish to set aside and conserve valued urban green space are often heated. Broad coalitions of interests have often found common cause in protecting and preserving urban and suburban greenbelts to achieve ecological objectives and also create an urban boundary and preserve recreational and aesthetic assets. A priority for programs in this category is to conserve the identity and character of a region not only by setting aside open space but also by channeling the patterns of development in a way that is consistent with the identity of the community. Growth management and aesthetic design considerations are thus significant in these programs. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District was established to preserve and restore the open space and natural character of the region for the benefit of the community. The City of Boulder's Open Space program that was established to protect the surrounding foothills from development provided not only a scenic backdrop for residents but also lent identity to the region and countered sprawl. The programs in this category have been very successful in achieving their goals, but the City of Boulder Comprehensive Plan and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District have had the greatest impact. Case Studies: • City of Boulder (Colorado)* • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (California)* • Bluegrass Tomorrow (Kentucky)* • Brandywine Conservancy (Delaware)* (*More effective initiatives) Initiation and Implementation All the programs in this category have a strong grassroots component. The initial efforts to protect the region's character and natural beauty against sprawl were typically initiated by local residents. Public policies, however, play a key role in the adoption and sustenance of these programs. When rapid growth threatened to ruin the character of their urban and natural environment, Boulder citizens voted in 1967 to use a local option sales tax to purchase open space for greenbelts and thoroughfares as part of their open space preservation program. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's constituency was extremely supportive of the district's action to purchase open space in orderto protect the natural beauty of the region. In other instances, greenbelt conservation programs emerged in response to specific development challenges. Bluegrass Tomorrow was established to plan for the changes required to accommodate the location of a major Toyota plant in Georgetown County, adjacent to Lexington-Fayette County. The efforts generally emanated from the local and private sector rather than at the state level. Additionally, several programs were adopted in the context of larger statewide initiatives. The state efforts to address the issues of local communities were complimented by third-party intervention through nongovernmental bodies that helped in furthering the implementation and coordination process. Providing technical assistance and planning information to cities and counties has been the main focus of Bluegrass Tomorrow. Some programs, however, are actively involved in local growth management plans and beautification projects. For example, Bluegrass Tomorrow created a handbook for consensus building in the design and land use planning process. It collaborated with the Kentucky DOT to incorporate cultural presentation and design features in the Paris Pike road-widening and open space protection project. The BVCP regulates and maintains Boulder's central planning policies through a successful coordination of annexation, preferred growth area designations, and by maintaining a strict urban service boundary. In addition Boulder works to preserve the historic quality of its neighborhoods and buildings. Strategies and Tools The critical element of these programs is public commitment and sustained support, as discussed above. Thus public education and awareness is very important not only in terms of support for the agency's efforts but also to preserve the character and identity of the region. Bluegrass Tomorrow provides training to the officials of the seven­county Bluegrass Region who are required by statewide statute to undergo mandatory training intended to help them perform their duties better, especially with respect to coordinating across various jurisdictions. The Brandywine Conservancy administers a Municipal Assistance Program (MAP) that helps localities develop and implement planning techniques to manage growth of municipalities through a fee for service. The most successful case in the greenbelt category, the City of Boulder, uses a comprehensive plan and a visioning process to achieve its goals of compact development and open space preservation. Its success can be attributed to its effective establishment of the Urban Service Boundary and framework for annexation while simultaneously utilizing sales taxes and bonds to acquire open space, and its overwhelming citizen support. The plan has been revised every five years but has managed to maintain its original vision and strong support from the public. Program Support The cases in this category, with the exception of the City of Boulder, have a less­stable budgetary system than the ecosystem preservation cases. This may be due to the fact that most of the cases involve nonprofit organizations. Most of the funding comes from grants, sales tax transfers, voluntary donations, and endowment funds. Federal funding is also available in most of the cases but there is no uniform pattern. Bluegrass Tomorrow has received federal funds for administering its PDR program, carrying out aesthetic improvements and information dissemination mainly with ISTEA funds. The Brandywine Conservancy received federal funds in the form of use-specific program­based grants in a total of $1.5 million, appropriated by the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, to purchase the development rights on the land. MROSD received federal funds through the National Park Service and Federal Emergency Management Agency. However, most of the funds are project based and in all the cases these funds are not recurrent. Stable, earmarked revenue sources such as Boulder's sales tax and MROSD's property tax provide stability for successful program implementation. California also provides the ability for special districts to create a separate financing district called Community Facilities District (CFD). MROSD has a CFD, which, once approved by a two-thirds majority vote in the community, is able to issue general obligation bonds, and property owners pay a special. tax to repay these bonds. The largest part of the Brandywine Conservancy funds comes from its yearly capital campaign to solicit donations. Enforcement Mechanisms The cases in this category are mainly organizations that exist in the context of larger statewide initiatives working either independently or collaboratively with other local and state agencies. Most of the programs studied have very little regulatory power. Rather their objectives are achieved through provision of technical assistance, conducting training programs and workshops that assist localities implementing a larger regional vision. The one exception is the City of Boulder greenbelt program that is managed as part of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). Transferability Although the City of Boulder greenbelt program is labeled as the most successful in this category, nonprofit organizations assume very significant roles in the other cases and this experience is highly transferable. Nongovernmental organizations can help articulate community aspirations through the visioning process. In addition, they help in coordination and collaboration among various programs and agencies. They help bridge the gap between larger organizations and the community by on one hand effectively communicating the needs of the locals to these organizations and on the other by making the community aware of the larger planning goals for the region that these organizations hope to fulfill. The success of the cases in this category exemplifies the potential importance of nongovernmental agencies in this public policy arena. Outcomes Two of the greenbelt conservation programs, Bluegrass Tomorrow and the Brandywine Conservancy, have a more rural orientation, where the sense of urgency created by development pressures may not be as strong as in an urban context. Moreover, rural areas typically have less fiscal capacity than urbanized places. Thus, rural greenbelt programs must likely have greater dependence on funding from outside the region. 49 Community involvement and support are instrumental in the success of greenbelt preservation programs. Additionally, the germination of most of these programs is a consequence of the community's need to protect its identity. Most organizations collaborating extensively with the public are successful in garnering public support and building diverse coalitions. As nongovernment organizations they are particularly useful in addressing grassroots-level concerns. In some cases, the organizations have been instrumental in implementing the goals of some larger regional programs. Conclusions Following the discussion in the previous section of patterns among the six types of growth management or open space preservation programs, this section compares all the 32 cases as group. The same six themes are used to structure the discussion of successful patterns, frequently used tools, and funding practices in order to draw generalizations and identify best practices. This chapter concludes with a summary of the most important findings. Initiation and Implementation Although the open space and growth management programs have diverse objectives, discernable patterns of program adoption emerge among the cases. First, political leadership through the executive and legislative branches of government combined with strong grassroots support often provided the impetus for successful program adoption in a number of growth management and open space cases. Civic activism and initiative play a vital role in program adoption as well as the long-term sustainability of these programs, allowing them to more adequately withstand shifts in political leadership. Rather than resulting from one single event, the majority of the growth management and open space programs reflect several decades of cumulative efforts in land use planning. Strategies and Tools Regulatory programs often have a largely different set of needs and success factors compared to programs that rely predominantly on volunteer participation and incentives. However, the most successful programs across the 32 cases seem to better coordinate their strategies and use a broader range of policy tools to shape growth and protect open space than less successful cases. Below is a summary of how effective some of the major planning tools described in the first chapter of this report were in the context of the study. Land Acquisition: Direct land acquisition in full fee simple is an attractive planning tool, for both open space preservation and growth management, because it gives the purchaser maximum control over the location and future use of the land. Boulder (Colorado) uses this approach to target specific areas for greenbelt protection, the Pinelands to protect wetland and forest resources, and the Brandywine Conservancy to preserve contiguous forest. Direct land acquisition can be quite expensive due to land management costs, sometimes prohibitively so. It is therefore most useful when the land to be preserved is a small tract and specifically defined. Boulder managed to sustain the high cost of acquiring a large greenbelt by using local tax options and leasing the land back for agricultural use, whereas the Pinelancls received very generous federal and state grants. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, an organization funded through its own earmarked property tax, has acquired some of the country's most expensive land for conservation but has seen its ability to acquire land directly greatly reduced during times of economic duress. The transfer of land from private to public ownership incurs substantial ongoing costs related to managing the land and to liability issues arising from the land's use (e.g., injuries to citizens using the land for recreational purposes). Furthermore, a city may lose significant property tax revenues from transferring land fully into public ownership. Purchase ofDevelopment Rights: PDR, a less than full fee simple approach, is being successfully used in Lancaster County (Pennsylvania), Montgomery County (Maryland), the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (California), and the Pinelancls (New Jersey). PDR programs worked well in situations where the purchases are managed by a central authority or group of authorities working in concert. The PDR programs were found to be a cost-effective means of conserving vast areas of farmland and/or ecologically sensitive areas at a lower cost than full fee simple acquisition. Most PDRs are voluntary exchanges, but some organizations have the authority to purchase development rights against the owner's will through eminent domain proceedings. The MROSD abandoned as too controversial its eminent domain authority to acquire development rights. Conservation Easements: Another less than full fee simple approach, conservation easements involves the donation of development rights from a private to a public entity. It can involve the de facto forced transfer of development rights via new zoning designation, sometimes with compensation. The record of programs that relied extensively on easement donations is mixed and has often led to debates about the nature of property rights. The Washington CZMA has attempted to limit development rights by means of zoning but the practice was criticized for being ineffective. The zoning designations do not sufficiently limit development but cannot be used more aggressively without the risk of being declared a taking. The Virginia Outdoors Foundation established a successful donation of development rights regime that has achieved substantial, though disorganized, conservation benefits. In short, easement donation programs can be an effective way to place land under conservation protection if funding, political will, or the need for centralized direction is limited. In other instances they will function better as one element of a broader program, such as in the case of the Pinelands. Urban Growth Boundaries/Urban Service Areas: A very effective use of the urban growth boundary (UGB) is seen in Lexington-Fayette County (Kentucky), where it is used in conjunction with an urban service area (USA). Although the UGB was created to reduce costs of sewage infrastructure, the boundary effectively separated urban intensity uses from horse farms and other rural activities, reduced sprawl development along major roadways, reduced impacts on fragile developments, and helped to maintain the central focus of downtown. In addition, the consolidation of the City of Lexington with Fayette County has facilitated the coordination of the enforcement of the UGB with a Rural Service Area Plan and a PDR Program. Portland (Oregon) has one of the country's more renowned UGBs, adopted in 1973. The city credits the UGB with curbing the growth of urbanized land to only 2 percent in the past two decades despite a population increase of 25 percent.5 However, the perceived arbitrary and rigid nature of UGBs have lead to controversy in recent years, especially when they are perceived to be contributing to skyrocketing rents in rapidly growing areas.6 Portland boosted the effectiveness of its UGB by instituting minimum density zoning, thus ensuring that compact designs would be utilized before the border of the UGB was reached. The USA in Orlando has had limited effectiveness due in part to the absence of incentives for restraining growth from environmentally sensitive areas and preventing suburbanization outside the boundary. The example of Orlando shows that communities cannot effectively manage their growth ignoring development beyond the service boundary.7 Boulder, which created an urban growth boundary through greenbelt preservation, has had an experience similar to Orlando since growth beyond the greenbelt has undermined intended benefits of the UGB. Comprehensive P'/ans: Comprehensive planning is a fundamental element ofboth growth management systems and Smart Growth programs. The State ofDelaware introduced a system of comprehensive planning in the 1970s, but the more recent Livable Delaware program effectively forces counties and municipalities to plan in collaboration with state goals. Under Livable Delaware, municipalities must align local spending to the strategies of the state and submit comprehensive plans for approval for annexation proposals. The Washington State Growth Management Act (OMA) assists counties in developing plans in conjunction with local communities but, from the perspective of some counties, with inadequate funding for implementation. Moreover, despite local governments' comprehensive plans, vested subdivision plats have allowed development outside a county's UGA. Some communities argue that the resomces required to comply with GMA's requirements displaces long-term planning. Across the cases rated the highest, it was found that plans and plan making matter. These cases had either comprehensive or specific area plans that spatially identify and delimit the desired open space and growth management policies. This provides guidance to the development community and facilitates coordination across sectors, across departments, and across governments. It may also reflect the formation ofbroad-based community consensus, since participatory planning has become the national norm. Infill Development: Infill development can ensure that urban areas remain vital by providing a response to changing needs and dampening urban sprawl pressures. 8 Although this planning tool is used in the majority of the growth management case studies, an effective system of performance measurements is not used in most ofthe case studies. The San Diego Growth Management System used infill development to increase density within the urban core, but its substandaid quality contributed to the public disdain for dense development. Under the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan, the Housing Mortgage Finance Agency and the New Jersey Redevelopment Authority seek infill strategies that involve programs relating to neighborhood preservation, rehabilitating buildings for mixed uses, and promoting downtown business improvement districts. Infill development programs can be expensive and viewed as inefficient in the context of benefits generated. The New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan, however, has successfully established a rehabilitation subcode that has greatly reduced the cost and administrative obstacles to rehabilitating older buildings, thereby facilitating reinvestment in urban areas. Program Support The cases in this study varied greatly in their respective funding needs and budgets. Some funding techniques stand out as particularly innovative mechanisms for financing growth management and open space preservation. The real estate transfer tax, used most prominently in the Maryland cases, has garnered increased national attention. Typically this tax is levied at an 0.5 to 2 percent rate on real estate transactions and can be incurred by the buyer or the seller. This tax ties the capacity for conservation to the actual level of growth and development in that real estate and development activity in the region funds the management and the open space needs generated by growth. The tax affects a relatively small portion of the population at any one time and will be imposed only once if the property is not resold. This tax may be attractive as a funding source in rural settings with a limited tax base. Bonds, another popular source of funding, are often used for acquiring and maintaining greenbelts and channeling growth. Bond funds used in tandem with a stream of tax revenues such as a sales or property tax can provide a large pool of funding for land acquisition. Several programs rely heavily on voter-approved bonds against property taxes for acquisition. From an equity standpoint, issuing municipal debt for growth management initiatives, to be paid in the future, would seem appropriate since the benefits of planning and preservation carry significant intergenerational benefits. Bond issuance appears to be more applicable in an urban setting, since rural areas may not generate the revenues needed to repay the bonds. In such areas, land acquisition programs must depend on external sources such as direct state or federal government funding. As yet another source of funds, urban programs may rely on impact fees or exactions from developers. In situations where direct government funding was inadequate or unstable, partnerships between the public and private and/or nonprofit sectors, such as the Bluegrass Tomorrow and Virginia Outdoors Foundation, were created. Partnerships reduce growth management and open space preservation programs dependence on federal and state governments. However, partnerships involving joint program funding should not be entered into hastily. From the beginning, the goals of the effort must be articulated and agreed upon by all parties involved. This is not to suggest that all interested parties must have the same goals, since groups with different agendas can find common cause. Rather, it is important that such marriages of convenience are fully disclosed, since the interests of divergent conservationist parties may often correlate but will rarely be identical. Enforcement Mechanisms Almost 80 percent of the local programs studied were rated as very effective programs. In Smart Growth and brownfield programs, the effectiveness of local programs relates to the scale of projects. The cases tend to be of smaller scale with more narrow goals, thus facilitating coordination and enforcement of program goals compared to larger projects. The growth management cases, on the other hand, deal with large-scale programs, and thus their effectiveness seems to depend on the strength of regulation, not the scale. In state programs such as the Washington State Growth Management Act, strict enforcement and regulatory authority contributed to the program's effectiveness, while the lack of such authority in the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan is identified as one of the main reasons for its ineffectiveness. In the open space programs, the local cases, including the City of Boulder, Lancaster County Preservation Program, and Montgomery County Farmland Preservation Program, are very effective. However, effectiveness on the regional scale varies according to the degree of regulatory authority. Some cases with strong regulatory authority, such as the Pinelands and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, have higher effectiveness than cases with the lack of regulatory authority such as Apalachicola. Regional approaches were highly successful when their programs or context of effort were largely rural in character. This typically included ecosystem protection, greenbelt, and rural growth management initiatives. Again, the narrow definition and delimited program objectives and a limited number of interest groups may distinguish these successful cases. Transferability A great diversity of approaches attempting to achieve similar goals has been examined here. This diversity reflects the vital importance of context. One of the goals of the study was to find programs that could serve as models for other localities hoping to emulate the success. However, policymakers should not attempt to replicate any one program in its entirety in a different context. Since the most effective programs used a multiplicity of tools, the design of new policies should borrow relevant elements from multiple cases. The most broadly transferable elements involve strategy as opposed to process, and one of the most crucial elements of a viable strategy is building a strong base of popular and institutional support. A key challenge is avoiding the partisan label, and almost all of the more successful programs did this quite well by appealing to widely held values. Closing Points The findings of this report are derived from 32 initiatives that vary widely in goals and methods. Nevertheless, several advantageous elements in successful programs seem to transcend context. Successful initiatives: 1. are tailored to the needs of the local population and show an awareness of local cultural values.9 2. show an ability to adapt to changes in public opinion and/or changes in funding. 10 3. have well-defined goals but are able to adapt and change with circumstances. The goals that have been established are ambitious but also achievable. 11 4. use comprehensive or specific area plans to identify and delimit the desired open space and growth management policies. 5. are usually, but not always, centered at the local government level. 6. successfully utilize and coordinate different levels of government and provide roles for nongovernmental actors in the private and nonprofit sector. 12 7. coordinate strategies and tools in complementary fashion to maximize the likelihood of successfully managing sprawl and protecting open space. 8. are cognizant of the interrelationship between open space and growth management and fully understand the need to coordinate between the two. Notes 1 Douglas R. Porter et al., Managing Growth in America's Communities (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1997), p. 18. 2 American Farmland Trust, Saving American Farmland: What Works (Washington DC: American Farmland Trust Publications Division, 1997), pp. 3-7. 3 Tom Daniels, "Saving Agricultural Land with Conservation Easements in Lancaster County," in Protecting the Land: Conservation Easements Past, Present and Future, eds. Julie Ann Gustanski and Roderick H. Squires (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2000), pp. 12-17. 4 James Monke and Ron Durst, The Taxpayer ReliefAct of1997: Provisions for Farmers and Rural Communities, Agricultural Economic Report Number 764 (United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, July 1998), pp. 17-20. 5 Online News Hour: A News Hour with Jim Lehrer Transcript, ''Battling Sprawl" (transcript). Online. Available: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june00/sprawl_5-30.html. Accessed: May 30, 2000. 6 Ibid. 7 Arthur T. Nelson and Thomas W. Sanchez, Periodic Atlas ofthe Metroscape: Lassoing Urban Sprawl. Online. Available: http://www.mi.vt.edu/Files/Metroscape%20Atlas%202003-use.pdf. Accessed: April 13, 2003. 8 Center for Transportation Research, The University ofTexas at Austin, Techniques for Mitigating Urban Sprawl, Research Project 0-4420 (Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX, August 2002), pp. 133­ 134. 9 Illustrations include the following cases: Brandywine Conservancy, Lancaster County Agricultural Preservation Program, Virginia Outdoors Foundation, and City of Boulder. 10 The Montgomery County Farmland Preservation plan is an excellent example of how to use limited funding for PDRs efficiently and effectively. 11 Reston (Virginia) is an archetypal example of this point. 12 In Lexington-Fayette County, for example, when the USA was expanded, the government responded to public outcry concerning the loss of farmland and began a PDR program along with an increase in the • minimum lot size requirements. The government also created a Rural Area Service Plan in order to plan more effectively for both the rural and urban components of the county. Initiatives concerning the New Jersey Pinelands and Boulder, Colorado, are other key illustrations. models to describe various structures of Figure3.1 intergovernmental authority: Inclusive Authority coordinate authority. overlapping authority. and inclusive authority.1 In the Inclusive Authority model (Figure 3.1) the federal government plays a superior role and controls the actions of other levels of government. Where power Federal is not delegated or implied, federal regulations and programs follow this model. 1be Coontinate Authmity model (Figure 3.2) emphasizes the autonomy of a state in State relation to the federal government. In this model. the relationship between the federal and state governments Chapter 3. The Inftuence ofIntergovernmental Relations Growth management and open space preservation issues are rarely~ in terms of geography and substantive responsibility. within a single governmental jurisdiction. Unmanaged urban growth. or sprawl, often results in spillover effects-such as new development. traffic congestion, or environmental degradation-from one community into its neighboring jurisdictions. City and county governments must often coordinate growth management policies and regulations ~their borders and sometimes establish regional councils. commissions, or governmental bodies. Additionally. a host of single-purpose governments in a given location can bring complexity even to the issue of intergovernmental relations in an area Although land use is a de facto local issue, as land use controls and infrastructure decisions are generally delegated by state governments to municipalities. many local governments appeal to their state or federal government for assistance. as higher levels of govenµnent have jurisdiction over and can provide funding for larger geographic areas. 1be coordination of land use policy among government agencies and the consistency of governing visions among organintions implementing growth management and open space initiatives are therefore essential. This chapter first evaluates the intergovernmental relations present in the cases by placing each in one of five categories of governmental frameworks: Regional-Local, State-Regional-Local. Federal-State-Local. Local. and Nongovernmental. Next, the cases are analyzed according to the type ofintergovernmental tool used by the implementing agencies and organizations. Conclusions will then be drawn on the effects, ifany. ofthe intergovernmental structure and tools on achieving policy. pro~orproject objectives. 1be intergovernmental tools and the specific role of the federal government on the effectiveness ofthe cases will be assessed as well. Models ofIntergovernmental Relations . In New Governancefor Rllral. America, Radin et al. outline several conceptual assumes that local municipalities are subonlinated to state government. State government-led regulations and initiatives follow this model. Figure 3.2 The Overlapping Authority model (Figure Coordinate Authority 3.3) is applicable when the areas of autonomy and discretion for any single jurisdiction are limited. Successful implementation of programs requires negotiation and coordination among the Federal levels of government. These intergovernmental relations authority models have been adapted to represent the more complicated intergovernmental · relationships of the 32 growth management and open space initiatives examined in this study. The cases have been categorized according to the working relationship between the lead governmental or nongovernmental organization and other actors involved in the administration of the program: Regional-Local, State-Regional-Local, Federal-State­Local, Local, and Nongovernmental (see Table 3.1). For example, a statewide initiative such as the Washington State Growth Management Act is classified as State-Regional; a regional plan such as Portland Metro as Regional-Local; and an inner-city redevelopment plan such as the Gateway Project in Salt Lake City, Utah, as Local. The models are useful for several reasons. Figure 3.3 First, they allow a formal comparison of the cases Overlapping Authority according to the five models of intergovernmental relations so that the advantages and disadvantages of each model can be determined. Second, they can be used to assess the impact or influence of the intergovernmental relationship structure on program effectiveness in general and for specific types of programs. Regional-Local Many growth management and open space issues require coordination and cooperation at a level beyond two adjoining municipal jurisdictions, as discussed above. This applies especially to those issues, such as those of natural ecosystems, that do not follow political boundaries. Regional-Local relationships occur when programs are initiated or coordinated at a regional level across one or more counties, and possibly across multiple states, in conjunction with municipalities. This usually involves the formation of a regional council or commission to coordinate efforts of the organizations involved. Table 3.1. Classification of Case Studies by Intergovernmental Relations Regional-Local State-Regional-Local Federal-State-Local Local Nongovernmental Midpeninsula-CA Office of Smart Growth-CO Lexington Fayette-KY Livable Delaware-DE Livable Communities-MN MALPF-MD Metro-OR State Plan-NJ Chattanooga-TN Lancaster County-PA Mountainland Assoc. of Conservation Easements-VA Governments-UT Act 200-VT Growth Management Act- WA Orlando-FL Lower Delaware River-PA Coastal Zone Management-WA Emeryville-CA San Diego-CA Bluegrass Tomorrow-KY Lake Tahoe-CA Boulder-CO Harbor.Town-TN Apalachicola-FL Montgomery County-MD Rcston-VA Upper Mississippi-MN Gateway District-UT Brandywine-DE, PA Pinelands-NJ Burlington-VT TGM-OR The Regional-Local relationship is based on the coordinate authority model (see Figure 3.4). Regional organizations oversee actions of one or more local jurisdictions and coordinate efforts with state government but are not subordinate to state government. Regional organizations may include localities in multiple states, represented by the circle extending beyond the state circle border. The federal government provides little or no direct funding in the implementation of these initiatives. Since regional organizations may have no regulatory authority, a dashed line represents them. Fi e 3 4 The successful cases with Regional-Local R: •~~ intergovernmental relations were found to rely e~o -. both on formal consolidation or partnership and Coordinate Authonty on informal coordination. In Kentucky, for example, jurisdictional conflicts between City of Lexington and Fayette County planning authorities led voters to consolidate the two jurisdictions into a single, unified urban county government in 1972. Citizens in San Mateo, California, voted to form the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in 1972 in order to have a means to coordinate the preservation of open space between several municipal and county governments. In some cases, state government has taken the initiative to develop and implement growth management or open space programs by creating (1) a broad policy or framework that enables regional and local governments to design programs based on local needs; (2) regulations requiring local and regional government compliance; or (3) a combination of the two. Often, the state government will provide technical and financial assistance to local and regional governments implementing its mandates. The State-Regional-Local relationship combines elements of both the coordinate and inclusive authority models (see Figure 3.5). The initiative and/or coordination for the program occurs at the state government level. Programs are implemented through regional and local levels according to direction from the state government. In this case, the federal government has little or no direct involvement with the implementation of the program. · There are several examples of Figure 3.5 successful programs with State­State-Regional-Local Regional-Local intergovernmental Coordinate I Inclusive Authority relationships. Pennsylvania established a Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement Program to help county governments preserve agricultural lands. Lancaster County in Pennsylvania has Federal taken great advantage of state government matching funds and has designated urban growth areas and agricultural zones in partnership with the nonprofit group Lancaster Farmland Trust. In Maryland, the Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation program aims to preserve a "critical mass" of agricultural land with the goal to limit urban sprawl. Washington State enacted a statewide Growth Management Act in 1991 that requires any county experiencing rapid growth to develop a comprehensive plan, including an urban growth area, in conjunction with its municipal governments and the counties surrounding it. The state provides ongoing technical and financial assistance to county and local governments to assist in the development and implementation of local comprehensive plans. Similarly, the Livable Delaware program is based on state legislation that mandates a statewide comprehensive plan with local implementation. Federal-State-Local Even though the federal government has historically had little direct involvement in local land use planning activities, a number of federal programs and laws have substantial influence on the manner in which state and local governments plan and develop, as discussed in Chapter 1. Federal tax policies, environmental regulations, transportation grants, economic development initiatives, and other programs provide direction or incentives for state, regional, and local governments to follow.2 The Federal-State-Local relationship follows the inclusive model of intergovemmental relations (see Figure 3.6). The initiative and direction originate in the federal government, while state, regional, or local governments implement the programs with direct assistance-financial or technical -from the federal government. In addition, the federal government can establish policies that directly affect individuals, without the involvement of other governments. For example, individuals may receive federal tax deductions for conservation easements, a major component of open space preservation. In New Jersey, the federal government established the Pinelands National Reserve to Inclusive Authority protect pristine wilderness in the country's most densely populated state. New Jersey developed the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan to manage growth in the reserve and the Pinelands Commission has authority to veto local development plans for lack of compliance with the comprehensive plan. Oregon's Transportation and Growth Management initiative, a state statutory program, receives a substantial amount of federal funds from the federal ISTEA and TEA-21 initiatives as well as state matching grants. The Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) was initiated after the passage of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. Washington works with its shoreline communities to develop plans to manage growth and development along its shorelines while the federal government periodically reviews the state's CZMP and gives an annual grant to fund implementation of the program. Local Many growth management and open space programs studied here originated at a municipal or county level. Planning at this level often necessitates cooperation with other levels of government and many receive indirect assistance from the federal government on an ad hoc basis. Such assistance to local governments includes funding for brownfield and downtown redevelopment, affordable housing initiatives, and open space acquisition. In addition, these local initiatives generally rely on authority granted by state government. Therefore, a state government presence is implied, even if not highly visible. Programs categorized as Local are those where a city or county created and implemented the growth management or open space program (see Figure 3.7). The Figure 3.7 Local model is patterned after the Local overlapping authority model, which Overlapping Authority recognizes that cities and counties may work independently on their local initiatives or in varying degrees with state and/or federal agencies. Five of the cases were classified as Local growth management and open space programs (see Table 3.1). In 1978 the City of Boulder entered into a legally binding agreement with Boulder County to purchase open space through a local sales tax levy. The program has been tremendously successful in achieving its objective to create a greenbelt of protected open space around the city. Burlington (Vermont) places a priority on redevelopment of its downtown area. Over 40 percent of the budget for the city's Community and Economic Development Office comes from Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and other federal funds. As a result, the city levies no taxes for growth management purposes. In Salt Lake City (Utah) the Gateway Development Master Plan was developed in 1998 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division to redevelop the former industrial and railway site in preparation for the 2002 Winter Olympics. A collaborative effort between the city's mayor, local business leaders, the Church of Latter-Day Saints, citizens, and the state and federal government allowed the project to be completed in a relatively short time frame. Nongovernmental Although nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) lack the authority to enforce policy, they can be effective as a forum where regional planning concerns are voiced. NGOs are not subject to the same political or funding pressures as are governmental agencies. For example, regional governmental entities may be hindered by sovereignty clashes with local governments whereas NGOs engender no threat, malting them a particularly appealing prolocutor for regional issues. The Nongovernmental relationship is patterned after the coordinate authority model (see Figure 3.8). Here, growth management or open space initiatives have originated in nonprofit or private organizations. NGOs coordinate their Figure 3.8 state, and federal agencies and may Nongovernmental extend their efforts to multiple local and Coordinate Authority state jurisdictions. As NGOs do not have .... ---... ,, ... any governmental authority, they are / ' represented with a dashed line. 1 / Nongovernmental \ , Kentucky's Bluegrass Tomorrow is a nonprofit organization composed of business, preservation, agricultural, and Federal development interests whose primary purpose is to disseminate planning knowledge to the seven counties in the Lexington, Kentucky, metropolitan region. Harbor Town, Tennessee, began as a new urbanist development on neglected Mud Island in downtown Memphis in 1989. An initiative of a private developer, it received no tax incentives or subsidies from local, state, or federal government. Through its traditional neighborhood design and proximity to downtown, it is a successful development and has generated other Smart Growth efforts in Memphis through its example. Instruments of Intergovernmental Relations In addition to alternative models of intergovernmental relations identified in the previous section, a government has available a wide range of tools in its relationships with other unit's governments.3 These tools can be classified into four broad categories: (1) structural tools that focus on specific roles and relationships; (2) programmatic tools that refer to the type of resources utilized; (3) research and capacity-building tools that can increase technical and management capabilities; and (4) behavioral tools that include strategies for communication, planning, organizational development, and conflict resolution. The tools utilized in each of the 32 cases are identified, first in terms of the general initiative (see Table 3.2) and, second, in terms of specific tools involving the federal government (see Table 3.3). All four types of tools are commonly used in the case studies, although less frequently in terms of tools involving the federal government. The tools used to achieve coordination in a multiagency environment are both structural and programmatic. No fewer than 22 cases incorporated a structural component for coordination (see Table 3.2), although only ten involved federal agencies (see Table 3.3). Programmatic tools-grants, partnerships, and collaboration-were adopted in most cases. The most common role of the federal government in this category is provision of grants, found in 27 of the 32 cases, with substantially fewer instances of federal partnerships and collaboration. Among the nonprogrammatic tools, significant numbers of programs incorporate capacity building, especially information provision and technical assistance. Federal agencies participate at much lower overall levels of capacity building, but most often in the form of information sharing and research. Table 3.2. Intergovernmental Relationship Tools ....~..& // ~ ~+/, .,.;;~/ ~ ~/ h~~~~#'zq....·~/././b.~~~ 7~~7.4~~//.://,,, ' Source: Beryl A. Radin et al., New Governance of Rural Amsrlcs:Creat/ng lntsrgovsmmental Partnerships (Lawrence, KS:University Press ol Kansas, 1996), pp. 25-35. 63 Table 3.3. Federal Relationships Tools Source: Beryl A. Radin et al., Now Govomance of Rural Amorlca:CffJBting lntorgovomrTlfJntal Paffnorships (Lawrence, KS:Unlverslty Press of Kansas, 1996), pp. 25-35. 64 Intergovernmental Relations and Program Effectiveness: Empirical Evidence In addition to determining the frequency with which various intergovernmental models and tools were utilized, the study examined their correlation with program effectiveness. As discussed in Chapter 2, each growth management and open space initiative was ranked, 1 through 5, in increasing levels of effectiveness (see Tables 3.2 and 3.3, bottom row). These effectiveness ratings were used to calculate the average effectiveness of programs using a particular intergovernmental structure and tool. Although the quality of the data available in this report is not sufficient to identify causal relationships between intergovernmental models and tools and program effectiveness, the results presented below seem plausible and warrant further consideration and research. Structure and Effectiveness Intergovernmental structure appears to have some association with program effectiveness in that different models are associated with different levels of average effectiveness (see Table 3.2). The State-Regional-Local structure was utilized in cases with the lowest average level of effectiveness, 3.2, and the Federal-State-Local model in somewhat more effective cases, averaging 3.4. In contrast, the Local and Nongovernmental structures were associated with the highest levels of effectiveness, 4.0 for both types. These findings, however, may well be explained by the fact that the choice of intergovernmental structure is largely a function of the type and scope of the problem or issue being addressed. In addition, the choice of structure partially determines the degree to which program actors were able to coordinate with varying levels of government, other agencies or departments, private and nonprofit interests, and the general public, which in turn affects program success. Further, the degree to which the implementing agency had incentives and authority to meet its obligations was found to be very important. Despite a lack of a clear correlation between intergovernmental structure and case effectiveness, most growth management and open space initiatives would not exist without some level of intergovernmental cooperation. Often, the issue or problem being addressed requires government involvement on some level. Only governmental bodies have the ability to develop and implement public policy and the authority for many of the growth management and open space programs and projects studied. Broad land use issues may require a stronger role of state and federal governments and the complexity of such issues may make coordination even more difficult. Projects with a significant nonprofit or private component or strong public-private partnership tended to rate as highly effective. Private and nonprofit entities do not necessarily receive the same public scrutiny as do governmental agencies, nor are they subject to the same political pressures and cyclical budget shortfalls. NGOs can serve as a nexus to coordinate the work of other governmental entities-especially when those entities are territorially defined. This NGO role is not unique to growth management and open space preservation initiatives, but also appears in such policy areas as law enforcement, where jurisdictional conflicts and other bureaucratic strife hinder coordination.4 In addition to coordinating disparate authorities, NGOs can be quite effective in disseminating information and lobbying. In Kentucky, Bluegrass Tomorrow successfully engages in these activities and acts as a hub around which growth management coordination takes place. In Harbortown (fennessee) and Reston (Virginia), private ventures by developers resulted in successful programs as well. Public-private partnerships benefit from legal authority coupled with the flexibility and efficiency of private organization. Lancaster County partners with the nonprofit group Lancaster Farmland Trust to preserve farmland in Pennsylvania as discussed above. This public-private partnership allows farms to be preserved more easily and quickly than if the county just worked on its own. Over 55,000 acres were preserved as of 2002. Tools and Effectiveness The average program effectiveness associated with individual tools varied modestly (see Table 3.2). Among the structural tools, regulation and oversight are associated with higher effectiveness, with an average of 3.7, as are grants, with an average of 3.6 among the programmatic tools. Research assistance was moderately higher on case effectiveness than information provision and technical assistance. Among the behavioral tools, planning processes and benchmarking and group communication were associated with higher effectiveness. The use of the planning and benchmarking tool would suggest that a certain level of consensus has been reached on program or project goals and objectives, facilitating coordination among agencies. Networked intergovernmental webs embody this approach to intergovernmental relations. They are better equipped to pursue a range of goals and achieve specific performance standards because relationships are permanent, while the ad hoc, issue-based structures require the creation of new relations and modes of operation for each issue. The pattern of case effectiveness by type of tool in which the federal government was involved is quite different, but the few instances of use for most tools limits the credibility of the findings. In terms of structural tools, participation of federal agencies seems associated with a somewhat lower level of effectiveness in coordination and regulation and oversight, compared to their association of effectiveness in the broader initiatives (compare Table 3.2 with 3.3). Among the programmatic tools, tax incentives are associated with high program effectiveness and provision of federal grants is associated with an average level of effectiveness. The federal role in the provision of the information tool is associated with somewhat higher average case effectiveness but research with a somewhat lower level. Those cases with Nongovernmental and Local authority coordination tended to be more successful than others, as was discussed previously (see Table 3.2). There are several reasons why certain intergovernmental tools appear to work better in these cases than in others. First, the intent of local programs is more narrowly focused, necessitating a less ambitious intergovernmental structure. Second, federal programs that have a clear intent and application, such as the CDBG program, require a lower degree of cooperation. Lastly, nonprofit and private programs have the distinct benefit of simplified relationships built on a limited agenda. Despite the relatively weak patterns identified here, it is important to note that the specific design of the intergovernmental tool may determine the success of the relationship in a particular initiative. Formal partnerships and collaboration, for instance, take on many forms, but some may be better designed than others. Local governments must participate in networks of agencies to pursue growth management and open space preservation agendas. Unlike structural single-issue-based relationships, network relationships allow agencies and organizations the independence and flexibility to address issues both vertically and horizontally while avoiding the problem of establishing new relationships when new policy issues emerge. 5 Interpreting the Effect of Intergovernmental Relations The Challenge of Coordination In several case studies, difficulties arose in a regional or state government's capacity to regulate and oversee program implementation where local government independence of action conflicts with regional authority, visions, or mandates. Many counties, such as those in the northeastern states of the U.S., have little power relative to municipal governments, and as a result multicounty or regional growth management programs fall short of their goals. Many case studies mentioned conflicts between federal policies and _local development goals, usually due to inflexible conditions attached to sources of funding. Nearly every case study identified the coordination of vertical and horizontal intergovernmental coordination as important to program success. In Minnesota, 53 riverfront communities and organizations participated in the process to designate the Upper Mississippi an American Heritage River. The New Jersey Pinelands established a three-person Office of Regulatory Programs for the purpose of intergovernmental coordination. In Washington, the Growth Management Act requires counties to collaborate with their municipalities and the other counties and municipalities in their region to coordinate the development of comprehensive plans. An example of both successful nongovernmental involvement and intergovernmental organization is in the Lower Delaware River project in Pennsylvania, where the nonprofit Delaware River Greenway Partnership oversees the coordination of all involved entities. In terms of growth management, regional cooperation necessitates a common vision, which itself necessitates planning and, especially, government cooperation. In some cases government leadership impedes coordination. In Vermont, the regional commissions under Act 200 encourage municipalities to coordinate plans. Success has been elusive because of each individual municipality's reluctance to yield to any comprehensive planning vision. The development goals of the City of Orlando (Florida) conflict with those of Orange County. Orlando attempts to increase the stock of dense urban development while the county pursues an aggressive development campaign that opens land to sparse, suburban development. In Colorado, the state Department of Transportation and the state Office of Smart Growth do not coordinate plans or initiatives while traffic congestion remains a problem in the state's metropolitan regions. The two Kentucky programs studied both mentioned a need for greater regional and multicounty planning coordination. Greater coordination is needed where growth management and open space preservation problems occur across state borders. In Chattanooga (Tennessee) many program respondents felt that the area would benefit by coordinating its planning efforts with its neighbor, Georgia, requiring yet a more difficult form of coordination. The Tennessee Valley Authority, a classic example of highly effective intergovernmental cooperation, was created in response to similar difficulties in interstate coordination. Given the practical difficulties as well as constitutional limitations to interstate cooperation, innovative approaches will be needed and in some cases, Congressional intervention may desirable. Intergovernmental relationships were found to have helped produce desired program outputs in some cases, but without the desired outcomes because intergovernmental coordination was not fully achieved. Boulder (Colorado) has acquired a significant amount of open space surrounding the city, but with the effect of redirecting development outside the urban growth boundary. While the program has been successful in achieving its objective (a greenbelt of protected open space), other growth management problems have emerged from a lack of coordination with adjacent communities, including an incipient affordable housing shortage caused by a geographic imbalance ofjobs and housing. In Maryland, the Agricultural Land Preservation Fund is a state program implemented on the county level. The efforts to protect farmland have been successful in preventing significant growth in historically rural areas; however, the region's growth has been pushed outside the protected areas. Some areas close to the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area choose to protect land, while more distant areas choose to develop theirs. Some argue that the program exacerbates dispersed development by encouraging development in outlying areas, so-called leapfrog development. Therefore, while the policy tools it uses-conservation easements and purchase of development rights-are successful in preserving farmland, they are not effective in limiting sprawl. Regulatory and Nonregulatory Approaches Governments have available a variety of approaches for inducing cooperation, including regulatory oversight, technical assistance, and financial incentives. The study finds that unifying visions of growth management, in particular, and open space preservation are most effectively sustained through strong, regulatory mechanisms. Further, these incentives and regulatory measures often need to be coordinated at regional levels. When a particular community has aggressive growth management policies, for example, growth may be relocated to areas outside the community's jurisdiction or to nearby communities with less stringent development regulations. State programs may be less effective when incentives or regulations are not sufficiently powerful to secure local government compliance. In Vermont, regional commissions are required by the state's land use planning law to devise a comprehensive plan for development. However, the regional commissions lack the legal authority to ensure municipal compliance with the regional plan. Historically, greater power has been vested in municipal than in county governments and voluntary coordination and cooperation are rare. For example, the city of Burlington (Vermont) is a regional center in terms of historic settlement and growth patterns. However, its outlying suburbs constitute over two-thirds of the population in the metropolitan area. The city has little power to implement policies to curb undesirable growth outside the city. Likewise, New Jersey's nonregulatory State Development and Redevelopment Plan provides only limited incentives and grants to coordinate and integrate regional, municipal, and state planning activities. As a result, the plans lack efficient and coordinated implementation. For these nonregulatory programs to be implemented successfully, the interests of contiguous communities must be aligned. Federallnvolve01ent While local government land use activities are increasingly subject to state and federal involvement, local governments still bear primary responsibility and have the greatest influence in developing and building their urban areas. The federal government's most significant role in urban development is through investment in infrastructure, revitalization of communities, and preservation of the environment.6 It is through these areas that the federal government has its greatest opportunity to enhance growth management and open space preservation programs. Federal assistance, either direct or indirect, in these 32 cases includes grants for transportation, economic development, environmental protection, and housing purposes; technical or staff assistance; and tax incentives for such things as conservation easements. Survey and interview results from many local officials indicate the need for financial support as well as the views that there are too many restrictions on federal funds and that the application process for funds is too cumbersome. In Utah, for example, the Mountainland Association of Governments found it necessary to employ a lobbyist to find sources of federal and state funding and to navigate application processes. The survey results concerning federal transportation funds, a critical component of many growth management efforts, were mixed. Some respondents found transportation funds overly restrictive, with the emphasis on highway construction undermining investment in alternative means of transportation. However, opinion in the state of Oregon was different, citing the existing flexibility in federal transportation funding for the success of its program. In general, however, the survey results indicate a broad consensus that greater funding was needed, with or without restrictions on the use of funds. The case study research found that success involving the federal government was most likely achieved when its funding or resources were closely coordinated with the needs or goals of the assisted community. Dedicated federal employee assistance proved helpful in several programs. The Gateway redevelopment project in Salt Lake City (Utah) benefited greatly from an EPA employee assigned to the city to coordinate grant applications and funding for the project. In addition, the EPA selected the Gateway site as a Regional Brownfields Pilot in 1996 and provided funds to Salt Lake City to assess its remediation. The Lower Delaware River project has similarly benefited from the expertise of federal employee assistance. On the other hand, an Army Corps of Engineers employee designated as a river navigator for the Upper Mississippi American Heritage River in Minnesota has not been very involved with the program. The lack of involvement by the river navigator may be in part due to the fact that the American Heritage River Initiative does not award funding for its program. Federal involvement was particularly effective when it led to greater intergovernmental coordination. The creation of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) secured close coordination between the states of California and Nevada in the protection of Lake Tahoe. As discussed earlier, nonprofit organizations can be effective instruments for facilitating intergovernmental cooperation because their role tends to be limited and their mission is clearly defined. As with cross-jurisdictional law enforcement cases and the TRPA, the federal government could support other nonprofit organizations to foster greater regional and intergovernmental cooperation. The coordination of the location of federal facilities, such as military bases, with local authorities was raised as a concern in several case studies. Federal activities and development projects often do not have to comply with state or local comprehensive plans, nor is there a similar requirement for other activities receiving federal funds. The problem of federal consistency and coordination with state and local growth management policies was mentioned in the Colorado and New Jersey case studies. Currently, only those states with federally approved coastal zone management programs can require federal consistency with local plans, an incentive that helped initiate Washington State's coastal zone program in the 1970s. Several programs were created from federal government initiatives or actions. The New Jersey Pinelands were established as the first National Reserve. The federal CZMA provides federal funds as an incentive for eligible states to create coastal zone management programs. The National Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968 made possible · the Lower Delaware River project. The federal government spurred greater state and local involvement in these issues simply by creating these federal programs. Conclusions The intergovernmental structures of the 32 cases studied for this report were examined to determine the effects, if any, of intergovernmental relations on the success of the programs. The structure of the intergovernmental relationships, the tools used by agencies and nongovernmental organizations to coordinate implementation of the programs, and the involvement of the federal government were compared to ratings of effectiveness for each case to determine whether patterns of success or failure emerged. Despite the complex organizational environment in which these initiatives operate, no strong correlations between the specific structure of intergovernmental relations (or intergovernmental tools utilized) and success were found. Most of the issues and problems addressed in the 32 cases required some level of government involvement for achieving program outputs; therefore, strong intergovernmental coordination is very important to the success of regional problems. These findings coincide with the results of a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) survey of nearly 2,000 communities nationwide. The survey found that local governments generally supported changes to improve coordination with the federal government, stating that when "coordination was good .. .it helped them plan for and manage growth."7 Land use policy is inherently the domain of local municipalities; however, the nature of growth management and open space preservation increasingly requires a system of regulatory pressures and performance standards at regional, state, and federal levels. Networks of governmental and nongovernmental organizations working cooperatively on these issues are therefore essential. Nonprofit or private organizations can successfully design and implement growth management and open space programs as well. Often the most effective cases took advantage of public-private partnerships. NGOs are not subject to the same degree of public and bureaucratic processes as public agencies and are potentially valuable resources in complex political environments. Public-private partnerships can take advantage of the regulatory authority of government entities with the efficiency of nonprofit or private organizations. Finally, many cases mentioned the importance of consistency between federal and local government goals. The GAO report also found strong support for a federal requirement that transportation plans be linked with local land use plans. 8 The idea of local comprehensive plan consistency could be extended to other programs and projects that receive federal funding and to other federal actions, such as the sitting of federal facilities. Notes 1 Beryl A. Radin et al., New Governance for Rural America: Creating Intergovernmental Partnerships (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1996), p. 14. 2 Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, State Growth Management and Open Space Preservation Policies, Policy Research Project Series, no. 143 (Austin, TX, 2002), pp. 13-26. 3 Radin et al., New Governance for Rural America, pp. 25-35. 4 United States General Accounting Office, Combating Child Pornography, GAO Report 03-272 (Washington, DC, November 2, 2002), pp. 9-11. 5 Radin et al., New Governance for Rural America, pp. 16-18. 6 United States General Accounting Office, Community Development: Local Growth Issues-Federal Opportunities and Challenges (Washington, DC, September 2000), p. 9. 7 United States General Accounting Office, Community Development: Local Growth Issues-Federal Opportunities and Challenges (Washington, DC, September 2000), p. 27. Online. Available: http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/lgi/. Accessed: April 10, 2003. g Ibid., p. 20. Chapter 4. Accomplishments, Challenges, and Opportunities Growth management and open space preservation initiatives are being implemented by a growing number of state, regional, and local governments. The increase in these efforts in parts of the country reflects a general heightened concern over the quality and livability of the built and natural environments and an attempt to meet the potentially competing demands of accommodating growth and preserving a high quality of life. Many of the initiatives studied for this report have succeeded in achieving their objectives, providing communities that wish to address land use issues with models for success. Valuable lessons can be taken from those programs that were unable to effect meaningful change as well. This chapter will elaborate upon the characteristics present in growth management and open space initiatives that effectively achieved their goals and will discuss some of the weaknesses present in those that did not. Briefly stated, this study has found that effective1 initiatives: 1. Are tailored to the needs of the local population and show an awareness of local cultural values. 2 2. Are usually, but not always, centered at the local government level. 3. Have well-defined and even ambitious goals3 but adapt to changing circumstances, including changes in public opinion and/or changes in funding.4 4. Use comprehensive or specific area plans to identify and delimit the desired open space and growth management policies. 5. Utilize and coordinate different levels of government and provide roles for nongovernmental actors in the private and nonprofit sector. 5 6. Coordinate a range of strategies and tools in complementary fashion and recognize the interrelationship between open space preservation and growth management.6 This chapter begins by elaborating upon the effectiveness of the 32 initiatives, with special reference to accomplishments, unresolved problems, and factors contributing to initiative adoption. Following sections will discuss lessons concerning the transferability of initiatives to other locations. Finally, because of Congress' interest in assisting states and localities in these matters, special attention will be given throughout the chapter to opportunities for beneficial federal government involvement in these issues. Accomplishments and Unresolved Problems This study has found that growth management and open space preservation initiatives most definitely have an impact on the quality of life in urban settings and in protecting open space. One indicator of this impact is the more than 1 million acres of permanently protected acres in the 18 most effective cases (see Appendix 4). The protected open space, either through acquisition or regulation, across all 32 cases exceeds 1.5 million acres. In addition to raw acreage protected, these programs accomplish a number of important policy objectives, including protection of fragile ecological systems and water quality, preservation of scenic beauty, agricultural production and cultural landscapes, and urban containment. More than two-thirds ofthe most effective growth management cases were successful in curbing sprawl from protected areu, or mdirecting growth into preferred development zones such as downtowns, places with existing infrastructure or preferred growth corridors. The two brownfield projects-Emelyville and Gateway-alone account for hundreds of millions of dollars in new real estate investments and millions of square feet of commercial/office space in their respective downtowns. The brownfield projects were also highly successful at obtaining grant support from a variety of federal agencies and programs to stimulate the cleanup and redevelopment of their contaminated lands. Number of acres preserved and amount of dollars obtained for reinvestment are both obvious and easily measured indications of achieved objectives; other, leu-evident commonalities emerged among the successful cases as well. Urban containment strategies (UGBs and USAs) and targeted growth areas-important approaches to growth management and open space efforts-were used in more than 80 percent ofthe more effective programs studied. These cases also have relative longevity, operating for over 20 years, and feature the simultaneous use of growth management and open space preservation programs. The use ofboth approaches simultaneously appears to have a mutually reinforcing effect in the effective programs. Open space programs can reduce sprawl pressures on urban containment programs and reinforce infill development and targeted growth policies, while urban containment programs can reduce speculative demand on nearby and highly valued open space resources. Another trait ofthe more effective cases was a greater awareness, on average, of the importance ofinfrastructure investments as a growth shaper, consequently, these communities were more proficient in using infrastructure investment planning and controls to better manage sprawl pressures. This was the case with Oregon's Transportation and Growth Management Program, an effective initiative established to ensure that federal transportation funding was used to support state and local planning goals. Two final characteristics possessed by several of the most effective cases relate to scope and maturity. In the former, many of the effective cases have narrowly defined objectives. For example, the three agricultural land preservation programs, which focused exclusively on the protection and perpetuation of farming and its related industries, were ranked among the most effective programs. 'The study's two brownfields projects-the initiatives with the most narrowly defined objectives-were also found relatively effective. Cases that were relatively mature, regardless of scope ofobjectives, also seemed to be highly effective. Mature initiatives had the resources and community support to change over time and fine-tune approaches to the specific social context in which they operate. The effectiveness of both the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Washington Coastal Zone Management Project can be attributed the initiatives' highly institutionalized structure as well as to the accumulative effect of almost fom decades of action. By contrast, Livable Delaware was an executive order, and thus expired with the departure of the governor. The initiative cannot endure, and thus lacks the ability to be refined over time and, ultimately, to effect meaningful change. While the cases in this study are laudable for producing results, no initiative was without shortcomings. The most pervasive unresolved problems were leapfrog development, traffic congestion, equity and affordable housing, and problems stemming from economic shifts or change in political leadership. Where regional planning and development management are inadequate or regional coordination is lacking, sprawl development can simply leapfrog past those jurisdictions pursuing growth management and open space preservation. Thus it is not surprising that leapfrog development was common across a majority of the 32 cases, as more than half lacked effective structures for regionalism. Moreover, lack of regionalism also severely affected efforts to protect natural resources that extend beyond local boundaries. On the matter of traffic congestion, although some cases fared well in keeping land use/transportation capacity in balance, about half of the more successful cases still reported serious traffic congestion concerns. Equity problems were observed in some of the most effective case studies. Problems of affordable housing, a prominent equity issue, were found in about one-third of all cases and in over half of the most effective cases. The lack of affordable housing may arise from constraints in land supply from local urban containment and/or open space acquisition efforts, but can also result from consumer demand exceeding supply of the available housing stock. In other words, the mobility of labor and relative capital exceeds the response capabilities of the home-building sector. The current study could not provide evidence either way on this issue, since it would require a regional housing study for each case that is beyond the scope of this research. The majority of equity problems arose in the highly effective cases incorporating high levels of participation. Despite gains in program effectiveness through increased participatory processes, equity concerns remain. Citizens with lesser financial means appear less able to participate in the problem-solving process and, therefore, program development in many of the cases lacked critical input from the community. Additionally, their concerns may not be represented in their absence. This deficiency is particularly striking in the infill cases, where growth management and Smart Growth projects often directly affect lower income communities. Successful infill projects often can lead to gentrification (a gradual displacement of lower-income households and small businesses due to land market changes) reducing the stock of moderately priced housing. In this example, organized neighborhoods may have their interests well represented, but renters or those struggling financially may not be able to meaningfully exercise participation and express their concerns regarding neighborhood character or the availability of affordable housing. Additionally, increased property values due to the rejuvenation of an urban area can burden the poor with higher tax bills, which could force them to relocate out of an area. Resource adequacy was a common concern among the initiatives. Commitments to fund initiatives were often precipitated by growth pressure resulting from an upswing in the local economy; when the opposite occurred, a downward shift in the economy, about one-third of the cases noted lags in performance due to reduced funding (especially among nonprofits). This same trend was found to be true in the 2001-2002 study of state growth management policies.7 Pressure to manage growth recedes as economic conditions and revenues of local governments decline. In this context, a lower priority is likely to be placed on growth management initiatives. The programs relying on private funding and donations are also likely to encounter revenue shortfalls at times when economic conditions decline. Even though a number of the problems, especially those of ecosystems, do not necessarily diminish with slower economic growth, funding levels are nevertheless affected. Factors Leading to Initiative Adoption Across the 32 cases examined, three conditions or events tended to be present at the time of initiative adoption: a relevant problem or problems, a range of viable policy options to address the problem, and political leadership and support. Plausible policy solutions to problems may originate with governments, citizen participation, or nonprofit and for-profit organizations, and the political leadership and support need not be confined to elected officials. The presence of these three elements creates a "window of opportunity" for new growth management or open space preservation initiatives. The most common problems leading to the adoption of a new growth management program were: loss of environmental quality (10 cases) and decline in quality of life due to uncontrolled growth (22 cases). Environmental degradation problems included water pollution and brownfield contamination. Uncontrolled urban growth was associated with problems of both inadequate and degraded potable water, wastewater treatment capacity, traffic congestion, high infrastructure costs and a growing backlog of infrastructure needs, declining school quality, and loss of culturally, aesthetically, or historically relevant landmarks or places. These problems gain the attention of the public in a number of ways. Often a crisis or at least the perception of a crisis will bring attention to a growth management problem. The threat to Lake Tahoe's clarity became apparent in the mid-1960s, when it was projected that a 200 to 300 percent increase in visitors and tourists would take place by 1980. In the case of Tahoe, the perception of a threat to the lake's clarity was sufficient to prompt action, even at the national level, and a deterioration of the natural resource was avoided. In the case of the Lower Delaware River, the river's resources declined to such a level as to prompt a public outcry. The degradation of the natural environment can also be recognized through indicators, such as the EPA's threshold standards for safe air and water quality that measure the magnitude of the problems. Another means by which the public becomes aware of problems is through existing project or program feedback mechanisms. These existing channels also facilitate raising public awareness as to the unintended consequences of another initiative or previously unidentified problem. The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG), the organization responsible for planning in Fayette County, Tennessee, expanded the area's urban service boundary and promptly learned of weaknesses in the area's strategies when land prices within the newly defined area soared and development stalled.8 Following the crisis, the LFUCG began emphasizing more infill development projects to address greater housing needs in the area. Successful program initiation cannot take place without rousing public concern over land use issues, nor can it happen without a range of feasible policy solutions to address the problem and a realistic time frame defined at the outset. Many of the growth management issues-for example, traffic congestion-require a wide range of tools, as well as a long time horizon to achieve success. Adopting long-term plans that use numerous land use tools requires a strong resource base (including technical feasibility and funding) and must be planned in advance of program adoption. Many of the more successful cases had significant resources available at the time of adoption. For instance, Lake Tahoe received the support of Congress at a key time in the initiative's implementation, in addition to other cooperation and support of state governments, and the town of Reston, Virginia, was fortunate to have the financial support of a dedicated philanthropist at its inception. The problems requiring a growth management solution are similar, if not the same, as those faced by open space programs. Communities in this study chose from among three approaches. Some communities first adopted a growth management approach, as in the City of Boulder's decision to establish an urban service boundary. The city began an open space acquisition program funded by sales taxes after the initial implementation of the boundary. Other communities first pursued open space approaches. In the case of Lancaster County (Pennsylvania) policies were developed that focused solely on agricultural land protection-essentially the acquisition of open space. But this primary approach was later reinforced by a growth management system, when the county established designated growth areas. Finally, other prescient communities adopted growth management and open space tactics at the same time. Montgomery County (Maryland) for example, simultaneously began an open space acquisition program with a growth corridors system. The final component necessary for initiative adoption is political support, which can be mobilized through interest group campaigns, shifts in community awareness and values, or a change in the position held by the local govemment.9 All three techniques were observed in the case studies, but in 13 of the 32 cases strong political leadership was identified as the most important factor in initiative adoption. This finding held for initiatives focused on both growth management and on open space. While all cases in this study share the experience of successful problem recognition and initiative adoption, local context was found to have created a unique set of circumstances surrounding the policy, program, or project's adoption. A range of factors unique to localities played critical roles, including the severity of growth management problems confronting the community, the adequacy of financial, technical, and personnel resources to address the problem, and dedication of leadership. The communities represented in this study each had a distinct experience with these factors, with some factors figuring more prominently than others. The federal government can best encourage initiative adoption by providing technical information for early problem identification. In addition, in many cases the federal government was identified as playing an important funding role in the initial stages of the initiative. Without this support, many initiatives would have been less successful. Both federal technical assistance and funding provides critical support to communities in ways that best fit local circumstances. Implementation: Characteristics of Effective Cases A wide range of approaches and tools (as discussed in Chapter 2) and intergovernmental networks (the subject of Chapter 3) were used in the implementation of the 32 initiatives, and this section presents the research findings drawn from these experiences. In addition, the initiatives varied in their effectiveness in achieving programmatic goals. The respondents to the study's survey identified the lack of a stable funding source, a topic discussed below, as the most common barrier to implementation (see Table 4.1). Lack of planning, particularly at the point of program adoption, was a common barrier to implementation as well. Without a well-conceived and delineated plan, initiatives had problems adapting to changing conditions while maintaining the core goals and vision. Eighty percent of programs rated the most effective were implemented according to a comprehensive or sector plan generated at the time ofprogram adoption. Elaboration on the three other common barriers to program implemeotation--stakeholde£ and political resistance, lack of interdepartmental or intergovernmental coordination, and lack of leadership-is contained within the discussion below .10 Table 4.1. Most Common lementation Barriers 1. Lack of funding or incentives. 2. Stakeholder and political resistance. 3. Lack of interdepartmental or intergovernmental coordination. 4. Lack of leadership. 5. Lack of lannin . Source: Lyndon B. Johnson School ofPublic Affairs, "Growth Managcmcot and Open Si-:e Protection: A National Survey of State, Regiooal, and Local E.ffurts" (Noveoi>a 200'1-Jammy 2003). The remainder of the section will examine several key implementation factors in the context of the 18 more effective initiatives. These factors are (1) leadership and participation, (2) management and collaboration, (3) monitoring and evaluati~ and (4) fiscal limitations. Leadership and Participation Strong leadership-garnering significant levels of public participation and support-was crucial in the adoption phase of many initiatives. as discussed above. and it was found to be equally critical in implementation. One significant difference, however, between leadership in the adoption phase and the implementation phase emerged. Effective leadership at the time of adoption was not indicative of overall program effectiveness, with less than 50 percent of cases with strong initial leadership considered highly effective. Less than a third of the 13 cases identified as possessing strong initial leadership were also identified as having leadership that endured over time. This pattern emerged in the cases. In San Diego, Mayor Pete Wilson led the introduction of the growth management system in 1979, but a similar priority was not placed on the effort by his successors and the program's effectiveness waned in subsequent years. failing to reach its potential. Cases particularly sensitive to changes in leadership tended to be 1'3t.ed as less effective. Livable Delaware, a case found to less effective, was adopted as an executive order, and, thus, expired when the governor's term ended. This was also found to be true in the case of Apalachicola River and Bay; the tendency for growth management efforts in Florida to be sensitive to political changes was one reason why the initiative was found less effective. This study' s findings regarding the relationship between leadership and program effectiveness may appear somewhat contradictory. While strong political leadership is necessary for adoptive success, it is not necessarily important to the program's overall effectiveness. These issues can be reconciled by examining the role of public participation as it bears upon political leadership. Political participation incorporates­both directly and indirectly-all stakeholder interests and values, across multiple sectors, that seek to influence policy at all levels of government.11 Successful cases tended to have leadership that embraced public participation in addition to having consistent public participation in the implementation of the initiative. The most successful initiatives allowed for a change in leadership but had consistent public support because their objectives stayed aligned with public goals through active public participation. And in these more effective cases, community involvement was often not the result of a particularly charismatic and strong leader. Rather, high levels of public involvement resulted from historically high levels of citizen activism. In the case of Oregon's Transportation Growth Management Program, strong gubernatorial support was crucial to the program's adoption and implementation; however, it was not one single politician who spearheaded the process. Throughout the program's history, successive governors have remained dedicated to the program. In addition, the politicians closely associated with the program sought to maintain public participation in the program's development. After leaving office, a former governor, Tom McCall, organized 1000 Friends of Oregon to give citizens a voice to in land use planning. The level of participation varied considerably among the cases, but among the most effective cases-both growth management and open space orientations-broad stakeholder participation was found. Approximately 70 percent of cases incorporating participatory processes were highly effective compared to roughly 55 percent of those cases lacking significant citizen input. Furthermore, initiatives featuring high levels of citizen input in the planning and implementation processes were consistently given high ratings by both planners and the public and produced a strong, community-based sense of involvement as well. Leaders of Bluegrass Tomorrow, the initiative to promote coordinated growth planning for the seven-county Bluegrass Region of Kentucky, spoke to nearly 400 regional groups composed of 8,000 individuals during th~ adoption and implementation phases. These groups represented varied community interests, including those of business, agriculture, development, and conservation. One of this study's more effective initiatives, Bluegrass Tomorrow counts direct, constant, and communitywide conversations about land use in the region as key to its success. The roles of leadership and public involvement in initiatives are also shaped by the context at the time of adoption. As noted above, initiatives created in crisis or perceived crisis conditions tend to be more reactive than proactive. Although one might expect initiatives formed in reaction to a crisis to be less effective, over 60 percent of crisis-induced cases were found to be highly effective as contrasted to 45 percent of cases initiated from non-crisis conditions. Crisis conditions may benefit a program's likelihood of succe.ss by stimulating the broader-based participation necessary for successful implementation. These conditions are also better able to capture and focus the community's attention. As an example, the City of Emeryville faced serious financial · difficulties in the early 1990s that made the provision of public services increasingly difficult. Emeryville was forced to examine its tax base and discovered that brownfields, which accounted for $13.3 million in lost property, sales, and business tax revenues, were the main obstacle to overcoming economic challenges. This hypothesis finds supporting evidence in that approximately 60 percent of cases identified as having strong participatory processes for the public throughout the life of the program were adopted under crisis conditions. Crisis-induced efforts at the regional level, involving several contiguous jurisdictions, also tended to be highly effective; the crisis may encourage coordination of local governments not typical of their traditional relationships. This pattern of a crisis leading to effective, regional program adoption and implementation was found in many of study' s regional cases, including the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the New Jersey Pinelands, and the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. In each of the cases, the crisis nature of the problem facilitated regional cooperation and organization of resources. Despite the generally high level of public participation in the cases, survey respondents' identification of lack of public communication and education as an implementation barrier indicates a need to improve communication to broaden public participation. Continued communication with stakeholders fosters participation and increases effectiveness by reemphasizing a shared set of interests. While effective communication with the public at large and stakeholders may minimize obstacles by increasing inclusiveness, it might also give stalwart opponents of an initiative the opportunity to reiterate opposition. Stakeholder and political resistance is the second most-cited barrier to program implementation by the study survey. Institutional Capacity and Collaboration Growth management and open space preservation are complex issues involving many interests and activities and private, public, and nongovernmental agencies. Therefore, high institutional capacity was necessary for effective initiatives to manage the many complex relationships and communication channels required for implementation. Given that all the cases were chosen for their relative success when compared to a broader pool of initiatives, it is not surprising that most cases have at least an adequate level of collaboration. Nevertheless, survey respondents identified the lack of coordination and collaboration among private, public, and nongovernmental actors as a barrier to effective implementation of the program with the third-highest frequency (see Table 4.1). The challenge to collaboration and coordination can originate in conflicts in missions and goals of the agencies and organizations involved in an initiative, as discussed above. Political and jurisdictional differences may require the assistance of enlightened leadership; however, despite the importance of collaboration to the success of an initiative, in a number of the case studies these differences were not effectively resolved. By failing to secure collaboration, these cases failed to achieve benefits such as the enhanced resource mobilization and information gathering necessary for a program to adapt to changing circumstances. This was certainly the case in the Apalachicola River and Bay case study, where the lack of a coordinated federal, state, and local partnership system to address the bay's problems prevented overall success. Growth management and open space preservation initiatives may be formed at federal, state, regional, and local levels, and thus implementation requires collaboration between all of these levels of governments as well as with any private or nonprofit partners. Yet the more effective programs studied (approximately 70 percent) were defined by a strong regional and local commitment. Some state-level programs featured exemplary collaboration; for instance, in the case of Lancaster County, a strong state program with a very limited focus, did an excellent job of collaborating with county-level agricultural preservation programs. However, many of the study's state plans-the Colorado Office of Smart Growth and the New Jersey State Plan, for example-either failed to effectively collaborate with lower levels of government or lacked the power to make lower levels of government comply with the plans' broader goals. In cases that featured a substantial federal role, the inflexible position of the federal government was the most limiting factor for collaboration. The federal goals and objectives in these higher governmental programs were not consistent with local realities. In reaction, many local and regional actors wish to see less federal involvement in guiding growth and protecting open space. · Monitoring and Evaluation Many cases were found to be inadequately monitored and evaluated, and many of these were found to be less-effective programs.12 However, some of the inadequately monitored initiatives were also the study's more effective cases. The City of Orlando's Growth Management Plan, while successful for the most part, nevertheless lacked proper measurements tied to plan objectives; this was found to be one of the initiative's major weaknesses. The lack of a monitoring and evaluation system can result from a simple absence of data, as in the case of Orlando, but can also be the result of poor planning in the initiative's adoption phase. In 2003, the Lancaster County Agricultural Preservation Board is having problems funding a proper system to monitor the use of land on easements it has purchased; the original framers of the program simply overlooked the substantial costs of monitoring. The board is now considering requesting that state legislation concerning agricultural easements be amended to include a mandatory clause for funding to monitor the easements.13 The findings with regard to monitoring indicate that even the more effective programs can overlook a critical element in the initiative's life span. Some cases possessed adequate funding for evaluation but lacked proper data. This was especially notable in the natural system-based cases and frequently attributed to the lack of technology capable of discerning specific causal relationships between human activities and complex natural systems. However, growth management and open space programs certainly can be readily subjected to cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses and performance indicators. Most programs had not undertaken this type of analysis vital in assessing accomplishments and shortcomings. The availability and regular utilization of appropriate data and technology for evaluation were indicative of program effectiveness. Additionally, adequacy of technical expertise within the implementing agency was highly correlated with more effective programs.14 Programs may adapt to new information from monitoring to be more effective and efficient in meeting goals. Cases possessing adaptive implementation systems with feedback mechanisms were uniformly rated as highly effective. Funding Stability and Local Market Conditions Funding sources for the 32 cases included local, state, and federal government sources and private donations. Tax incentives from state and federal governments provided a source of funding without requiring specific budgetary allocations. A number of cases utilize market forces to achieve desired objectives, again limiting budgetary allocations. Inadequate funding or incentives were the most commonly cited barriers to effective implementation by survey respondents (see Table 4.1). In contrast, those initiatives that incorporated stable funding sources at the time of program adoption tended to be most effective. Fiscal limitations and concerns persisted among the cases studied. In some cases, the level of funding was entirely inadequate to meet initiative objectives; such was the case with the study's riparian restoration studies, the Lower Delaware River Wild and Scenic River and the Upper Mississippi American Heritage River Initiative. In both cases, the federal government was commendable in the adoptive phase for providing the initiatives with a framework and technical assistance. However, the low level of funding for implementing the projects rendered these initiatives far less effective. The current period of slow economic growth in most of the country will likely reduce state and local funding commitments to these initiatives. This is certainly the fear of those who must implement Washington State's Growth Management Act, where difficult economic times have led to budget shortfalls along with public outcry over high state taxes. This will almost certainly hurt the ability of these initiatives to achieve objectives, when one considers the effect of proper funding on the success of the policies, programs, and projects in this study. Almost two-thirds of the more effective programs developed and maintained a stable and, in many cases, earmarked funding source, such as local option sales taxes, ad valorem assessments, sin taxes, and intergovernmental revenue transfers, to support organizational capacity and program objectives. Programs relying on market forces, such as the Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs), Purchase of Development Rights (PDRs), and Conservation Easements, must be attuned to private development markets. For example, ineffective receiving zones (areas able to accept increased density due to the application of TDRs) would counter any program of TDRs and PDRs. Likewise, up-zoning by local officials would also reduce the market for TDRs and PDRs by decreasing their value as a means to increase construction density. The Federal Role in Transferability of Initiatives and Recommendations This research project has given special attention to patterns of effectiveness across the cases in order to draw conclusions about transferability of initiatives. The appropriate role of the federal government in growth management and open space issues implicitly incorporates a concern with transferability of successful state and local experiences. The challenge to federal policy is to identify roles and approaches that support and encourage local commitment and innovation. After brief comments on the project's findings on transferability, the views of survey respondents on federal roles will be discussed. The section concludes with a number of issues federal policy discussions in the field should consider. The cases analyzed in this report seek to guide the character, rate, and location of growth in the built environment. In most cases, these activities were adopted in response to a real or perceived deterioration in quality of life. But understanding the complex set of factors contributing to this deterioration is a challenge. Complex biological and social systems are operating, and the value placed on quality of life and economic growth considerations are generally in dispute. For example, the natural systems and local cultural values differ substantially in rural and urban landscapes. As states, regions, or localities explore the adoption and implementation of growth management or open space initiatives, consideration of local context is essential. The success of one program may not be easily transferred in whole to another region. Rather, successful elements of various programs may be incorporated to create a locally or regionally defined set of policy solutions. These observations hold relevance for considering appropriate roles for the federal government. Since the federal government currently plays many roles in this policy field, as discussed throughout this report, the discussion is initiated with views from the field as reflected in the survey responses (see Table 4.2).15 Table 4.2. Su22ested Roles for the Federal Government 1. Tie federal funds directly to Smart Growth objectives. 2. Support Smart Growth objectives indirectly through open space preservation funding . . 3. Enhance intergovernmental coordination. 4. There should be less/no role for the federal government. 5. Fund and enforce existing laws. Source: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, "Growth Management and Open Space Protection: A National Survey of State, Regional, and Local Efforts" (November 2002-January 2003). Survey respondents suggested promotion of Smart Growth principles through federal funding either directly or indirectly through open space preservation most frequently (see Table 4.2). Suggestions specifically requesting the connection of transportation funding to Smart Growth objectives made up 55 percent of all Smart Growth responses. An example of a federal program that follows this model is the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Project. This federal program combines transportation initiatives with community development, environmental protection, and other Smart Growth principles to promote both Smart Growth and consistency of goals across governmental levels. Although viewed largell as a success, the national demand for this program currently exceeds allotted funding.1 Despite the wide variety of intergovernmental approaches utilized in the cases, as discussed in Chapter 3, no single approach was found to be most effective. The choice of the approach is affected by the problem being addressed as well as the local context. This suggests a need for flexibility in both program implementation and federal funding. Of the cases identified as having flexible or adaptive planning and implementation approaches, roughly 70 percent were also determined to be highly effective. Since increased consistency between federal funding directives and state, regional, or local directives was identified as a need, all parties should be prepared to adjust agency objectives and practices to achieve initiative effectiveness. Approximately 10 percent of responses indicated the federal government should encourage better intergovernmental and extragovernmental coordination in local growth management and open space initiatives (see Table 4.2). The federal government also has an opportunity to serve as mediator among the various governmental units and stakeholders to ensure better coordination and consistency of goals. The federal government has relevant experience from the council of governments efforts of the 1970s, multistate compacts, and the coastal zone management efforts. The federal government is uniquely positioned to ensure that all parties and broader, communitywide objectives of long-term importance are fairly represented in the discussions and negotiations over program development. Additionally, the federal government should continue to determine vital natural or historic resources requiring national attention. negotiations over program development. Additionally, the federal government should continue to determine vital natural or historic resources requiring national attention. The federal government can also support transferability of program successes and difficulties by serving as a clearinghouse of information. Although a number of national associations, including the American Planning Association and Growth Watch, maintain inventories of practices, a federal clearinghouse with a particular focus on federal programs and examples of the utilization of federal resources would be a helpful addition to this field. Given the many different federal agencies involved in these initiatives, the proper administrative location(s) for maintaining the inventory would need to be examined. Additionally, the federal government should provide guidance on technical and financial resources and engage in outreach activities with the many national organizations representing state and local government officials and nonprofit interest groups. Agencies with agendas not necessarily focused on land use issues should provide greater visibility to their programmatic efforts in this arena. Congress could also make a contribution by explicitly examining the impacts of federal actions on state and local growth management initiatives during deliberations on federal policies and programs. Provisions that provide greater flexibility to federal agencies on goal alignment with local efforts would be desirable, as would policies to enhance the local review of the location of federal facilities. Two notable examples of existing flexibility are found in the CDBG program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and ISTEAITEA-21 of the Department of Transportation. This study has determined that initiatives well conceived at the point of adoption will likely be more effective. Although the local context will best be understood by local actors, federal agencies can create incentives to encourage the incorporation of several factors critical for success: comprehensive planning, monitoring and evaluation, and public participation. Although several state governments are mandating local planning, a more appropriate role at the federal level would be incentives, perhaps funding, to stimulate planning by linking resource allocation to plans incorporating Smart Growth principles. It was noted that many initiatives developed in the context of a crisis, despite the reactive adoption mode, are often successful. This suggests that federal agencies should be capable of quick responses to local requests, especially in terms of technical assistance and research needed in the program development stage. When local scientific and technical resources are available, this federal role may be less important than in other areas lacking this type of infrastructure, such as rural areas or natural ecosystems. Successful program implementation necessitates adequate financing. Historically, the federal government has provided significant funding to open space preservation programs but less in the growth management arena. Given the connectedness between growth management and open space preservation, federal agencies may need to give further consideration to this phenomenon. Current brownfield programs, funded at the federal level, provide an excellent example of the potential to be realized with this broader vision. The narrow scope and economic focus of brownfield projects could well be expanded to incorporate larger community and quality-of-life objectives. Equity concerns should be a primary focus in the allocation of funds. Concluding Thoughts The development and implementation of growth management and open space initiatives has become an increasingly visible policy issue in many parts of the country. Although the priority placed on this issue may recede during the current period of slow economic growth and constrained public revenues, it will likely reemerge as the balance between accommodation of growth and quality of life again becomes difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, the initiatives examined in this study generally occur in networks of agencies and organizations, rather than the traditional hierarchical system of intergovernmental relations, a phenomenon observed in other contemporary policy areas. Federal agencies were often found to be effective partners in such networks. However, local governments and organizations will most likely continue to lead these networks in this policy arena. The study has found an encouraging predisposition of federal agencies to collaborate in these initiatives, on occasion providing an essential role in highly effective programs. Congress can encourage federal agencies to be responsive to complex needs and issues faced by local and state governments and to collaborate with them in this challenging but vital policy area. Notes 1 While all the cases chosen had a reputation for efficacy, the research team found that some cases were more highly effective than others. The researchers defined effectiveness in terms of the success of the program to meet its objectives. For further information on this assignment ofeffectiveness scores, see the ''Growth Management Approaches" section of Chapter 2. Effectiveness ratings ofeach case are provided in Appendix 5. 2 Illustrations include the Brandywine Conservancy, Lancaster County, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, and Boulder, Colorado. 3 Reston, Virginia, is an archetypal example of this point. 4 The Montgomery County Wedges and Corridors plan is an excellent example ofhow to use limited funding for PDR's efficiently and effectively. 5 The Washington State Growth Management Act illustrates this point. It provides flexibility for local governments to design their own programs within the parameters of the state guidelines. The overarching goals are ambitious, but communities are given latitude to mold the program to incorporate local needs in comprehensive plans. 6 When the urban service area was expanded in Lexington-Fayette County, the government responded to public outcry concerning the loss of farmland and initiated a PDR program with an increase in the minimum lot requirements. The government also created a Rural Area Service Plan in order to plan more effectively for both the rural and urban components of the county. The Pinelands and Boulder, Colorado, are other key illustrations. 7 Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, Growth Management and Open Space Protection: A National Survey ofState, Regional, and Local Efforts, Policy Research Project Report Series, no. 143 (Austin, TX. 2002), pp. 47-49. 8 Nikolaos Zahariadis "Ambiguity, Time, and Multiple Streams," in Theories ofthe Policy Process, ed. Paul A. Sabatier (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999), p. 76. 9 Ibid., p. 77. 10 Surveys were mailed to interviewees in November 2002 and were returned in December 2002 and January 2003. There were a total of 151 responses received to the survey question regarding barriers to implementation, "In your opinion, what have been the three largest barriers to more effective implementation (if any)?" 11 Michelle Micheletti, Political Participatio1l Definition (University of Stockholm). Online. Available: http://www.statsvet.su.se/websites/mediarummet/globdem/texter/participation.pdf. Accessed: April 3, 2003. 12 Fifty-two responded to the question regarding adequacy of monitoring and enforcement (good, average, or poor). 13 Telephone interview by Mona Nichols with June Mengel, appointed head of the Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board, April 28, 2003. 14 Forty-six responded to the question regarding capacity of agency technical expertise (good, average, or ~r). 5 For this fill-in response in the survey, respondents were allowed to provide up to three answers to the question, "In your opinion, what would be the three most effective actions that the Federal government could do to help avoid, minimize or mitigate sprawl development (e.g., changes in existing laws/policy/programs, new laws/policy/programs, intergovernmental arrangements, etc.)?" Sixty-one ~pieresponded with a total of 134 responses. 6 United States General Accounting Office, Community Development: Local Growth Issues-Federal Opportunities and Challenges, p. 28. Online. Available: http://www.gao.gov/. Accessed: April 4, 2003. Appendix 1. Research Methods A major challenge for the research team was the selection of a sample of case studies that would represent the current range of growth management and open space protection efforts found in the states. An additional challenge was developing a research protocol that would ensure uniform data collection for all 32 cases. Selection of Initiatives Using the results from the 2001-2002 study, a database of over 100 candidates was created during summer 2002 of the growth management and open space preservation policies and programs in those states found to be the most active; additional programs and policies were suggested by Jeffrey Zinn, Senior Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, Congressional Research Service (CRS), the project's liaison. Further additions to the list of potential cases included several local government and nongovernmental organizati9n (NGO) cases not considered in the 2001-2002 study. Cases were categorized according to several criteria: issues addressed; primary approach used; primary intergovernmental relationship; types of project partners; geographic scale of the program; and character of federal government involvement. The criteria helped ensure that the pool of cases from which the final case studies would be selected represented the types of activities found throughout the states. Each researcher was tasked with finding two initiatives in his or her state to be the subject of case studies. (California was assigned two researchers, and therefore the study features four cases from this state). The process by which the researchers chose their case studies involved several steps. First, given the importance of state governments in land use issues, the research term identified, from the pool of active states, the 15 most active. A final set of criteria was considered before the initiatives were chosen: maturation, transferability, and the presence of a federal role in implementing the policy, project, or program. Researchers felt that a relatively mature program-ideally 20 years or older-would allow for a more meaningful evaluation of effectiveness. Federal involvement was a necessary component for the cases, considering the report's primary audience and its objectives; this factor could be present through financial or technical assistance or regulatory oversight. Transferability, the final criteria used in selection of cases, was important for the larger report, as the success of a case due to singular circumstances would limit its usefulness for drawing generalizations. During the selection phase of the project, many researchers interviewed program administrators over the phone to better assess whether a policy or program fit the study's criteria. Additional information on initiatives was gathered through the internet, using websites for cities, counties, states, or organizations, including the American Planning Association (APA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse, Smart Growth Online, and the Google search engine. The sources of data expanded over the semester while researchers conducted literature reviews, found evaluations on websites, and gathered information via phone interviews. In addition to these sources, the research team also consulted an advisory board composed of two noted academics in the field: Arthur C. Nelson, Professor of City Planning, Public Policy and International Affairs, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; and Frederick R. Steiner, Dean, School of Architecture, the University of Texas at Austin. After consulting a diversity of information resources, the research team was able to identify 32 cases for further investigation. Case Study Protocol To create a context for the cross-case analysis, the research team established a standard protocol to ensure that uniform information was obtained. The protocol instructed researchers to collect information on socioeconomic and land characteristics, structure, funding, leadership, decision processes, governmental relationships, legal instruments, policy tools, oversight, and outputs for each case. This strategy allowed the research team to draw generalizations in the areas of initiation, organization, development, and outcomes as each pertained to the initiatives studied. The researchers used academic literature, census data, and telephone interviews to conduct preliminary research on their cases between September and November 2002. Each researcher traveled to their cases' locations in December and January to conduct personal interviews and onsite research, spending anywhere from two to four days in the field collecting data and conducting interviews for each case. The field experience was an essential part of the study, allowing researchers a more thorough knowledge of the physical area, invaluable contacts with program administrators, access to less accessible data and documents, and a greater diversity of community opinions on land use issues. Additionally, visiting the field allowed the researchers to confirm secondhand accounts or official reports of program outputs. Researchers were also able to enhance their understanding of the initiatives by administering a survey to program implementers to evaluate the policy, program, or project's initiation stage; organization and development; effectiveness; and potential for improvement (see Appendix 2). Respondents were from all levels of government and from the nonprofit and private sectors; each was offered the option of anonymity in order to encourage candor. An initial distribution of 160 surveys was undertaken; however, snowball sampling resulted in the distribution of approximately 200 surveys. Sixty-three surveys were returned, and their responses are discussed in Chapter 4. Upon returning from the field, subsequent information on case studies was obtained through telephone interviews, email correspondence, and academic literature. After completing the case studies, the researchers evaluated the planning strategies and outcomes of the growth management and open space initiatives for the larger report. The research effort faced three limitations. First, the fieldwork and research period were constrained by the need to complete the project within the academic calendar. Second, while interviewing a variety of administrators and stakeholders­ program coordinators, local officials, and private sector representatives-was important for the report's balance, in some of the cases it was difficult to obtain a diversity of informants. Finally, because of the broad scope of the policies and programs studied and the brevity of the study' s time frame, analysis of some secondary effects of the cases could not be undertaken. Appendix 2. Study Survey GROWTH MANAGEMENTAND OPEN SPACE PROTECTION: A NATIONAL STUDY OF STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL EFFORTS A STAFF AND OFFICIALS SURVEY THE LBJ SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN TX 78712-1160 INTRODUCTION This survey is being conducted as part of a case study analysis of your jurisdiction's growth management and/or open space preservation efforts as a component of a national study sponsored by the U.S. Congressional Research Service. Your participation will help us gain a more detailed understanding of successful state, regional and local growth management and open space preservation efforts nationwide. The information will be made available to select committees of the US Congress to improve understanding of the roles that the public, private, and nonprofit sectors at all levels (federal, state, regional and local) can play to facilitate more widespread and etTective use of growth management and open space preservation programs and policies. Because we are only looking at 32 cases across the entire U.S., each and every survey response is critically important to provide an informed and balanced presentation of the facts and experience in these programs. The survey asks specific questions about program adoption, planning, implementation, impact, and possible ways to improve upon your jurisdiction's experience to date. Ifyou don't understand any questions, need clarification, or encounter any problems, please contact your case study research coordinator at (email: ___________ and phone: 512-). Ifthey can not answer your specific question or concern, you can also call the project directors Dr. Robert H. Wilson (512-475-7900) and Dr. Robert G. Paterson at (512) 471-0734 to provide further elaboration on the study (if necessary). TO OUR SURVEY PARTICIPANTS We would like you to answer all of the questions, even if you have not thought about them before. One or two questions may require checking with other departments, agencies or stakeholder groups. We have tried to limit the number of questions that staff or officials will need to research in order to answer. However, if you have absolutely "no experience or knowledge" to draw upon to answer a fact guestion(s), then please leave questions blank or circle the "unsure" option. Please always feel free to make comments in the margin or under a question to provide more detail, or to note whether your response applies to a specific locality, agency or event. Unless the question infers otherwise, please answer all questions based on your experience, available data, and impressions. CONFIDENTIALITY Because we want to provide detailed results for all 32 case studies, it will be possible for readers of the report to discern what agencies we contacted for data. However, we will ''not" reveal the name of the individual supplying the data from organizations so that respondents can record their thoughts and opinions in this survey in a straightforward manner. OVERVIEW The survey is divided into 4 sections which covers questions about the program start up, planning, current administration, and effectiveness assessments. Please answer all questions as thoroughly as possible. Ifas a result of completing the survey, you recall a report, study or document that might help us better understand your growth management and/or open space preservation efforts, please bring that to your research coordinator's attention. And again, thank you for your assistance! PART ONE: PROGRAM INITIATION AND PLANNING 1. In your opinion, where did the idea for the program come from? (circle all that apply) a. Based on prior ideas and efforts within community b. Based on experience in a nearby state, region or locality c. Based on a consultant's recommendation d. Based on a study panel, hearings or task force recommendation e. Based on professional staff recommendations from prior experience f. Based on advocacy or interest group recommendation g. Mass media discussions and information (newspaper, radio, TV) h. Other: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2. The goals and objectives for the program, as initially adopted, were clear and specific enough to direct implementing actions .... (circle one) Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree /Unsure Disagree 3. The program, as initially planned, encompassed all agencies and stakeholders needed to successfully bring about implementation ... (circle one) Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree /Unsure Disagree 4. In general, statTmg levels were adequate for the initial planning and adoption process ..... (circle one) Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree /Unsure Disagree 5. In general, funding was adequate for the initial planning and adoption process ..... 6. Strong political leadership facilitated the planning process .... (circle one) Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree /Unsure Disagree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Sti:ongly Agree /Unsure Disagree 7. All relevant federal, state, regional and local governmental agencies were adequately involved in the planning process .... ( circle one) Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree /Unsure Disagree 7 Ifnot, what governmental agencies were not adequately involved? (circle all that apply and write names of agencies in margin --if known): Federal State Regional Local 8. Adequate attention was given to establishing a monitoring and enforcement mechanism in the initial planning process .... (circle one) Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree /Unsure Disagree 9. Federal, State (e.g., CARL) and Nonprofit (e.g., Nature Conservancyffrust for Public Lands) land acquisition programs were considered and coordinated in the planning process .... Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree /Unsure Disagree 10. The initial planning process took into consideration the impacts of public projects and capital works (e.g., sewer, water and roads) in protecting open space and sensitive resources ...... (circle one) Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree /Unsure Disagree 11. Were adequate environmental regulations to protect sensitive resources taken into account in the initial planning process? (circle one) Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree /Unsure Disagree PART TWO: PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND DEVEWPMENT 1. How would you describe the program objectives? (please circle) TOO BROAD JUST RIGHT TOO NARROW 2. For each of the following groups, please indicate the activity/orientation of the group at program inttption? ff more than one group active, please give what you perceived to be the majority of the groups activism/orientation .... Stakehodelr Groups Orientation and Activism(circle one) Chamber of Commerce NOT ACTIVE OPPOSED SUPPORTED Environmental Groups NOT ACTIVE . OPPOSED SUPPORTED Agricultural Interests NOT ACTIVE OPPOSED SUPPORTED Neighborhood Groups NOT ACTIVE OPPOSED SUPPORTED Real &tate Agents /Lenders NOT ACTIVE OPPOSED SUPPORTED Homebuilders .As.wciation NOT ACTIVE OPPOSED SUPPORTED Local Media NOTACTIVE OPPOSED SUPPORTED Adjacent localities NOT ACTIVE OPPOSED SUPPORTED 3. How has the level of interest group support changed over the life of the program? (circle) STRENGTHENED STAYED THE SAME WEAKENED 4. How would you describe the program funding level at program inception? (circle) TOO MUCH JUST RIGHT TOO LITTLE ~How has the program funding level changed over the life of the program? STRENGTHENED STAYED THE SAME WEAKENED 5. How much of a role does the federal government play in funding the program? SUBSTANTIAL ROLE MODEST ROLE INSIGNIFICANT ROLE 6. How much of a role does the federal government play in providing technical assistance? (circle) SUBSTANTIAL ROLE MODEST ROLE INSIGNIFICANT ROLE ~How much of a role does the federal government play in regulating the program? SUBSTANTIAL ROLE MODEST ROLE INSIGNIFICANT ROLE 7. How important are inter-governmental relationships for successful program operation? (circle) VERY SOMEWHAT NOT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT ATALL 8. How important are non-governmental relationships for successful program operation? (circle) VERY SOMEWHAT NOT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT ATALL 9. How important are intra-governmental relationships for successful program operation? (circle) VERY SOMEWHAT NOT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT ATALL 10. How would you rank the coordination of this program across the departments or divisions that impacts its effectiveness? (please circle) VERY SOMEWHAT NOT EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE ATALL 11. To what extant does program support become problematic with down turns in the economy? VERY MUCH SOMEWHAT NOT AT ALL 12. How would you characterize the current level of community support for your program's objectives? STRONG AVERAGE WEAK 13. How would you rate the capacity of the Growth Management and/or Open Space program to perform its mission? Please circle one for each of the following aspects of capacity... a. adequacy of staffmg GOOD••••••••••••••AVERAGE•••••••••••••POOR b. adequacy of non-personnel budget GOOD•••.••••••••••AVERAGE ••••••••••••• POOR c. agency technical expertise GOOD .............. AVERAGE•.•.•••••••••POOR d. adequacy of legal expertise GOOD•••••••••••••.A VERAGE ••••••••••••• POOR e. adequacy of state statutory authority ••••••••.••.••••• GOOD•.•••••..•.•••AVERAGE •••••••.•.••• POOR f. adequacy of political leadership in counciVboard.....•. ..•..• GOOD•.••.••..•••••AVERAGE•..•••.•••...POOR g. adequacy of inter-local and NGO coordination .•••..••.•..•••.•... GOOD•••••••.••.•••AVERAGE•••••••••••••POOR h. adequacy of monitoring and enforcement program.....••...• GOOD ............. .AVERAGE•••••••••••••POOR i. adequacy of coordination of capital works projects with program objectives ....•••.••••• GOOD••••••••••••••AVERAGE .•••••••••••• POOR j. Adequacy of coordination of state and federal infrastructure investments with program objectives ••••••••••.••••••••.••• GOOD•••••••••.••••A VERAGE •••.••.•••••• POOR PART FOUR: PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS AND YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Please indicate your beliefs about the effectiveness of the program in responding to the following set of statements. (please circle one) a. In general, the overall benefits of the program exceeded the costs Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree /Unsure Disagree b. Overall, the program improved the quality of life in the affected jurisdiction(s) ... Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree /Unsure Disagree c. In comparison with all other growth management and/or open space programs that I'm familiar with, this program's effectiveness rates as .... EXCELLENT GOOD AVERAGE FAIR POOR UNSURE 2. In your opinion, what have been the three largest barriers to more effective implementation (if any)? !.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3. What are your recommendations for improving the program's effectiveness? 4. How would you rate your jmisdiction's commitment to avoiding, mbrimizing or mitigating sprawl (Please cin:le )? I. None (no commitment) 2. Low (limited commitment-minor effort) 3. Moderate (some commitment/effort) 4. High (extensive commitment/effort) 5. Over the last decade, .. sprawl" development in my jurisdiction bas .....(please cin:le) Greatly Somewhat Stayed about Somewhat Greatly increased increased the same decreased decreased 6. Given likely demographic trends in my state, I expect "sprawl" development over the next decade to...........(please cin:le) Greatly Somewhat Stay about Somewhat Greatly increase increase the same decrease decrease 7. Given likely economic trends in my state, I expect "sprawl" development over the next decade to...........(please ciicle) Greatly Somewhat Stay about Somewhat Greatly increase the same decrease decrease 8. Given likely politk:al trends in my state, I expect .. sprawl" development over the next decade to...........(please cin:le) Greatly Somewhat Stay about Somewhat Greatly increase increase the same decrease decrease THE NO PROGRAM SCENARIO 9. In this section, please indicate what you believe the results would have been without your jurisdiction's growth management and/or open space preservation efforts. In short, assume it was development as usual without the benefit of your growth management and/or open space preservation activities. Please note if goal statement does not apply to your program leave that entry blank. UNDER THE NO PROGRAM SCENARO, THE CONDITIONS WOULD BE ...... ( circle one for each condition) Open space resources ...... MUCH SOMEWHAT NO SOMEWHAT MUCH BETTER BETTER CHANGE WORSE WORSE Transportation choices .. MUCH SOMEWHAT NO SOMEWHAT MUCH BETTER BETTER CHANGE WORSE WORSE Loss or damage of environmentally Sensitive features ....... MUCH SOMEWHAT NO SOMEWHAT MUCH BETTER BETTER CHANGE WORSE WORSE Level of congestion on major Arterials (on average) ... MUCH SOMEWHAT NO SOMEWHAT MUCH BETTER BETTER CHANGE WORSE WORSE Level of air pollution (on average) ......... MUCH SOMEWHAT NO SOMEWHAT MUCH BETTER BETTER CHANGE WORSE WORSE Development in high hazard Zoneslikefloodplains... MUCH SOMEWHAT NO SOMEWHAT MUCH BETTER BETTER CHANGE WORSE WORSE Overall Quality of Life.. MUCH SOMEWHAT NO SOMEWHAT MUCH BETTER BETTER CHANGE WORSE WORSE Economic vitality. . . . . MUCH SOMEWHAT NO SOMEWHAT MUCH BETTER BETTER CHANGE WORSE WORSE Amount of urban sprawl. . MUCH SOMEWHAT NO SOMEWHAT MUCH MORE MORE CHANGE LESS LESS Affordable housing. . . . MUCH SOMEWHAT NO SOMEWHAT MUCH MORE MORE CHANGE LESS LESS 10. In your opinion, what would be the three most effective actions that the Federal government could do to help avoid, minimize or mitigate sprawl development (e.g., changes in existing laws/policy/programs, new laws/policy/programs, intergovernmental arrangements etc.,)? 11. In your opinion, what would be the three most effective actions that your state government could do help your jurisdiction avoid, minimize or mitigate sprawl development patterns (e.g., changes in existing laws/policy/programs, new laws/policy/programs, intergovernmental arrangements etc.,)? !____________________________ THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION! Ifyou are not meeting with our research coordinator in December/January, please email or fax your completed questionnaire to your research coordinator at: Fax 512-475-7909 or email __________ ************************************************************* QUOTATION OPTION? SOME RESPONDENTS UKE TO BE QUOTED...... IF YOU DO NOT MIND BEING QUOTED, Please Check Below: SURE QUOTE ME __ NO THANKS, KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL __ IF NO RESPONSE TO Tms QUERY, THEN WE ASSUME YOU MEAN ---NO ************************************************************************ Finally, to help us with any follow up questions by phone we might have, please fill out this contact information •••••••again thanks for all your kind help! Name__________ Title___________ Address ---------------------~ Email Appendix 3.1-Emeryville Brownfield Pilot Project An infill project area in Emeryville, California. The Emeryville Brownfields Pilot Project (BPP) facilitates remediation of environmentally contaminated parcels to achieve economic redevelopment. The project was initially funded in 1996 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To determine the extent of contamination and facilitate redevelopment, the city performed an areawide groundwater assessment in collaboration with state and federal agencies. Further, the city created a "one-stop shop" website that provides extensive land character information for use by developers and the community at large. Since its implementation, the city has witnessed construction estimated at $513 million, completed 534 housing units, 3.6 million square feet of office space, and remade the city into a regional destination for retail, housing, and employment. In 1999 it was awarded the Global Bangemann Challenge in Sweden for best practice in addressing environmental concerns. Table 1 Socioeconomic, Transoortation, and Land Use Data for Emeryville, California 1990 2000 1990 to 2000 Chan2e (in % ) Socioeconomic Total city population 5,740 6,882 20 Average household size 1.79 1.17 Families below poverty level (% of 15 13.2 12 total) White population (% of total) 52 45 13 Black oooulation (% of total) 23 19.5 15 Asian population (% of total) 18 25 39 Hispanic oooulation (% of total) 8 9 12 Household income $35,665 $45,359 27 Transportation Transit availability Yes Yes Land Use Housing units 3,640 4,274 17 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Files. Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: March 10, 2003; City of Emeryville, "About Emeryville." Online. Available: http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us. Accessed: February 24, 2003; City of Emeryville, "Emeryville Demographics." Online. Available: http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us. Accessed: February 24, 2003. Background Land Character The city ofEmeryville is the gateway to East San Francisco Bay, located at the mouth of the Bay Bridge with Berkeley to the north and Oakland to the southeast. 1be city is remarkably small, with an area of only 1.2 square miles and a population of6,882 (2000 census) that swells to 25,000 when counting its commuting, workforce population. A historically industrial town, Emeryville experienced abandonment in the 1960s and 1970s as industry left the area for less-expensive labor and operational costs after decades of unregulated environmentally damaging land use (see Table 1). Growth Management History Emeryville incorporated in 1896 under the leadership ofJoseph Emery, a New England transplant and successful Bay Area builder. Emery envisioned creating a bustling, business-friendly town within the 185 acres sandwiched between Berlreley and Oakland The location of the city along the San Francisco Bay was ideal for development, and at the tum of the century Emeryville was the home of slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants. The city's probusiness, nonregulatory environment helped it thrive despite its small size and the city soon became an entertainment destination as well, with horse and dog tracks, private card rooms, and the El Rey Burlesque 'lbeatre. Into the twentieth century the spirit ofEmeryville continued to express its "cowboy attitude," as described in the San Francisco Chronicle, and also transfonned itself into an industrial center. Large firms such as automobile, paint, pesticides, and petrochemical manufacturers together with other industrial activities such as food processing and packing and oil refining and research were based in the city. Manufacturing flourished, creating a demand for a warehousing and transportation employment center ofover 25,000 people in the 1950s.1 During that decade of unabated industrial growth the city expanded to accommodate even more industry by adding 250 acres of fill into the San Francisco Bay. This industrial activity did impose costs on the city and the Bay Area at large not fully realized at the ti.me. The manufacturing businesses in the city routinely disposed of toxins and waste in surrounding lots which eventually entered the soil and groundwater. This was typical of industry throughout the country when little was known of the environmental dangers of such activities. In the 1960s, once transportation costs diminished, the city began witnessing an exodus of business as industry relocated to other parts of the country in search of lower cost and pristine land. During the 1980s, many of the once-active lots were abandoned, soiled by years of intense industrial use. 1be groundwater of the city was particularly affected and between the years 1980 and 1985 was found to be contaminated. 2 The city's employment numbers reflected this industrial abandonment of the city, decreasing to about 12,000 people in 1980 and remaining at this level for much of the decade.3 This state of the city in the 1980s was not an unusual situation for many former industrial cities in the country at the time. Also, brownfields remediation continued to gain prominence into the 1990s as cities looked to infill development to spark economic transformations. By 1996, experts were suggesting that over 500,000 sites nationwide showed evidence of contamination of a level demanding federal involvement." Emeryville, although contaminated, enjoyed the consolation that none of its sites were of a level requiring federal involvement, but this fact also assured that limited federal assistance would be available to the city. Leadership The 1987 General Plan gave the city an opportunity to redefine itself in response to its waning economy. In the plan, the city council articulated its vision for a dense, 24-hour city that would maximize its limited space. 5 The city council incorporated in this plan the objectives of city leaders during the 1970s: to make the city a tourist destination, a retail center, a location for corporate headquarters, a home of high-tech industry with dense housing-all of which had yet to be achieved.6 Collectively, the council decided to aggressively pursue the realization of these objectives and concentrated their agenda on redevelopment and remediation. Factors Leading to Policy Initiation In 1988 the city council hired current city manager John Flores to assist in attaining the city's new vision for itself. The council and manager pursued their first goal of a supermarket project in the late 1980s. The East Bay Bridge Center was completed in 1990 with the city actively working with the developer and the two regulatory agencies, the Regional Water Quality Review Board (the Board) and the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), during the remediation process. The completed product was a big-box development with a supermarket and Home Depot that proved to the financial world that investing in the city was a possibility, perhaps the most significant success of the project.7 The project was also the first time the city assumed an active role interfacing with a developer and state agencies in a cleanup process. This amount of participation was atypical, since cities usually only provide assistance in regard to city-level issues. This first-time collaboration between the governmental entities proved to be effective and served as a foundation for the Brownfields Pilot Project (BPP). The following General Plan of 1993 maintained the agenda of the previous one to make Emeryville a dense, pedestrian-friendly city. The city council identified mixed-use, high tax-generation development as desirable future projects for the city. The zoning in the city reflects this objective in that no low-density zoning exists. Yet, Emeryville still had to resolve its brownfields issues, such as groundwater contamination, before the city could reinvent itself as an attractive location for developers. In the early 1990s the city faced serious challenges; 30 percent of the land, 300 acres, was underutilized and 10 percent of the city's nonresidential property, about 100 acres, was vacant. This land posed serious contamination issues since 55 percent showed evidence of past or current contamination and about 45 percent was on landfill suspected of contamination.8 The prospects for extensive development as the council desired were bleak, yet such development was necessary to improve the economic situation of the city and its residents. In 1995, 46 percent of Emeryville residents were identified as low income, with the majority-55 percent-nonwhite. The city also faced serious fiscal issues at the time, making the provision of public services increasingly difficult. Brownfields were identified as a main obstacle to overcoming the economic challenges that accounted for approximately $13.3 million in lost property, sales, and business tax revenues, refresenting 20 percent of the Emeryville operating budget between 1990 and 1995. Program Description Structure and Development The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Brownfields Pilot Project (BPP) grant program was announced by the federal government in 1995 to provide financial assistance to local jurisdictions pursuing economic redevelopment under conditions of environmental contamination. Emeryville recognized the opportunity of such a grant for addressing its brownfields issue. It applied for the funding with a proposal that sought to (1) assess groundwater contamination citywide, (2) consolidate city services in a "one­stop shop" that would facilitate the development process, and (3) work proactively to attract development projects through technical and financial assistance. Emeryville's proposal was one of 60 projects nationwide that were awarded a $200,000 grant in 1996. This amount, while not a large award, served as the project catalyst, with the city investing $225,000 of its own funds to implement the program. Policy The Regional Water Quality Review Board (the Board) is the state regulatory agency responsible for protecting water quality, assisting in flood protection, and assessing fines to polluting agents. It typically assesses contamination site-by-site in a given city. Emeryville instead sought a citywide assessment of its underground water. A citywide assessment, atypical in most areas, was considered appropriate for Emeryville. The small size of the city facilitated such an assessment, and because the groundwater contamination crosses boundary lines and commingles with adjacent properties, such an approach was justified. The city's BPP proposal to execute the groundwater analysis itself, instead of the Board, was identified as the most expeditious method by both entities since the Board did not have the necessary resources and data to perform such an extensive analysis. Both entities recognized the success of the East Bay Bridge project and determined that coordination was possible. The initial phase of the work consisted of compiling data, ranging from soil, groundwater, planning, and assessors' information, from the various regulatory agencies. IO The city determined that additional data was necessary in order to perform an exhaustive assessment of the groundwater. Underground wells were installed throughout the city with an in-kind grant from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to monitor groundwater quality and collect the needed data. The result of the areawide approach to groundwater management was a complete assessment of the city's level of contamination. The final analysis determined that the groundwater was not as contaminated as had been thought. Rather, the level of contamination was minimal. For example, only low concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were found.II It was determined that remediation of ground-level contamination, a much easier and common process, was the only significant obstacle to redevelopment. With this propitious result the city could realize its vision of a 24-hour city. It sought to utilize its Technical Advisory Team (TAT) to aggressively pursue redevelopment. The TAT had been created in 1996 and was made up of the state regulatory agencies, the EPA, the city, and other governmental agencies that met once a month (uncommon in other cities) to address environmental development concems. I2 In 1995, the TAT identified a risk-based approach to facilitate development projects, provided that groundwater was not used for drinking water. The risk-based approach, a method used throughout the country, defines the level of contamination acceptable for a specific development project and does not require a site to be 100 percent clean. Instead, it requires remediation to a level that ensures future uses of the property will not be affected by residual contaminants. Under the direction of the TAT the city assumed a larger role in remediation of low-risk sites than is typical of city government. This responsibility was agreed upon by the three agencies-the city, the Board and DTSC-through a memorandum of understanding. This agreement enabled Emeryville to pursue its own cleanups in low-risk sites or in conjunction with a developer without having to negotiate the work with the other bureaucracies. Funding As of 2003, the city has received a total of $900,000 in EPA funding through the BPP grants. One grant was awarded at the start of the program in 1996 in the amount of $200,000, and in 1999 EPA awarded $200,000 for assessment and greenspace planning and $500,000 for the cleanup loan program. The program is administered by the city's Economic Development and Housing Department which had a budget of $992,623 in FY 2001-2002.13 The city also established a matching grant program in 2000 called CIERRA (Capital Incentives for Emeryville's Redevelopment and Remediation) to assist in the development of smaller sites or sites located in East Emeryville. The program provides financial assistance of up to $25,000 for site assessments and loans for remediation. The EPA's Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) program was one of the revenue sources for CIERRA. As stipulated by BCRLF, loans can only be provided to sites that have an actual release of hazardous substances and are not on the Su~rfund National Priorities List or under the responsibility of a federal or state agency. 4 Successful utilization of CIERRA remains unclear, however, as only one project has received a loan.15 Program Evaluation Program Outputs One-Stop Shop The creation of a "one-stop shop" was part of BPP and sought to facilitate redevelopment through an information provision approach. The concept utilized the data collected for the groundwater assessment and incorporated it into an interactive program called OSIRIS that is easily accessible to developers and community members. The program employs a Geographic Information System (GIS) to present data. Detailed information on each city parcel consists of aerial photographs, the address, street map, limited use history, a welVsoil-boring data profile detailing the chemicals in the soil, and groundwater, zoning, land use, building height limitation and building density data.16 Community Involvement Apart from the TAT the city also created a community task force to encourage stakeholder participation in the BPP. The task force consisted of residents, businesses, developers, and lenders that interfaced with the city and developers to help realize projects and pursue additional funding sources. The task force was critical in defining acceptable levels of contamination in the risk-based approach. This forum enabled constructive dialogue to occur between all relevant parties, making the redevelopment process a productive one. Redevelopment Agency Emeryville fully utilized its redevelopment powers to expedite its development objectives. 17 The first redevelopment project, the Emeryville Redevelopment Plan, was adopted in 1976 and the second, the Shellmound Park Redevelopment Plan, in 1987. The two areas encompass 95 percent of the city and have enabled Emeryville to address economic, social, physical, and visual blight as well as the need for affordable housing through its redevelopment powers. The California Community Redevelopment Law, enabled in the 1950s, allows local agencies to utilize the power of eminent domain and tax increment financing (TIF) to address the issues of blight and housing. The law requires 20 percent of all redevelopment funds be set aside for low-and moderate-income housing. Emeryville's city council, as is typical throughout the state, serves as the agency's board and the city's Economic Development and Housing Department implements the activities and programs of the agency. In conjunction with BPP, the agency has actively used the Polanco Redevelopment Act to address contamination issues. Passed in 1990 by the California state legislature as part of the Community Redevelopment Act, the act assists redevelopment agencies in. their efforts to clean contaminated sites. It empowers agencies to force responsible parties to perform necessary cleanup or provide payment for work­often acquired through litigation-and provides immunity from liability if an agency performs the cleanup itself.18 Emeryville has successfully used this power to expedite cleanups. The most notable case was a $7 .1 million award by the Federal District Court of San Francisco in August 1999 to be paid by past pollutants for cleanup of a 20-acre site.19 Formerly occupied by various manufacturing plants, the area was acquired by the city through eminent domain in 1997 and cleaned to make way for a 400,000-square-foot retail and entertainment area, 350 residential units, and a 300-room hotel. Survey Results The staff interviewed and surveyed as part of this evaluation rated the program very favorably. All considered the benefits to exceed the costs, and the external stakeholder agreed. In regard to quality of life as a result of the program all staff members agreed the program has been beneficial, although this rating is moderately less favorable than the cost/benefit ratio. The community member concurred and felt the program achieved adequate results with measured effects. In comparison to other growth management programs, all surveyed considered this program to be far more successful. This result is consistent with that found in the field, with dramatic construction rates illustrating the effective implementation of the BPP. The external stakeholder also considered the program to out-perform programs found in other locales. The barrier most noted to the further success of the program was the lack of an institutional framework. Although other areas are pursuing aggressive remediation of contaminated land, Emeryville' s approach remains a unique one. This fact, staff noted, makes it difficult to find best practices from which it can learn. Another complicating factor is the inability to control the negative impacts of extensive development, which provides an unintended consequence to an effective program such as this one. To counter this result, staff recommended increased application of Smart Growth methods to deter automobile dependence that causes the traffic that so many deemed unacceptable. Continuing on this theme, staff suggested that the federal government become more supportive of mass transit and invest more in redevelopment to discourage unnecessary land consumption. Outcomes The award of EPA grants in 1996 and 1999 provided financial resources that enabled the city to perform critical analysis of its contamination levels. Perhaps more important than monetary investments was the city's commitment to redevelopment, willingness to take calculated risks, and ability to build upon an existing and effective relationship with state and federal agencies. The significant objective consistently identified by city council over the course of two General Plans was the pursuit of redevelopment. To realize this, the city undertook an in-depth analysis of its groundwater, a risky assessment that might have resulted in the discovery of damaging information that could have precluded future development. The city's collaboration with other governmental entities and acceptance to work closely with them expedited the work and allowed the city to assume increased responsibility. Emeryville was also conscientious of developers' and the greater community's need for information and inclusion on the process, fulfilled through task forces and the one-stop shop. As a result, the vision of a dense, 24-hour city is quickly becoming a reality. Implementation of the BPP has enabled the area to flourish as a redevelopment zone and has completely altered the makeup of this once-abandoned city. Since its implementation the city has witnessed intense development and attained the goal identified by city leaders in the 1970s. A few companies have made Emeryville their corporate headquarters, including Pixar Animation Studios and Peets Coffee. Chiron Life Sciences Center, a 2,200,000-square-foot office and research and development laboratory, has made the city a technology center; two hotels and three large-scale retail locations fulfill the retaiVtourist destination; and nine multi unit housing projects have provided the high-density residences envisioned so many years ago. Since 1996 the city has gained: • 534 housing units completed (214 low-and moderate-income units), • 311 under construction (62 low-and moderate-income units), • 3.6 million square feet of office space • 830,000 square feet of retail space • 488 hotel rooms • 8,400 estimated jobs This construction is estimated at a total value of $513 million with the city receiving approximately $5.4 million annually in tax revenues.20 The program has been recognized for its successful implementation internationally and was awarded the Global Bangemann Challenge on behalf of the king of Sweden in 1999 from among 700 nominated projects for best use of technology to address environment concerns. 21 While the city's BPP approach to brownfields redevelopment is certainly a model of effective policymaking and should be considered by other city governments either struggling to bring development back into the urban core or attempting to preserve remaining open space, the nature of Emeryville' s environment must be recognized as a contributor to the city's successes as well. Emeryville Environment Perhaps most important to Emeryville's success is its pivotal location at the mouth of the Bay Bridge with ready transportation access, at one time to the bay and now to surrounding highways. This locational advantage was crucial in its becoming an industrial town in the late 1890s and remains to be one of its most significant assets. The fact that it was once dotted by industrial sites, environmental issues notwithstanding, also proved to be an asset. Such large open sites are desired by developers because they provide the space for large-scale projects that makes development lucrative. These sites are not typically found in urban areas such as the rest of the East Bay but were plentiful in Emeryville, making it an attractive destination for developers. In addition to large sites, the bureaucracy of Emeryville sought business investment from the time of its incorporation. Further, its neighbors, Berkeley and Oakland, are known for their bureaucratic barriers created to fulfill political objectives. Berkeley is perhaps the most well-known American city in this regard. Rich Robbins of Wareham Development, Emeryville's largest landlord with 12 commercial and residential properties, cited Berkeley's supercilious demands as his company's motivation to settle in Emeryville. 22 For example, the Berkeley community in 2002 mobilized for a ballot proposition that would have restricted heights in the downtown district; it failed, but illustrates the city and community's active support for small-scale projects. Oakland, as well, has historically frustrated development either with its confounding red tape or because of its own political values. Emeryville, as a result, has benefited, becoming the commercial destination for business wanting to enter the East Bay market but wishing to avoid the bureaucratic hurdles of the neighboring jurisdictions. The population also contributed to the city's ability to achieve its objectives. First, the majority of the projects were concentrated in the southern portion of the city where there was little residential property. The few residents near the commercial development lived in live/work lofts that encourage high-density living. Location aside, the residents of Emeryville for most of the 1980s and 1990s were either as supportive of development as the city or generally not organized to object to the projects. Also, with such a small population (in 1995 totaling only 6,000 residents), the social issues that typically occupy a city's agenda were limited. This fact enabled the city to exclusively concentrate on redevelopment. Findings The population of Emeryville is no longer as supportive of development, however. Since its transformation into a denser and more populated area, the city has witnessed an increase in opposition to further development. This is partially a result of an influx of a more affluent and active population but also because real issues have arisen. Traffic has increased to a level many find unacceptable and yet development continues. Also, social issues that were once a distant consideration are occupying more of the city's agenda. The Emeryville School District, while not under the direct supervision of the city council, is in disarray and of considerable concern to residents. In terms of the BPP there remain certain limitations as well. The city has witnessed an influx of large-scale projects but has been unable to make small development economically feasible while smaller lots continue to be disproportionately expensive to clean. 23 As a result, small contaminated lots remain vacant while the larger ones enjoy redevelopment. The city is also exploring methods of utilizing the remaining open lots to achieve a more diverse type of development within the city in response to criticisms of the many chain stores of which the majority of the projects consist. Notes 1 City of Emeryville, Final Report: Brown.fields Redevelopment Demystified, Emeryville, CA. July 2002, p. 5. 2 Ibid., p. 7. 3 Ibid., p. 6. 4 Charles Bartsch and Elizabeth Collaton, Coming Clean for Economic Development: A Resources Book on Environmental Cleanup and Economic Development Opportunities, Northeast-Midwest Institute. Online. Available: http://www.nemw.org/cmclean.htm#exec. Accessed: January 23, 2003. 5 Interview by Monica Martinez with City Manager John Flores, Emeryville, California, January 7, 2003. 6 Interview by Monica Martinez with Chamber President Bob Canter, Emeryville, California, January 7, 2003. 7 Flores interview. 8 City of Emeryville, Final Report, p. 7. 9 Ibid., p. 9. lO Ibid., p. 14. 11 Ibid., p. 19. 12 Because none of the sites were Superfund, the federal EPA had a more limited role than the state agencies. 13 City of Emeryville, General Fund Summary, 2001-2002. Online. Available: http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/finance/Budget02_04.html. Accessed: January 30, 2003. 14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Brown.fields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Pilot Program. Online. Available: http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/html-doc/bcrlf-fs.htm. Accessed: January 30, 2003. 15 City of Emeryville, Final Report, p. 16. 16 Bill McGarigle, "Seeing Green in Brownfields," Government Technology (November 1999). Online. Available: http://www.govtech.net/magazineJlocal.us/november99/brownf.phtml. Accessed: December 6, 2002. 17 Interview by Monica Martinez with Patrick O'Keefe, Redevelopment Agency Director, Emeryville, California, January 9, 2003. 18 California State Government, "The Polanco Redevelopment Act." Online. Available: http://www.ca­redevelopment.orf/sectionlPRA.html. Accessed: January 13, 2003. 19 Sonnonstine Public Relations, "Emeryville Scores Important Victory in Brownfield Redevelopment Legal Challenge" (March 26, 2001). Online. Available: http://www.sonnpr.com/200lpressreleases/03260la.htm. Accessed: January 22, 2003. 20 City of Emeryville, Final Report, p. 25. 21 1999 CPEO Brownfields Archive List, Emeryville Project. Online. Available: http://www.cpeo.org/lists/brownfields/1999/msg00149.html. Accessed: February 3, 2003. 22 Dan Levy, ''Edifice Complex, Recession or Not," San Francisco Chronicle (December 22, 2002), p. 1. 23 Interview by Monica Martinez with Project Manager Ignacio Dayrit, Emeryville, California, January 9, 2003. Appendix 3.2-Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District A special district dedicated to purchasing open space for preservation and public use. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) is a special district located in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. MROSD has the specific purpose of purchasing, restoring, and preserving open space for the benefit of the community. Established in 1972, MROSD has preserved over 48,000 acres of open space within the district's boundaries. MROSD's constituency is extremely supportive of the district's action with regard to the purchase of open space. Although MROSD has faced criticism for lack of organizational transparency, it performs its duties effectively and efficiently. Table 1 Socioeconomic and Land Use Data for the San Francisco Bay Area 1970-1990 Chan2e (in%) 2000 Census Population San Mateo County 16.8 707,161 Santa Clara County 40.7 1,682,585 San Francisco/Oakland 21.5 4,123,740 San Jose 40.0 1,682,585 Land Use Urban land consumption (in sq. miles)* San Francisco/Oakland 28.4 NIA San Jose 22.1 NIA Median Household Income (in $): California NIA 47,493 San Mateo County NIA 70,819 Santa Clara County NIA 74,335 Median value for owner-occupied housing: California NIA 198,900 San Mateo County NIA 449,900 Santa Clara County NIA 422,6()( MROSD open space preserved: Total (in acres as of 2003) 48,000 Total ooen to public (in acres as of 2003) 44,472 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File, Quick Facts (County). Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: February 23, 2003; U.S. Census Bureau, California: Population of Counties by Decennial Census. Online. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/ca190090.txt. Accessed: January 12, 2003; Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck, 100 Largest Cities. Online. Available: http://www.sprawlcity.org/studyUSA/index.html. Accessed: January 12, 2003; Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Midpeninsula Open Space District: Home. Online. Available: http://www.openspace.org/. Accessed: January 12, 2003; Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Midpeninsula Open Space District: Maps and Trails. Online. Available: http://openspace.org/. Accessed: February 23, 2003. Acreage was summed from information provided on the main maps and trails page. *From 1970 to 1990. Background Socioeconomic Information The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) was established in 1972 as a way to preserve rapidly disappearing open space in the Midpeninsula portion of the San Francisco Bay Area. The area in the southern and southwestern portion of the Bay Area experienced rapid growth in the 1960s. This growth is illustrated in Census Bureau population data for the three counties over which the MROSD has partial jurisdiction. As shown in Table 1, San Mateo County had a 25 percent increase in population between 1960 and 1970.1 In Santa Clara County, the increase was approximately 66 percent.2 These increases are substantially larger than the statewide growth percentage of 27 percent. 3 While the data shows the increases for the entire county, the effects of these increases were felt throughout the Midpeninsula region. Land Character The population growth in the area is understandable due to the natural beauty of the region. MROSD encompasses the area south of San Francisco at about the midpoint of the peninsula, stretches south almost to San Jose, proceeds east to the bay, and extends to the middle section of the peninsula to the west. An area that is flat and was once salt ponds characterizes the eastern section of MROSD.4 This area contains the cities that are within MROSD's boundaries. The western portions of the district are where MROSD focuses its resources for land purchases. Rolling hills characterize most of this area. Beyond the boundaries of MROSD on the western side of the peninsula lie the Santa Cruz Mountains. These rolling hills and mountains are interspersed throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, but no other portion of the Bay Area has been able to prevent development. The San Francisco Bay Area's growth has been mostly in population, not in land consumption. The growth information for 1970-1990 included in Table 1 shows this. Population in San Francisco-Oakland grew by 21.5 percent, while land consumption increased by 28 percent. In San Jose, which is more indicative of the area in which MROSD resides, population grew by 40 percent but land consumption only by 22.1 percent. In San Jose, population growth was the only cause of land consumption. However, in San Francisco-Oakland, population growth accounted for approximately 77 percent of land area growth, with the remaining land area consumption attributable to sprawl. Years of citizen activism and community awareness have prevented large changes in land characteristics that might have resulted from population growth experienced during this period. Growth Management History To accommodate the population growth of the 1960s, the Palo Alto City Council discussed infrastructure for development that would pepper the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains.5 Citizens were displeased with the proposal and began to mobilize to preserve the foothills.6 Given the many jurisdictions in the area, including the cities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Redwood City, Carlos, Mountain View, Menlo Park, Los Gatos, and the counties of San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Santa Clara, simply electing new officials with a preservation agenda was not sufficient. Cities were more concerned with providing a range of urban services such as social welfare services, police service, and neighborhood park services. While the county jurisdictions were less concerned with providing these types of services, there was no way for the three counties that were most threatened by foothills development to coordinate efforts to preserve the area. Aside from infrastructure proposals on the peninsula, actions taken in nearby areas increased awareness and elevated concern about unchecked growth in the region. South of the peninsula portion of the Bay Area near San Jose, in the "Valley of the Heart's Delight," blooming fruit orchards were replaced with housing developments.7 The city manager of San Jose at that time, A.P. "Dutch" Hamann, was committed to making the city of San Jose comparable to Los Angeles (in scale) and even annexed locations adjacent to the city, which produced an area eight times the size of the original city.8 These visible changes sparked concern among the citizenry in San Jose and, in tum, citizens throughout the southern portion of the Bay Area have elected officials that have been concerned about unchecked growth. 9 The climate of the peninsula and south Bay Area changed in those years from indifference to great awareness and activism. To address the problem of multiple jurisdictions, activists needed a way to involve all of the districts. The East Bay Regional Park District actively preserved lands on the opposite side of the bay and also contained multiple jurisdictions. This park district presented an example for activists on the peninsula side of the bay.10 The state legislature adopted legislation that allowed for the formation of park districts in 1933.11 Political leaders, recreational enthusiasts, organized labor, and other citizens lobbied for the passage of this legislation in order to form the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) from surplus lands within the jurisdiction of the East Bay Municipal Utility District.12 After legislators passed the law, voters in the area approved, by a two-to-one margin, the formation of EBRPD and its tax rate.13 This legislation applied throughout the state and allowed citizens to petition for a park or open space district to be formed in those jurisdictions that obtained the required number of signatures within the proposed district boundaries. 14 Local press shaped the strategy activists took in seeking a solution to the threat of development in the foothills. The press criticized citizens for complaining but not acting and for the lack of effort to form a park district. 15 These criticisms encouraged activists to seek cost-benefit studies contrasting foothills land purchases with building infrastructure for development.16 A report by the consulting firm of Livingston-Blaney confirmed the citizens' view that building and maintaining the infrastructure would cost more for local governments than purchasing the land.17 On April 9, 1970, activists held the first organizational meeting to place a measure on the ballot in Santa Clara County.18 Although the small group of activists desired a larger district area than one county, they decided to start with a jurisdiction that had significant support from elected county officials who were empowered with the authority to create this type of special district.19 Citizens in other counties could then petition for the expansion of the district's boundaries into their area.20 The voter initiative was placed on the ballot in 1972 and passed. 21 Voters approved expansion into San Mateo County in 1976 and a small portion of Santa Cruz County in 1992.22 In order to assure that the initiatives would be approved, organizers polled the areas to discover whether citizens would be willing to be taxed for the district's formation and services.23 Supporters overwhelmingly outnumbered nonsupporters. 24 Program Description Structure and Development The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is considered a special district in the state of California. Special districts are a form of government with defined boundaries governed by a board of directors and providing services and facilities. 25 Special districts in California are also categorized using three contrasting attributes: • Independent versus dependent. • Enterprise versus non-enterprise. • Single function versus multifunction.26 An independent district has a board to which voters in a district elect members specifically for that district; existing legislative bodies govern a dependent special district.n A non-enterprise district is one that does not charge for services provided to the community, while an enterprise district charges for the services it provides.28 Single­function districts provide one service, whereas, multifunction districts provide two or more services. 29 MROSD is an independent, non-enterprise, single-function district. MROSD does not charge admission to any of its preserves and provides only the service of purchasing and preserving open space for the benefit of the community. A board of directors presides over the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Each of seven board members is elected in a ward (or district) containing about 90,000 constituents. 30 At the head of the agency staff is the general manager, who is appointed by the board and attends board meetings.31 MROSD staff includes 75 staff members, the bulk of whom are resource managers who maintain and ensure proper use of these public lands and trails.32 Other staff divisions include planning, acquisition, finance and accounting, volunteer and docent programs, environmental analysis, and public affairs. 33 Aiding in land maintenance is a team of over 700 volunteers contributing a total of 12,000 volunteer hours per year. 34 All special districts must provide annual financial reports to the state controller. 35 The board of directors-and, by extension, voters-oversees the activities of MR.OSD. Strict regulations govern the MROSD and all other park and open space districts. The Public Resources Code, Sections 5500-5595, defines these limitations. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has many relationships with other organizations in the area and many of them share the goals of the district. Because MROSD has no planning authority, it has allowed cities to make planning decisions. In coordination with these localities, MR.OSD purchases only those properties that are outside urban service boundaries. 36 MROSD has also made joint purchases of parkland with the Cities of Los Gatos and Palo Alto.37 In the nonprofit sector, MROSD collaborates with the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST). POST receives donations of land and other assets that allow for further preservation of open space. 38 Other nonprofit organizations, such as the Sempervirens Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the Save the Redwoods League, and the Trust for Public Land, purchase, or receive donations of, land in order to resell or transfer the properties to public agencies. 39 In the past, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District received ftmding from the federal government through the National Parks Service's Land and Water Conservation Fund40 In 1996, Congress completely removed all Land and Water Conservation Fund monies.41 This money was reinstated in 1999 at $40 million, with increasing levels over the following three years.42 MROSD hopes to receive some of these funds in the future. Policy MROSD is a staff-run organization but disagreement with staff suggestions occurs at board meetings, which are open to the public.43 The organization has a mandate for action in several ways. First, in the law that governs the formation and procedures of open space districts-California Public Resources Code, Section 5500.44 Second, constituents in the individual wards elect the seven board members. (However, according to one founding board member, the stakeholders consist of everyone that lives, works, or plays in the Midpeninsula region of the Bay Area.)45 Finally, the public meetings allow for the political views of the area to be expressed. MROSD's mission is "to acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity; protect and restore the natural environment; and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education."46 In order to achieve the first portion of its mission, MROSD is authorized by California statute to acquire undeveloped land throurh purchase, eminent domain, conservation or open space easement, or donation.4 Staff recommends land for purchase by MROSD to the board of directors, which has the power to make the final decision.48 The value of the land is then rated among other MROSD properties.49 The board of directors then gives a negotiator a range of prices that MROSD is willing to pay and they go through negotiations for the purchase of the land. 50 MROSD has identified lands that it is interested in purchasing 15 to 20 years in the future.51 Although the district rarely uses eminent domain, it does have the option. MROSD has been criticized for use or threat of use of this tool. In the eminent domain process, MROSD would condemn and then purchase a property at fair market value, with or without consent of the landowner. Using a conservation or open space easement, MROSD can purchase only the development rights to a piece of property, while the original owner maintains all other rights to the land.52 Anyone can donate land to MROSD for a tax deduction that is based on the full value of the property.53 A seller may also get a tax deduction in the amount of the difference if they sell at a price lower than the appraised value of the property.54 Even though MROSD has the tools of open space easements and land donations at their disposal, the district owns a significant majority of the land under MROSD control. MROSD protects their land in fulfillment of the second portion of the district mission. MROSD achieves this through the use of park rangers that specialize in land management and by leaving land primarily in its natural condition.55 However, in order to fulfill the third portion of their mission statement (public enjoyment and education), MROSD installs signed trail s~stems, gravel parking lots, restrooms, and picnic tables for public use on most of its land. 6 MROSD hosts an extensive set of activities for visitors of all ages at a variety of the preserves. In December 2002, MROSD hosted 18 events at 11 of their open space preserves. 57 Funding Before 1978, MROSD, and every other California special district, received most of its funding through property taxes on property in the jurisdiction of the district. However, other jurisdictions were able to collect a separate property tax on the same property. Each of the local governments was allowed to set its own tax rate independent of one another.58 Tax rates for special districts were determined within the confines of the governing statute and based on annual revenue required:59 In 1978, California voters approved Proposition 13, which changed the local property tax structure dramatically.60 Across the state, on average, property taxes were 2.67 percent.61 Proposition 13 reduced property taxes to 1 percent and required the state to allocate funds among local governments.62 Immediately thereafter, the legislature passed a series of remedies to aid special districts, including creating the Special District Augmentation Fund, but then needed to transfer the monies to cover education expenses in 1993-1994.63 Two legislators devised another patch for financing problems-the ability for special districts to create a separate financing district, called a Community Facilities District.64 The district must be approved by a two-thirds majority vote in the community.65 This district is able to issue general obligation bonds and property owners pay a "special tax" to repay the bonds.66 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Financing Authority is MROSD's financing district. 67 For FY 2003, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District received about $18.5 million in tax revenues.68 This revenue is generated from a 1.7 cent tax per $100 of assessed value in the district.69 MROSD generated other revenue in the form of grants, interest income, rental income, and other income for a total of $25 million.70 The district expected $5.2 million in grants for specific land purchases and $342,000 for preserve development and FEMA projects.71 MROSD had a $38.5 million cash forward balance in FY 2003 from cash reserves, of which $17.3 million will be used for yearl1 expenses.72 The district will have available $25 million for land acquisition in FY 2003.7 As of March 2002, MROSD had bond debt at a level that was 25 percent of its debt limit.74 Program Evaluation Program Outputs Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has no specific set of goals and the argument can be made that setting a specific amount of open space to preserve could limit the agency's potential. The district has acquired as open space 47,633 acres of the 215,875 acres within its boundaries.75 The district's boundaries were drawn in order to maximize the ability of the district to acquire open space.76 For this reason, MROSD has had a significant amount of land available to purchase as well as the funding available to make purchases. Program Sensitivity to Changes Changes affect Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in varying ways. MROSD has seen turnover in federal, state, and local administrations and has survived the extreme property tax reduction that was Proposition 13 as well other economically challenging times. Though state and federal leaders change regularly, the board of directors for MROSD has experienced little turnover. Several board members have been influential in the organization since its inception.77 Funding changes affect MROSD most drastically. When the federal government eliminated funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, this negatively affected MROSD.78 Proposition 13 threatened the vitality of many special districts, including MROSD. This threat was resolved through further legislation, but the effects of Proposition 13 hinder the formation of similar districts.79 MROSD, at least, has a large cash reserve from which to draw when necessary, diffusing any significant budgetary difficulties. Property value changes may also affect the funding of MROSD. As noted in Table 1 of this report, median housing values in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties are $422,600 and $449,900, respectively, about twice the California median housing value of $198,900.80 Median income in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, the counties from which MROSD receives tax funding, is $71,000 and $74,000, respectively, as compared to the California median of $47,000.81 These housing values and income differences demonstrate the ability of MROSD to generate revenue. As a result, if property values were to decline sharply and for an extended period of time, MROSD may face difficulties. However, this is highly unlikely given the demand for property in the area. Outcomes The public supports MROSD in its mission to preserve open space and voter approval indicates this consent. However, this is the votinf public, and some feel that MROSD still toils in obscurity among the general public.8 The public is supportive of retaining open space as an asset to the entire community, but does not realize that MROSD is responsible for the availability of open space in the area. 83 Findings The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is highly effective in its ability to preserve open space. The group has local support and is well funded because of the socioeconomic demography of the region. However, MROSD pursues a mission toward acquisition of open space for preserves rather than for recreational use. In the past, it has had a problem communicating with the public that the land that is purchased is public land, although this trend is turning now. As of 2003, MROSD not only held public activities at various preserves, but also was in the process of producing a book to encourage further public access. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has surprising freedom of action for a public agency. Public agencies are generally hindered by bureaucratic complexities that make taking action difficult. MROSD's flexibility allows for a more efficient way to achieve its goals and outcomes. MROSD, as an independent, special governing district, allows for public input into decision making through its election process and open board meetings. However, detailed documentation of purchases and other expenditures are not easily obtained from the district. While this combination of freedom of action with public input has benefited the agency well and has prevented it from limiting its goals, there are potential consequences. Although MROSD has achieved incredible success, public accessibility to the district would further improve with the production of detailed annual financial reports and research-based planning documentation for support. This would not only improve public opinion, but also increase the district's legitimacy. MROSD is highly successful in the aspect of democratic accountability that is inherent to public agencies. MROSD is an extremely democratic organization. In order for MROSD to be established, public concern had to be expressed both through petition for inclusion on the ballot and in the approval of the district by voters. The community decided first whether they would like the district to provide the service and then chose to tax themselves to receive the service. The public also decides who governs the district and therefore how its funds are spent. If great concern about MROSD were to arise, citizens would be able to petition for the dissolution of the organization. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has been highly successful with its goal of purchasing and preserving open space for the enjoyment of the public. Its 48,000 acres of land are beautiful and the benefit of the land to the community is priceless. Notes 1 U.S. Census Bureau, California: Population ofCounties by Decennial Census. Online. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/ca190090.txt. Accessed: January 12, 2003. 2 lbid. 3 lbid. 4 Audubon SF Bay Restoration Program, Audubon SF Bay Restoration Program: Learn More. Online. Available: http://www.audubonstbay.org/stbay_2_16/frm_learnmore.html. Accessed: February 23, 2003. s Interview by M. Catherine McGuire with Nonette Hanko, former Ward 5 Director, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Palo Alto, California, December 12, 2002. 6 lbid. 7 Interview by M. Catherine McGuire with local media contact requesting anonymity, December 13, 2002. 8 lbid. 9 lbid. 10 Hanko interview. 11 California Public Resources Code Annotated, Sections 5500-5595 (Deering, 2003). 12 East Bay Regional Park District, Master Plan 1997. Online. Available: http://www.ebparks.org/resources/pdf/misc/RPM_Plan97.pdf. Accessed: February 23, 2003. 13 lbid. 14 California Public Resources Code Annotated, Sections 5500-5595. 15 Hanko interview. 16 lbid. 17 Interview by M. Catherine McGuire with Mary Davey, Ward 2 Director, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Los Altos, California, December 13, 2002. 18 Hanko interview. 19 lbid. 20 Ibid. 21 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Midpeninsula Open Space District: History. Online. Available: http://www.openspace.org/. Accessed: January 12, 2003. 22 lbid. 23 Hanko interview. 24 Ibid. 25 Kimia Mizany and April Manatt, "What's So Special about Special Districts? A Citizen's Guide to Special Districts in California" (February 2002). Online. Available: http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/COMMITTEE/ST ANDING/LOC_GOV/ _home/WSSASDREPORT.HfM. Accessed: February 23, 2003. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Midpeninsula Open Space District: Board ofDirectors. Online. Available: http://www.openspace.org/. Accessed: January 12, 2003. 31 Ibid. 32 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Midpeninsula Open Space District: About Us. Online. Available: http://www.openspace.org/. Accessed: January 12, 2003. 33 Ibid. 34 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Volunteer News. Online. Available: http://www.openspace.org/volunteers/NewsletterN ol_News_ winter_2002.pdf. Accessed: January 13, 2003. 35 Mizany and Manatt, "What's So Special About Special Districts?" (online). 36 Davey interview. 37 Ibid. 38 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, "Master Plan," Los Altos, CA, 1992 (brochure). 39 Ibid. '40 Hanko interview. 41 U.S. National Parks Service, Land and Water Conservation Fund: Funding for Grants. Online. Available: http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/funding.html. Accessed: February 23, 2003. 42 Ibid. 43 Davey interview. 44 California Public Resources Code Annotated, Sections 5500-5595. •s Hanko interview. 46 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Mid.peninsula Open Space District: Home. Online. Available: http://www.openspace.org/. Accessed: January 12, 2003. 47 California Public Resources Code Annotated, Sections 5500-5595. 48 Davey interview. 49 Ibid. so Ibid. Sl Ibid. s2 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Mid.peninsula Open Space District: FAQ. Online. Available: http://www.openspace.org/. Accessed: January 12, 2003. S3 Ibid. S4 Ibid. ss Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Mid.peninsula Open Space District: Land Management. Online. Available: http://www.openspace.org/. Accessed: January 12, 2003. S6 Ibid. s7 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Mid.peninsula Open Space District: Hikes and Activities. Online. Available: http://www.openspace.org/. Accessed: January 12, 2003. s3 California Legislative Analyst's Office, Property Taxes: Why Some Local Governments Get More Than Others. Online. Available: http://www.lao.ca.gov/part6c_prop_taxes_pi97 .html#_l_l2. Accessed: February 23, 2003. S9 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid. 62 Ibid. 63 Mizany and Manatt, "What's So Special About Special Districts?" (online). 64 Mello-Roos Property Tax Information, What Is Mello-Roos? Online. Available: http://mello­ roos.com/pdf/mrpdf.pdf. Accessed: February 23, 2003. 6s Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Moody's, "Municipal Finance Quick Search Results," Online. Available: http://www.moodys.com/cust/default.asp. Accessed: February 23, 2003. 68 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, "Agenda Item 2b: March 27, 2002," board meeting agenda, Los Altos, CA, March 27, 2002. 69 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Mid.peninsula Open Space District: Funding and Acquisition. Online. Available: http://www.openspace.org/. Accessed: January 12, 2003. 70 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, "Agenda Item 2b." 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 7s Email from Elaina Cuzick, employee, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, to Catherine McGuire, February 25, 2003. 76 Email from Stephanie Jensen, Public Affairs Manager, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, to Catherine McGuire, February 24, 2003. 77 Davey interview. 78 Hanko interview; Davey interview; interview by M. Catherine McGuire with John Escobar, Assistant General Manager of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Los Altos, California, December 13, 2002; and Anonymous interview. 79 Mizany and Manatt, "What's So Special About Special Districts?" (online). 80 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File, Quick Facts (County). Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: February 23, 2003. 81 Ibid. 82 Anonymous interview. 83 Ibid. Appendix 3.3-The San Diego Growth Management System A planning system for the City of San Diego. The City of San Diego adopted its growth management system in 1979 to address the unmanaged growth of previous decades and provide a framework for handling future development. The system organized the city into five development tiers with a planning concept articulated for each. The plan enabled San Diego to pay for needed infrastructure in the suburban fringe through development fees and achieved downtown revitalization. The urban core, however, suffered as a result of the plan since it received little infrastructure investment. The city adopted a new General Plan in 2002 to invest in the urban core, . although a revenue source has yet to be identified. Table 1 Socioeconomic, Transoortation, and Land Use Data for San Die •o, CA 1990 2000 1990to2000 Chane:e (in % ) Socioeconomic Total city population 1,110,549 1,223,400 10 Average household size 2.69 2.61 City population per sauare mile 3428 3,771 10 Families below poverty level (% of total) 12 14.6 21 White population (% of total) 58 49 -18 Hispanic population (% of total) 20 25 25 Asian population(% of total) 8 13 62 Median home price $233,100 Median household income $33,910 $45,733 34 Transoortation Total daily vehicle miles traveled 34,848,000 Amount of congested travel (As % of peak VMT) 73 79 Ranking out of 75 MSAs 4 5 Transit availability Yes Yes Land Use Number of housing units 431,772 468,689 8.6 Percent £rOWth in land area (1970-1990) 81 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Files. Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: February 20, 2003; San Diego Association of Governments, Fast Facts: San Diego. Online. Available: http://www.sandag.org. Accessed: January 3, 2003; Demographia, 2000 Census: U.S. Municipalities Over 50,000 Ranked by 2000 Population. Online. Available: http://www.demographia.com. Accessed: March 27, 2003; University of San Diego, Census ofPopulation and Housing 1990 database. Online. Available: http://sshl.ucsd.edu/urban/udap/summary/SanDiegoCity.html. Accessed: March 27, 2003. Background Growth Management History San Diego became involved in planning issues early in the twentieth century with the commissioning of planner John Nolen by George Marston in 1903. At the time, San Diego was a community of 35,000, not even large enough to be ranked among the largest 100 U.S. cities.1 According to Marston, founder of the area's department store, the city needed some direction to its unmanaged growth.2 Nolen's recommendations on growth strategies, set forth in a 1908 city plan, included assembling public buildings, developing the waterfront for recreational and transportation uses, protecting public beaches, and the widening of boulevards. Many decades later, city leaders were confronting a more modern "unmanaged growth" problem that demanded a similar response. The adoption of the Growth Management System of 1979 was the result of an over decade-long preoccupation with development and growth in the San Diego region. In the post-World War II era San Diego enjoyed booming growth as the city became a home to the defense industry and an attractive residential destination. By the 1960s, development was rapidly consuming vast open spaces north of the central city.3 The city was also growing in area by annexing unincorporated land north of Miramar Naval Air Station. In 1965, the city drafted a growth management plan, Progress Guide and General Plan, which sought to provide increased city control over development. This plan was promptly rejected by voters who saw the extensive use of federal urban renewal and strong land use policies· as a threat to private property rights. 4 The city responded to voter objections with a weakened plan that was approved in 1967. That year was an important one for city planning. Voters also approved the continuation of the planning department as an independent department and the creation of community planning groups that are still in use to this day, with over 40 groups citywide. The Progress Guide and General Plan that later served as the foundation for the Growth Management System of 1979 was structured on the following principle objectives: • creation of a strong central core; • development of a more compact city; • prevention of sprawl; • encouragement of greater variety and choice in the living environment; • promotion of a more handsome environment; • recognition of the importance of San Diego Harbor; and • preservation of open space systems. 5 Factors Leading to Policy Initiation Local assemblyman and rising political star Pete Wilson continued the focus on growth management when he was elected mayor in 1971 on a platform of downtown revitalization. Although San Diego was, and still is, a council/manager form of government, Wilson enjoyed, de facto, a strong mayoral role and steered the city government toward a concentration of development and investment in the downtown area. In 1974, during Wilson's first term of office, the Marston family again sponsored a study of the San Diego area. The study titled Temporary Paradise?, was authored by Kevin Lynch of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Donald Appleyard of University of California-Berkeley. It explored San Diego's growth problems and sought to define a collective response to the issues facing the city. Although not a formal report for adoption by the city, it was disseminated as a newsprint tabloid and was an impetus for a growing citywide interest in growth management issues. The report recommended using transfer of development rights (at the time still only a theory) to limit growth; increasing density in existing communities; investing in public transit; redesigning development to suit the natural, arid environment; and extending public facilities only after they had been budgeted for. The authors' final recommendation was for the production of an environmental plan that would initiate a continuous planning process to address the growth issues prevalent throughout the city. The issue of public facilities, noted by Lynch and Appleyard, was particularly serious in the San Diego area. The explosion of development in the 1960s and early 1970s resulted in the city being unable, both financially and logistically, to keep pace with the development in suburban fringes. Fire departments and public schools were even housed in model homes, since the construction of new facilities could not meet the growing demand.6 Also, infrastructure was not budgeted for prior to construction. Due to rapid development, at year's end the city would typically find itself with much higher operating and capital improvement costs than had been anticipated. This was a growing problem. In the 1971 report, Six-Year Program and Financial Plan (1976-1981), the facilities budget gap was identified as $1.1 million and projected to grow to $25.3 million by 1981.7 This trend of underserved suburban areas and overspent city budgets contributed to the public's demand for improved growth management by the city. In 1974 the Sierra Club also became politically active in response to the growing concern over unplanned development and inadequate public facilities. The organization gathered signatures for a proposal calling for limiting growth to San Diego's "fair share" of the nation's growth rate. Although the proposal did not ultimately receive enough support to be placed on the ballot, it did generate increased attention on growth management concerns. It came as no surprise when, in his 1975 State of the City Address, Mayor Wilson proposed a growth management study. Program Description Structure and Development The Growth Management System of 1979 responded to the growing concern of growth in the San Diego area and incorporated many of the ideas presented in Temporary Paradise? Robert Freilich, author of the Ramapo, New York, plan, was hired to define a system for San Diego and wrote A Five-Tiered Growth Management Program for San Diego in which his plan was articulated. Freilich's objective was to create a plan that would identify a means of funding future growth while limiting that growth to an acceptable level. The level acceptable to the city and citizens proved difficult to define, since opposing factions had contrasting interpretations. One side called for growth control measures that strictly articulated how many new units-residential, commercial and/or industrial-would be allowed to be built each year. The other approach, known as growth management, sought to define conditions under which new development could occur. Conditions of development typically relate to environmental standards and the availability of public facilities. The San Diego plan sought to incorporate aspects of both approaches--control and management-and specifically concentrated on residential development as opposed to commercial or industrial.8 This concentration was consistent with growth management policies that sought to affect commercial development by addressing housing issues. In order to define development in the city, Freilich's plan classified five tiers in the city and identified goals for each. This identification tool allowed the city to clearly decide where growth would be encouraged and where it would not be allowed. Tier I-Downtown Consistent with Mayor Wilson's own objectives, downtown San Diego, also known as Centre City, was targeted for revitalization and earmarked for increased density. Active government intervention was required to respond to the commercial flight from the downtown area, which had resulted in no new housing and little commercial development since the 1960s. The Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC), created in 1975, became the city's redevelopment agency and assumed the responsibility of this tier soon after the growth management plan's adoption, which explains why some reports note only four tiers. Tier II-Urbanized Areas (UA) This section of approximately 81,000 acres9 consisted of the older core of the city already outfitted with infrastructure. Development was to be encouraged in this section to offset the overwhelming demand for public facilities in the outer fringes. As part of the Growth Management System, new investment of city services was planned to improve upon the existing infrastructure and counterbalance the increased demand that new development would bring. The city also maintained development fees at a low rate and after adoption of the system did not introduce design review in order to encourage increased development projects. Tier III-Planned Urbanizing Area (PUA) The 67,500 acres10 of suburban areas were designated the PUA. The main tool of this area was the application of the "pay-as-you-grow" concept. This concept required new development to pay directly for any new public facilities through the development itself and was an unprecedented policy at the time. This mechanism was in direct response to the problems of explosive growth and delayed infrastructure construction plaguing the city throughout the suburban fringe in the 1960s and 1970s. Facilities Benefit Assessments (FBAs) were identified for use in the 13 communities in the PUA in 1980, a year after the adoption of the system. FBAs fulfilled the objective of "pay-as-you-grow" articulated in Freilich's five-tier plan for the PUA. An FBA was set up by the city upon submission of a community plan by the area residents, typically consisting of developers while the area was undeveloped. Once submitted, the city created a financing plan identifying fee levels and schedules for the development of public facilities. The revenue generated by the development once residents began occupying the properties remained in each community's fund and was only available for capital improvements, with all operating costs coming from the city's general fund. Following the financing process, the city would commence construction or, in some instances, the developer would build the facilities directly. Tier IV-Future Urbanizing Area (FUA) The FUA was the 31,000 acres11 of undeveloped land on the edge of the city. The majority of the developable land of this tier was located in the northern section of the city.12 Some of this area was designated for protection until 1985, with the majority earmarked for protection until 1995. The council was empowered to redesignate land from FUA to PUA as the planned area was built out. However, the objective, according to City Council Policy 600-29, was to "avoid premature urbanization, to conserve open space and natural features, and to protect the fiscal resources of the city by precluding costly sprawl or leapfrog urban development."13 Tier V-Open Space This area consisted of land unsuitable for development. Areas subject to flooding, steep slopes, and environmentally sensitive land were designated as open space. The plan required that this space maintain nonwban characteristics. Although the city did not make the acquisition of open space a direct goal, this area was increased as land was acquired, typically through donations by developers seeking approval of projects in other areas. Voters approved an open space bond in 1978 which assisted in the city's acquisition of parcels and the expansion of open space. Funding Federal Housing Authority Loans Developers were encouraged to pursue the use of Federal Housing Authority loans to achieve a balanced market. In their application process, developers were expected to document their attempt to receive federal assistance for low-and moderate-income housing. While this aspect was encouraged by San Diego, according to many interviewed in the city there was no stringent enforcement of the policy and this criterion was only one small item considered when evaluating an application. Community Development Block Grants ( CDBG) CDBG funds are federal grants available to local jurisdictions to improve inner city conditions. The federal government gives cities discretion on what the funds may be spent on, ranging from affordable housing to low-interest loans and infrastructure improvements. In fulfillment of the Growth Management System's objectives, CDBG funds were directed to specific projects in the wban core during the 1980s. This coordination, though, was minimal and, it was acknowledged, more could have been achieved for mutual gains. For fiscal year 2004 the city is estimated to receive $21 million for its CDBG programs. Proposition 13 and the Housing Market Passed by voters in 1978 during an era of taxpayer revolt that swept the state, Proposition 13 reduced the local property tax rate to 1 percent of a property's assessed value and allowed annual increases of only 2 percent of the rate of inflation until a point of sale.14 Once sold, the property's assessed value would assume the market rate. In San Diego, the proposition meant a sudden reduction in the city's revenue and, as a result, an inability to invest in the wban core as promised by the plan. According to a city planner, Proposition 13 was particularly problematic for San Diego because at the time of its passage the city functioned as a "low tax/low revenue" city.15 Proposition 13 essentially froze property tax revenues at the 1978 level and the city was never able to achieve the increases found in similar California cities. Proposition 13 also created a new land use concept: the fiscalization of land use. As the "value" of residential development decreased, cities began to pursue commercial development for its sales tax revenue generation. The effect was the dramatic decrease of residential development in favor of commercial. Further affecting the housing market was the proposition's impact on the housing decisions of "empty nesters." Rather than downsize to smaller properties, a common practice before 1978, retirees continued living in suburban-sized houses to avoid the "taxing up" a move to a smaller, recalibrated assessed-value property would entail. As a result, fewer family-raising homes entered the market each year. Following a microeconomic model, Proposition 13 also affected the market by inflating housing costs.16 As homes were assessed at lower values the market responded and raised housing prices. The effect was that housing prices in the California market ceaselessly increased as a combination of policies worked to discourage the increase of housing supply, and San Diego followed suit. The overall result throughout much of the state and especially in San Diego's once-attractive housing market was the general disappearance of the first-time, middle-income home purchase. The condominium market also suffered from the unintended consequences of state policies. The strict liability standard of home builders that involves builders and subcontractors alike in litigation suits whether they caused the defect or not and the ten­year statute of limitations (the longest in the nation) makes an acutely litigious atmosphere.17 These factors made the condominium market vulnerable to abuse of construction dispute litigation and, as a result, decimated the condominium construction market. Between 1990 and 2002 annual condominium construction dropped 87 percent in San Diego County.18 Although minor tort reform is currently being pursued by state legislators, the issue has further depreciated the first-time home buyer market, thus providing two extreme options: high-end home purchase or rental. For example, million­dollar home sales are quickl~ becoming common, with such sales surging 60 percent in the second quarter of 2002.1 Unsurprisingly, these policies contributed to a volatile market in San Diego and intensified the pressures imposed on the Growth Management System, especially since the plan concentrated on housing. Program Evaluation Program Outputs Tier I-Centre City Tier I is considered to represent one of the largest successes of the planning efforts of the late 1970s and early 1980s. This success, however, is attributable only marginally to the Growth Management System. Perhaps more responsible for the rebirth of San Diego's downtown is the political leadership of Pete Wilson and active governmental involvement in the area through the CCDC under director Gerald Trimble. The flagship development project of this area, Horton Plaza, is a direct result of Wilson's persuasion of commercial developer Ernie Hahn to build a mall downtown instead of in the suburban fringes, as originally planned. The $180 million mall (the city provided substantial incentives worth $120 million) was historic for its open-air design, unusual for 1985, as well as unprecedented location: six blocks in the city's core. The development was a huge success and stimulated over $3.5 billion in projects in the 300­acre area over the following ten years.20 Throughout his term as mayor, Wilson pursued downtown development and successively persuaded developers to build downtown as they requested approval for suburban projects. Following Pete Wilson, Mayor Roger Hedgecock continued to encourage downtown development, which resulted in the construction of the convention center during his short term in office. Under the aegis of the CCDC the downtown area witnessed a rebirth of commercial and residential projects alike. The Gaslamp Quarter, a concept conceived during the Wilson era, became a popular attraction for tourists and locals with mixed-use development in a stylized, Old World design. In the late 1990s, high-end residential development followed the successes of the commercial projects with construction occurring throughout the area. In sum, since the growth management system and the creation of the CCDC, in Tier I 6,200 homes (1,850 priced for the workforce and low­income population), 5.7 million square feet of office and retail space, and 4,500 hotel rooms have been created and $80 million spent for parks and public art.21 Tier II-Urbanized Areas (UA) The UA tier suffered as a result of the Growth Management System. The primary reason was the city's failure to provide the infrastructure investments as promised by the system. While Proposition 13 certainly hampered the city's ability to raise revenue, it was not entirely responsible. In the 1980s, many cities confronted this effect of Proposition 13 and responded by raising other fees to recuperate money not generated from property taxes. Los Angeles and San Francisco, for example, both raised the real estate transfer tax, the utilities users tax, and transit occupancy taxes, but San Diego never did.22 According to many, the political leadership of the city was simply not willing to risk tax increases to generate the necessary revenue. The result of a statewide proposition that slashed a significant revenue source and overly frugal political leaders that did not raise taxes was a default by the city on investment in the urban core, as called for by the plan. The development projects facilitated by the city during the implementation of the plan damaged the UA further. As part of the plan, the city pushed for development in the urban core by not requiring design reviews when they were implemented in other areas and maintained development fees at low levels. The market responded by constructing low-quality apartment projects in traditional, single-detached areas. Thus, intense densification was achieved-in a 1984 consultant report the area had grown nine times higher than projected-but without investment of adequate infrastructure and oversight, which adversely affected the urban core. 23 As a result, middle class residents, en masse, fled Tier II in the 1980s while ill-designed apartment buildings with few amenities (e.g., parking structures and public grounds) encircled them. Tier III-Planned Urbanizing Areas (PUA) The PUA were effective in implementing the "pay-as-you-grow" concept in that development funded all needed infrastructure in Tier ill. The city designed a successful tool that enabled it to construct facilities in a post-Proposition 13 era. Generally, developers and residents appreciated the city's FBA policy. Criticism of slow city construction of facilities was common but reflected a function of the system; under the policy, construction was to occur only after revenues were accumulated. Thus, some large-scale facilities were constructed at a pace too slow for residents and developers because the money accumulated slowly. A significant and unanticipated result of the "pay-as-you-grow" policy was an acute inequality of services between Tiers II and ill. Whereas in the older, urban areas libraries were between 5,000 to 10,000 square feet, they could be of sizes up to 20,000 square feet in Tier ill per the community plans submitted by developers. Although residents in Tier ill were paying for the facilities through their house purchases, the city was responsible for the operating costs of these deluxe facilities since FBAs only provided for capital costs. A twofold inequality resulted: suburban facilities that were substantially nicer than their urban counterparts and a subsequent continuous inequality of city resources paying for the maintenance of those facilities. A visible, bifurcation of class, with the haves and the have-nots separated between tiers, resulted rather quickly. The FBAs also increased housing costs to residents as developers extended the financial burden to consumers. Initially, the fees accounted for a small portion of housing costs, but as developers planned larger and larger facilities these costs also rose. According to the city FBA manager, in 2003, fees resulted in an increase of between $30,000 to 40,000 in house prices in an already inflated market.24 Yet weaknesses notwithstanding, the FBAs continue to fulfill the city's objective of financing infrastructure in the suburban fringe, making them a resilient public policy mechanism. Tier IV-Future Urbanizing Area (FUA) The redesignation of land from FUA to PUA generated some of the greatest controversy of the entire plan. In 1984, while Mayor Hedgecock was on trial for corruption, Campus Crusade for Christ presented a proposal to convert 5,100 acres of the FUA, one-sixth of the total reserve, to PUA for a university and 750-acre industrial park 11 years early. 25 The council approved the proposal five to four over the objections of the planning department and community. Many blame Hedgecock's legal problems for this outcome, which was in direct contrast to his commitment to growth management and environmental objectives. In response to the council's action, voters unanimously passed Proposition A in the following November 1985 election, which required voter approval for all future redesignations of FUA land. Along with stripping council power, a rezoning of FUA land was approved to promote agricultural use, allowing only 1 developed unit per 10 acres. This policy was pursued by the Sierra Club in an effort to ensure continual agricultural activity in the FUA (Sierra Club had originally wanted 1 unit per 20 acres). The result of the zoning change, however, was unintended. Since its passage, large-lot, high-end development with no agricultural purpose, permissible under the zoning change and thus not requiring voter approval, has occurred in many sections of the FUA. In the 1990s voters approved Proposition C, allowing for three of the five remaining areas to be opened for development. These included Pacific Highlands and Black Mountain Ranch, lauded for their New Urbanism ideals. Tier V-Open Space As previously noted, the city acquired open space through the passage of its open space bond measure in 1978.26 A number of developers also donated portions of land to Tier V over the course of the 1980s as part of development mitigation. In the 1984 amendment to the General Plan, the council required all community plans contain an Open Space and Sensitive Land Element to address the preservation of land. In its 1992 amendment to the Progress Guide, an Environmental Growth Fund was suggested to facilitate the acquisition of open space as part of the city's Capital Improvement Program.27 This section was partially absorbed by the Multiple Species Habitat Preservation (MSHP) area adopted by the city in coordination with the county in 1997 that covers 900 square miles (172,000 acres).28 The creation of the habitat significantly affected the availability of land in the county since it went from being considered 65 percent built-out to 85 percent built-out. 29 Updates ofthe Plan The Growth Management System was adopted in 1979 and is still in place today with few substantive changes over its 24-year history. As a charter city, San Diego is not required by the state to update city plans, and many feel the plan bas become obsolete since it received no substantive updates to maintain its relevance. An analysis ofSan Diego's growth management efforts supports the conclusion that a ~yearplanning horizon is too lengthy for an active California market. While the system did provide for modifying the tier designation, such a process, as illustrated, proved problematic. Outcomes The city staff interviewed and surveyed were supportive ofthe system's outcomes and believe its implementation improved the city as a whole. In comparison to the costs ofthe Growth Management System, staff deemed the benefits to outweigh the costs. Further, staff asserted that without the program the quality of life in San Diego would have been significantly worse. Staff found San Diego's program to be more effective in comparison to other growth management programs of that era. This result is not surprising given that the San Diego program was, in many ways, at the forefront of the growth management movement when adopted. Among external stakeholders the program's effectiveness and outcomes were considered significantly less successful. While stakeholders did believe the benefits exceeded the costs, most felt the program has had a negative effect on the quality of life in the city. Consistent with this opinion, stakeholders felt the program was no more effective than other growth management programs and rated the program as just adequate. When offering suggestions for the federal government's role in growth management programs, those interviewed had diverse perspectives. Some believed federal support of infrastructure should require greater regional efforts and be based upon Smart Growth philosophies. Others thought discrete efforts, such as increased purchases ofopen space, would be an appropriate action for the federal government. Fmdings The state of California changed substantially during the implementation of the Growth Management System. Between 1970 and 1990 population in the state grew by 50 percent.30 The San Diego region was particularly affected and experienced a 35 percent increase in population in the 1980s alone.31 This trend continued into the next decade, and in the year 1990 the area had already surpassed the regional growth forecast projection made in 1986 five years early.32 The population spikes strained public and private sector services alike and challenged the ability of public policy to address social issues. Changes to state policies further complicated the policy picture. As discussed, Proposition 13 severely limited local governments' revenue generation and negatively impacted the housing market The condominium defect law also served to limit the market and unsurprisingly, the entire state experienced a severe housing crisis in the early 2000s. The extent of issues affected by population growth are not experienced by the housing market alone. Traffic increased by 100 percent between 1970 and 1990 and booming development placed a severe strain on local and state infrastructure. The Growth Management System was the city's foremost mechanism for addressing these competing policy challenges. It did successfully apply the "pay-as-you­grow" concept through the use of FBAs and effectively resolved the facilities crisis of the 1970s. The construction of deluxe facilities, such as 25,000-square-feet libraries, however, created a city of visible inequities between new suburban and older urban areas. Also, the unanticipated strain on the city's budget of these super fadlities, which the FBAs could not fund, further exacerbated the inequality of services between the tiers. While Proposition 13 was largely responsible for the city's inability to invest in the inner city, as promised by the plan, it was not the sole reason for lack of investment. Fiscally conservative councils throughout the 1980s continued San Diego's policy of low taxes/low revenue and disregarded their responsibility to invest in the urban core. In this regard the system was unsuccessful. While density was increased in the core, this density was of a substandard quality that contributed to the public disdain for dense development that continues to this day. Leadership The success of growth management was highly dependent on the leadership at the time. Under mayors Pete Wilson and Roger Hedgecock the commitment to growth management was strong and substantial progress was achieved. Without political leadership, however, the issue floundered. During Hedgecock' s criminal investigation, for example, politically unacceptable development was approved, deviating from explicit city values, which resulted in a dramatic voter response. Later, under subsequent mayors, growth management lost its political appeal, few new policies were introduced, and no real updates to the plan were made. Next Steps: City ofVillages In recognition of the mismanaged treatment of the urban core, the city has announced a new General Plan that concentrates its energy on Tier II. The City of Villages plan, adopted by the council in fall 2002, calls for reinvestment in the urban core, the creation of transit-oriented development nodes to encourage infill, the use of public transportation, and other New Urbanism values. In direct response to its own abandonment of Tier II, the City of Villages plan calls for intense investment in city infrastructure to mitigate the burdens of the density that has occurred and will occur in this section of the city. While appreciated and anticipated by many, the plan has yet to identify a financing structure for the $2.5 billion needed in infrastructure improvements citywide, which brings many to question its capacity for success. The planning department is currently performing an existing conditions assessment to identify possible funding sources for the implementation of the plan. Notes 1 Randi Coopersmith, Richard Miller, and Christopher Morrow, "Growth Management in the City of San Diego: Planning the Future Now," Journal ofUrban Planning and Development, vol. 119, no. 3 (September 1993), pp. 116-124. 2 Mike Stepner, "Looking Back: A Short History of San Diego," in At This Moment: Planning in the San Diego Region, (American Planning Association, San Diego Section, April 1997), p. 34. 3 City of San Diego Planning Department, Background Summary: City ofSan Diego Growth Management Program, San Diego, CA, October 1986, p. 3. 4 Stepner, ''Looking Back: A Short History of San Diego," p. 34. 5 City of San Diego Planning Department, Background Summary: City ofSan Diego Growth Management Program,, p. 7. 6 Interview by Monica Martinez with Paul Fisk, Senior Planner, San Diego Planning Department, San Diego, California, December 16, 2002. 7 Robert Freilich, A Five-Tiered Growth Management Program for San Diego, report to city council and planning commission, San Diego, CA, July 8, 1976, p. 17. City of San Diego Planning Department, Background Summary, p. 13. 9 George Colburn, "San Diego: Beyond Spit and Polish," in Keeping on Target, ed. Douglas Porter (Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 1986), p. 77. IO Ibid. I I Ibid., p. 78. 12 Coopersmith et al., "Growth Management in the City of San Diego," p. 117. 13 Ibid., pp. 117-118. 14 Brandee Freeman, Paul Shigley, and William Fulton, "Proposition 13 and the Fiscalization of Land Use," FACSNET Land Use. Online. Available: http://www.facsnet.org/tools/env_luse/Calif9.php3. Accessed: February 24, 2003. 15 Fisk interview. 16 Interview by Monica Martinez with Gary London, Gary London Group, San Diego, California, December 16, 2002. 17 San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, "The Economic Consequences of San Diego's Housing Shortage and Solutions to Improve the Crisis." Online. Available: http://www.sdchamber.org/public/fastfacts/Housing.pdf. Accessed: February 24, 2003. 18 Ibid. 19 John Karevoll, "Record California Million-Dollar Home Sales,'' DQNews.com. Online. Available: http://www.dqnews.com/RRMDH0802.shtm. Accessed: January 29, 2003. 20 Colburn, "San Diego," p. 78. 21 Centre City Development Corporation, Downtown Housing Guide, San Diego, CA, 2002, (pamphlet). 22 Interview by Monica Martinez with Charlene Gabriel, Financial Benefits Assessment Manager, San Diego Planning Department, San Diego, California, January 3, 2003. 23 City of San Diego Planning Department, Background Summary, p. 26. 24 Gabriel interview. 25 Colburn, "San Diego,'' p. 79. 26 The MSHP coordinator was repeatedly contacted by the researcher regarding the amount of land acquired and amount of open space included in the MSHP but provided no information. 27 City of San Diego, "Guidelines for Future Development: Amendment to the Progress Guide and General Plan," San Diego, CA, October 1992, p. 306. 28 City of San Diego, "Multiple Species Conservation Program: Plan Summary." Online. Available: http://www.sannet.gov/mscp/plansum.shtml. Accessed: January 20, 2003. 29 San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, "The Economic Consequences of San Diego's Housing Shortage,'' (online). 30 Greenbelt Alliance, Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns ofGrowth to Fit the New California (1995). Online. Available: http://www.greenbelt.org/pubs_merchandise/beyond_sprawl_txt.html. Accessed: March 20, 2002. 31 City of San Diego, "Guidelines for Future Development," p. 1. 32 Ibid. Appendix 3.4-Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) An organization designed for the protection of the regional environment. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's (TRPA) mission is to coordinate local efforts to preserve, restore, and enhance the Lake Tahoe region's unique natural and human environment.1 In 1970, Congress' ratification of the bi-state Tahoe Regional Planning Compact formed TRPA. Under a more recent revision, Congress granted TRPA power to set environmental threshold carrying capacities, establish a regional plan, and regulate growth to meet the carrying capacities that would prevent the further deterioration of Lake Tahoe's environmental quality. The coordination between TRPA, other agencies, and local organizations offers the agency a distinct type 6f role. TRPA has not yet met carrying capacities and has been criticized for being unable to reverse the loss of clarity in the lake. Although the general public in Nevada and California support TRP A, the agency is confronted with an adversarial public within the Lake Tahoe basin that is only beginning to see the benefit of TRPA. Table 1 Socioeconomic Data for the Lake Tahoe Basin Socioeconomic 1960 1950-1960 Change (in%) 1970 1960-1970 Change (in%) 1990 2000 Population: ~asin Totals 174,909 58.5 249,573 42.7 621,538 837,900 Summer Population 133,000 200,000 Housing: !Housing units total: 43,662 46,122 rrotal vacant housing: 22,509 20,574 IVacant housing for seasonal, irecreational, occasional use: 14,731 18,257 !Median single-family housing tprices (in $): 119,00C 285,00C !Mailing address of lhomeowner: Outside of area (in %): 54 Greater Tahoe area (in %): 28 Lake Tahoe resrion (in %): 18 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, California Population ofCounties by Decennial Census: 1900to1990. Online. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/cal90090.txt. Accessed: February 23, 2003; U.S. Census Bureau, Nevada Population ofCounties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990. Online. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/nvl90090.txt. Accessed: February 23, 2003; Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2001 Threshold Evaluation Report -July 2002. Online. Available: http://www.trpa.org/News/2001_Thresholds.html. Accessed: April 22, 2003; Douglas Strong, Tahoe: An Environmental History (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1984), pp. 22-31. *Includes Placerville and Carson City data. Subcounty data not available before 1990. Background Socioeconomic Information The primary counties under Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (fRPA) jurisdiction on the California side of the Tahoe Basin are El Dorado County and Placer County. In Nevada, TRPA's jurisdiction covers Douglas, Washoe, and Carson City Counties. Table 1 summarizes the population changes in those counties that occurred in the 20 years prior to the establishment of TRPA. As is indicated by the data, the area grew at a high rate before the establishment of TRPA. Also noted in the table is the summer population. This data is important to examine in order to understand the drastic population fluctuation's impact on the Tahoe Basin. Another indicator of this transient population is the amount of vacant housing due to seasonal or recreational use as a proportion of the amount of housing in the basin. The percentage of outside-of-area owners of housing and condominiums indicates that most residences are not owner­occupied or are vacant for occasional use. Finally, the median single-family housing price shows an increasing problem in the Tahoe basin, that housing is becoming less and less affordable in the area. Land Character The first significant impact of humans on the Lake Tahoe Basin was the rise in lumber production in the 1860s as a result of the discovery of the Comstock Lode and subsequent mining and development. 2 Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) owned one of the many timber claims near the lake that ended with the stripping of forest from the mountains, which resulted in significant forest fires. 3 Development continued through the early 1900s, when E.A. Sterling, an assistant in the U.S. Bureau of Forestry, inspected the Tahoe Basin and reported that he foresaw little hope for protecting the forest because local sentiment was opposed to state laws that would protect the area. 4 This visit resulted in his championing increased federal activity in the area, especially in an area already set aside as a forest reserve. 5 Lake Tahoe recovered from these environmental disasters and became the beautiful sapphire gem that it was in the 1960s. Perhaps the most notable element of Tahoe's beauty was the lake's clarity. In 1967, clarity was measured as being clear up to approximately 102 feet. 6 Lake Tahoe rests between the Carson Mountain Range in Nevada and the Sierra Mountain Range in California. Ski resorts pepper the area, including the 1960 Winter Olympics host, Squaw Valley. Residents in the area draw a correlation between the infrastructure that was put in place for the Olympics and interest in residing in the basin.7 The region also draws campers and hikers and has several national forests and state parks in the basin. Growth Management History Before TRPA was formed, several other organizations existed and other events took place that indicated a rising concern over how the Tahoe Basin was growing. In 1960, the Lake Tahoe Area Council and the Tahoe Regional Planning Commission (TRPC) formed to encourage regional studies and voluntary planning. 8 Five counties joined and created a master plan for Lake Tahoe.9 The McGaughey Report, produced in 1963, recommended that the basin have a sewer system and that all sewage be exported and that a regional agency be formed to solve problems localities could not. Io Nevada and California and the federal government adopted this plan in 1965-1966.Il The TRPC adopted the ''Tahoe 1980 Plan" in 1964, which projected a 200 to 300 percent increase in Tahoe Basin residents and tourists by 1980.12 This plan stipulated only voluntary compliance with plan suggestions, and the TRPC had no enforcement authority .13 · In 1964, the California Assembly Committee on Natural Resources met at Lake Tahoe in order to determine the state's role in promoting proper and orderly development in the basin. I4 In 1965, the City of South Lake Tahoe incorporated, the only one of its kind in the Tahoe Basin. I5 In that year, the League to Save Lake Tahoe formed as the "umbrella" environmental group for the Lake Tahoe Basin. 16 Led by Assemblyman Edwin L. Z'Berg, California Assembly committee meetings in Tahoe and other extensive hearings on the problems of Lake Tahoe resulted with legislators in both Nevada and California agreeing to establish a Lake Tahoe Joint Study Committee.17 In 1967, the study concluded that two proposed solutions to Tahoe's problems were not viable. Is The first solution was to turn major land management functions for the entire basin over to the federal government. I9 However, this was not possible because of the political climate at state and local levels. 20 The other rejected solution was to continue the pattern of dispersed and informal planning without any direction from an implementation authority.21 The committee deemed this solution unacceptable due to the ineffectiveness of the 61 overlapping governments at Tahoe.22 Finally, the committee suggested, among seven other recommendations, that a regional planning agency with bi-state jurisdiction be established by concurrent legislation in California and Nevada. 23 Z'Berg introduced legislation creating an agency that would ·address the committee's suggestions and, in the time taken to get this agency effective, also establish the California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (CTRP A). 24 When the Nevada Legislature confronted the task of passing comparable legislation, Nevada produced a weaker agency with dual majority vote of governing board members from each state, a low annual limit on budget, and a grandfather clause for existing businesses. 25 Z'Berg was unhappy with the weakening of the regional agency and refused to take up the bill again. 26 Z'Berg felt that if Nevada didn't help establish a better plan, the federal government would be forced to step in because of the failure of state and local governments to manage the area sufficiently.27 While Governor Ronald Reagan criticized Z'Berg, a Sierra Club lobbyist fostered a compromise in which CTRP A would remain in place for the benefit of curbing development on the California side while TRPA would also exist for the entire basin.28 Nevada formed a counterpart agency (NTRPA) as well, to be dissolved after the creation of TRPA.29 Finally, in 1969, lawmakers in both California and Nevada had adopted the bi-state compact and Congress ratified a slightly modified bill to form the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in 1970.30 Historical Milestones Since Program Adoption The bi-state compact that required the creation of TRP A in 1970 stipulated that in order to deny any large development project, the TRP A governing board needed a dual majority of reriresentatives from the states, and that any proposal was approved by default after 60 days. 1 This structure resulted in the approval of 12,000 residential units by July 1971 and denial of only 500 units.32 The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to the U.S. Department of the Interior provided this information in 1971. 33 Also in the bureau's report was a censure of the federal government for uncoordinated grants for roads, condominium maintenance, airports, and sewage systems. 34 Under the compact, TRPA also had to develop an interim plan within 90 days and a regional plan within 18 months.35 With the impending deadline, J.K. Smith, the agency's first executive director, used Robert G. Bailey's land capability rankings (Bailey System) as the basis for his regional plan. 36 This was an innovative concept because it assigned every inch of the basin a capability for use, as opposed to the use of zoning codes such as residential, industrial, commercial, or agricultural.37 These land capabilities have remained the basis for land coverage and use since the original plan was adopted. Continued Tahoe Basin growth and the ineffectiveness of TRPA frustrated people that had flaced high hopes on the agency to regulate growth and protect Lake Tahoe's beauty.3 Critics of the agency argued for an array of solutions, from establishing a national recreation area managed by the U.S. Forest Service to a revision of the bi-state compact to make TRPA more effective. 39 Revision of the compact was the chosen solution, and Jimmy Carter, who was running in presidential election primaries at the time, promised a federal role if the revision did not strengthen the compact.40 Legislators revised and passed the compact in both California and Nevada and then in Congress in 1980.41 Program Description Structure and Development The new compact expanded the size of the governing board to 14 voting members (plus a nonvoting presidential appointee).42 Four state and three local representatives composed the California delegation of the board.43 The Nevada delegation had three state and three local representatives, with those six members selecting Nevada's seventh member.44 The compact eliminated the 60day rule and altered the dual majority rule.45 Under the revisions, project approval required an affirmative vote from five of seven members from the state in which a pr2,Posal was to take place, in addition to nine total governing board members' approval. In the case of regional plans and ordinances, at least four of seven members from each state had to vote in favor in order to approve those proposals.47 Finally, the new compact required a threshold and carrying capacity study.48 TRPA set stringent standards for water and air quality, soil conservation, vegetation, noise, wildlife, fisheries, recreation, and scenic resources in 1982.49 TRPA's thresholds are what determine planning for the entire basin. TRP A evaluates whether these specific parameters are meeting attainment, meaning whether they are meeting the desired levels that TRPA has set forth. Every five years since 1991, TRP A has evaluated these thresholds. This allows the a§ency to reexamine problem areas and direct planning efforts for the next five years.5 TRP A has been successful in managing growth with the coordination of other organizations and authorities. The U.S. Forest Service has a land buyout program that helps landowners that are faced with unbuildable tracts of land and also purchases land that is adjacent to other federal land. 51 The California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) also has a land buyout program that is backed by a bond issue in California.52 CTC also banks land and allows developers to purchase sensitive lands and transfer the development rights out of those tracts onto land that can receive these rights at a rate up to 70 percent coverage, under TRPA guidelines. 53 TRPA sets the re~lations and delegates to local jurisdictions the authority to review smaller projects. TRPA requires larger projects to come to them. TRP A classifies all pr~ects into categories that indicate the level of decision-making authority that TRPA has. The cate~ories are "exempt," "qualified exempt," "staff review," and "governing board review." 6 The U.S. Forest Service's Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) projects generally fall under the "qualified exempt" category.57 However, TRPA still requires LTBMU to file exemption papers in order for TRPA to be informed about all activities in the basin.58 Federal Role TRPA and the Forest Service's relationship is extensive for good reason: of the 205,000 acres in the Lake Tahoe basin, the Forest Service owns 158,500.59 Aside from TRPA's partnership with the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, TRPA and the federal government have several other interactions in the region. The presidential appointee on the governing board allows the federal government to have a voice in debate, though no vote. The Lake Tahoe Federal Advisory Committee was established by executive order in 1998 to provide the secretary of agriculture advice on how federal programs and funds can best aid in achieving regional goals.60 Governance/Management/Oversight/Penalties TRPA is so large and unique in structure that there is very little oversight beyond what is in place internally, namely the threshold evaluations. Both states have the authority to perform audits on TRPA, but as one TRPA employee pointed out, neither state would likely perform one.61 Local citizens are the best form of oversight for TRPA. Both opponents and supporters of growth management in the basin challenge TRPA's policies and practices. Opposition normally arises in the form of court cases claiming takings that must go to the U.S. Supreme Court because of the nature of the bi-state jurisdiction. In these cases, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of TRPA and its policies. The League to Save Lake Tahoe, supporters of stringent growth management practices, also filed suit against TRPA when the organization passed its regional plan in 1981.62 The League to Save Lake Tahoe claimed that TRPA's plan would not achieve environmental threshold carrying capacities. TRPA was required to adjust its regional plan to reflect the need to achieve the thresholds. Policy TRPA's policy with regard to planning, land use, and growth management is extensive. The policies used most comprehensively in the determination of land use planning are the plan area statements, the individual parcel evaluation system, and the land capability system. All of these systems are closely associated. The plan area statements indicate TRPA's intentions for the area described in each statement. TRPA has established 180 separate plan areas and statements for each of these areas. The plan area statements contain information such as existing development, future development allowed (if any) and type of development, from conservation to multifamily dwelling or commercial use. The land capability system developed by Robert G. Bailey allows for a certain amount of land coverage in each area of the basin, ranging in seven categories from 1 to 30 percent.63 Within each plan area, land capabilities can vary greatly, requiring further inspection ofeach parcel ofland to determine appropriate land use for single-family dwellings. This is the essence of the individual parcel evaluation system (IP.ES). Each parcel is given an IPF.S score based on eight characteristics of the land and land coverage classification is based on two ofthese: runoff potential and relative erosion hazards.64 The plan area statements are TRPA plans, sometimes adopted by local jurisdictions, and land use capabilities are TRPA regulations for all areas of the Tahoe basin. The authority to implement the planning statements and land capabilities falls in the hands of both TRPA and local jurisdictions. Several ofthe local governments have replaced traditional zoning structures with the plan area statements and use them as a planning guide.65 Funding Funding for TRPA comes from a variety of sources. 1be overall revenue projected for 2002-2003 is $8.8 million; of which $3.6 million comes from the State of California and $1.8 million comes from the State ofNevadafJ6 Other components of revenues for TRPA are license plate fees, grants, EPA monies, and filing fees. 67 Program Evaluation Program Outputs TRPA performs a self~valuation every five years by determining whether the nine broad environmental threshold carrying capacities and the 36 thresholds within the nine broad thresholds are in attainment. This extensive evaluation serves as the primary analytical tool to determine whether TRPA is achieving its goals. Once the threshold evaluation is completed, the staff of TRPA determines what adjustments should be made to the regional plan and makes recommendations to the governing board The nine thresholds are air quality, water quality, soil conservation, vegetation, fisheries, wildlife, scenic resources, noise, and recreation. 68 Within those nine thresholds are 36 specific threshold indicators. 69 When TRPA adopted the environmental thresholds some of the indicators were already in attainment, while TRPA did not expect to see others in attainment for decades.70 In 2001, TRPA determined seven indicators to be in attainment, four indeterminable given the data, and 25 not in attainment. 71 Ofthe 25 threshold indicators that were not in attainment, seven of those were close to attainment.72 Of the 36 environmental thresholds, five were examined more closely within the context of this case study, including vehicle miles traveled, winter lake clarity, impervious coverage, scenic quality rankings, and recreation. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is an indicator for air quality because of the impact on visibility and other effects caused by emissions from vehicles. TRPA's goal for attainment of VMf is to reduce VMT by 10 percent from 1981 levels.73 Although, as of 2003, the threshold is not and has never been in attainment and VMT has even increased, with funding, TRPA expects to see a 200,000-mile lower VMT by December 2006.74 In 2004, TRPA also intends to evaluate the relevance of this indicator as a threshold standard for air quality.75 Winter lake clarity is one of the primary indicators for water quality. TRPA's goal for lake clarity is to have visual acuity to a distance no less than 33.4 meters below the water surface for the winter average.76 This indicator is not in attainment. California also set a goal for average lake clarity, by which clarity should not be lower than that which was recorded in 1967-1971.77 This goal is also not in attainment. However, TRPA also had an interim goal of clarity to 22.7 meters, which was in attainment for 1998, 1999, and 2001.78 TRPA's goal for impervious cover is for the basin's land to be compliant with the land capabilities established in the Bailey system. All projects approved after 1972 are in compliance with the Bailey system.79 However, the goal is so far reaching that projects approved before that date must be modified over time. As a result, this indicator is not in attainment. In 2001, TRPA established several interim targets that will be evaluated in the 2006 threshold evaluation. The scenic threshold has scenic quality ratings as one of the indicators for this category. For this indicator, TRPA sets its threshold standard as maintaining or improving the ratings given to the individual scenic resources in a given location. For roadway scenic resources, TRP A has identified 205 resources. 80 Of those, 11 had a rating increase and 4 experienced a decline.81 TRPA identified 185 shoreline scenic 82 resources. Of those, 5 resources had ratings increases and 6 had decreases. 83 This threshold indicator is also not in attainment. To maintain the economic viability of the region, tourism is key. The recreation threshold reflects this. One of the indicators used to evaluate the recreation threshold is resource capacity available to the general public. TRPA's goal is to establish and maintain a fair share of the basin available for outdoor recreation. 84 Although this threshold standard is less quantitative than some of the others, it is in attainment and appears it will remain as such in the 2006 threshold evaluation. TRP A also examines all threshold indicators on the basis of a trend toward attainment or away from attainment.85 Nineteen indicators show positive trends, 10 show no trend, and seven show trends awa~ from attainment. 86 Of the 25 indicators not in attainment, 12 show a positive trend. 7 The seven indicators that are moving away from attainment are also in this group. 88 Of the seven water quality indicators, one of those is in attainment-shallow turbidity. 89 None of the scenic resources indicators are in attainment but recreation capacity is in attainment.90 Outcomes The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is an innovative organization in the area of growth management. TRPA pioneered the use of land capabilities rather than zoning as a planning tool. This notable achievement is perhaps one of the primary reasons that academics study TRP A so often. The ability of other organizations to aid in the implementation of regulations improves TRPA's capacity to function in and with the community. Another boost for TRP A is that the federal government did not have to step in and regulate or completely take over the land. This is a particularly positive point for an area that values private property rights. The private property rights advocates are among those that have difficulty accepting TRPA and its policies and regulations. TRPA is constantly in legal battles because of this nonacceptance by the local public. This has been a problem since long before TRP A's establishment, as E.A. Sterling discovered in 1904-laws regulating behavior for the purpose of protecting the environment have been frowned upon in the region for a century. However, the people who are in the basin are beginning to appreciate further the value of Lake Tahoe, the fragility of its natural beauty, and its impact on the economic vitality of the region. The sentiments of the residents in California and Nevada also indicate that Lake Tahoe must be taken care of as a national treasure. Another issue that is potentially a problem for TRPA is its lack of direct political representation on the governing board. None of the board members are elected directly to the board; all members are either appointed by other elected officials or have been elected to a separate office in an area within the jurisdiction of TRPA. This allows TRPA to act somewhat in obscurity since the public has little active contact with TRPA officials or functions. The elimination of this anonymity would likely gain the local public's support, especially with minimal public relations effort. Election of governing board members would also allow for further public oversight of TRPA. Public oversight is the most effective oversight mechanism of TRPA. Having directly elected governing board members would increase access to that public oversight. However, this might also reduce the efficiency of TRPA in that politically motivated leadership may change the focus of the organization. Leaders may become more concerned with being reelected than performing the task of planning for the growth of the Tahoe region. A current and future problem for TRPA will be affordable housing. The median wage earner is being driven out of the rental market by vacation rentals and out of the sales market by a median housing price that is rising faster than wages. Findings Supporting organizations have made TRPA's regional planning possible. The League to Save Lake Tahoe has made an impact with its "Keep Tahoe Blue" campaign in getting out the word about threats to Lake Tahoe's health. However, the historically adversarial relationship prevents a partnership that might benefit both organizations. The California Tahoe Conservancy and the U.S. Forest Service's land buyout programs help by the removal of highly sensitive lands from the real estate market. California Tahoe Conservancy's land banking program helps with the continued economic growth of the region by finding a way to both preserve sensitive lands and develop areas that TRP A has deemed as capable of such land use. Faced with the daunting task of trying to balance economic and community growth with protecting valuable natural resources, TRPA measures up well. It has not been able to meet its own environmental threshold carrying capacities and may never do so; however, this task in the face of a growing population with increasing demands seems nearly impossible without returning the areato an untouched habitat. Even in that impossible case, the lake would probably see some continued clarity degradation before returning to clarity. The fact that TRPA has been able to slow degradation of clarity in Lake Tahoe is commendable. Notes 1 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, About TRPA: Mission Statement. Online. Available: http://www.trpa.org/Mission.htm. Accessed: January 16, 2003. 2 Douglas Strong, Tahoe: An Environmental History (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1984), fP· 22-31. Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 League to Save Lake Tahoe, Lake Tahoe's Annual Clarity Chart, South Lake Tahoe, CA (pamphlet). 7 Interview by M. Catherine McGuire with Lisa O'Daly, Associate Plariner, City of South Lake Tahoe, South Lake Tahoe, California, December 17. 2003. 8 APA Conference Session, ''Critical Events in Regional Planning at Lake Tahoe," South Lake Tahoe, CA, October 22, 2001 (pamphlet). 9 Ibid. lO Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Strong, Tahoe: An Environmental History, p. 141. 14 APA Conference Session, "Critical Events in Regional Planning at Lake Tahoe." 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Strong, Tahoe: An Environmental History, p. 139. 18 Ibid., p. 140. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid., p. 143. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid., p. 144. 29 Ibid. 30 APA Conference Session, ''Critical Events in Regional Planning at Lake Tahoe." 31 Strong, Tahoe: An Environmental History, p. 192. 32 Ibid., p. 159. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid . . 35 Ibid., p. 150. 36 Ibid., p. 153. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid., pp. 175-178. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid., p. 192. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid., p. 193. 49 Ibid. 50 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, "2001 Threshold Evaluation: Executive Summary," Zephyr Cove, NV, 2002. si Telephone interview by M. Catherine McGuire with Robert McDowell, Planning Staff Officer, U.S. Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, South Lake Tahoe, California, February 20, 2003. sz O'Daly interview. S3 Ibid. 54 Ibid. ss McDowell interview. 56 Ibid. S1 Ibid. 58 Ibid. S9 Ibid. "°U.S. Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Lake Tahoe Federal, Advisory Committee. Online. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ltbmu/loca1/ltfac/. Accessed: April 21, 2003. 61 Interview by M. Catherine McGuire with Jon Van Etten, Economic Analyst, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Zephyr Cove, NV, December 19, 2002. 62 McDowell interview. 63 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, l.mul Capability. Online. Available: http://www.trpa.org/land_cap.html. Accessed: February 22, 2003. 64 Interview by M. Catherine McGuire with Jed Hammer, Planning Technician, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Zephyr Cove, NV, December 19, 2002. 65 Email from Lisa O'Daly, Associate Planner, City of South Lake Tahoe, to M. Catherine McGuire, March 31, 2003. 66 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, ''2002103 TRPA Operating Budget Transmittal," Zephyr Cove, NV (pamphlet). 6 ' Ibid. 68 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2001 Threshold Eva/.uation Report-July 2002. Online. Available: http://www.trpa.org/News/'2001_Thresholds.html. Accessed: April 22, 2003. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 7 s Ibid. 76 Ibid. n Ibid. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. M Ibid. SS Ibid. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid. Appendix 3.5-City of Boulder Open space preservation and growth management in Boulder, Colorado. In 1959 Boulder approved a local ballot Comprehensive Plan in 1978, which utilizes initiative to implement an urban service the urban service boundary, provides a boundary protecting the surrounding foothills framework for annexation, and recognizes the from development. In 1967 Boulder citizens use of sales taxes and bonds to acquire open voted to increase their sales tax by four-tenths space. This case study will analyze Boulder's of a cent to purchase open space for greenbelts open space and growth management programs and thoroughfares. Boulder and Boulder and will also examine new challenges facing County adopted the Boulder Valley the city. Table 1 Socioeconomic, Land Use, and Transoortation Data for the City of Boulder 1990-2000 1990 2000 (%change) Socioeconomic Population 83,908 94,673 12.8 Areal 83,908 94,673 12.8 Area II 14,157 10,696 -32.3 Median household income 29,407 44,748 48 Families below poverty level (%of total) 7.5 6.4 -1.7 White population (% of total) 93 88.3 -.05 Minority population (% of total) 7 11.7 .33 Land Use Land area 22.6 24.37 7.8 Population per square mile 3639 3884 6.7 Total housing units 36,270 40,797 12.4 Units per square mile 1604 1674 4.3 Average household size 2.18 2.20 .09 Housing with 10 or more units (% of total) 30.4 28.5 -5.3 Transoortation Average vehicle miles traveled 24.3 27.8 14.4 Commuters using car, truck, van, or carpool 70.8 68.5 -.3 Commuters using public transportation 5.5 8.3 34 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Files. Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: February 25, 2003; City of Boulder, Summary ofInformation, ''Demography." Online. Available: http://www.ci.boulder.eo.us/hroe/hrae/demog.htrn. Accessed: January 12, 2003. 143 Background Socioeconomic Information Boulder was formed as a mining town in the nineteenth century and in 2003 is home to the University of Colorado and is a major employment center. Boulder's population, including unincorporated areas planned for annexation, increased from 83,908 in 1990 to 94,673 in 2000. Population projections for 2025 are as high as 146,000. Employment opportunities between 1990 and 2000 rose from 76,821to101,294. Contributing to this employment growth is the University of Colorado, which employs 7 ,500 people, and IBM and Sun Microsystems, two advanced technology businesses, employ a total of 7,100 people. Boulder makes up 37 percent of Boulder County, and it is the most densely populated city in the county. The average population density is 3,890 people per square mile. An urban growth boundary has prohibited the city from expanding into outlying areas even while population and employment opportunities have increased. For years Boulder has utilized various land use policies and collaborative planning among city departments to obtain a higher quality of living. The residential building permit process has changed many times in the last 30 years. In 2003, residential building permits equaled less than half the number generated in the early 1990s. While the city has limited residential growth, it has encouraged commercial and industrial growth. In certain commercial and industrial areas, the city has allowed extremely high floor-to-area ratios (FAR) or has established none at all. The city's Department of Planning and Development Services and the Department of Open Space and Mountain Parks are committed equally to implementing sound growth management and open space policies. Relative to the city's growth, the Transportation Department has implemented a transportation master plan that emphasizes alternative modes of transportation, providing citizens with more transportation choices and reducing congestion within the city. Unplanned, low-density urban development has been limited in Boulder, but it is important to reevaluate the city as its population and the surrounding communities grow. Development pressure is high in surrounding cities where growth is not managed. Low­ density residential development that accommodates strip malls, chain stores, and discount stores in suburbs outside Boulder has attracted a large population of Boulder's workforce. As a result about half of Boulder's workforce lives outside the city limits, and many Boulder residents choose to shop there. Increased commuting has increased traffic congestion.1 Land Character Situated approximately 20 miles northwest of Denver, the city of Boulder consists of 25.375 square miles: one square mile of water and 24.37 square miles of land. It is surrounded to its north, south, and east by a greenbelt of land measuring 42,000 acres that serves as a buffer between the city and surrounding municipalities. To the west of the city are the foothills to the mountains. Boulder manages 42,000 acres of open space, of which 8,000 acres are mountainous parks areas and 34,000 are rural and agricultural lands. Growth Management History Boulder's growth management and open space policies are based on a long evolution of land use in the Boulder Valley. Regulations have ranged from capping the growth rate entirely, permitting development in designated areas through a phased­growth system, and infill development. Historically, Boulder's population has been committed to conservation and community sustainability. The area's mountains have attracted naturalists and outdoors enthusiasts, and given their appreciation of the area's natural beauty, Boulder's citizens have participated actively in growth management and open space preservation efforts. Efforts to preserve the "mountain backdrop" of the city have existed since 1898, when the citizens of Boulder voted 1,358 to 38 to approve a bond to purchase the 75 acres of land that would become the Chautauqua Park. Boulder's population doubled from 19,999 in 1950 to 37,718 in 1960, contributing to the adoption of an urban service boundary in 1959 called the Blue Line. The Blue Line marked a boundary on the western edge of the city at an elevation of 5,750 feet above mean sea level, to which point city water service could not be delivered.2 The population doubled again between 1960 and 1970 from 37,718 to 68,870. Given these rapid growth rates, the Blue Line enabled Boulder to develop densely throughout those years by limiting its westward expansion. Leadership Leadership in land use management has come from the general citizenry and local government. Dating back to the Chautauqua Park purchase of 1898, citizens have initiated and supported efforts to preserve the natural environment and small-town quality of Boulder. In 2003 the city and the county remain committed to establishing an aggressive, fair, and equitable form of management that fosters Boulder's history of active citizen participation in government. In 1959 a group of Boulder citizens formed PLAN-Boulder (People's League for Action Now-Boulder), an organization to preserve the Blue Line, combat sprawl, and protect rural and agricultural lands.3 Over the years, PLAN-Boulder, now called PLAN­Boulder County, supported open space acquisition programs and recommended regulated zoning, revised annexation policies, reviewed flood plain regulations and protections, and helped elect several of its members to the city council. Al Bartlett-Blue Line initiator, one of PLAN-Boulder's founders, and University of Colorado professoi-has become one of the city's main advocates of a no­ growth policy for sustainable living. He believes that population growth has contributed to intolerable traffic and overpriced housing. In Bartlett's opinion, growth management does not solve local problems because it allows for a higher population.4 He says that no­ growth is the only "smart" growth and feels that all planning should recognize the need to limit population growth. He feels that it is most important to recognize that population growth never pays for itself. It always results in higher taxes for all citizens. In addition, it generates crowded schools, congested highways, shortages of water, higher home prices, and increased air and water pollution. 5 Many long-time residents of Boulder agree with Bartlett and fear that any further population growth will change the local character of the city and lead to environmental degradation.6 Their influence serves as a watchdog perspective on Boulder's quality of life. Others, including Boulder's mayor Will Toor and the Department of Planning and Development Services, support the city's current growth management and open space programs that accommodate growth though acquisition of rural lands and implementation of mixed-use and infill development. 7 An advocate of regional growth planning, Mayor Toor uses his political position to promote use of alternative modes oftransportation to decrease commuter traffic congestion. He believes strongly in Boulder's programs and would like to see more people investing in local retail to maintain the city's open space program. Growth management and open space preservation leadership on the county level parallels city leadership. Boulder County works toward achieving growth management and transportation plans in which citiz.ens may make more responsible choices. Similarities betwe.en the county's and the city's land use objectives have enabled the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). adopted in 1978, to function successfully. Overall, growth management and open space preservation leadership is characterized by a strong tradition of activism and passage of ballot initiatives. As mentioned above, the Chautauqua Parle purchase and the Blue Line restrictions were ballot initiatives. In addition, the Department of Planning and Development Services has devised many ways to engage the public, including workshops, forums, public meetings, and newsletters. Factors Leading to Policy Initiation Rapid population growth in the 1950s and 1960s created complex challenges to the valley. at which time PLAN-Boulder County's influence on planning evolved into a cooperative effort with the local government. Boulder has a council-manager form of government, and with a steady supply of PLAN-Boulder County members serving as councilmembers, influence on city officials and planning concepts grew. In 1964 and 1965 the city adopted a growth management plan called the Spokes ofthe Wheel that allowed for development in three corridors leading out of the city center. At that time the city felt that it could extend its urban service boundary due to pressures from the population increase. The city believed that growth was inevitable, but it still maintained that it could control growth in the long run by encouraging further mixed-use development in the city center. Construction started along the planned area north ofthe city, but by late 1965 a majority of citiz.ens did not support extending water and utilities to the newly developing area, fearing that it would financially drain the city's revenues and change the local character. Again citizens voiced their opinion by petition, and the city council held a referendum on the ordinance. The referendum halted the expansion ofBoulder's urban service boundary, except for the area north of town where development had begun. In 1967 Ruth Wright-then chair of PLAN-Boulder County who would later become Minority Leader in the State House of Representatives-and Ted Tedesco. city manager, devised a plan to increase the sales tax by four-tenths of a cent to raise revenue dedicated to the purchase open space for greenbelts and thoroughfares.8 Citizens approved the proposal, and Boulder became the first city in the country to approve a dedicated sales tax to acquire open space. Eleven years later, the city and the county adopted the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). an intergovernmental agreement that both entities designed to "protect the natural environment ofthe Boulder Valley while fostering a livable, vibrant, and sustainable community.''9 1be BVCP established a staged-growth plan for the unincorporated areas near the city and in the county to which service delivery was controlled. Program Description Structure and Development The BVCP legally binds the county and the city. Each party must agree to comply with its terms. Considering that Colorado does not require adoption of comprehensive plans, that Boulder and the county adopted and implemented this comprehensive plan is an oddity in the state. The intergovernmental agreement component of the BVCP states that the county has final authority of land use and development in unincorporated areas, and that the city must be the service provider for urban development. From the city it requires adoption by the Boulder City Council and Planning Board; from the county it requires adoption by the Boulder County Planning Commission and the Boulder County Board of County Commissioners.10 The plan establishes 15-year land use planning intervals. The county and the city review the BVCP every five years, at which time a public hearing determines the extension of the plan for another five years. Both parties must approve any updates. The BVCP has four major components: 1. Policies that guide all decisions, including development, environmental protection, and service delivery; 2. Subcommunity and Area Plans that direct development for specific areas; 3. Master Plan and Program Summary that specifies services and needs of the community; and 4. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map that outlines the land use pattern for Boulder Valley. 11 Compact development and open space preservation are Boulder's central planning principles. 2 The BVCP illustrates this master plan and lists the following as its General Policies: • Respect for the community's unique identity and sense of place. • Recognition of sustainability as a unifying goal to secure Boulder's future economic, ecological, and social health. • Commitment to open space preservation and the use of open space buffers to define the community. • Use of urban growth boundaries to maintain a compact city (the boundaries of the service area have remained virtually unchanged since first developed in 1978). • Growth management to regulate the rate and overall amount of residential development and redevelopment. • Encouragement of compact, contiguous development and a preference for infill land redevelopment as opposed to sprawl. • Recognition of the importance of a central area (downtown, University of Colorado, the Boulder Valley Regional Center) as a regional service center of Boulder Valley. • Commitment to a diversity of housing types and price ranges to meet the needs of the Boulder Valley population.13 The BVCP creates a physical division between its urban and rural areas. Within the urban boundary, the city has developed around three regional centers: the historic downtown, the Boulder Valley Regional Center, and the University of Colorado. Boulder has a "mobility grid." The transportation grid connects the city center and neighborhoods via a network of major transit corridors and roadways, and it connects the city to rural areas through a system of trails and paths. These transportation structures are designed to preserve the historic quality of Boulder's neighborhoods and buildings. Zoning regulations determine development. The city is responsible for zoning regulation within its incorporated area. The county is responsible for zoning all unincorporated areas. In 1984 the county made major changes to its regulatory zoning codes. First, the state had adopted legislation that prevented counties from imposing regulation on land parceled into 35 acres or more. Boulder County changed its minimum requirement in compliance with state legislation. Second, agricultural lands that were zoned for commercial and industrial development were down-zoned for agricultural use only. Third, other areas zoned for residential use were down-zoned for agricultural use.14 Intergovernmental Relationships Governmental relationships in Boulder are critical to its growth management and open space preservation success. Within the city the most important connection is between the Department of Planning and Development Services and the Department of Open Space and Mountain Parks. These two departments enforce and manage critical elements of the city's growth management and open space preservation plan. Planning and Development Services performs a variety of growth management functions, including implementation and regulation of project reviews, inspections, environmental zoning, floodplain and wetlands protection, historical preservation, and long-range planning. The Long-Range Planning division is responsible for development and implementation of the BVCP. Open Space and Mountain Parks is a vital component of the city's open space preservation goals.15 The Department of Open Space and Mountain Parks acquires and manages open space for Boulder. The department operates under a department director and is supervised by the city manager. A five-member board of trustees, appointed by the city council, advises the department. The department acquires land for two main reasons. First, it preserves and restores natural resources, including natural areas, water resources, and land for recreational and agricultural use. Second, it uses the land for shaping the development of the city, limiting urban sprawl, defining the urban area, protecting floodplains, and preserving natural beauty for aesthetic value. The BVCP's intergovernmental agreement describes the nature of the city and county's relationship in which they work together to purchase open space and plan for growth. Sixty percent of the unincorporated land in Boulder County is under public ownership. Boulder County manages approximately 14 percent of that land, which equals 6 nearly 70,000 acres of land on which 85 miles of trails are built.1. The state plays a very limited role, and its policies do not interfere with local planning, given that Colorado is a strong home-rule state. The state legislature passed several pieces of legislation within the last three years, including the creation of the Office of Smart Growth. All state legislation enacts weak guidelines compared to policies that already exist in Boulder. The biggest impact of the state on Boulder is its allocation of lottery proceeds to local governments for the acquisition of open space. The federal government manages 180,000 acres of public lands in Boulder County: . • U.S. Forest Service manages 134,000 acres; • Bureau of Land Management manages 5,000 acres; • National Park Service (Rocky Mountain National Park) manages 27,000 acres; and • U.S. National Forest Service manages 18,000 acres. Most of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in Boulder Valley are small parcels separated by private property. Large portions of these lands left federal ownership in the late 1800s and early 1900s through mineral patents issued pursuant to an 1872 mining law. During this time, vast mineral deposits were discovered, and miners stated their claims. These mining districts formed a crisscross land ownership pattern throughout the region, with the tiny bits of land between the claims remaining federal land, some of which was incorporated into the Roosevelt and Arapahoe National Forests. BLM believes it is no longer feasible to manage these pieces of oddly shaped land and that the city and county could manage them more efficiently according to their local policies. The BLM office that manages the land is nearly 200 miles south of Boulder, whereas the city and county have staff on location. BLM is currently working out a series of three land exchanges with the county that will give the county control over most of these lands in exchange for land adjacent to federal lands in other areas.17 Policy The city's main land use goals are to develop compactly and to preserve open space. Elements of the BVCP that manage the city's growth are a combination of its established urban service boundary and framework for annexation, its support for the utilization of sales taxes and bonds to acquire open space, and its overwhelming citizen support to preserve the natural beauty of Boulder. The BVCP has been updated four times, most recently in 2000, and still reflects the same critical planning policies and earns strong support from the public. The BVCP incorporates the urban service boundary into a phased growth system that provides a framework by which Boulder may annex land. The annexation framework divides the city into three areas.18 Area I, the developed area within Boulder with adequate infrastructure and services, determines Boulder's city limits. Area II, a mix of rural land and fairly suburban development under Boulder County's jurisdiction, is eligible for annexation during specific planning periods. Area illconsists of two types of lands: the Rural Preservation that designates a rural land use pattern, and the Planning Reserve that designates areas where Boulder and Boulder County may plan for urban development after a 15-year planning period. This phased-growth system controls the municipal boundary and city and country open space. The implementing policy tool for open space preservation is land acquisition. Boulder acquires land both independently and jointly with the county through outright purchases, transfer and purchase of development rights, conservation easements, donations, and intergovernmental transfers with state and federal agencies. The county's down-zoning of the 1980s has made it possible for the city and county to obtain more open space. As mentioned earlier, open space preserves the natural qualities of the area and controls growth. Funding The city's general fund has several sources ofrevenue. Its main source is the sales tax, but it also collects from planning and development fees, property taxes, utility rates, parks and recreation fees, and intergovernmental sources. The total city budget for 2002 was nearly $200,000,000. The general fund budget equaled nearly $68,000,000, which covered approximately 40 percent of ongoing city services.19 In 2002. $81,474,000 of the city's revenue was generated through the sales tax.w The City spent $20,568,000 toward open space and real estate. The Department of Planning and Development Services spent a total of $6,552,000. Funding for open space acquisition comes from a variety of sources. The largest share for the city's acquisition comes from the additional sales tax approved by voters for the purchase of open space. Lands purchased by the county use some property tax, which generates about $3.8 million annually, and proceeds from lottery funds. which have generated about $5 million in grants.21 Program Evaluation Program Outputs Boulder devised a plan in 1967 to protect its "mountain backdrop," natural resources, and local character by purchasing open space and limiting growth. In 1978 the city and county adopted the BVCP to achieve these goals. As of 2003 Boulder has acquired a substantial amount of protected open space, controlled development. and limited residential growth while retaining a viable economy. Since the passage of the self-imposed sales tax in 1967. Boulder voters have increased that sales tax 0. 73 cents per dollar and purchased nearly 35,500 acres ofland. In 2000 the total ci1Izsales tax generated $81,474,000, which was 42.7 percent ofthe city's total revenue. Sales tax revenues have contributed to the purchases ofthe 42,000­acre greenbelt of land around the city that buffers it from other growing communities. Voters have repeatedly defeated ballot initiatives to expand development, which, in tum, has allowed for further federal, state, and general land acquisition. The preservation of Boulder Creek, which runs through the valley, the Flatirons at the edge ofthe city. and other open space and agricultural lands are attributed to the citizen-supported open space program that Boulder's Department of Open Space and Mountain Parks manages.23 The Open Space and Mountain Parks department manages 42,000 acres that are approximately 8 percent of the total public lands in Boulder County. The city's Mountain Parks consist of 6,500 acres, and a further 35,000 acres make up rural and agricultural lands. Boulder's Department of Open Space and Mountain Parks maintains a trail system of 130 miles, of which 41 miles are accessible to bicycles. Within its urban service boundary, Boulder has developed compactly using mixed-use development and providing for some affordable housing. Combined Areas I and II have 45,880 housing units. In 2001 the city issued a mere 127 residential building permits and 32 commercial and residential permits. In the 2000 update of the BVCP, the Area ill Planning Reserve was reduced from 690 to 490 square acres and thereby increased Area ID's rural preservation area. 24 Populations in Areas I and II were approximately 94,673 and 10,696. respectively. in 2000. Since the late 1960s Boulder has sustained a 2 percent population growth cap. There are over 104,850 employment opportunities in the city. The median incomes of individuals, families, and households are higher than Colorado's average. Program Sensitivity to Changes in Environment A recession slowed Boulder's economy in the 1980s. The high-tech industry helped Boulder's economy in the 1990s when IBM and Sun Microsystems moved into the area, but it also makes it more vulnerable to national economic downturns. Because of the vigorous recruiting of new companies and businesses, Boulder's population increased.25 As a result, Broomfield, Superior, Louisville, Lafayette, and other communities near Boulder did, too. As Boulder reached residential zoning capacities and housing prices increased, people moved to cities beyond Boulder's greenbelt where they found less-expensive suburban living. When the BVCP was updated in 2000, three related issues were designated as requiring more planning: jobs-to-housing ratio, affordable housing, and traffic. Boulder's population in 2000 was approximately 101,294, and its projected population for 2025 is as high as 146,000. Employment growth may reach 165,000 opportunities by 2025. Given these figures, Boulder could be facing bigger challenges in the future. An imbalance ofjobs to housing leads to more in-commuting, a greater daytime population, traffic congestion, skyrocketing housing prices, and a general breakdown of the local character. While the number of employment opportunities increases, Boulder cannot provide a proportionate amount of housing units to due to zoning regulations and its urban service boundary. In addition, Boulder has limited housing growth while it permitted unlimited commercial and industrial growth. For many years Boulder has served as a municipal model for growth management and now is seeking to alter plans for the future, considering the lack of affordable housing and in-migration for work. Outcomes As an open space preservation program built on principles of community sustainability, Boulder is a success. Boulder is a desirable place to live with a preserved natural landscape, outdoor recreational space, an historic, compact, and pedestrian­ friendly downtown, efficient public transportation, and local character. However, it will be a challenge for Boulder to maintain these attributes in the future due to the unregulated growth of the state, increased commuter traffic, and Boulder's housing shortage. Colorado does not have a state growth management plan, nor does it enforce the use of comprehensive plans or urban growth boundaries. (See the Colorado Office of Smart Growth case study for further details on state regulations.) As a result, communities around Boulder are not required to manage growth. Leapfrog development has increased traffic congestion as people commute to work in Boulder from outlying areas, and consequently traffic on U.S. 36 has increased dramatically over the years. Development outside Boulder has decreased Boulder's tax base while other communities develop retail centers. Very few discount stores exist in Boulder, and most of its retail is locally owned and operated. As surrounding community centers welcome large discount stores, Boulder shoppers are attracted that way. Reduced retail sales taxes threaten Boulder's Open Space and Mountain Parks program, and the department is posting the following reminder on its website and literature: "When you shop in Boulder, your sales tax helps pay for Open Space & Mountain Parks!" The city's Transportation Department reports a 45 percent increase in commuter traffic volume between 1989 and 1996. Congestion within the city has increased with population growth, but the greatest congestion results from commuters. Since 1996, transportation planning has discouraged single-occupancy vehicular travel, and more alternative modes of transportation, including light rail, are being planned for the future. Inside the city, the Transportation Department created GO Boulder, a program designed to work with the community and other agencies to implement and develop alternative modes of transportation that do not rely on the automobile. Lack of housing units is due to a limited area in which to build and a restrictive permit process that has left Boulder with little affordable housing. According to the city's official definition, an affordable home in Boulder is $134,000 and the average price of a home is approximately $300,000.26 In the 2000 update of the BVCP, Boulder adopted an inclusionary zoning s~stem in which 20 percent of each new residential development must be affordable. 7 Still, even with the inclusionary zoning, affordable housing growth simply has not kept up with demand. About 5,800 housing units, 13,000 new residents, and approximately 100,000 more jobs are in Boulder's future. 28 Consequently, the city has undertaken a project called the Jobs to Population Balance Project that began in October 2001 to investigate the imbalance further. The city manager appointed a 13-member citizen advisory board that, with city staff, formalized the project planning. The objective was to achieve a greater balance between the working population and the residential population. The project compiled population and employment estimates and forecasts, developed alternatives for future development, and involved citizens and commercial and industrial property owners in a series of public meetings. The city council implemented a final plan after its February 11, 2003, meeting at which city staff ~resented their recommendations along with recommendations from the public meetings. 9 Balancing scenarios combined more mixed-use development in commercial and industrial areas while preserving commercial service businesses with reduced floor-to­area ratios in some industrial centers and limited floor-to-area ratios in other areas. In short, all scenarios reduced future nonresidential development compared to current trends. The city believed that reducing nonresidential growth and increasing mixed-use development would decrease traffic congestion and increase affordable housing in areas once intended for commercial and industrial use. Residential owners supported most mixed-used proposals that did not increase their neighborhood density. The Planning and Development Services department and a majority of citizens supported commercial and industrial regulation and increased mixed­used development. However, most developers and investors who attended the public meetings in December voiced their opposition to such measures. Some developers, who were very active in the jobs-to-housing public meetings, believed the proposed changes were simply unfair to businesspeople and commercial landowners. These people risk losing profits and felt there were other development options rather than reducing potential commercial and industrial development that will produce additional revenue for the city. The opposition argued that the proposals were based on an illegitimate imbalance, that people who work in Boulder but live elsewhere may be exercising their free will and may not want to live anywhere else.30 On February 18, 2003, the city council adopted a resolution after reviewing recommendations from city staff and the public. The resolution is combination of strategies suggested by city staff and the public.31 It includes setting a range of floor-to­area ratio (FAR) limits along with further urban design analysis. A summary of the resolution is as follows: 1. Mixed use in the Boulder Valley Regional Center using FAR of 0.8 to 1.0, and a nonresidential FAR limit of 0.4 to 0.5. Analysis toward finding more flexibility in retail development; mixed use in other selected commercial areas at a lower intensity by using FAR limit of 0.6 and a nonresidential limit of 0.35 to 0.4; mixed use in select locations in the industrial areas. 2. Preserve highly valued service commercial use area north of 28th Street by restricting uses and/or including a maximum FAR limit of 0.35 to 0.4. 3. Prohibit reduction of FARs in industrial zones. 4. Review all uses permitted in service industrial zones. 32 Findings Boulder is now facing new challenges. These challenges are not due to program failures, however. They require action to maintain the current living standard while accommodating growth through infill development. Boulder is meeting these challenges by taking conscientious steps to solicit public input and encourage interdepartmental cooperation. Future plans to reduce potential employment opportunity under current trends may reduce potential profits for the private sector; however, the decision to implement the plans is concurrent with the BVCP' s planning policies. The Jobs to Population Project and the process by which it was carried out is exemplary of the degree to which civic participation and local government has shaped Boulder's growth. In interviews with city and county officials and private citizens, it was clear that people living in Boulder enjoy the quality of life it offers. The natural landscape of the area cannot be duplicated in other areas of the country, but its open space acquisition and growth management programs could be. The success of Boulder's policies may be attributed to citizen and local government support. The history of Boulder is characterized by a tradition in which land preservation is valued deeply. Open space preservation presupposed growth management in Boulder and therefore has remained a priority throughout changing demographics. The BVCP has succeeded in establishing guidelines for growth management and annexation that further control sprawl. Research on Boulder's open space and growth management system reveals an overall consensus of approval from stakeholders, including confirmation that the benefits of the system exceed the costs. In general the program has increased the quality of life in its affected jurisdictions and is highly dedicated to minimizing sprawl. Most individuals interviewed and surveyed, as well as information from reviewed literature, expressed the view that the city has been very effective and efficient in achieving its goals. One aspect of Boulder's future is still unresolved. It is in the midst of a drought of exceptional severity. The drought has not diminished the city's critical supply of water from the Boulder Creek Basin, but water for landscaping is limited. The Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant has the potential to carry 30 percent more water via the Lakewood Pipeline, so the future of the water supply is not in danger at this time. However, if the city were to become more dense and if the water supply were reduced by 15 percent, then Boulder would not be able to ineet water demands. The urgency of the drought has created yet another dimension to Smart Growth in Boulder. Future scenarios for the city may hinge upon the critical water supply. Given Boulder's history, it is reasonable to expect that most people are willing to help prevent the degradation of Boulder's natural environment. The city's success in preserving its character, its natural landscape, and a high quality to life is due in most part to its citizens' commitment to the environment and proactive role in local government. The self-imposed sales tax and subsequent land acquisition program could not have developed without participation from its beneficiaries. Notes 1 City ofBoulder Transportation Department, Annual Report of Progress (January), 2000, p. 27) Online. Available:http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/publicworks/depts/transportation/pdf_documents/2000annual_report .pelf Accessed: January 20, 2003. 2 Bob McKelvey, Al Bartlett, and Ken Wright were primarily responsible for garnering public support for the service boundary. 3 Josephine Robertson, ''Highlights ofPLAN-Boulder County 1959-1986," p. 4; the group included Boulder citizens William McDowell, Ruth Greenway, Al Bartlett, Hugh McCaffrey, Bob McKelvey, Ed Weibel, and Lynn Wolfe 4 Email from Al Bartlett to Annette Coussan, November 22, 2002. s Email from Al Bartlett to Annette Coussan, March 1, 2003. 6 "Jobs to Housing Balance" public meetings, Boulder, Colorado, December 12 and 16, 2002; interview by Annette Coussan with Steve Clason, President of the Martin Acres Neighborhood Association, Boulder, Colorado, December 16, 2002. 7 Interview by Annette Coussan with Will Toor, Mayor, Boulder, Colorado, December 17, 2002 8 Robertson, ''Highlights ofPLAN-Boulder County 1959-1986," p. 5. 9 City of Boulder, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, Boulder, CO, September 2001, p. 1. JO Ibid.• p. 132. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid., p. 9. 13 Ibid.• p. 5. 14 Information on zoning code changes compiled from cited interviews and Joseph N. de Raismes et al., "Growth Management in Boulder, Colorado: A Case Study," prepared for the Office of the City Attorney, Boulder, CO, p. 12. 15 Interview by Annette Coussan with Delani Wheeler, Division Manager, City of Boulder Department of Open Space and Mountain Parks, Boulder, Colorado, December 18, 2002. 16 Boulder County, Boulder County Public Lands and Trails. Online. Available: http://bcn.boulder.eo.us/batco/batcolandstrails.htm. Accessed: December 16, 2002. 17 Telephone interview by Annette Coussan with Jan Fackrell, Bureau of Land Management, Boulder, Colorado, February 10, 2003. 18 City ofBoulder, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, p. 13. 19 City ofBoulder, Public Affairs Division, ''News and Press Releases." Online. Available: www.ci.boulder.eo.us/comm/pressrelease. Accessed: January 10, 2003. 20 City ofBoulder, Finance Department, City ofBoulder Budget and Service Indicators, Chapter 5, p. 5. Online. Available: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/finance/pg%2047.pdf. Accessed: January 10, 2003. 21 Boulder County Open Space, Boulder County Parks and Open Space, Online. Available: http://www.co.boulder.co.us/openspace/about_us/abt_index.htm. Accessed: November 14, 2002. 22 City of Boulder, City ofBoulder Budget and Service Indicators (online). 23 Wheeler interview. 24 City of Boulder, "City Council Meeting, Boulder, Colorado" (April 17, 2001). Online. Available: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/buildingservices/47th_jay/aprl 7council.pdf. Accessed: December l, 2002. 25 City of Boulder, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, p. 3. 26 City of Boulder, Housing and Human Services Department, Department Overview. Online. Available: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/finance/bcdhhs.htm. Accessed: January 24, 2002. 27 Interview by Annette Coussan with Susan Richstone, Assistant Director, City of Boulder Department of Planning and Development Services, Boulder, Colorado, December 16, 2002. 28 "Jobs to Housing Balance" public meeting, Boulder, Colorado, December 12, 2002. 29 Ibid. 30 Email from Z.ane Blackmer, President ofRockrimmon Real Estate Corporation, to Spence Havlick, Boulder City Councilmember, on the Jobs to Housing Project, January 29, 2003; "Jobs to Housing Balance" public meetings, Boulder, Colorado, December 12 and 16, 2002. 31 City ofBoulder, City Council, ''Resolution 922" (February 18, 2003). Online. Available: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/buildingservices/jobs_to~p/documents/resolution902.pdf. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 32 City of Boulder, City Council, "Agenda Item" (February 11, 2003). Online. Available: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/clerk/agenda/2003/021103/memo.pdf. Accessed: February 13, 2003. 33 Interview by Annette Coussan with Beverly Johnson, Planning and Environmental Specialist, City of Boulder Department of Planning and Development Services, Boulder, Colorado, December 18, 2002; City of Boulder, Public Works Department, Utilities Division, Water for Boulder's Future. Online. Available: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/publicworks/depts/utilities/water_supply/where.htm. Accessed: December 19, 2002. Appendix 3.6--Colorado Office of Smart Growth A state initiative to assist local governments with growth management. To address the impact of growth on the state, Governor Bill Owens created the Office of Smart Growth (OSG) during the 2000 legislative session. House Bill 1427 authorized the formation of the OSG in the Department of Local Affairs. Its mission is to provide direct technical and financial assistance to local governments in the areas of land use planning and growth management. Colorado is a strong home-rule state, where local governments establish growth management and land use policy independent from the state. The state legislature has passed several pieces of planning legislation between 2000 and 2003 that uphold local planning authority. This case study will look at OSG in the context of the state's legislative history and its recent population growth. Table 1 Socioeconomic, Land Use, and Transoortation Data for the State of Colorado 1990 2000 1990-2000 (% chan£e) Socioeconomic Total Population 3,304,042 4,301,261 30.0 Rural Population 578,877 668,076 15 Urban Population 2,715,517 3,633,185 34 Median household income $30,140 $47,203 56 Families below poverty level (%of total) 8.5 6.2 -37 White population (% of total) 87.9 82.8 -.06 Minority population (% of total) 12.1 17.2 42 Land Use Land area 103,728.8 103,717.53 .01 Population oer square mile 32 41.5 2.9 Total housing units 1,421,610 1,808,037 2.7 Housing units per square mile 14.2 17.4 23 Average household size 2.51 2.53 .07 Housing units in buildings with 10 or more units ( % of total) 16.8 15.3 -.9 Transoortation Commuters using car, truck, van, or carpool 1,637,440 2,191,626 33.8 Workers using public transportation 46,983 69,515 32.4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Flies. Onhne. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: February 25, 2003. 157 Background Socioeconomic Information Once an economy based mainly on natural resource extraction and agriculture, by 2003, Colorado's economy had shifted to advanced technology and service industries. In the late 1980s a national recession resulted in a steep economic downturn and negative growth for Colorado. Most of Colorado's 63 counties experienced high unemployment rates. As the economy rebounded in the 1990s, tension between rural and urban landowners grew, due to population growth in urban areas and development pressures that made it increasingly difficult for rural landowners to maintain their land for agricultural or open space purposes. In the 1990s economic development was a high priority for policymakers in Colorado. Policymakers reduced taxes, increased business investments, and concentrated on improving education and training for its skilled workforce, after which Colorado's workforce expanded with the introduction of the high-tech industry to the state. By 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated Colorado had the sixth-fastest growth rate at 2.7 percent and its population numbered over four and half million. Though the state growth rate for 2003 is predicted to continue at a slower rate, it is still well above the national average. Land Character Colorado is situated in the east-central portion of the Rocky Mountain region. The perimeter of the state is approximately 663 miles. The area of the state is 103,718 square miles, including 450 square miles of bodies of water, with a population density of 41.5 persons per square mile.1 It is the eighth-largest state in square miles. Colorado is a diverse geographic region with flat plains, rolling prairies, plateaus, canyons, and mountains. It is home to six major rivers: the Colorado, North Platte, South Platte, Arkansas, Republican, and Rio Grande, and the Continental Divide runs through the center of the state. Eastern Colorado is generally marked by plains, prairies, and agricultural land. This portion of the state has experienced the least population growth.2 Western Colorado is marked by rugged mountains and alpine terrain, including the Rocky Mountains. Thus, Colorado has the highest average elevation of all states. Growth in the state has been concentrated in communities northwest of Denver, including Boulder, Broomfield, Superior, Louisville, Lafayette, Longmont, and along the north­south Interstate 25 corridor in cities such as Denver, Greeley, Fort Collins, and Colorado Springs. Sprawl Indicators Numerous examples of sprawl exist in the front range and western slope, where low-density suburban development accompanied by commercial strip malls is prevalent. The Colorado Public Interest Research Group (CoPIRG) has cited Douglas County, which is south of Denver, as an example of sprawl five times in its annual sprawl reports from 1999 to 2001. Many parts, of the state, however, have not experienced sprawl. There are many areas in Colorado with small but growing populations where land is preserved for agricultural use or where compact development is employed. An increasing number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) may indicate sprawl. VMT increased by almost 50 percent from 1990 to 2000. In 1990, the annual VMT count for the state was 27 million miles traveled; in 2000 it was 42 million miles traveled. The projection for 2006 is 66,760,000.3 A higher rate of VMT not only indicates sprawling development, but may also indicate greater single-occupancy vehicular travel and inadequate transportation choices as well as increased air pollutants. Finally, consumption of land for urban use continues to outpace the population growth in Colorado.4 Growth Management History Local land use control dominates Colorado's growth management history. Senate Bill 35, adopted in 1972, has influenced the growth management history of Colorado by not allowing parcels of land larger than 35 acres to be regulated as subdivisions.5 Also significant is the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974, which gives local governments the authority to plan and regulate growth and land management independently.6 Sprawl and open space preservation were important issues to both the legislature and the public in Colorado during the 1990s, when the state's population increased by one million people.7 However, Colorado is a strong home-rule state, as evidenced in Senate Bill 35, where land use planning regulations are designed and enforced according to each individual local government. Approximately one-half of Colorado land is privately owned by individuals, including farmers and ranchers who are generally reluctant to have land use managed at the state level.8 Another 23 million acres of land is prohibited from private ownership by the federal government. In the context of greater sensitivity toward property rights, commercial and retail development, and accelerated suburban sprawl in Colorado, Governor Bill Owens created the Office of Smart Growth (OSG) in 2000. Consistent with Colorado's growth management history and desire to protect private ownership of lands, OSG assists local governments in devising and implementing local growth management plans. Leadership Governor from 1987 to 1999, Roy Romer advocated for growth management legislation starting in the mid-1990s. Rapid growth led to an increasing appreciation of the need to protect Colorado's environment from that growth. In 1992, Coloradans voted to create the Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) Trust Fund, funded by state lottery proceeds. In addition to GOCO, Governor Roy Romer introduced a Smart Growth Initiative in 1995. Romer's Smart Growth Initiative created partnerships among public officials, private sector leaders, and the environmental community to mitigate the negative effects of sprawl. The state attempted to encourage regional growth management efforts. Romer convened a state-sponsored Leadership Summit on Smart Growth and Development in January 1995. The summit reinforced the authority of local jurisdictions to determine growth policy but regional cooperative planning emerged as a new priority. Summit participants identified regions within the state for which long-term cooperative plans were established to address issues unique to each region. Issues included land use regulation, transportation, affordable housing, economic development, agricultural preservation, and sustainability.9 The vision set forth in the summit laid the groundwork for the future agenda of Smart Growth in Colorado. Factors Leading to Policy Initiation Unregulated growth throughout the 1990s has presented numerous problems throughout the state. The population growth has affected communities along the Interstate 25 corridor the most dramatically, where the projected percentage change in population from 2000 to 2020 is 35 percent in Denver, 40 percent in Boulder, 50 percent in Colorado Springs, 60 percent in Fort Collins, and 70 percent in Greeley.10 In 2003 policymakers must address the massive effects of growth such as sprawling residential and retail development, loss of natural landscape and rural lands, traffic congestion, deterioration of local character, and lack of affordable housing. Aggravating these problems, Colorado has been affected by a drought since 1998, and recent shifts in population have weakened agricultural influences. In response to Colorado's exploding population, Governor Bill Owens has included Smart Growth on his policy agenda. The state legislature passed a series of bills in 2000 and created the Office of Smart Growth. House Bill 1001 supported comprehensive planning for local govemments.11 House Bill 1306 provided tax incentives for brownfields development.12 House Bill 1302 provided a state income tax credit for affordable housing developers.13 Finally, the state approved House Bill 1348, which gave donors of conservation easements a tax refund up to $20,000.14 In 2001 the state approved a law allowing all cities and counties to levy impact fees. Program Description Structure and Development Governor Owens' Smart Growth proposal included a four-pronged strategy for improving Colorado's quality of life while sustaining Colorado's economic prosperity. Although focused on economic and community development, the proposal also considered growth management. Strategy one, Opportunity Colorado, is an incentive intended to bridge the gap between high-income and low-income areas. Of particular concern is the agricultural community, where productivity is down due to drought conditions. Colorado Entrepreneurship Areas, a program that awards entrepreneurs who use their own tax credits to open businesses and renovate buildings in economically depressed areas or finance high-speed Internet connections for rural communities, was proposed but never implemented. Colorado Dreams, another program, encourages home ownership and the production of affordable housing. It provides tax relief for businesses that assist lower­income workers and their families with closing costs or down payments and tax relief for developers who build or renovate low-income rental housing. The Governor's Opportunity Scholarship was to be an award fund to promote equal access to education throughout the state, but it is not implemented as of 2003.15 Strategy two, Natural Landscapes, preserves open space, farm, and ranch land, protects wildlife, recycles land, and strengthens state parks. The Saving Open Space program encourages purchasing and leasing conservation easements. The Protecting Wildlife initiative includes a wildlife habitat preservation tax credit for landowners and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is exploring incentives for landowners to plant native ~asses and other eco-friendly vegetation. Another program raises funds for state parks. 6 Strategy three, Strong Neighborhoods, strengthens intergovernmental and regional planning. The Colorado Heritage Planning Grants program financially rewards communities that develop community and regional growth management plans in areas such as development patterns, transportation, the environment, and land and energy use. The grants provide local communities with technical assistance and comprehensive planning services to maintain regional growth planning and stop leapfrog develo~ment and flagpole annexation. The initiative also provides dispute resolution services. 7 Strategy four, Moving Forward, revises Colorado's transportation infrastructure. It includes the use of more bonds to pay for highway improvement. The initiative also encourages multimodal transportation, faster completion of highway projects in order to reduce congestion, and seeks to solicit further funds for state transportation planning.18 Owens' proposal resulted in the passage of HB 00-1427 in 2000, which created the Office of Smart Growth (OSG) in the state's Department of Local Affairs to assist local governments with growth management and open space preservation. The OSG provides direct technical and financial assistance to local governments in the areas of land use planning and growth management "to recognize and reward communities that cooperativeJy plan for and manage growth."19 Governance/Management/Oversight Colorado's General Assembly created the Department of Local Affairs to assist local communities in meeting their citizens' needs. House Bill 00-1427 authorized the creation of the Office of Smart Growth (OSG) in the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). The department's mission is to improve the overall quality of life for Coloradans. DOLA is an umbrella department that oversees a variety of offices, including the Office of Smart Growth. Like DOLA, OSG provides technical and financial assistance to local communities but only specifically for growth management and land use. OSG provides no formal oversight for local governments. OSG has two employees and works with DOLA's eight regional offices. DOLA's eight regional representatives serve as the primary contacts for local governments in their region. They help local governments with strategic growth management approaches, including revision of zoning and land use regulations. Most small communities in Colorado do not have full-time staff planners. OSG' s website also offers accessible land use planning resources, facts, and figures. Intergovernmental Relationships The OSG encourages regional planning but does not require it of local governments to receive assistance. Regional planning is important to the OSG because it retains local control over planning and land use decisions. OSG staff works with local governments and other state organizations like the Colorado Counties, Inc., and the Municipal League. OSG does not rely on federal cooperation, though the State of Colorado does receive Housing and Urban Development funds from the federal government. Overall, OSG maintains that it is a role for the state, not the federal government, to assist local governments with planning strategies upon request. Indirectly related to the operations of OSG, the federal government owns a high proportion of Colorado's land. Twenty-three million acres of land are federally protected in Colorado. The Bureau of Land Management oversees 8.3 million acres of land in Colorado and the U.S. Forest Service manages 14.3 million acres. There are nine National Parks and Monuments in Colorado. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ad.ministers federal aid grants to Colorado, and the state has six National W"tldlife Refuges that protect 32 threatened or endangered plant and animaJ species. Policy Intergovernmental agreements (IGA) are a negotiation tool that OSG promotes through its regional field representatives, its workshops, its literature, and its website. In IGAs, local governments agree to the terms by which long-term goals ofneighboring jurisdictions are to be achieved and predetermine ways in which to address future growth patterns and their effects. 1be use of IGAs as a policy instrument by local governments avoids further state-level involvement. The OSG regularly holds workshops called "Planning and Zoning 101" where staff members teach the essentials ofplanning policy to planning commissioners, elected officials, and staff. These workshops explain the legal authority local communities have over growth management and teach organization, development, and management of planning. Some of the planning tools reviewed during "Planning and Zoning 101" are annexation policies, zoning regulations, mban growth boundaries, capital improvement planning, tax incentives, pmchase and transfer of development rights, and revenue sharing. Funding OSG operation is funded through the 001...A. It utilizes the Colorado Heritage Planning Grants (CHPG) program. which was created by Governor Owens, to reward and assist cities malting cooperative efforts to plan for and address the impact of growth. These grants are small sums of money extracted from the state's general fund For 2001 the CHPG fund equaled $735,000 and in 2002 $500,000 was allocated to the CHPG program. 20 Budget cuts have meant l~money for this grant program. and in 2003 approximately $300,000 is budgeted for CHPG program. CHPG funds do serve as incentive for smaller communities that do not need large-scale assistance; however, a larger budget could accomplish more. This small budget is not the only fund channeled to community planning in the state. Other funds do exist, but OSG does not manage them. 'The 001...A disttibutes these funds, and the 001...A provides Energy Mineral Impact Grants to local governments. In fiscal Iiear 2001-2002, the budget was $34,800,000, out ofwhich 213 grants were distributed 1 Out of this amount, approximately $200,000 went for local government master plans. The Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) Trust Fund, funded by state lottery proceeds, serves to protect and preserve natural habitats and wildlife and to purchase open space. Since 1994, 001...A has distributed $290,000,000 in GOCO funds for 1,700 projects throughout the state, including the acquisition of 154,600 acres of open space and wildlife habitat. 22 Federal funds also support growth management and community development in Colorado, though these funds are not granted to OSG directly. Thirty pen:ent of all funds allocated by the state to local communities is federal money. 001...A allocates the federal community development funds, including Community Service Block Grants and Community Development Block Grants. In fiscal year 2001-2002, Colorado received $5,400,000 in Community Service Block Grants and $8,000,000 in Community Development Block Grants. The COOT receives Federal TEA-21 money, but there is little relationship between COOT and OSG. Program Evaluation Program Outputs Between 2000 and 2002, the OSG has awarded $1,600,000 to local governments. As of 2003, over 75 percent of the OSG's assistance goes to towns with a population of under 2000.23 The OSG developed a CD-ROM version of a flexible land use code that can be tailored toward the unique needs of different towns. The code provides a means by which towns may manipulate zoning and land use regulations to add more architectural and structural variation and encourage more compact development. Over 150 jurisdictions have requested copies of the new CD-ROM model land use code since it became available in 2002. OSG will conduct a follow-up survey in 2003 to determine how many have integrated the code into their existing land use policies. 24 The American Planning Association will feature the CD-ROM at its 2003 conference in Denver. One example of the OSG's assistance to local government is its work with the town of Frederick, which inspired the creation of the CD-ROM model land use code. Frederick's growth management plan now serves as the model plan for the state's cities with populations under 5,000. Frederick, a small, former mining community, increased in population from 988 to 2,500 between 1990 and 2000, dramatically increasing the demand for housing. Uniform subdivision development began to undermine the city's local character and extend into surrounding farmlands, threatening its agricultural base. In 2000 Frederick enlisted the help of the OSG and received a grant of $57 ,000. Together OSG and the town of Frederick worked to change their land use code. The new code established a growth management plan that concentrates future development in and near the city center. The new code also encourages diverse architecture and quality homes without making housing less affordable than the generic, pre-code development. 25 Frederick's new code was the result of several years of development by the town and the OSG. Program Sensitivity to Changes in Environment There is not a definitive opinion on growth management issues in Colorado. Public debate continues on how much government should handle the issue as opposed to private and nonprofit sector involvement. Two polls, for example, report conflicting public opinions.26 The Colorado Environmental Coalition poll reports that over 50 percent of Colorado's population regards growth as the most pressing issue and that not enough is being done to mitigate its negative effects, while a poll conducted by Ciruli Associates. reports that less than 20 percent of people consider growth to be the most pressing issue and reports a general satisfaction with local control over growth management in the state. The OSG is a new state office, and its sensitivity to change is difficult to determine at this point. However, different political leadership might change the OSG mission, since the initiative was founded by the current governor. In addition, as seen in the survey results above, public opinion is not unified around state involvement. A divided opinion might lead to fragmented and weaker growth management policies, while a stronger grassroots effort might strengthen policies. Future political leadership is crucial and may hinge upon a stronger message from citizens. Outcomes Evident in the legislation passed in 2000 and 2001, voters and the state government agree that some form of managing growth is a priority. Proponents of stronger state growth management have pressured the legislature to enforce urban growth boundaries and compact development throughout the state. OSG has worked with numerous local governments like the town of Frederick and is continuing to refine its efficiency and effectiveness. With successful passage of the planning legislation mentioned in earlier sections of this study, proponents of stronger state-sponsored growth management pursued a more aggressive state planning agenda resulting in the November 2000 ballot item called the Responsible Growth Initiative, or Amendment 24. Amendment 24 called for counties with populations of more than 10,000 and municipalities of more than 1,000 to annually submit maps that established urban growth boundaries (UGB). Furthermore, the UGBs could be enforced only where local governments could provide appropriate infrastructure within ten years. 27 Proponents of Amendment 24, led by John Fielder of Coloradans for Responsible Growth and Rich McClintock of the Livable Communities Support Center, held that enforcing UGBs in certain areas would reduce sprawl by increasing mixed-use development and infill projects within the UGBs. Some opponents countered that UGBs would encourage sprawl by pushing developers into unrestricted rural areas. Governor Owens urged voters to oppose Amendment 24, saying that it threatened local sovereignty. Instead, Owens pledged that the state would strengthen local land use control set forth by the OSG. The Colorado Association of Home Builders launched a $4 million campaign against the initiative. Seventy percent of voters rejected Amendment 24, signifying that voters may perceive limitations of a more aggressive policy. After the Amendment 24 defeat, the Colorado Legislature adopted four more pieces of legislation. One required county and municipal planning commissions to create comprehensive plans that outline the future growth pattern of an area, and that each plan be adopted within two years of its creation. The second piece of legislation determined that these comprehensive plans remain advisory only. The third piece limited flagpole annexation, which gives landowners with property between annexed land and the annexing jurisdiction the option of petitioning annexation as well. The fourth piece broadened impact fee authority as well as requiring mandatory dispute resolution mediation.28 All this legislation and the failure of Amendment 24 demonstrates that Colorado recognizes the need to implement growth management policies but will not accept a hard-line state growth management plan. The OSG does not have the authority or the capability to counter the negative extemality of growth in smaller communities. In Frederick the mayor, a retired developer and a political conservative, is pleased with the implementation of the code and the city's subsequent architectural control.29 Though he was not mayor at the time the code was adopted, he approves of the varied residential units that builders are producing, which has not restricted the number of units being built. Only developers who cannot or are unwilling to vary their building plans are losing business. The mayor believes that with property rights comes responsibility to protect open space and ecologically sensitive areas, and he believes that Frederick has benefited from the OSG's assistance. He does offer some constructive criticism for the OSG. For example, now that Frederick has adopted the new land use code, the city is concerned with making it more functional. The current building permit system requires that each building plan submit a preliminary building plan to a public hearing with the planning commission and to another hearing with the board of trustees. Then the proposal must go through the same process again but with a final building plan. Frederick will revise the process to a two-hearing process in which a preliminary plan is submitted to the planning commission in the form of a public hearing and then a final plan is presented to the board of trustees. The extra steps in the permit process have created an unreasonable amount of work for city employees. Had the OSG included more public input into the code, perhaps those steps never would have been included. Only professional planners and a small number of private citizens, as well as the board of trustees, staff, and planning commission, contributed to the code. On the other hand, the extra steps can be a good tool that slows down permits and prevents rapid growth, which is what a large number of private citizens in Frederick wanted. Frederick has no UGB. It shares its municipal boundary with the city of Firestone to the north and the city of Dacona to the south. To its west is Boulder Valley and Boulder Creek and to its east is Fort Luptin. Frederick has expanded to its boundaries but the mayor maintains that its infrastructure could handle a tripling of its population within the municipal boundary, including significant commercial development. Findings The debate on growth and its management in Colorado is about the need to control growth. It is about the appropriate role for the state government. Collaboration at any level is not easily achieved in Colorado. The more regulated growth becomes, the more polarized the issue becomes. OSG seems to be the result of a compromise between proponents and opponents of state growth management. OSG is in its early stages of development, and as a result, its effects on Colorado are difficult to determine. However, some observations can be made. Nearly all Colorado planning statutes passed by the state legislature are enabling legislation that retain the rights of local governments to prioritize and specify their own planning agenda. The creation of OSG in 2000 does not indicate a state growth management plan. It does indicate the state's intention to assist localities in retaining control of land use. OSG intends to continue assisting communities affected by the population overflows of cities such as Fort Collins, Boulder, Denver, and Colorado Springs and also in smaller remote communities that simply do not have the planning support. Meanwhile, roadways are no less congested than they were in 2000, and rural landowners are finding it more difficult to stall development. The federal government could award more transportation funds in order to help the state deal with congested roadways. For instance, the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) serves nearly 50 percent of the state's population, yet it only receives 30 percent of the state's transportation funds.30 While DRCOG encourages its local members to negotiate IGAs, the state agencies are not supportive enough to make the IGAs effective in the long term. As mentioned earlier, the CDOT does not worlc with OSG, and traffic congestion is one of Colorado's biggest growth challenges. Ifmore state agencies planned collaboratively, the result might be more effective growth management for Colorado. It is essential to remember that not just urban areas are affected by sprawl. Urban areas expand with sprawl; rural areas shrink. Rural preservation organizations throughout the state find that saving open space is becoming more difficult. For example, the Larimer County Land Use Center has preserved thousands of acres ofopen space for rural and agricultural use, but farmland in Larimer County is severely threatened by sprawl and the drought in Colorado. In addition, affordable housing in the county is scarce, and therefore developers have built more inexpensive housing away from city centers, the result of which is further conversion of agricultural lands to mban development. More initiatives are needed in this area to keep farmland and the fanning industry viable, including programs to ensure that conservation easements receive full state and federal tax benefits by developing more voluntary and incentive-based methods to involve the private sector in farm and ranch preservation.31 More regional collaboration between the public and private sector is needed to provide more affordable housing and save open space, but Colorado needs more statewide incentives to do so. While the OSG assists smaller jurisdictions, it does not seek to control rapid growth for the entire state. OSG addresses problems associated with sprawl; OSG does not stop sprawl or limit growth. Considering the current evaluation of OSG, including information gathered through interviews and surveys, it is clear that OSG has been ineffective in stopping sprawl throughout the state. Many stakeholders revealed that sprawl has increased since the 1990s, and they expect a continued increase. OSG has achieved its objective in assisting smaller communities, but it has not reshaped development overall. Sprawl is a reality in portions of Colorado, and growth management remains under the control of local governments. OSG is committed to assisting localities with planning; however, it does so with little funding, oversight, or authority. Notes 1 Colorado State Archives, Geography Page. Online. Available: http://www.archives.state.co.us/arcgeog.html. Accessed: January 21, 2002. 2 U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Demography. Online. Available: http://quickfacts.census.gov. Accessed: November 2, 2002. 3 The Road Information Program, The Cost ofTraffic Congestion in Colorado: May 2002. Online. Available: http://www.tripnet.org/ColoradoCongestionStudyMay2002.PDF. Accessed: November 12, 2002. 4 Colorado Sprawl Action Center, Sprawl ofShame. Online. Available: http://www.sprawlaction.org Accessed: November 12, 2002. 5 Colorado Senate Bill 35 (1972). 6 Colorado House Bill 74-1034 (1974). 7 U.S. Census Bureau, Profile ofGeneral Demographic Characteristics. Online Available: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ states. Accessed: November 3, 2002. 8 Telephone interview by Annette Coussan with Jim Reidhead, Director of the Larimer County Rural Land Use Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, December 11, 2002. 9 Colorado State Archives, The Governor Roy Romer Web Archives. Online. Available: http://www.archives.state.co.us/romer/romer.htm. Accessed: January 7, 2003. 1°Colorado Sprawl Action Center, Smart Growth Hall ofFame 2001, Project of the Colorado Public Interest Research Group, written by Michelle Kramer (Denver, CO, December 5, 2001). 11 Colorado House Bill 00-1001 (2000). 12 Colorado House Bill 00-1306 (2000). 13 Colorado House Bill 00-1302 (2000). 14 Colorado House Bill 00-1348 (2000). 15 Colorado Office of Smart Growth, Smart Growth: Colorado 's Future, Denver, CO, 2000 (brochure). 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Colorado House Bill 00-1427 (2000). 20 Email from Eric Bergman, Colorado Office of Smart Growth, to Annette Coussan~ January 20, 2003. 21 State of Colorado, Office of State Planning and Budgeting, A Fact Sheet Prepared by the Office ofState Planning and Budgeting (Denver, CO, July 2002). Online. Available: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/govnr_dir/ospb/budget/factsheets/localaffairs/fc-grants.htm. Accessed: February 2, 2003. . 22 Interview by Annette Coussan with Joel Harris, Policy Analyst to the Governor's Office, Denver, Colorado, December 11, 2002; Great Outdoors Colorado, Great Outdoors Colorado. Online. Available: www.goco.org. Accessed: December 12, 2002. 23 Interview by Annette Coussan with Charles Unseld, Director, Colorado Office of Smart Growth, Denver, Colorado, December 10, 2002. 24 Bergman email. 25 Interview by Annette Coussan with Eric Bergman, Colorado Office of Smart Growth Denver, Colorado, December 10, 2002. 26 Environmental Coalition of Colorado, Colorado 2002 Growth Survey. Online. Available: http://www.ourcolorado.org/021902_growth_polling.PDF. Accessed: January 14, 2003; Ciruli Associates, Growth Ends Colorado's Long Run as Top Issue. Online. Available: http://www.ciruli.com/polls/growth2001.htm. Accessed: January 14, 2003. · 27 Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly, An Analysis ofthe 2000 Statewide Ballot Proposals, Research Publication No. 475-0 (Denver, CO, September 11, 2000), pp. 13-49. Online. Available: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/2000/ballot/Bluebook/HTM1J2000bluebook.htm. Accessed: December 2002. 28 Colorado Office of Smart Growth, "Land Use Planning in Colorado," Denver, CO, December 10, 2002 (computer printout). 29 Telephone interview by Annette Coussan with Dick Wyatt, Mayor of Frederick, January 16, 2003. 30 Interview by Annette Coussan with Larry Muggier, Denver Regional Council of Governments, Denver, Colorado, December 12, 2002. 31 Reidhead interview. Appendix 3.7-The Brandywine Conservancy A nonprofit organization utilizes growth management and open space tools in the Brandywine Valley. The Brandywine Conservancy, a nonprofit organization, integrates both land use planning and open space preservation in the watershed of the Brandywine Creek in southeastern Pennsylvania and northern Delaware. Formed in 1967, the conservancy has developed an Environmental Management Center (EMC) that addresses municipal planning, land stewardship, and conservation design. The conservancy also supports a River Museum that preserves the art and heritage of the Brandywine Valley. The conservancy works with the Chester County Planning Commission to promote a vision for the future growth of Chester County. The conservancy has provided planning assistance to over 70 municipalities to assist in the protection of over 37 ,000 acres of open space. It has also collaborated with the Brandywine Battlefield Task Force to prepare a strategy to preserve the land of this Revolutionary War battlefield. The conservancy educates landowners about their land conservation options through seminars, workshops, and newsletters. Table 1.a Population Data for the Brandywine Valley• Brandywine Valley 1990 Brandywine Valley 2000 Brandywine Percentage Change 1990-2000 Pennsylvania Percentage Change 1996-2000 Delaware Percentage Change 1990-2000 Population 471,847 542,317 14.9 3.4 17.6 Table 1.b Socioeconomic and TraDSPOrtation Data for the Brandywine Valley Chester Delaware New Castle County, County, County, Pennsylvania Delaware PA2000 PA 2000 DE2000 2000 2000 Socioeconomic Median Household Income (in $) 65,295 50,092 52,419 40,106 47,381 Population with bachelor's degree (in%) 42.5 30.0 29.0 22.4 25.0 Transoortation Average travel time to work (in minutes) 27.5 27.1 24.3 25.2 24.0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Files. Onlme. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: February 20, 2003. *Includes all of Chester County, Pennsylvania and sections of Delaware County, Pennsylvania and New Castle County, Delaware Background Socioeconomic Information The Brandywine River Valley is a natural treasure of southeastern Pennsylvania and northern Delaware. The headwaters of the Brandywine Creek form in two branches in northwestern Chester County. The East and West Branches of the Brandywine become one in central Chester County, flow south into New Castle County, Delaware, and meet the Delaware River at Wilmington, Delaware. The watershed of the Brandywine covers most of Chester County, a small portion of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and a small section of New Castle County, Delaware. Two metropolitan areas are slowly encroaching upon the watershed, the Greater Philadelphia area to the east, and the Wilmington­Newark area to the south. Chester County is the fastest-growing county in the region, having grown by 18.9 percent in the 1980s and 15.2 percent in the 1990s.1 Between 1985 and 1989, more houses were built in the county than in the previous 300 years. The population in Chester County is generally well educated and makes well above the median household salary for Pennsylvania, according to the statistics in Table 1. Much of the population growth is attributed to residents leaving the metropolitan areas of Wilmington and Philadelphia, as well as the inner-ring suburbs of these areas, drawn by the ideal living situation that is the Brandywine Valley. Land Character Home to the Wyeths, the Weymouths, and the du Ponts, the Brandywine Valley is well known for its scenic beauty, casting the setting for many well-known artistic masterpieces. In 1990, 77 percent of Chester County remained as either agricultural, woodland, or undeveloped land. The remaining 23 percent was developed, with 60 percent of the developed land being used for residential purposes and the remainder used in commercial, industrial, and other nonresidential purposes. 2 Home to eight colleges and universities, the valley has become an ideal place to live, offering great schools and commuting distance to many metropolitan areas, including Philadelphia, Wilmington-Newark, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C. In the period from 1984 to 2000, the median home sales price in Chester County increased 123 percent, from $81,900 to $182,500. This value greatly exceeds the median home sales price for Pennsylvania of $97 ,000. 3 Sprawl Indicators Between 1974 and 1992, 47,058 acres of farmland were converted into nonagricultural uses, with an average of 12 acres per day being converted in the late 1980s and early 1990s. More land in Chester County has been developed in the last 25 years than in the previous 300 years.4 In 1990, an average of 0.65 acre of land was used for each housing unit, which was above the averages for surrounding counties in the Philadelphia MSA.5 Both Chester and New Castle Counties faced growth rates over 13 percent in the 1990s, as shown in Table 1. Growth outpaced infrastructure, with the average commute time for Chester County residents increasing from an average of 22 minutes in 1980 to 27.5 minutes in 2000 (see Table 1).6 Growth Management History Residents in the Brandywine Valley realized change was inevitable in the mid­1960s. In 1968, the Water Resources Authority of Chester County developed a highly controversial plan to protect the water resources of the Upper East Branch of the Brandywine Creek. County residents rejected the plan, saying that they did not want the government telling them what to do with their land. Many families had lived in the valley for more than 200 years and did not want government intervention in land use planning.7 Chester County government has aggressively supported preservation of open space, with the county spending over $125 million between 1992 and 2002 purchasing easements on farmland, establishing parks, and providing monetary assistance for the townships to do planning.8 These funds were provided by county residents who passed bond issues of $50 and $75 million. Chester County consists of 73 municipalities, which includes one city, 15 boroughs, and 57 townships. The Greater Philadelphia Metropolitan Area, of which Chester County is a part, is one of two growth areas in the state, with the other being the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area. County government has taken a proactive role in trying to control this growth, since not much is done on a statewide level. Local government bodies, specifically townships and boroughs, hold the power of land use planning in Pennsylvania, but the county is working to unite the numerous localities under a broad vision. Chester County officials view open space as a necessary part of infrastructure and have, therefore, given it the same attention at the county level as roads, schools, and sewers.9 Three county commissioners in Chester County have the ultimate authority in county affairs. In the commissioner elections of 1999, those elected had platforms with growth management and open space preservation as a number one priority.10 Chester County is overwhelmingly Republican, but the county mandates that there must be one representative on the board from the minority party.11 Even though the representation is split, the three commissioners are unanimous in supporting issues that help save open space and manage growth in the county. In 1996, the county commissioners adopted Landscapes, a comprehensive plan to prepare for the future growth in Chester County. Landscapes offers a master plan for county growth in the areas of land use, resource use, economic development, transportation, community facilities, housing, human services, public health, and planning. The county made available grants for townships and municipalities to create comprehensive plans individually to meet the standards set in Landscapes. Included in the goals of Landscapes are the preservation of the unique character of Chester County, of open space and farmland, and of historical resources.12 Factors Leading to Policy Implementation Groundwater has always been a concern in the Brandywine Valley. This was one of the reasons for the conservancy's creation and its continued work throughout the valley. Chester County is largely groundwater dependent. Many of the county's townships do not have public water systems, which forces many residents to rely upon wells for their water needs. Recent development and growth has increased the strain on the water supply, making the work of the conservancy ever more important. New wells are depleting the groundwater aquifer supply since consumption exceeds recharge and jeopardizes the watershed in Chester County, which feeds the Brandywine Creek. Another factor responsible for generating grassroots support for growth management initiatives is the valley's past zoning policies. In the 1980s, most development occurred under one-to two-acre lot zoning. These new neighborhoods allowed each plot open space, but the neighborhoods sprawled across the region's natural resources. This development created public support not only to county bond initiatives to pay for the acquisition of open space, but also to the work of the conservancy. The desire throughout the valley to maintain a high quality of life may have been the most important factor leading to policy initiation. County residents realized that new development was transforming the pristine landscape. In a 1995 countywide survey, 89 percent of the respondents indicated they support county funds being devoted to growth management programs and protecting open space.13 Recent arrivals to Chester County do not hold the same appreciation for open space as do its more historical residents.14 The growth of the past 20 years has brought a new residential attitude that is less attached to the landscape and the history of the county. Many of the new county residents do not realize that one of the principal battles of the American Revolutionary War, the Battle of the Brandywine, was fought in Chester County. Groups of schoolchildren from the area visit Brandywine Battlefield State Park every month with parents who have no idea a battlefield is in their backyard.15 Program Description Structure and Development The Brandywine Conservancy emerged from a land crisis in the small town of Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania. In 1967, an old river mill was about to be purchased by a manufacturer. The mill sat along the banks of the Brandywine Creek, and the du Pont family responded quickly to purchase the mill at a land auction. The family formed a private organization to help protect the environmental and cultural heritage of the area, which was beginning to be lost. Originally called the Tri-County Conservancy, the organization served Delaware and Chester Counties in Pennsylvania and New Castle County in Delaware.16 In 1969, the organization took its first conservation easements, acquiring the land upon which the Brandywine museum presently sits and opening the museum two years later. The conservancy developed two programs, one of which is a museum to protect and preserve the art and history of the Brandywine Valley and surrounding areas. Initially open only in the summer, the museum grew quickly in popularity and currently is open year-round. The museum hosts an average of six special exhibits a year in addition to an ever-growing base collection. "A Brandywine Christmas" is an area holiday tradition, as is the large model train collection on display in the museum;17 The second program, the Environmental Management Center (EMC), initially focused on the river itself, doing hydrologic studies, developing environmental protection ordinances, and acquiring land easements.18 It has evolved as growth pressures increased in the valley. The EMC is divided into three sections: the Land Stewardship Program, the Municipal Assistance Program, and the Conservation Design Program. While the three divisions maintain independence in their operating decisions, the director of the EMC is actively briefed on all operations and provides important direction. Governance/Management/Oversight/Penalties The policymaking body of the conservancy is the Executive Committee. The committee handles all the major decisions, especially decisions that deal with large purchases or development. All other decisions are made and monitored within the individual departments. The EMC had a longtime leader through the 1980s and 1990s that helped develop the center to its present state. The director presented a broad vision, and it was the role of each of the three departments to develop a plan for achieving that vision. This leadership style allowed for the maintenance of day-to-day operations, and the EMC continued to grow when the director retired and was replaced by a weak leader. The associate directors led their respective divisions through a period of growth and the Board of Trustees continued yearly updates to the Strategic Plan. The hiring of a new director in 2002 was timely, since the EMC is faced with an important decision. Chester County holds two distinct challenges for the EMC, but the center cannot address both. The eastern half of the county has become well developed while the western half has not.19 The organization will have to focus on either directing future growth to the western side or managing the existing growth on the eastern side. The headwaters of the Brandywine are affected by both. Strong leadership by the EMC director is needed to decide the conservancy's future direction. Intergovemmentalnnterlocal Relationships/Partnerships Since its creation in 1967, the Brandywine Conservancy has developed many positive relationships with the people living in the Brandywine Valley. The EMC, in particular, has been able to meet the changing demands of the county since 1967. As a result, the EMC has amfle demand for its services, and the demand often exceeds staff and resource capacity.2 The conservancy has also developed a very positive relationship with the Chester County Land Planning Department. 21 The conservancy has helped to champion the Landscapes plan to municipalities for performing municipal assistance planning. Both the conservancy and the county have common open space goals: to preserve the most open space as possible while allowing for some development. From a growth management perspective, however, they have differing priorities. The county places a higher priority on managing growth, while the conservancy looks to environmental impacts first rather than economic impacts. 22 Collaboration between the two has proven invaluable in certain situations, since many townships are hesitant to follow the advice from the county government just because they are government. When the conservancy suggests the exact same thing, the municipality is apt to listen and heed its advice, since it's perceived as a neutral nonprofit in an advocacy role. In West Pikeland Township, the county and conservancy partnered to develop a broad plan to address the growth faced by the township. The township asked the conservancy to promote the range of tools necessary to effectively manage the coming growth. The conservancy has successfully partnered with the Brandywine Battlefield Task Force to seek solutions for preserving one of the nation's historical treasures. The conservancy conducted much of the research needed to determine where various skirmishes of the battle occurred and has been very active in pursuing conservation easements from landowners on the battlefield One of the keys ofthe conservancy is simply educating all those who own land on the battlefield what their options are as landowners in order to protect the land23 Although many neighborhoods have been built on battlefield sites, the task force is working hard to limit new development on this national treasure. The conservancy has developed many permanent relationships with townships in the valley. For example, Upper Uwchlan Township, in central Chester County, is rapidly losing open space to residential development and the conservancy was key to the creation of development plans that will ensure openreand connectivity. The relationship will continue at a monitoring level in the future. Policy The Land Stewardship Program (LSP) assists private and public landowners in management decisions for the long-term preservation ofthe property. The primary policy tool used by the LSP is the conservation easement. As of 2002, the LSP had placed over 330 properties under conservation easement. 'These easements cover 24,000 acres of land A less-common tool used by the LSP because ofresomce constraints is the pmchase ofeasements. 1beLSP will often refer property owners to another program better suited to receive the land donation. 1beLSP also supplies two publications to landowners. Stewardship Perspectives informs easement donors about issues in monitoring, enforcement, and other concerns. Environmental Currents is the EMC's newsletter, with articles on planning, environmental issues, and other projects and . 25 diSCUSSIOns. The Municipal Assistance Program (MAP) develops and recommends planning techniques to aid the growth of municipalities. MAP operates on a subscription basis, with subscribers receiving copies of all publications, invitations to educational events, and discounts on consulting services. Subscribers also receive the Environmental. Management Handbook., a two-volume publication covering 13 topics in land use and environmental law. Each topic covers the basics, case studies, and specific environmental and land use principles. Subscribers also receive yearly updates to the handbook, updating ordinances, legislation, and cutting-edge practices. MAP subscribers also receive Environmental Currents, get invitations to meetings and workshops, and receive priority for EMC consulting time.26 Ifresowces permit, the MAP can offer assistance to nonsubscribers. Funding The conservancy is a 501c3 nonprofit with four primary revenue streams: fee service work, grants, endowment funds, and charitable giving. The EMC has a 20-person staff that bills part of its time to clients, mostly in the Brandywine Valley but some clients are outside the area. 1be staff also conducts educational seminars that attract people from all over the region. The grants originate from either nonprofit foundations or from the county, state, or federal government and are usually very specific in their uses. The conservancy has received several endowments of land or funds from which the interest is used on a yearly basis. The largest part ofthe conservancy's yearly budget comes from its yearly capital campaign to solicit donations. In 2001, over $12 million was raised in the capital campaign. n Program Evaluation Program Outputs The Brandywine Conservancy has expertise in all fields related to growth management and open space preservation. The Municipal Assistance Program has aided townships in the preparation of comprehensive plans, open space plans, zoning and subdivision ordinances, and has prepared numerous publications to help in educating the municipalities subscribing to its services. The conservancy has also prepared numerous studies on growth management, water resources, woodlands and biodiversity, trail studies, scenic studies, and transportation studies in order to better understand the environment in Chester County in which they are working. In 2003, 73 municipalities and consultants subscribed to the Municipal Assistance Subscribers Program. The Land Stewardship Program has assisted landowners throughout southeastern Pennsylvania and northern Delaware in the protection of over 38,000 acres of farmland and natural areas through the use of conservation easements. 28 The conservancy has also collaborated with numerous other organizations to preserve land such as 5,500 acres of the King Ranch in northern Chester County, the 160-acre Waterloo Mills Preserve, a critical open space buffer for stream protection, and assisting numerous farmers to apply for county funds that purchase the development rights of qualified properties. 29 The conservancy joined the Brandywine Battlefield Task Force and is working with many other area organizations to protect battlefield land. As of 2003, only 52 acres of a battlefield that spanned over ten square miles are protected. The LSP has taken an integral role in providing assistance to find the land upon which the key parts of the battle took place, and has worked with the County Parks and Recreation Department to garner conservation easements from the landowners.30 Program Sensitivity to Change in the Environment An economic downturn should not have much impact on the conservancy's programs or even on the path of development in the Brandywine Valley. A decrease in the amount of commercial and industrial development in the area might occur, but the primary development is high-end residential, and the wealthy will still be able to build new homes. Some communities might slow development plans for budget reasons, but there has been the realization that planning is necessary to preserving the existing quality of life in Chester County. A prolonged depression could lead to a change in leadership on the county level. If the three Chester County commissioners are facing reelection during a prolonged economic crisis, the public could demand cuts be made in growth management and open space spending and vote them out of office. This would decrease the demand for the MAP, since Chester County would be giving less grant money for the preparation of comprehensive plans. Outcomes The individual townships, boroughs, and municipalities are responsible for adopting the plans, zoning, and ordinances developed. The comprehensive plans, open space plans, and new zoning and ordinance regulations implemented in Chester County are now part of the county's Landscapes plan. Thus far, 70 of the 73 municipalities in Chester County have joined the vision partiiership program, in which a municipality endorses the vision of Landscapes and agrees to use the plan as its guide for local planning. The county monitors the development of the comprehensive plans and their subsequent implementation. 31 The conservancy's educational programs are renowned and county officials have noted that many landowners are becoming better informed on their land options, due in large part to the efforts of the conservancy. The general public may trust the conservancy for educational programs more than they trust local government.32 Municipalities are upgrading their comprehensive plans and ordinances and increasing the public's awareness of the issues of growth management and open space preservation and the importance of acting upon them now. Upper Uwchlan Township, for example, demonstrates the conservancy's role in transforming a sprawling 442-acre development at one unit per acre into a compact development with the same number of units, a highway bypass, and open space.33 The conservancy is gaining legitimacy and developers take notice when they are involved with its projects. Dev~lopers will often approach the conservancy to see how they can create a development solution that is approved by both parties. 34 Virtually all of the staff and managers interviewed or surveyed believe that the program has been very effective. Administrators rated the conservancy's performance as excellent compared to all other growth management programs they are familiar with. All program administrators believe that the benefits of the conservancy's work exceed the costs and that sprawl, air pollution, and overall quality of life would be much worse in the Brandywine Valley had the conservancy not been created. The most commonly identified barrier that prevents the program from achieving more in the Brandywine Valley is a lack of resources. Assessments of the conservancy trended much the same among external stakeholders. While the conservancy's performance was rated with differing degrees of effectiveness, there was general agreement that the valley would be worse off without the efforts of the conservancy. One negative outcome of the conservancy's work is the lack of affordable housing in the valley. While the median household income in the area is one of the highest in the state (Table 1), so is the median home price. There is mutual agreement around the valley that this is a problem that is not being adequately addressed, for the reason that no township or borough wants to support affordable housing. Findings Since the creation of Landscapes in 1996, the EMC has reaped many rewards from its collaborative work with Chester County. The county is able to supply grant funds and the EMC is able to provide the expertise to accomplish its mission, which usually satisfies all three parties involved. In order for nonprofits to be successful in directing change in growth management or open space policy, it is important for them to build relationships with governmental bodies who have influence over the actual policymaking process. The conservancy is powerless but has built successful relationships with Chester County government and also with numerous townships in the county. These bodies listen to the advice of the conservancy in implementing growth management policies. The expertise of the EMC staff provides them credibility when dealing with developers, county officials, and township officials. This expertise helps educate residents of the Brandywine Valley with whom they have worked and also leads to repeat customers, which is desired by the EMC. Iftownships repeatedly request consulting services, the EMC knows that it is helping to preserve land and manage growth effectively. Since the conservancy has no implementation power, it is crucial that it is able to market itself as an educational resource for governmental bodies throughout the valley. The combination of museum and consulting services also helps the EMC succeed. By visiting the museum, many people see the art and cherish the history of the Brandywine Valley. This is a history full of beauty and reverence for the land and open space. Leaving the museum, many realize action must be taken to keep the history, culture, and landscape of the Brandywine Valley pristine. Possibly the most important factor leading to the success of the work of the conservancy has been the organization's flexibility over time. It has continued to grow and thrive since 1967 as the character of the valley has changed. The EMC has taken on new areas of expertise and is able to provide the valley the latest in growth management and open space tools as new growth pressures are felt. Notes 1 Chestec County. Pennsylvania. Chester County Govenunent. Online. Available: http://www. chesco.orglabout.hbnl. Accessed· January 22, 2003. 2 Chester County Board ofCommissioners, Lmulscapes: Managing Change in Chester Cmmty, 1996-2020, Comprehensive Plan Policy Element (Chester County. PA. July 12. 1996), p. 100. 3 Bureau ofthe U.S. Census, Census 2000 Swnmary File. DP-2, Profile o/SelectedSocial Characteristics Online. Available: http://factfinda".ceosm.gov. Accessed· February 21, 2003. 4 Chester County Board ofCommissioners. Lmulscapes: Managing Change in Chester Collllty, 1996-2020, f.8. Ibid.. p. 99. 6 Ibid.. p. 101. 7 Ann L Strong. Private Property and the Public lntoest: The Brandywine Experience (Baltimore: Johns Hopkim Uoivcnity Press. 1975), p. 6. 1 Inb:fView by Byron French with David Ward. Section Chief, a.estel' County Planning Commission. West Chester. Pennsylvania. DecembCI" 16, 2002. 'Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Nancy Petersen. "Political Bid Divides Chesco Democrats." Philadelplaia Inquirer (Jammy 3, 2003). Oolinc. Available: http://www.philly.comlmJd(mquircdnews/local/stateslpeonsylvania/ countieslcbesta_county/4862812..htm. Accessed· January 21. 2003. 12 Chestec County Board ofCommissioners. Uuulscapa: Managing Change in Chester County, 1996­2020, p. ll. 13 Ibid.. p. 10. 14 I:ntaview by Byron French with Elizabdb Rmnp, Site Administrato£, Brandywine Battlefield State Part. a.adds Fon1. Pennsylvania. Decembel' 18, 2002. 15 Rump intaview. 16 Strong. Private Pro-perry and the Public lntoest, p. 185. 17 Brandywine Consavancy Executive Committee. Brandywine Conservancy 2001 Annual Report (Chadds Ford.PA.2001).p. 7. 11 Strong. Private Property and the Public lntoest, p. 185. 19 I:ntaview by Byron French with David Sheilds, Associate Director, Land Stewardship Program. Brandywine Conservancy, Chadds Ford. Peomylvania. Decembe£ 13, 2002. 20 I:ntaview by Byron French with John Theilacm, Associate Director, Municipal Assislance Program. Brandywine Conservancy, Chadds Ford. Peomylvania., Decembe£ 13, 2002. 21 Ward interview. 221bid. 23 Brandywine Battlefield Task Force, BattlejielJ Protection Strategies: A Gllide for Brandywine Battlefield Communities, Chester" County, PA. 2000, p. 15. 2A Interview by Byron French with John Rougban, Township Managa, Upper Uwchlan Township, Pennsylvania, December 19, 2002. 25 Brandywine Consavancy, Land Stewardship Program. Cbadds Ford, PA (In-house publication). 26 Brandywine Conservancy, Municipal Assistance Program, Chadds Ford, PA (In house publication). n Brandywine Conservancy Executive Committee. Brandywine Conservancy 2001 Annual Report, p. 9. 21 The Brandywine Conservancy's F.nviromnental Management Center News, Brandywine Conservancy Tops 38,000 Acres in Permanently Protected Land. Online. Available: http://www.brandywineconservancy.org/ news_2003/news_002.html. Accessed· April 22, 2003. 29 Ibid. 30 Brandywine Battlefield Task Force, Battlefield Protection Strategies: A Gllide for Brandywine Battlefield Communities, p. 20. 31 Chestec County Board ofCommissioners, Uuulscapa: Managing Change in Chester Co1111ty, 1996­ 2020, p. 13. 32 Ward interview. 33 Roughan interview. 34 Sheilds interview. Appendix 3.8-Livable Delaware A growth management plan for the State of Delaware. · Livable Delaware is a legislative and programmatic agenda that seeks to direct growth and preserve open space throughout the state of Delaware. The plan, an executive order, was initiated by Governor Ruth Ann Minner on March 22, 2001. It requires all state agencies to align their spending to the Strategies for State Policies and Spending, a statewide comprehensive plan adopted in 1999. Other key pieces of the agenda include House Bill 255, which requires municipalities to obtain approved comprehensive plans before they can annex land and Senate bill 105, which created the Livable Delaware Advisory· Council to represent all vested interests in state growth management policies. Livable Delaware has coordinated the development strategies of all the counties and municipalities in order to combat sprawl, and the Office of State Planning Coordination is providing necessary assistance to reach this goal. Although Livable Delaware will expire when Governor Minner leaves office, the agenda should continue to influence growth patterns in the state for years to come. Table 1 Population, Housing, and Transportation Data for Delaware Delaware United States Population Change in total population, 1990-2000 (in%) 18 13 Housim? Characteristics Change in total housing units, 1990-2000 (in % ) 21 13 Change in multifamily units, 1990-2000 (in % ) 11 9 Change in single family units, 1990-2000 (in%) 30 15 Transoortation Chan2e in vehicle miles traveled 1991-2000 (in%) 42 38 Change in workers using public transportation to get to work, 1990-2000 (in%) 28 -12 Change in workers driving car, truck, or van alone to get to work, 1990-2000 (in%) 14 4 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Files. Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: February 19, 2003; The Road Information Program, National Information ­Appendix A: Interstate Vehicle Miles ofTravel, Highway Capacity, and Interstate Share of Travel. Online. Available: http://www.tripnet.org/lnterstateAppxAJan2003.PDF. Accessed: February 22, 2003. Background Socioeconomic Information Delaware is expected to nearly double in population in a span of sixty years, from 446,292 residents in 1960 to an estimated 856,229 in 2020.1 While much of the growth through 2003 has occurred in New Castle County (the northernmost county), Kent County (the central county), is expected to grow by 32 percent from 1990 to 2020 and Sussex County (the southernmost county), by 56 percent over the same period.2 As shown in Table 1, Delaware is growing faster than the national average. New Castle County is largely encompassed by the metropolitan areas of Newark and Wilmington, which are becoming part of the greater metropolitan areas of Baltimore and Philadelphia, respectively. A leading contributor to business sector growth in northern Delaware was the Financial Center Development Act of 1981, which liberalized state policies toward banks and credit card companies. 3 Diversification of the state's economy propelled the state's growth, especially in New Castle County. There was a significant reduction in the number of employees in manufacturing and retail trade from 1990 to 2000, which made up over 30 percent of all jobs in Delaware in 1990. Sectors seeing an increase from 1990 to 2000 include information technology, finance, insurance, real estate, arts, and entertainment. This business growth has led to more home owners throughout the state, evidenced by the increases in housing units, both multifamily and single family (see Table 1). Land Character Although Delaware is the second-smallest state in the United States, encompassing 1,982 square miles,4 there is much diversity. Northern New Castle County is densely populated and highly urbanized, and it consists of mostly urban-based business. The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal splits New Castle County in half as it connects Chesapeake Bay to the Delaware River and it also marks a distinct change in the land. Southern New Castle County and western Kent and Sussex Counties are rural agricultural areas now facing growth pressures. Developers and real estate agents have recognized that this area is within commuting distance of Wilmington, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.5 The recent completion of a major north-south toll road through Delaware is facilitating this development. The state's 23 miles of beaches are its primary tourism attraction. Eastern Kent and Sussex Counties have become prime resorts and community growth is supporting this industry. Rehoboth Beach in Sussex County is known as the nation's summer capital.6 Delaware maintains a moderate year-round climate compared to neighboring states, an average of 74 degrees in the summer and 32 degrees in the winter, which is causing many summer tourists to become permanent residents. An addition to the Chesapeake Bay Tunnel Bridge connecting Virginia Beach, Virginia, to the Virginia section of the Delmarva Peninsula7 was completed in 1999, making it more accessible for tourists to reach peninsula destinations. Another attraction for tourists is the tax-free shopping. Governor Thomas Carper installed new welcome signs, beckoning out-of-state drivers to "Delaware, The Home of Tax-Free Shopping,"8 much more appealing to out-of-state visitors than the former motto, "Delaware, Small Wonder." Retired couples have migrated in large numbers to the Delmarva Peninsula. From 1990 to 2000, the percentage of Delaware's ropulation that was between the ages of 45 and 59 increased from 14.7 to 18.3 percent. Growth Management History Most growth management initiatives in Delaware have started at the state level. In 1968, the state developed its first comprehensive plan, which focused on agricultural and open space preservation; major highways; mass transportation; adequate health, welfare, and education; urban services in developing areas; and the growth of nonpolluting industries. The plan lacked an implementation strategy and, consequently, had little effect on growth patterns. In 1976, the Delaware Tomorrow Commission was formed and charged to find ways to discourage sprawl, preserve farmlands, and encourage redevelopment and infill. The result of the commission was the crafting of the Land Use Planning Act in 1978. This act requires all land use decisions affecting more than one local jurisdiction be submitted to the state for review. In 1987, the legislature passed the Quality of Life Act, which requires regular revision of county comprehensive land use plans. In 1994, the Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues was established to create a vision for the future of Delaware. The Cabinet Committee proposed ten "Shaping Delaware's Future" development goals and principles that were adopted in 1995. The Quality of Life Act was also amended in 1995 to require all three counties to submit comprehensive plans every five years. In 1996, the Office of State Planning Coordination (OSPC) was reestablished to aid the state in land use planning decisions. The Strategies for State Policies and Spending plan was adopted in 1999 by the Cabinet Committee, based upon the ten "Shaping Delaware's Future" development goals. This document served as a strategy to guide Delaware's development in a way to minimize sprawl and maximize the quality of life. 10 Leadership Each governor, from Charles Terry who served from 1965 to 1969 to Thomas Carper who served from 1993 to 2001, was influential in the creation of one of the aforementioned state growth management policies. The governors have relied upon state planning staff from the State Planning Council, established in 1959, and the OSPC, established in 1995.11 New Castle County has been proactive in developing county growth management goals. Releasing its first comprehensive plan in 1967, there have been subsequent updates and revisions, the most significant being the adoption of the Unified Development Code (UDC) on December 31, 1997. This code is more stringent than what is required by Livable Delaware. All development in the county must occur only where adequate sewer and water facilities exists or is planned; thus, county officials can direct growth where they want it.12 Objections have been raised that the UDC is too stringent, and many developers and home builders are investing in other parts of the state and in Pennsylvania and Maryland.13 Factors Leading to Policy Initiation On a statewide level, much was accomplished in regard to growth management from 1968 to 2000; however, not much changed on the county or local level except in New Castle County. Past growth management actions of the state have been full of growth management rhetoric that lacked authority to force counties and municipalities into compliance. 14 As a result, the problems identified by state leaders in the 1960s and 1970s worsened be.cause no implementation strategy existed This problem escalated in the 1990s, when the state began to experience increased growth that outpaced infrastructure development, especially in the rural areas ofthe state. At present, the beach and resort areas suffer from traffic congestion due to insufficient road capacity to accommodate summer tourists.15 The quality oflife enjoyed around the state began to deteriorate in the 1990s and environmental problems emerged. namely water pollution. Authorities estimate that 80 percent of Delaware's waterways are moderately or severely degraded and not recommended for personal use, and only 20 percent show the characteristics and habitats of a natural stream. 16 Pollution in northern Delaware is attributed to urban development and stonnwater runoff. In the south, chemical fertilizer runoff and underground septic systems are the primary sources of pollution. For example, in 1998, 2,313 leaks were reported from 10,450 septic systems statewide, and most septic systems are used in the state's rural south.17 Program Description Structure and Development Livable Delaware is a legislative and programmatic agenda to dimct growth to the municipal areas and counties with adequate infrastructure for development and planning Created by Executive Order 14, signed on March 22, 2001, Livable Delaware builds on the foundation created by the Strategies for State Policies and Spending plan, which serves as a comprehensive plan for the state. 1be Strategies for State Policies and Spending plan was adopted in 1999 by the governor's Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues. The executive order states the principles ofLivable Delaware as "keeping sprawl in check, reducing traffic congestion. strengthening towns and cities, improving the environment, and protecting investment in roads, schools, and other infrastructure. "18 1be details of the plan are provided through specific legislation. As a result ofExecutive Order 14, all state departments and agencies completed implementation plans for the state spending strategies. The purpose ofthese plans, which are updated on a yearly basis, is to identify and remove all fiduciary actions that do not support the state development goal of ensuring that every dollar ofstate fimding is spent in support of state strategies.19 1be first legislative milestone ofLivable Delaware was the pas.uge ofHouse Bill 255, signed into law on July 13, 2001. Under HB 255, all counties and municipalities must align their spending and growth strategies to those ofthe state by means ofa comprehensive plan. No annexation can occur until the plan bas been approved by the OSPC and certified by the governor. 20 Another key piece of legislation, Senate Bill 105, signed into law on June 14, 2001, created the Livable Delaware Advisory Council to replace the Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues.21 The Cabinet Committee consisted ofthe secretary ofeach state department, members ofthe house and senate, and others in government, while the new Advisory Council is chaired by the lieutenant governor and bas representatives from the house, senate, governor's office, state departments, each county, home builders groups, civic associations, environmentalists, the farm. bureau, historical pn::secvationisls, local governments, business people, and community developers. Eight Livable Delaware subcommittees were formed with similar representation. The subcommittees cover the growth management issues of affordable housing, annexation, dispute resolution, community design, green infrastructure, infill and redevelopment, livability indicators, and transfer of development rights. The advantage of this new council and subcommittees is that it brings together more members of the growth management community than the previous committee. Governance/Management/Oversight Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her policy staff are the architects of Livable Delaware. Elected governor in 2000, Minner served in the Delaware General Assembly for 18 years and was the state's lieutenant governor for the eight years prior to her election as governor.22 Her political career has been marked by her support for environmental issues and she was a leading proponent of "Shaping Delaware's Future" and the state spending strategies.23 Upon signing Executive Order 14, Govenior Minner said, "Livable Delaware sends a clear message: We value our quality of life here in Delaware, and we will no longer support sprawl with taxpayer's money."24 She proved her leadership with the passage of House Bill 255. There was opposition to the plan by many legislators who wanted to table the bill but she pushed for a vote on the last day of the 141st Legislative Session. The governor knew more sprawl would occur if passage of the bill was delayed; Minner and her staff gathered sufficient support to pass HB 255.25 While Governor Minner is a leading proponent of Livable Delaware, the plan has broad support. Growth management is not a partisan issue in Delaware, where both Republicans and Democrats in the legislature have collaborated in growth management policy and its implementation. Minner, a Democrat, has found strong support from pro­open space Republicans in New Castle County. While a political divide on the issue is absent, there does seem to be a geographic one. Leaders of New Castle and Sussex Counties desire better management of growth, while leaders in Kent County, with its lagging economy, believe this plan will limit their growth potential. The OSPC has key responsibilities for the implementation and monitoring of Livable Delaware. Its mission is to improve the coordination of land use decisions made by all levels of government while maintaining a high quality of life for the state.26 Activities of the OSPC include planning information and education; giving assistance in developing comprehensive plans; awarding grants to communities for planning purposes; technical assistance compiling geographic data; improving the Land Use Planning Act (LUP A) process and reviewing all LUP A decisions; and aiding the Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues. The OSPC staff is made up of a director, a circuit-rider planner for each county, a LUP A review coordinator, and two information technology experts. 27 IntergovernmentaVInterlocal Relationships/Partnerships The key to Livable Delaware's success is that, unlike the state's preceding growth management plans, it requires counties and municipalities take action in collaboration with the state plan. Much of Livable Delaware's land use implementation occurs at the local government level. The state has limited powers to directly effect growth management, those being the construction of schools and roads. Other land use instruments reside in the hands of local governments, thus their inclusion in the scope of Livable Delaware was crucial. The Livable Delaware Advisory Council and subcommittees offer critical partnerships for the maintenance and sustainability of Livable Delaware. Small environmental organizations, such as Delaware Greenways, which is on the Green Infrastructure subcommittee, are heard as well as representatives from large entities such as New Castle County. With only two staff members, Delaware Greenways has still helped shape a small piece of the Livable Delaware agenda. Members of the organization attended a national meeting on Safe Routes to School with another small environmental organization, the Delaware Bicycle Council. The two organizations presented the idea to the governor, who made it a part of her plan that was approved by the legislature unanimously.28 The legislation uses federal transportation dollars through the Delaware Department of Transportation for bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming measures around school zones. The structure of Livable Delaware allows for all parties, big and small, to participate, collaborate, and bring about change. Policy Under Livable Delaware, counties and municipalities must have an approved comprehensive plan before any annexations can occur under House Bill 255. The OSPC offers assistance to municipalities and counties in the preparation of comprehensive plans in the form of technical assistance and grants. Plans are reviewed by the OSPC and other state agencies to compare planning goals on all three levels of governance-municipality, county, and state. H the plan is found not to conflict with any other jurisdiction, then the OSPC forwards the plan to the governor for certification. Once annexation occurs, the city or county must prepare a plan of services indicating which services it will provide to the newly annexed area, how they will be provided, and the fiscal and operating capability to provide such services. Any rezoning that occurs must be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. In April 2003, Governor Minner joined with representatives from the Delaware Department of Transportation, Citizens Bank, and Fannie Mae to announce the creation of the Statewide Smart Commute Initiative. This initiative gives Delaware's prospective home buyers a chance to obtain a mortgage with savings realized from utilizing public transportation. In order to quality, the new homestead must be located within three­fourths of a mile of a rail station or bus stop. Besides saving on a mortgage, the homeowners will receive transit passes to cover six weeks of public transportation travel. Citizens Bank will consider the savings of using public transportation, valued at up to $3,000 a year, as additional qualifying income in preparing mortgages.29 Delaware is ideally suited for this program according to the statistics in Table 1. While vehicle miles traveled and single passenger commuters increased above the national average in the 1990s, so did the percentage of workers taking public transportation to get to work. Other policies include Safe Routes to School legislation (Senate Bill 353), passed in 2002, which makes federal transportation dollars available to the state. These monies are used for bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic-calming measures in school zones. The state is increasing outright funding for open space acquisition, infill development programs in New Castle County, and promoting new community designs that utilize multi.use zoninffi, open space options, and multi.modal transportation in new community developments.3 A proposed Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) plan for the state did not pass the 2002 legislature, but state policymakers have indicated that there may be enough support in certain localities to use TDR in the future.31 Funding While the OSPC is an independent state office, for accounting purposes it is under the Office of the Budget. Therefore it is not easy to quantify the yearly amount appropriated for the office's operations as it relates to supporting Livable Delaware. The amount of grants the office gives out to aid in comprehensive plan development is tracked, though. As of February 2003, the OSPC had awarded $147,500 in grants to communities and counties. The OSPC is budgeted $100,000 per year to award in grants by the legislature. 32 Other funding includes $1.5 million that the state is transferring over to local governments for open space acquisition. The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) is administering the funds to garner park, forest, and historic lands. DNREC has also provided $125,000 to help the state deal with environmental problems and enhance natural resource planning. 33 Program Evaluation Program Outputs The foremost output from Livable Delaware is the development of city and county comprehensive plans. As of April 2003, all three counties have state-certified plans. Out of 57 incorporated municipalities across the state, 49 have comprehensive plans either in process or already certified. 34 The city of Bridgeville in southwestern Delaware, for example, was the first municipality to have its comprehensive plan approved, with certification by the Office of State Planning Coordination in December 2001 and plan adoption in February 2002.35 Bridgeville, population 1,436, sits among some of the best agricultural soil in the country. The town grew by 18.7 percent in the 1990s after 40 years of population stagnation or decline.36 Without Livable Delaware, the growth of Bridgeville could have become dependent on decisions of developers, who would have been able to push through development with ease. 37 With a completed comprehensive plan, the city has been able to guide the development of an 832-acre site south of town into a mixed-use community with housing, a park, and a golf course. The Delaware Department of Transportation is attempting to improve highway intersections and connect the new development to downtown Bridgeville. In coordination with the state strategies map, the comprehensive plan has set aside two future growth zones where the community's growth will be focused. The growth zones also protect the agricultural land zones from development. The Bridgeville Planning Commission took the lead role in developing the comprehensive plan, with technical assistance from the Institute for Public Administration at the University of Delaware and financial assistance from the OSPC.38 Program Sensitivity to Changes in Environment Since Livable Delaware is an agenda created by Governor Minner, the name will not remain since future administrations will create their own state growth management plans. The accomplishments of Livable Delaware, however, will remain. Barring an ideological swing in state government, the legislation will remain and the spending strategies for all state agencies will remain in line with the Strategies for State Policies and Spending. Since support for Livable Delaware is bipartisan, future administrations should further the ideals of the agenda. Most of the legislation has little fiscal impact, so there would not be much change in a period of lengthened economic recession or a state budget shortfall. ~funding might be made available for Livable Delaware, which would decrease the amount of grants given and limit the creation of any new programs, but this would not affect the overall picture of Livable Delaware. Outcomes A partnership has been developed between the state and the University of Delaware Institute for Public Administration (IPA). The IPA is an invaluable resource for county and local officials developing comprehensive plans for the first time. Many small cities do not have the resources or expertise to develop a plan on their own, but through certificate programs offered by the IPA, town officials are leamin'9 the tools of comprehensive planning. IPA is also assisting in the preparation of plans. The federal government does not have a direct impact on the Livable Delaware agenda. Through the Safe Routes to Schools legislation, federal funds are being used to create safer school zones for children walking or hilting to school. Federal transportation infrastructure investment is an indirect impact of the federal government that affects Delaware. The federal government needs to ensure that its spending does not conflict with the desired growth patterns in an area. A key would be applying what Delaware has done to the national level by aligning the spending of federal agencies to the affected localities. Another indirect effect are the federal tax incentives provided for the conservation of open space. Selling land to developers is more profitable than protecting land, and during an economic downturn when landowners are losing money elsewhere, many may decide to sell land Due to the newness of Livable Delaware, many of the program's outputs will not have been fully realized by 2003, making it difficult to give any indication of success. Many good ideas have been laid out through legislation, but they are not ready to be judged on effectiveness. Crucial partnerships have been formed between levels of state government and other parties throughout the state. Another significant output is the continuing growth management and open space dialogue throughout Delaware stemming from the partnerships. Many have realized the importance of addressing growth management issues and prioritizing the finding of solutions, which should wOik to keep the ideals ofLivable Delaware on the agendas of future leaders of the state. Fmdings There are two primary catalysts to the development ofLivable Delaware. One is the state's history of growth management efforts. The other is the pressure of growth throughout the state. Through the late 1980s, the only part of Delaware seeing significant growth was northern New Castle County. Since then, all three counties have experienced increased growth, especially Sussex County. This growth gave opportunity to a plan like Livable Delaware that see.ks to direct growth and maintain open space in the state. Livable Delaware has established a successful balance between state authority and local control. While some legislation does require action from the counties and municipalities, the municipality determines how compliance will occur. The OSPC has created a state strategies map which identifies where it believes growth should occur, but it is solely up to the counties and municipalities to decide where development should be placed. This program showcases gubernatorial leadership in establishing and maintaining a successful growth management program. While there have been many years of growth management planning at the statewide level, it took a strong governor to unite the state under one growth management plan that is able to reach and aid localities. The combination of strong leadership and successful balance between state authority and local control has created a culture of support throughout the state. Being a small state, most of the people involved in growth management issues have prior knowledge of each other, but previous to Livable Delaware they had not been united under a single cause. While strong leadership was crucial for Livable Delaware's inception, widespread support from citizens and municipal government officials will be crucial to its continued success. Notes 1 The Governor's Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues, Shaping Delaware's Future: Managing Growth in 21st Century Delaware, Strategies for State Policies and Spending (Dover, DE, December 1999), Appendix 8. 2 Ibid. 3 Maureen Milford, "State Shares in the Riches: DuPont Put Delaware on the Map, Helped Shape Local Communities," The News Journal (June 30, 2002). Online. Available: http://www.delaware online.com/newsjoumal/business/2002/06/30statesharesinth.html. Accessed: January 12, 2003. 4 Delaware Facts and Symbols. Online. Available: http://www.state.de.us/gic/facts/history/delfact.htm Accessed: February 20, 2003. Interview by Byron French with Joseph Conaway, Commission President, City of Bridgeville, Bridgeville, Delaware, December 20, 2002. 6 Ibid. 7 The Delmarva Peninsula is made up of Delaware, eastern Maryland, and a small section of northeastern Virginia; it is separated by the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. 8 The ''Delaware, The Home of Tax-Free Shopping" signs were taken down in 2003. 9 U.S. Census Bureau, State and County Quickfacts. Online. Available: http://quickfacts.census.gov. Accessed: February 23, 2003. The Governor's Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues, Shaping Delaware's Future: Managing Growth in 21st Century Delaware, Strategies for State Policies and Spending, Appendix 4. 11 Ibid. 12 Interview by Byron French with Joseph Abale, Land Use Planner, New Castle County Planning Department, New Castle, Delaware, December 16, 2002. 13 Interview by Byron French with Steve Lefebvre, Delaware Homebuilders Association, Wilmington, Delaware, December 17, 2002. 14 Abale interview. Interview by Byron French with Andrea Kreiner, Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor, Dover, Delaware, December 20, 2002. 16 Environmental Law Institute, Protecting Delaware's Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation (Washington, D.C. 1999), p. 16. 17 Ibid. 18 Delaware's Governor Ruth Ann Minner, Executive Order 14. Online. Available: http://www. state.de.us/governor/ordersleo_14.htm. Accessed: January 23, 2003. 19 Ibid. Governor Minner's Livable Delaware, House Bill 255. Online. Available: http://www.state.de. us/planning/livedel/hb255.htm. Accessed: January 23, 2003. 21 Governor Minner's Livable Delaware, Senate Bill 105. Online. Available: http://www.state.de. us/planning/livedel/sb105.htm. Accessed: January 23, 2003. 22 Delaware's Governor Ruth Ann Minner, The Governor's Office. Online. Available: http://www. state.de.us/governor/biography.htm. Accessed: January 23, 2003. 23 Kreiner interview. 24 Governor Minner's Livable Delaware, Homepage. Online. Available: http://www.state.de.us/planning/livedel. Accessed: January 23, 2003. Kreiner interview. 26 Office of State Planning Coordination, Progress Report August 2001-July 2002. Online. Available: http://www.state.de.us/planning/. Accessed: February 22, 2003. 27 Interview by Byron French with Constance Holland, Dorothy Morris, and Anne Marie Townshend, Office of State Planning Coordination, Dover, Delaware, December 19, 2002. 28 Interview by Byron French with Tim Plemmons, Executive Director, Delaware Greenways, Wilmington, Delaware, December 17, 2002. 29 Governor Minner's Livable Delaware, Smart Commute Initiative. Online. Available: http://www.state.de.us/planning/livdel/smartcom.htm. Accessed: April 21, 2003. Governor Minner's Livable Delaware, livable Delaware Update-April 2003. Online. Available: http://www.state.de.us/planning/livdel/accomp.htm. Accessed: April 21, 2003. 31 Kreiner interview. 32 Telephone interview by Byron French with Dorothy Morris, Land Use Planning Act Coordinator, Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination, February 26, 2003. 33 Governor Minner's Livable Delaware, Livable Delaware Update-April 2003 (online). 34 Ibid. 35 Town of Bridgeville Planning Commission, The Town ofBridgeville Comprehensive Plan, Bridgeville, DE, February 2002. 36 Ibid. 37 Conaway interview. 38 Town of Bridgeville Planning Commission, The Town ofBridgeville Comprehensive Plan. 39 Interview by Byron French with Ed O'Donnell, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, December 12, 2002. Apaladlicola Citv 1990 A.-lacfricola ., Change ~2000 Fnmklin County 1990 Fnnklin County a. 1'Clmagie 1"'"lm Citv2000 Socioec:ooomic Population 2,(i()2 2.334 -103 8,967 11,057 30 Persons 65 years and older (in % ) 18 20.4 2.4 17.99 15.7 -23 Persons per sq. mi. 1381.8 1228.4 -11.l 16.8 20.70 23 Median household income 12,813 28,464 122.15 17,247 26.756 55.13 Persons below oovertv (in % ) 34.7 253 -9.4 26.6 17.7 -8.9 Median value of owner-occupied unit 43,000 83,800 94.88 51,700 105,300 103.68 Land Use Land area (sq. mi.) 1.9 1.9 0 534 534 0 T. Mean travel time to work, workers age 16+ (in min.) 15.9 19.9 Appendix 3.9-Apalachicola River and Bay An evaluation of growth management efforts in Franklin County and the region. Table 1 Socioemnomic, Land U~and Transportation Data for Apalachicola Oty and Fruklin County The Apalachicola River in Florida is the southernmost river of a three-river system made up of the Apalachicola. Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers. collectively termed the ACF River·Basin. The ACF rivers run through Georgia. Alabama, and the Florida Panhandle before emptying into the Gulf of Mexico. Although much of the ACF Basin lies outside the geographic confines ofthis study. the system as a whole must be considered since water use in Atlanta and by farmers downstream has direct effects on the Apalachicola Bay and estuarine system This study examines the efforts to manage the river and bay at federal. state, and local levels through the Apalachicola National F.sf't•arine Research Reserve (ANERR). the Florida Areas of Critical State Coocem (ACSC). and growth management programs in bodi Franklin County and with the City of Apalachicola. Despite many strides toward Smart Growth objectives in the regi~there remain many challenges that threaten the future of Apalachicola's traditional resoun:e­based lifestyle and its bay's health. A basinwide approach. working toward accomplishing system-focused goals. is lacking in the Apalachicola Bay and River Basin. Sources: U.S. Caisos Bureau, Census 1990 and Cmms 20()() Summary files. OoJinc. Availabli::: hap:/lfacdiDdcr~p. Accessed: January 2, 2003; Fbida DepaJtmcot ofEnvironmentil Prokc:lioo, ApaJadricola Nalioftal ~llalardt Raerw. Online. Available: bnp://www.dep.slllte.fluslcoastaJ/sitesfapalacbirolalmmtinfoJllDll Siu.. Al:a:m:d: Dca:mbCl"6, 2002.. Background Socioeconomic Information In 2000, Franklin County had a total population of 11,057, and Apalachicola City comprised approximately 20 percent of that figure. 1 Although the city's population has diminished in the decade from 1990 to 2000, the population of the county has grown by an almost identical percentage to the state as a whole. 2 Franklin County will experience even greater growth pressure in the future as development continues and expands. High­density developments are presently planned for St. George Island and along the waterfront areas of the mainland surrounding the bay.3 Significant development pressure is also being felt on St. James Island, where the St. Joe Company has a 450-home development planned.4 Traditionally, Apalachicola has a resource:--based economy, with a large population of fishermen harvesting local fish, shrimp, and oyster pop1,1lations and considerable forestry operations. The bay provides approximately 90 percent of the oysters eaten in Florida and 10 percent in the United States.5 Beginning in the mid-1980s and accelerating since then, tourism has been the fastest-growing industry in the area.6 Apalachicola and Franklin County, often termed "the Forgotten Coast," constitute the last piece of Florida coastline left relatively undeveloped. The traditional way of life remaining in the county attracts tourists while also requiring protection from development to ensure its survival. Land Character Growth management and resource management problems are complicated by the fact that the Apalachicola River is the lower portion of a three-river system (ACF: Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint) in a tristate area (Georgia, Alabama, and Florida). The combined river basins total 19,600 square miles, with 2,400 square miles in Florida. River and bay water quality issues are primarily related to upstream factors, including urbanization, increased agricultural activities, stormwater runoff, and navigational activities.7 The interstate ·nature of the basin has created water usage conflict that is presently being negotiated through a tristate compact. 8 The Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve (ANERR) includes approximately 246,000 acres with over half (135,680 acres) submerged. Within the reserve' s boundaries are two barrier islands and a portion of a third, the lower 52 miles of the Apalachicola River and its associated floodplain, portions of adjoining uplands, and the Apalachicola Bay system. The Apalachicola River and Bay drainage basin encompasses 3,102 square miles, with forestland comprising almost 55 percent of the total basin.9 Growth Management History The history of growth management in Florida originated during the state's rapid growth in the 1960s and 1970s. Growth management came about because of unmitigated development, its high costs, and local governments' inabilities to finance the growth. In 1975 the state adopted a comprehensive plan. This plan was only advisory and counties simply pledged follow its principles. In 1985 the Omnibus Growth Management Act was passed, malting compliance mandatory without altering the principles of the 1975 Growth Management Act. Development of comprehensive plans by cities and counties was regulated by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and the state attempted to ensure pro~rinfrastructure and financing were available before development was approved. ANERR was established in September 1979 when the lower Apalachicola Bay was designated a National Estuarine Sanctuary under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.11 ANERR' s role is research, education, and resource management. The federal coastal zone management mission is resource protection and the state and the Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas (CAMA) mission is to maintain the integrity of coastal and aquatic areas. Both Apalachicola City and Franklin County have had comprehensive plans in place since the 1970s, prior to the 1985 omnibus act requiring local comprehensive plans. Growth management became a vital issue for Franklin County in 1985 because of two hurricanes. The oyster industry was devastated as a result of storm damage to the natural balance of the bay, and the county-area sewer systems also suffered ill effects from the hurricanes.12 In 1985 the area was designated an Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) under Florida Statute 380.05.13 A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dam proposal in neighboring Calhoun County helped organize state interests around water issues in the Apalachicola Bay and River Basin, eventually leading to the ACSC label.14 This designation required the county to update its land development codes and gave state money to the city to rebuild its sewer system.15 The main objective of the ACSC program is "coordination of state, regional, and local planning, program implementation, and regulation of resource management."16 The reoccurring issues in the Apalachicola ACSC were (1) poor enforcement of development permitting procedures; (2) deficient land planning and development capacity; (3) septic tank use on St. George Island; and (4) Apalachicola City sewage treatment plant upgrades.17 Franklin County and the city of Carrabelle were removed from ACSC designation in 1993 because of perceived success in meeting state goals.18 Only the city of Apalachicola retains the ACSC designation in 2003 in order to build increased capacity in its wastewater treatment system with the associated state grant 19 money.· In 1983 the United Nations (UN) designated the Apalachicola Bay an International Biosphere Preserve in recognition of the bay's importance to the global ecosystem.20 The UN designation coincided with increased awareness of adverse ecological effects on the bay from development and associated developmental effects resulting from the Army Corps of Engineers' dam proposal. Because water quality in the Apalachicola Bay is mostly determined by upstream factors,21 any Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River dispute has considerable potential for ecological consequences. A suit was initiated in 1990 when Alabama sued Georgia over water use and Florida joined Alabama in its suit. Per a judicial request, the three states agreed in a tristate compact to address water allocation issues over a ten-year period. This time frame has been extended three times as of 2002. Various economic interests, including shipping, tourism, electricity companies, and fishermen, are being balanced against numerous biological concerns in the negotiations. 22 The federal government is present in the negotiations, but not as an active participant because the dispute is related to questions of land use, traditionally a state domain.23 Leadership The ACSC program was initiated at the state level as part of the 1972 Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act under Governor Reuben Askew.24 Governor Bob Graham later significantly strengthened the ACSC programs by requiring localities under the designation to incorporate program objectives into their comprehensive plans and requiring consistency between state, regional, and local plans. 25 These efforts led directly to the adoption of the 1985 State Comprehensive Plan and Omnibus Growth Management Act as well as the designation of the Apalachicola River asanACSC. Environmental groups were the primary active participants, besides the federal, state, and local governments, in the initiation of ANERR and ACSC programs in the Apalachicola Bay region.26 The Apalachicola Bay and Riverkeepers (ABARK) is an active nonprofit organization in the region, although not in existence at the time of ACSC or ANERR program initiation. ABARK' s mission is the protection and preservation of the river and bay and the economic way of life that the river and bay support­commercial fishing. ABARK is concerned primarily with 10727 miles of river starting at the Florida-Georgia border and a 40-mile-wide stretch of bay extending from Alligator Point to St. Vincent's.28 ABARK received $10,000 indirectly from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation in 2002 to work with local governments on growth issues. 29 1000 Friends of Florida also plays an advisory role in Apalachicola regional affairs and is a partner of ABARK's. 1000 Friends of Florida is a statewide growth management advisory group and received $500,000 from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation for Panhandle conservation work.30 The Nature Conservancy is another active environmental group in the state and the region. It is very involved with land acquisition efforts and works with local environmental groups, like ABARK, to achieve environmental goals. A group interestingly absent from assessments of the program inception environment is the Apalachee Regional Planning Council (ARPC).31 This might be explained by the presence of water management districts (WMD) that fulfill the water management role for repons, despite coordination requirements between WMDs and regional governments.3 Moreover, the counties and the DCA are responsible for completing comprehensive plans, leaving little role left for the regional planning councils as a result. 33 One of the functions of ARPC is to examine goals and objectives of policies from the counties and localities to determine if there is an impact at the regional level through a Developments of Regional hnpact (DRI) statement. A DRI is development that is judged likely "to present issues of state or regional significance due to the nature or magnitude of the develo~ment or the nature or magnitude of its effects on the surrounding environment." 4 When a DRI is assessed to be in direct conflict with the strategic regional policy plan, ARPC can bring an objection to the board and ask for action; however, ARPC lacks any enforcement power even if it finds an inconsistent decision. The DRI process has been underutilized and might be abandoned because developers are unhappy with the cumbersome process. Developers hold substantial influence in Florida growth management policy at present. 35 An additional interest group labeled inactive at program inception is the development community.36 Large scale development pressure had been absent from Franklin County until the mid-1990s. Normally the county sees 150 to 200 homes built a year, creating full employment in the local economy. The St. Joe Company has completely changed development dynamics in Franklin County with their proposed "Summer Camp" development that includes 450 homes; this one project equals three years of normal county growth.37 In 2002, a visioning project was proposed to create an overlay plan for St. James Island on the eastern end of the county where the St. Joe Company is planning to build its 450-unit development. The county has refused permission to develop any more developments beyond Summer Camp until the comprehensive plan is updated, therefore St. Joe has offered to help fund the visioning process in order to expedite the development approval process. 38 Because St. Joe can provide the largest share of funding available for the visioning process, there is a fear it will dominate the process and the St. Joe Company will benefit at the expense ofthe county and its ecosystem.39 Program Description Stmctureand Development ANERR is a federal and state partnership; NOAA is the federal partner and DEP is the state partner. There are 25 such designations nationwide and this one is the second largest, at 246,766 acres, after the Kachemak Bay NERR in Alaska that measures 350,000 acres.40 ANERR has a cooperative arrangement with other agencies in the area whereby ANERR has the lead management role of some regions in the reserve and other agencies in other reserve regions. In 2002, there were 28 employees at ANERR, including the aquatic and buffer preserves-15 full-time equivalents, 13 temporary or seasonal employees, and 23 nonemployees supervised by ANERR-and almost 250,000 acres in the ANERR area. 41 Without the cooperative arrangement, it would be impossible to manage the land ANERR's management plans have five-year planning horizons. ANERR completed writing the first management plan in 1982, but it was not approved by the three levels of government (county, state, and federal government) until 1993. The plan must be updated for 2004 and will only need approval from the state and federal governments. Management plan endorsement from Franklin County is no longer necessary for overall plan approval; however, there continues to be significant local input.42 The legislative structure of the ACSC program dictates that no more than 5 percent of Florida's total area can be under the jurisdiction of the program at any point in time.43 The 1985 designation encompassed a significant portion ofFranklin County but did not -incorporate the majority of the ACF River Basin despite the fact water quality issues in the bay are determined mostly by upstream activity.44 Shortly after Apalachicola Bay was desiJmated an ACSC, a field office was set up to synchronize state and local ACSC activities.43 Franklin County has a state-mandated comprehensive plan. The most recent plan was for the ten-year period from 1990 to 2000. The county is planning to update the plan in 2003 with a time horizon to 2020. The plan has not been updated because development pressure was virtually nonexistent prior to the St. Joe Company's involvement, meaning there was little development to manage. Growth has historically occurred at a slower pace in Franklin County than the rest of Florida. The new plan will be much more specific in order to properly manage growth in the St. Joe-controlled areas.46 The city and county are wary of further federal or state involvement in local planning by way of regulations on public land use. In general the local community finds state and federal government involvement in the river and bay as beneficial only for natural resources and animal species and detrimental to local population interests. This is an area where the residents earn a living from and enjoy uti1izing the natural resourees around them. Franklin County residents generally do not want to have further regulations placed on public property uses. They would not, however, object in general to increased restrictions on density and building height.47 Policy Land acquisition is the most commonly and effectively used tool in the region.48 Florida funds its land acquisition program through the Florida Forever Act. 49 One of ANERR's objectives is to expand its boundaries with newly purchased lands and other environmentally sensitive tracts necessary to protect the natural resources of the reserve. Land acquisition of the remaining environmentally sensitive tracts of privately owned lands within and adjacent to the reserve is an ongoing effort. 50 ANERR monitors water quality, habitats, and species, including harvestable seafood. Water quality and weather data are sent to the Central Data Office in Georgetown, South Carolina, and other data collected is housed on-site at ANERR.51 The indicators used to track success by ANERR are the same ecologically and economically-the seafood industry.52 Other tools used by ANERR include • education, • ANERR's management plan (this is somewhat enforceable), • the aquatic preserve program53 (this has the weight of law), and • the buffer preserve program54 (this should soon have the weight of law). The ACSC established ten principles to guide development and analyze new developments' effects on the environment. Under the designation, the establishment of a Resource Planning and Management Committee was required to identify problems and potential solutions for Franklin County's environmental and economic resources.55 The ACSC designation used both coordination between existing and newly created groups along with new ordinances and legislation to obtain its Smart Growth objectives. Oversight requirements insisted new ordinances and legislation follow a lengthy review process by the DCA. 56 State concurrency requirements have not been used in Franklin County because land is often developed utilizing septic tanks and wells as long as the minimum density requirement of one home per acre is observed. 57 Where concurrency issues arise, the state and localities have found ways to evade state-imposed concurrency requirements, such as through exemption areas and variances. 58 Another county-sponsored policy tool is the visioning process occurring on St. James Island; its purpose is to create a sense of community ownership and shared values in Franklin County. A strong regional approach toward developmental questions is lacking in the Apalachicola area.59 The visioning process attempts to help people to identify themselves as part of a larger community or natural system. The visioning process objective is intended to aid public understanding of the long-term impacts of development and raise consciousness of development/environment trade-offs.60 Apalachicola and Franklin County use no formal indicators to determine growth management successes or failures. The planning department uses public sentiment and attendance at meetings as its guide and feedback mechanism. An additional informal indicator is the health of the local fish, oyster, and shrimp harvests. If it is shown that development is causally linked to declining seafood populations, the county would place further controls on development.61 However, because approximately 80 to 90 percent of the bay's quantity and water quality is affected by upstream waters, this causal link between development and declining fisheries is not easily attainable. 62 No model has been developed at this point to allow researchers to assess the cumulative F°llution capacity of the bay before seafood populations are irreversibly damaged.6 The region has the tools needed to address growth-related problems; the critical factor is whether the political will is present at the local, state, and regional levels to preserve the existing heritage.64 There needs to be both a capacity and a commitment for Smart Growth principles to flourish.65 Funding ANERR relied solely on federal funding when initiated but subsequently received both federal and state funds.66 Tourism constitutes a significant portion of Florida's income. State resource protection funding comes from the general fund, meaning it is substantially tourism-generated. In other words, the main source of environmental problems (the development pressure and resource consumption driven by the tourist industry) funds the efforts to mitigate the negative impacts.67 A large portion of federal funding comes from grant monies. ANERR typically has 12 or more budgets to track throughout the year. Federal coordination of grant budgets is severely lacking, and three people, including the environmental administrator, are required to track federal grant budgets.68 ACSC helped to fund the Franklin County planning office in the late 1980s and early 1990s because of the increased expectations placed upon it by the program. In 1990 the DCA approved $75,000 to finance septic system repairs for low-income households. The Florida Legislature also approved over $8 million to help upgrade and expand various sewer systems throughout the county.69 Franklin County received state funding in 1986 when funds were allocated to every county to develop comprehensive plans in accordance with the 1985 Omnibus Growth Management Act and in 1998 when Franklin County·was given $10,000 to evaluate the comprehensive plan. The department is regularly financed through property taxes and periodically receives grants for specific projects.70 Program Evaluation Program Outputs ANERR's three sections have all produced successful outputs in accordance with their program goals. An environmental education program has been initiated to help change environmental principles and explain shared resources ethics in the region. Its research section has pooled the reserve' s data resources into a large database which has come to be viewed as a reputable source of information. The resource management section has accomplished the goal of creating additional public concern for environmentally sensitive lands.71 One of ACSC's specific goals was to protect the bay's water quality through local land development regulations. Specific outputs of this goal were the creation of Franklin County's 1990 Comprehensive Plan along with other ordinances, including a stormwater abatement ordinance, septic tank abatement ordinance, and development ordinances. ACSC also had the goal of promoting economic diversification compatible with bay protection goals. The low family income in the county (see Table 1) shows that economic growth continues to be a pressing issue. The ACSC goal of assisting in upgrading local municipal sewer systems has been the most difficult goal to achieve, despite significant funds dedicated to the matter (see Funding section). A septic tank survey conducted by ACSC identified more than 100 malfunctioning tanks on St. George Island that were subsequently repaired or replaced in order to lessen the amount of untreated effluent going directly into the bay.72 In 1992 it was declared that the ACSC program had successfully completed it objectives except in Apalachicola, where the program continues to assist with sewer system updates.73 Franklin County set a minimum density requirement for septic tank use at one per acre in the 1970s and a maximum allowable housing density of 15 units per acre. These requirements are more stringent than the state guidelines. The county adopted 50-foot setbacks for buildings from wetlands and state bodies of water and 150-foot setbacks for septic tanks~74 Both ofthese setbacks are well in excess of state regulations. These were adopted in 1987 and the county had to retrofit numerous plots platted in the previous decades. The maximum allowable building height is 35 feet above the first floor.75 This restriction is intended to limit home sizes because structures are on on-site disposal systems.76 Variances are issued for higher structures and this regulation is not enforced in some instances.77 Franklin County has placed restrictions on single-family docks and marinas and was the first county in the state to pass a lighting ordinance to protect nesting sea turtles. 78 Program Sensitivity to Changes in Environment Although Florida growth management law has not changed substantially, enforcement has diminished at the state level. In 1994 Governor Chiles publicly told the DCA secretary that the state should not be challenging comprehensive land plans' inconsistencies with state law.79 The state now essentially delegates decision making power to the localities despite retaining the legal authority to reject local plan amendments.80 This lack of state enforcement is problematic in that the costs associated with unmanaged growth to natural systems, infrastructure, and social equity are magnified because of massive population expansion in Florida. A possible explanation for this lack of political support is that the effects of unmitigated growth from the period before the 1985 Omnibus Growth Management Act are becoming apparent, and deficient understanding of the delayed effects of Smart Growth principle implementation creates cynicism regarding the act's usefulness.81 Lacking support from the governor (both Chiles and Jeb Bush), the DCA is hesitant to label comprehensive plans or amendments as sprawl-conducive. Smaller agencies have difficulty convincing the courts that county actions are causing sprawl when the DCA will not say the plans are inconsistent with state anti-sprawl objectives. Between 5,000 and 7,000 plan amendments are completed annually, and the DCA approves virtually all of them. There are 67 counties and 420­plus towns in Florida, all with independent land use authority.82 Growth management is very sensitive to politics in Florida and at present local governments hesitate to disapprove development projects. Natural systems are resilient, yet directly affected by the built environment.83 Once the natural environment is damaged beyond a certain point it is very difficult and expensive to bring it back. The question of compelling people to consider future costs is a vital one in the Apalachicola 84 area. Within ANERR, both senior managers and coordinators are select exempt, meaning their employment can be terminated without showing just cause. Additionally, senior managers and executive positions are politically appointed, making these positions inherently political and thus susceptible to political influence. With every change of administration there is a change in the rules. It falls upon the environmental administrator to uphold the values and objectives of the program in spite of political pressure from the development community. Staff development could be enhanced and potentially de-politicized by requiring a ~siteamount of field work to ensure greater knowledge of resource management needs. Achieving local cooperation is cited as the biggest challenge to success ofthe ACSC program.86 The proper balance between local autonomy and systemic solutions to environmental problems will continue to challenge Florida because ofthe state's lack of support for the objectives of the 1985 Omnibus Growth Management Act. 1be ACSC program was intended to create coordination; however, the state movement away from this goal has overridden any progress made by ACSC in this regard,,, Outcomes Overall ANERR appears to be accomplishing program objectives. ANERR has had political influence at the county level though the provision ofenvironmental information to political decision makers and aiding county comprehensive plan formulation. However, the program has not been as successful in guiding and influencing smaller projects for coastal lands. The county wants to grow in Older to increase its ad valorem tax base, even though many studies show growth does not generate revenues sufficient for the resulting increased service costs.88 The collective effect of these small projects is quite large, creating a major problem. IfANERR was required to partake in the county permitting process this problem could be addressed to a large degree.89 The ACSC program's failure to properly upgrade the sewer systems in Franklin and surrounding counties continues to beleaguer the area It is believed that the consulting company hired to coordinate repairs has continually failed the county by recommending small fixes rather than the major overhaul required.90 This process has been very expensive and the results have been extremely disappointing. The city wastewater treatment plant bas been problematic for the past 20 years. Septic tanks draining into the bay are also a dilemma. Tanks are permitted one at a time; their impact is not assessed cumulatively.91 Calculating the total carrying capacity of the river basin and bay and determining the total number of septic permits allowable would be a more rigorous approach to resolving this issue.92 Similar studies have been previously attempted in the Florida Keys and the science was too complicated to make definitive conclusions.93 Yet acconting to one source, the instrumentation required to assess causal relationships between various factors and water quality is now available.94 An interesting critique of the ACSC program by the ANERR administrator is that there is a basic problem with a planning agency implementing an environmental program.95 An environmental organinttion with a background in the substantive issues would have been a more appropriate choice to lead the state ACSC program.96 An additional appraisal of the ACSC program is that the program boundaries were too small to have the desired environmental impact from program implementation.97 This is a justified analysis because the issues of agricultural runoff and other upstream factors were not addressed by the ACSC program. The ACF compact presently being formulated is attempting to address and quantify these systemwide issues. A major challenge facing Franklin County is development pressure from the St. Joe Company. Zoning ordinances are periodically overridden by variances, which should be granted only rarely.98 Liberal use of variances creates a disincentive for individuals to follow the comprehensive plan. The 2003 Comprehensive Plan will have to have stricter implementation procedures in order to ensure county control over development. It is, however, in the interest of developers to see the seafood industry remain vital because this is an attractive feature of the area. A problem faced by both Franklin County and ANERR is managing a large physical area with limited staffing. ANERR shares staff with other agencies active in the region, yet still has difficulty physically coverinft the river basin.99 Franklin County's current planner, Alan Pierce, was hired in 1988. 00 Franklin County similarly struggles to handle its workload and the geography with its staff of seven. A lot of its manpower is spent reacting to crises rather than in proactive planning. Managing development in the outlying areas has proved particularly difficult. The planning department has issued building permits before realizing there is sensitive land requiring on-site protection because sites cannot always be viewed before permits are issued. This issue is being rectified by the county as of 2003.101 Perhaps one of the most important outcomes is the apparent water quality degradation in the Apalachicola River and Bay. One definable aspect of this reduction in water quality is decreased stream flows in the river and bay that are causally linked to increased salinity in the bay.102 Increases in estuary salinity levels lead to increased predators in the bay, negatively effecting oyster populations.103 This alteration in the species make-up of the bay adversely impacts locals who make a living from the bay's shellfish. Yet increased water demands from municipal, industrial, and agricultural demands in Georgia and Alabama will continue to decrease fresh water flow into the bay and thus increase salinity levels for the foreseeable future unless the tristate compact is able to reverse this long-standing trend. 104 Table2 Streamflow Statistics: Aoalachicola River Nr. Blountstown, FL Year Annual Mean Stream Flow (ft. cubed/sec.) Year Annual Mean Stream Flow (ft. cubed/sec.) 1958 21,920 1979 25,369 1959 22,860 1• 25,060 1960 24310 1981 12.520 1961 24,670 1982 22,040 1962 21,150 1983 30,000 1963 18,080 1984 25,950 1964 38,830 1985 15,620 1965 26,670 1986 14,420 1966 27,330 1987 21,230 1967 22160 1988 14180 1968 15,400 1989 20,240 1969 16,750 1990 23,880 1970 19,450 1991 24,970 1971 28,590 1992 23,090 1972 23,590 1993 22,530 1973 33,850 1995 21,780 1974 23,680 1996 21,870 1975 33,710 1997 24,320 1976 26,579 1998 34,320 1977 22,900 1999 12,030 1978 25,000 2000 9,901 Mean-24,642 Figure 1: Annual Mean Stream Flow (ft. cubed/sec.) 45,000 -,.---------------------------------. 40,000 +-------:----------------------------; 35,000 -+------------------------------~-----! 5,000 ;----,----------,------------------------i 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1995 1997 1999 Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Calendar Year Streamflow Statistics for the NaJion USGS 023587()() Apalachicola River nr Blountstown, Florida. Online. Available: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/annual/?site_no=02358700&agency_cd=USGS. Accessed: February 24, 2003. Findings Despite the success of the many organizations active in the Apalachicola River and Bay area, it is hard to call the overall efforts successful. Specific objectives are met without necessarily furthering the overall objective of protecting the natural resources from development-instigated deterioration and allowing the river and bay's seafood industry to thrive. All survey respondents and interviewees agreed that program benefits exceeded costs and that without the recent efforts, the situation would be worse than it is at present. However, there is also agreement that the Apalachicola system is not thought of as a national resource. Apalachicola would greatly benefit from an initiative like the Chesapeake Bay partnership governments, where interests were coordinated to address the systemwide issues affecting the bay. 105 The DCA, under the current state administration, will not be the one to propose this idea of a federal, state, and local partnership. There needs to be a basinwide approach to the ACF River Basin in order for any substantial and sustainable progress to be made. The Apalachicola Basin needs a permanent partnership working toward specific goals benefiting all the economic and ecological needs of the watershed. 106 Notes 1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census. Online. Available: http://www.ceosus.gov/main/www/ceo2000.htmL Accessed: January 2, 2003. 2 Ibid. 3 Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve, "ManagementPlan 19'J8-2003", ptepared by The Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve and Rorida Department ofEnvironmental Proteclion, Tallahassee, H... July 29, 19'J8, pp. 124-125. 4 Interview by Kirsten Jelic with Alan Pierce, Apalachicola Mayor and Franklin County Plannei', Apalachicola, Rorida, January 6, 2003. 5 Bruce Ritchie, "River a Pearl for Oysters." Tallalrassee Democrat (TaUahag;tt, H... November 10, 2001). Online. Available: http://www.tallahsseedemoccom. Accessed: January 17. 2003. 6 Ibid. 7 Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve. "Management Plan 19'J8-2003," p. 123. 8 Bruce Ritchie. "Apalachicola Bay's Marine Life Depends on Fresh Water Row," Tallaha.ssee Democrat (Tallalw>see., FL. November 10, 2002). Online. Available: http://www.tallahssmdemocrat.com. Accessed· January 17, 2003. 9 Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve. "ManagementPlan 19'J8-2003". p. 125. 10 Interview by Kirsten Jelic with Charles Pattison. Director, 1000Friends ofRorida, TaJJahassee, Florida. January 8, 2003. 11 Robert G. Paterson. Kent S. Butler, and Wendy Walsh, Critical Areas. Critical. Choices: Lessons Learnedfrom the Apalachicola ACSC, draft document for University ofTexas, Austin. TX. November I. 1997. 12 Pierce interview; correspondence from Lee &imiston. Research Coordinator ofthe Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve, Eastpoiot, Florida. to Kirsten Jelic; March 13, 2003. 13 Wendy Walsh, "'Struggle and Success: An Evaluation ofCritical Area Management Prognum in the Rorida Panhandle" (Prof~ional Report. Community and Regional Planning. The University ofTexas at Austin, 19'J5). p. 2. 14 Ibid.• p. 32. 15 Pierce interview. 16 Linda A. Malone, "Critical Area Regulations." in 1990 Z.Oning and Planning Law H~k,ed. Noah Gordon (New York: Clark Boardman Company. Ltd., 1990). p. 475. 17 Walsh, "'Struggle and Success," p. 38. 18 Florida Department ofCommunity Affairs. Areas ofCritical State Concem. Online. Available: http://www.dca.state.fl.usffdcplDCP/ACSC/acsc.htm. Accessed: January 2, 2003. 19 Telephone interview by Kirsten Jelic with Kevin McCarran. Apalachee Regional Planning Council, Tallahassee, Rorida, December 20, 2002. 20 Walsh, "'Struggle and Success," p. 35. 21 U.S. Geological Survey, Apalachicola-Chatalroochee-Flint River Basin NAWQA Study. Online. Available: http://wwwga.usgs.gov/nawqa/basin9.hbnl. Accessed: January 3. 2003. 22 Intecview by Kirsten Jelle with JeffDickey, Aorida State University Geography Ph.D. candidate, . Tallahassee, Florida, January 7. 2003. 23 Pattison interview. 24 Walsh, .. Struggle and Success," p. 8. 25 Ibid. 26 Edmiston correspondence; LBJ School ofPublic Affairs. Growth Management and Open Space Protection: A National Survey ofState. Regional, and Local Efforts. Online. Available: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/% 7Ebobprplstatesprawl/class%20communication/CRS_Survey_l2_ 4.doc. Accessed: March 15, 2003. Three respondents were from the Apalachicola case study. One was a county planner, one an environmental activist, and another a doctoral student. Three other responses came from Orlando, yet also spoke about general conditions in Florida. Surveys were mailed to intervie'M:CS in November 2002 and were received in December 2002 and January 2003. n Edmiston correspondence. 28 Interview by Kirsten Jelic with David McLane, Director ofApalachicola Bay and Riverkeepers.. Eastpoint, Aorida, January 7, 2003. 29 Bruce Ritchie, "Conservation Gets a Boost, Panhandle Organizations Granted Share of $11 Million," Tallahassee Democrat (Tallahassee, FL, April 30, 2002). Online. Available: http://www.tallahsseedemocrat.com. Accessed: January 17, 2003. 30 Ibid. 31 LBJ School ofPublic Affairs, Growth Management and Open Space Protection: A National Survey of State, Regional, and Local Efforts (online). 32 Interview by Kirsten Jelic with Steve Leitman, adjunct professor, Florida State University Planning Department, Quincy, Florida, January 7, 2003. 33 Ibid. 34 Model Code, supra note 3, sec. 7-301(1). As cited in Malone, ''Critical Area Regulations," p. 471. 35 Interview by Kirsten Jelic with Chris Rietow, Apalachee Regional Planning Council, Tallahassee, Florida, January 8, 2003. 36 LBJ School ofPublic Affairs, Growth Management and Open Space Protection: A National Survey of State, Regional, and Local Efforts (online). 37 Pierce interview. 38 Correspondence from Alan Pierce, Apalachicola Mayor and Franklin County Planner, Apalachicola, Florida, to Kirsten Jelic, March 13, 2003. 39 Franklin County Commission Meeting, Apalachicola, Florida, January 7, 2003. 40 National Estuarine Research Reserve System, Kachemak Bay Alaska. Online. Available: http://www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/nerr/reserves/southcentralalaska.html. Accessed: February 24, 2003. 41 Edmiston correspondence. 42 Interview by Kirsten Jelic with Woody Miley, Environmental Administrator of Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve, Eastpoint, Florida, January 7, 2003. 43 Walsh, "Struggle and Success," p. 20. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 46 Pierce interview. 47 Pierce interview and correspondence. 48 National Estuarine Research Reserve System, Apalachicola Reserve, Florida. Online. Available: http://www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/nerr/reserves/nerrapalachicola.html. Accessed: October 31, 2002. 49 The Florida Forever Act used to be Preservation 2000. 50 Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve, "Management Plan 1998-2003," pp. 128-129. 51 Edmiston correspondence. 52 Miley interview. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid. 55 Walsh, "Struggle and Success," p. 39. 56 Ibid. 51 Pierce interview. 58 Leitman interview. 59 Pattison interview. 60 Ibid. 61 Pierce interview. 62 U.S. Geological Survey, Apalachicola-Chatahoochee-Flint River Basin NA WQA Study (online); Edmiston correspondence clarifies that local rainfall can also have a significant effect on water quality, depending on the season. 63 Miley interview. 64 Pattison interview. 65 Paper modification from Bob Paterson, Assistant Dean, School of Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning, University ofTexas at Austin, Austin, Texas, February 10, 2003. 66 Miley interview. 67 Ibid. 68 Miley interview. 69 Walsh, "Struggle and Success," pp. 55-58. 70 Pierce interview. 71 Miley interview. 72 Edmiston correspondence. 73 Walsh, "Struggle and Success," p. 4, 58. 74 Pierce correspondence. 75 Pierce interview. 76 Edmiston correspondence. 77 Ibid. 78 Miley interview. 79 Pattison interview. 80 Pattison correspondence. 81 Pattison interview. 82 Ibid. 83 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Our Built and Natural Environments, p. i. Online. Available: www.epa.gov/piedpage/pdf/built.pdf. Accessed: March 3, 2003. 84 Leitman interview. 85 Miley interview. 86 Walsh, "Struggle and Success," p. 4. 87 McCarran interview. 88 Miley interview. 89 Ibid. 90 McClain interview; Walsh, "Struggle and Success," pp 55-58. 91 Leitman interview. 92 Pattison interview. 93 Ibid. 94 H.F. Niu, H.L. Edmiston, and G.O. Bailey, Time Series Models for Salinity and Other Environmental Factors in the Apalachicola Estuarine System. Online. Available: cdmo.baruch.sc.edu/cdmodata/APAfmetadata/apawq04-12.95m.txt. Accessed: January 3, 2003. 95 Walsh, "Struggle and Success," p. 106. 96 Ibid., p. 106. 97 Ibid., pp. 39, 108. 98 Leitman interview; Edmiston correspondence. 99 Miley interview. 100 Pierce correspondence. 101 Pierce interview. 102 H.F. Niu et al., Time Series Models for Salinity and Other Environmental Factors in the Apalachicola Estuarine System (online). 103 Ibid. 104 Ibid. 105 Pattison interview. 106 Pattison interview; Edmiston correspondence. Appendix 3.10-City of Orlando Growth Management Plan Orlando, Florida's application of the Florida Omnibus Growth Management Act. The City of Orlando began managing growth in 1926 with its first comprehensive plan when the city size was 12.5 square miles and it had a population of 28,740.1 More recently, Orlando has adopted comprehensive plans in 1981, 1985, and 1991 with subsequent biannual amendments. Orlando is a growth management leader in both the region and the state. Strong local leadership has defined the successful Orlando Smart Growth vision. The divergent development philosophies of Orlando and Orange County are the biggest challenges to Orlando's growth management efforts. The pro-growth, pro-development ideology of Orange County is also dominant at the state level in Florida because of the demands of a rapidly increasing state population. Strong community involvement coupled with effective planning and leadership has fostered Orlando's growth management successes despite numerous challenges. Certification Program, Florida Statutes, Section 163.3246, Orlando, FL, December 11, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Files. Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: January 2, 2003; Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Suburbs and the Census: Patterns ofGrowth and Decline. Online. Available: http://www.brookings.org/dybdocroot/es/urban/census/lucy.pdf. Accessed: February 16, 2003; Texas Transportation Institute, The 2001 Urban Mobility Report. Online. Available: http://www.rebuildca.org/pdfs/final_report.pdf. Accessed: February 16, 2003; City of Orlando, Growth Management Plan. Online. Available: http://www.cityoforlando.net/planning/cityplanning/cpgmp.htm. Accessed: December 6, 2002. * Includes city of Orlando ** Orlando urbanized area (city plus suburbs) amount of rural land converted to urban use as population expands beyond city and suburb boundaries. Background Socioeconomic Information The City of Orlando and Orange County began experiencing rapid growth and development pressure in the 1970s and 1980s following the 1971 opening of Walt Disney's Magic Kingdom (Disney World) and the 1982 unveiling of Epcot in the Orlando area. 2 Central Florida's tourist population grew from 3.5 million annually in 1969 to 55 million in 2001.3 Orange County's population grew more than 100 percent, from 344,000 in 1971to846,000 in 1999 and Orlando's grew from around 100,000 to al.most 185,000 in the same time period.4 Other growth-inducing factors in the same time period were the opening of the Martin site south of the city. a naval training center in the city, a new state university located in Orlando, and a new airport southeast of the city.5 Rampant growth and the associated costs, including increased traffic congestion, shortages of public facilities. insufficient affordable housing supply, and a service-based. low-wage economy, brought growth management issues to the forefront. 6 Walt Disney World is the top employer in metro Orlando (fable 2). Having a tourism-based economy generates relatively low average wages and also puts further stress on the area's infrastructure because of the continual inflow of nonresidents. Orlando desires more major employers and incentives are provided through the city and the region to attract new investment 7 pursomt to Scctioo 1633246, Florida Statutes, Orlando, FL, December 11, 2002. The area is predicted to increase its employment base in the future and focus land use more on nonresidential uses versus residential housing. 8 H the increased employment is in higher-paying sectors, median income will increase and low-income housing pressures will be reduced. Tourist-induced infrastructure strain, however, will not be affected by such a change. Orlando Population Density Source: City of Orlando: Application for Certification under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification Program Pursuant to Section 163.3246, Florida Statutes. December 11, 2002. Land Character The Orlando metro area's growth in per capita land consumption from 1970 through 1990 was 3.2 percent and the total amount of land encompassed by sprawl was 262.9 square miles. Population growth is the driving force behind approximately 97 percent of the metro area's sprawl.9 In essence, it is not the increased land consumption per person, but simply the rapidly expanding population that is behind the observed land consumption. Differentiating between Orlando and the Orlando metropolitan region is essential. Orlando is the largest city and functions as the ceremonial center for the four­county metropolitan area. This distinction is necessary to clarify that much of the sprawl generally attributed to the city of Orlando is actually urban development outside the city's corporate limits but within the metropolitan region.10 Orlando, as an older developed city, did not contend with many environmental issues until the 1994 annexation of roughly 10,000 acres located southeast of the Orlando International Airport.11 The airport area required its own growth management plan because 30 to 40 percent of the area contains environmentally sensitive wetlands and lakes and was predominately rural in nature at the time of annexation.12 Growth Management History Orlando's growth management efforts must be understood within the context of Florida's integrated state planning framework. In the early 1970s, the Florida Legislature toyed with the idea of mandatory local comprehensive planning and passed several laws that started toward that path-yet fell short. It was not until growth problems hit crisis proportion that the state legislature finally adopted the 1985 Omnibus Growth Management Act, requiring mandatory state, regional, and local comprehensive planning.13 Development of comprehensive plans by cities and counties was regulated by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and the state attempted to ensure proper infrastructure and financing were available before development was approved.14 Traffic congestion, overcrowding in schools, and drinking water shortages all begged for a better growth management solution. 15 Drinking water deficiency is a statewide predicament associated with rampant population growth and inadequate planning. Florida lacks strong regulation linking how it is allowed to grow versus how much water is available.16 Despite Florida's pressing development-associated problems, the state limited its ability to effectively respond to growth pressure with the passage of the Burt J. Harris Property Protection Act in 1995, which redefined "taking" in Florida, making the definition much more liberal. This act, passed under Governor Lawton Chiles, states that no "inordinate burden" can be placed on an individual's property by any governmental entity. An inordinate burden is considered one where the property owner bears a disproportionate share of the burden for implementing the regulation's intent or suffers a permanent diminution of property value because of limited allowable uses of the property.17 This act encourages unfettered development, and associated increases in land prices have made it more expensive for Orlando to control growth because land purchase for conservation is the most effective growth management device.18 However, this act alone cannot be blamed for the overdevelopment of the state because much of the sprawl now evident occurred when land was rezoned from agricultural to higher-density development at an earlier time.19 This act instead restrains localities' abilities to counteract sprawl pressure already present. Leadership Florida's statewide growth management efforts are governor-dependent. Governor Bob Graham provided the leadership to pass the 1985 Omnibus Growth Management Act20 and growth management support was strongest in 1986, just after Governor Graham left office.21 Orlando's growth management efforts preceded the 1985 State Comprehensive Plan and Omnibus Growth Management Act with the founding of its growth management division following the 1981 Growth Management Plan created partially under the leadership of Rick Bernhardt, a national leader in growth management. The mayor, city councilmembers, Bernhardt, and the Planning and Development Department director had a strong vision for Orlando's future infill development that centered on New Urbanism and affordable housing. These goals were firmly established with the adoption of the 1991 Growth Management Plan. The mayor and the Planning and Development Department were still working with this Smart Growth vision in 2002.22 While policy initiation was dependent on political or elite leadership, other interest groups have had impacts on the shape of the debate. According to the majority of survey respondents, 23 environmental groups and the chamber of commerce were not active participants at program inception. Environmentalists continue to lack significant political influence, 24 although an environmental consensus can emerge on specific projects.25 The Nature Conservancy is a powerful environmental group in Orlando and throughout Florida. They act as brokers and buy land in order to preserve it, utilizing different state programs such as CARL, P2000, and Florida Forever. This has been the most successful approach to conservation in Orlando.26 Environmental groups are increasinWy performing outreach to involve the affected public in the policymaking 2 process. Neighborhood groups were active participants at Orlando growth management program inception.28 While neighborhoods tend to only be active in their geographic area, in Orlando the neighborhood interests are very well organized. They have been influential in the interstate-widening project. Neighborhoods are also influential through the Neighborhood Horizons projects. In these projects the city and the community help to generate ideas and build consensus about solutions and future growth. The city establishes evaluation criteria to assess neighborhood progress toward agreed-upon objectives and then reports back to the community.29 Developers, while very influential in Florida growth management, are not identified as being active in Orlando growth management program inception.30 This might be because the vast majority of developers are transactional and seek to avoid controversy by hiring consultants.31 The developers and lenders are the main players in the housing policy arena as of 2002. The city listens to recommendations from lenders and developers closely. With the down payment assistance program the developers want to increase the assistance levels so that low-income individuals and families are not priced out of the market. 32 While criticism from the press does not stop development projects from moving ahead, local media is generally seen as an interest group supportive of Smart Growth at program inception. 33 Other groups identified as active are adjacent localities, home builders, and lenders. 34 Program Description Structure and Development The city's Planning and Development Department has 91 employees among its four bureaus: City Planning (including Land Development, Urban Design, and Growth Management divisions), Transportation Planning, Code Enforcement, and Housing and Community Development. Historically, the vision for Orlando's growth management is established by the city council based in part on the advice of the planning and development department.35 All planning and development divisions and departments coordinate closely. 36 The city works under a 20-year planning horizon and the state requires both a 10­ and a 20-year plan.37 Implementation is accomplished through capital improvement plans, done in five-year increments. Projects that help the city to conform to its level of service standards are first priorities for implementation. Twice a year a capacity availability report about conformance to level of service standards is completed. Neighborhood information was monitored under the sustainable communities project; that project, however, ceased in 2001. In general Orlando has an adaptive approach to project implementation. Applications for small-scale amendments to the Growth Management Plan, generally defined as future land use map amendments affecting ten acres or less, are accepted twice monthly. Larger-scale amendment applications affecting goals, objectives, policies, or properties greater than ten acres may only be processed during one of the twice-annual amendment cycles.38 Governance/Management/Oversight/Penalties Direction and oversight for Orlando's Planning and Development Department comes from the mayor, city council, planning board, chief administrative officer, and public. As of 2002, Orlando has only had two mayors since the initiation ofthe Growth Management Plan. Both ma~ors have been very committed to 1!1e principles of the vision established in the 1991 plan. 9 Buddy Dyer was elected mayor m February 2003 to complete the remainder of Mayor Glenda Hood's term after her promotion to Florida Secretary of State.40 Because of the significant political legacy and public commitment to the outlined Smart Growth objectives, one may assume that Mayor Dyer will also be supportive of these goals. Annual objectives and projects are set and scheduled a year in advance by the director. These goals are reviewed and modified by the bureau chief. There is usually one consulting project scheduled per year and other projects arise unexpectedly. These unplanned projects are not problematic for Orlando's planning department because of their outstanding staffing levels. In fact, because of their size, they have few constraints as a department.41 However, funding has become a constraint following increased security demands and decreased revenue stemming from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 42 Annual performance measures are being developed, but as of 2002, they are not enforceable objectives tied to impact fees and incentives. That does not mean these indicators are not monitored; rather, they are not yet linked to Growth Management Plan objectives. 43 The planning department is proposing to monitor several indicators formally in its Application for Certification to the Department of Community Affairs. Some of the proposed evaluation criteria are: compactness; residential density; nonresidential density; vehicle miles traveled; interconnectivity; pedestrian access; mass transit; and jobs/housing balance.44 When these measures are implemented, noncompliance with the standards will result in impact fees assessed to future development. By incorporating monitoring and evaluation into program implementation as proposed, program effectiveness and flexibility will be enhanced. Intergovemmentalllnterlocal Relationships/Partnerships Orlando's Smart Growth efforts are not without challenges. The visions of Orlando and Orange County conflict philosophically. Orange County seems to be encouraging development to span from county border to county border. The county expresses a desire to concentrate growth in activity centers; however, this is not happening. The city, which constitutes over 20 percent of the county's population and over 11 percent of its land, wants to see growth concentrated in Orlando and the other 13 incorporated municipalities within Orange County.45 An Orlando-Orange County Joint Planning Agreement put into effect in 1994 has done little to resolve this issue. Development in Orange County is permitted through exceptions for particular types of development available beyond the joint planning area boundary and its urban service area. The county has not identified what areas cannot be developed despite its higher percentage of ecologically sensitive areas than the city. 46 . Orange County is also approving development without available school capacity in place, notwithstanding the Orange County "Martinez Doctrine" that ties development approval to school capacity availability. The county and the city rely upon the Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) to determine if school capacity is available for a proposed project. Yet instead of the desired school capacity existing before development is approved, developers incur a $1500 impact fee per dwelling unit developed in addition to normal school impact fees, termed a capacity enhancement agreement, whenever a proposed development is located in an area without sufficient school capacity. In exchange for the payment, OCPS does not object to the development. When OCPS fails to reject a project, the county and city are not obligated to deny the project based on school capacity.47 The lack of consistency between the development philosophies of Orlando and Orange County prevents the development of a regional approach to growth management issues. Political considerations, including concerns of loss of local tax base, also hinder the development of a regional approach in the east-central region of Florida. The East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFR.PC) is trying to develop a constituency for regionalism through myregion.org. ECFRPC is a grassroots organization involving all key stakeholders that focuses mainly on water issues (specifically cumulative impact studies), health care, and changing the "mental maps" of individuals by instilling a regional mentality and encouraging the setting of regional goals. They are trying to empower those who live in Central Florida through technology that permits neighborhoods to become responsible participants in the process of growth by being able to access the same information as developers and city governments. This bottom-up process possible through technology is very different from the past 40 years of a top­down approach. Myregion.org became operational in July 2002.48 Policy State concurrency laws mandate that specific utilities and services must be in place or committed to be in place before development permits can be issued. According to state law, concurrency is required for: sanitary sewer, drainage, potable water, parks and recreation, and transportation facilities (including mass transit), where applicable.49 Concurrency requirements have been somewhat modified because of their unintended sprawl effects, including leapfrog development. The tool used by the city to alleviate strain produced by concurrency is the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (1997) within which Orlando will not deny permits based on transportation problems in order to promote infill. This exception area will sunset in 2005. Problems resulting from concurrency are addressed in further detail in the Outcomes section. Orange County uses an urban service area as a planning tool. Orlando and Orange County also share a Joint Planning Agreement that includes a joint planning area boundary defining the area the city can annex without objection from the county.so The county urban service area and the joint planning area boundary do not necessarily help growth management initiatives because they lack effective mechanisms to control leapfrog development and resulting suburbanization. Also lacking is effectual regional oversight for development. ECFRPC only makes recommendations regarding small adjustments to proposed development.SI Another failing is the lack of incentives in the boundaries to keep growth out of environmentally sensitive areas, of which the county has many. s2 In the future land use, conservation, recreation, open space and cultural, transportation, and wastewater elements of Orlando's growth management plan, numerous programs and policies attempt to assure the protection of natural areas, including wildlife corridors, natural communities, surface waters, water resources, and rare natural systems. The city has the following designations in its growth management plan to protect key natural resources: the resource protection overlay district, the transitional wildlife habitat overlay districts, the primary conservation network, and the conservation future land use designation. The city also uses land purchases as a means of protection (see Leadership section for further details). In the 1990s Orlando purchased acres of vital habitat surrounding a bald eagle's nest. 53 New Urbanism and infill development are standard growth management tools in Orlando. They mostly focus on high-end development, not affordable housing, such as Thornton Park and Baldwin Park. The high prices commanded by New Urbanist developments are largely a function of their market appeal.54 Orlando also promotes New Urbanist principles in affordable housing projects like Hampton Park, a mixed-use development located near the central business district. 55 Enterprise zone credits work to encourage infill, but they are not widely used.56 In December 2002, six or seven mixed­use infill projects were under construction. The banks and developers have begun to embrace infill development and New Urbanism since this development type has proven successful in the market. Thornton Park was the first development of this type in Orlando and it was financed and built solely by local investors. The success of this project made other similar projects more feasible. 57 . Downtown Orlando has strict standards associated with being a "traditional city." The southeast sector allows for both standard and traditional city development but uses incentives to encourage the latter. The city reduces transportation impact fees by 30 percent if development is implemented consistent with traditional city standards, which include a highly connected street system, mixed land uses, and buildings that orient toward the street.58 People value being connected to mixed uses in the traditional city development style. 59 Orlando's planning department is very focused on maintaining good public relations. The most effective tool used to involve the public in planning and development is the Neighborhood Horizon Plan available to the 88 defined residential neighborhoods in Orlando.60 To initiate a Neighborhood Horizon Plan, a neighborhood requests meetings with the city and locates six dedicated participants to serve as their neighborhood planning board. The neighborhood identifies the issues they would like to see addressed in their area through the guidance of the city. Also aiding in public and city planner communication is the Office of Neighborhood Services that attends all neighborhood association meetings to hear about and respond to issues. 61 Funding Resulting from costs related to September 11, 2001, Orlando has identified a $23.6 million deficit for the 2002-2003 budget year. As a result, most departments in the city have been asked to cut travel, training, and many consulting contracts. Orlando has also directed departments to reduce their current budgets for the next fiscal year.62 It is unclear how this will specifically affect the Planning and Development Department except the loss of flexibility in reaching objectives through general funding constraints and the elimination of consultants. Another funding constraint for Orlando relates to fund allocations based on residential population. The Transportation Planning Bureau (TPB) coordinates with the county through one of Florida's three Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The MPOs develop a priority list for project funding. More population equates to more representation in fund allocation decision malting: Federal $ -+ State -+ MPO As central cities become a smaller percentage of the population of the metro area they have less ability to determine how money is spent. Increasingly, more transportation funding is spent in periphery areas (ex-urban areas), meaning less funding is available for inner city infrastructure improvements to help encourage infill development. Infrastructure investment dictates where growth will occur, and most often this means away from the city centers.63 Orlando's TPB is unique in that it is part of the city's Planning and Development Department and that it is responsible for overseeing the city's transportation revenue sources (including gas tax and transportation impact fees). After the TPB has established transportation priorities and allocated funding, the projects are then coordinated with the Public Works Department for implementation. 64 This element provides flexibility in planning and implementation for the TPB, which is essential for success. The Housing and Community Development Department is responsible for ensuring a sufficient quantity and quality of affordable housing and rental units. In a service-based economy this is essential. The department receives federal funding in four areas: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, Home Investment Partnership (HOME) funds, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPW A) funds, and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds.65 While this funding is helpful in project implementation, its narrow focus constrains overall departmental implementation effectiveness. Program Evaluation Program Outputs Orlando fares very well in the comparison of outputs to growth management program objectives. Development based on traditional neighborhood design standards is one of the most emphasized objectives in the plan. The most notable infill development project, Baldwin Park, completely embraces the traditional neighborhood design principles promoting a compact, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. While other infill projects throughout the city also implement traditional neighborhood design standards, Baldwin Park is the most cited example because the principles were fully employed there. The traditional city design standards' impact is also felt through the strong historical preservation program in Orlando. Over its history, the city has preserved much of its original character by protecting its six historic districts, with over 35 historic landmarks, from redevelopment. In the 1960s Orlando rejected urban renewal and preserved downtown neighborhoods. In the mid-1980s Orlando resisted the pressure to rezone a large portion of the city to office buildings. 66 Another Growth Management Plan objective is to reduce sprawl. Orlando has been very successful at promoting infill development and neighborhood revitalization, and as a result has not its seen its population moving to suburban areas (see Tables 1 and 2). People are attracted to the traditional-style neighborhoods with a strong sense of community that the city of Orlando is known for. The resident population per square mile declined from 2,972 in 1980 to 1,852 in 2002 due to land annexations, most notably the southeast sector around the airport in 1994 and the closing ofthe Orlando Naval Training Center in the same year. For the period from 1994 to 2002 population density has remained stable with a slightly positive tendency. A trend of increased city population density is predicted to continue indefinitely into the future as infill projects increase density in the annexed areas (see Table 2).67 Sprawl prevention has also benefited from the southeast sector Growth Management Plan implemented after the 1994 annexation. This plan was the product of multiple interests cooperating over a three-year time and has helped guide development away from ecologically sensitive areas and promote traditional neighborllood design principles. The plan created a primary conservation network, linking wetlands and uplands, and also produced an areawide storm.water management plan. However, the southeast sector lags far behind the downtown, traditional city, and the regional indicators in all VMT indicators, meaning development did not occur tmder the traditional neighborhood design principles on a large scale in the past. This area has only been under authority of the city for nine years, and before 1994 development in the area was very limited. 1be results of this region-specific Growth Management Plan on VMT and other sprawl indicators in the region will not be seen for some time, yet as the southeast area continues to develop the ciianticipates its average VMT will improve and become lower than the regional average. However the plan itself is a successful program output worthy of note. 1be transportation department's sensitivity to the unintended, sprawl-producing effects of transportation concurrency has also aided in effective sprawl reduction as well as transportation efficiency, a further goal of the Growth Management Plan. 1be Transportation Exception Concurrency Area has allowed the city to maintain the traditional neighborhood design standards more conducive to multimodal transportation. Vehicle miles traveled are 30 percent less than the regional average in Orlando mixed-use areas (see Table 3).69 Table3 . . Vehide Miles Traveled: I of R • Indicators to Qty Areas Single Famly ~~ llulli-Family (VllT~ Ilotl!llllotel lbvroom) lnduslrilll (by1,000 gross sq. ft.) Service(by 1,000grau sa. ft.) CGrmlscilll (by1,000 -sa.ft.) Regiolial VllT lndicdor 61 50 68 16 101 74 DownlDwn 38 34 54 16 99 72 Tradtional Civ 44 ~ 43 13 84 61 RestofTCEA (mean) 50 44 44 14 88 64 Southwest fmean) 53 48 49 15 fJT 71 Southeast {mean) 72 63 71 21 133 fJT OWnllllem'I 54 ~ 51 16 • 72 Somcc "Appliability ofVehicle Mile ofTm'Cl to Taanspcata. Plmning." City ofOdwlo, TiallSplWtllila l'llmiag BIRaa, Planning and Dewdopmcnl Department (1998). Online. Availablc: httpJlwww.cityofodando.nct/lanningfTr.mspodocumcntslvmLpdf. Accessed: June 13, 2003. The Growth Management Plan vision statement also speaks to the importance of community involvement in the planning process. Orlando's Neighborhood Horizon Plans have involved the citizens fully in the neighborhood planning process. The city has conducted between eight and ten neighborhood plans as of December 2002 and plans to continue with them into the future. Program Sensitivity to Changes in Environment Although Florida growth management law has not changed substantially, enforcement has diminished at the state level. In 1994 Governor Chiles publicly told the DCA secretary that the state should not be challenging comprehensive land plans' inconsistencies with state law.70 The state now essentially delegates decision making power to the localities despite retaining the legal authority to reject local plan amendments.71 This lack of state enforcement is problematic in that the costs associated with unmanaged growth to natural systems, infrastructure, and social equity are magnified because of massive population expansion in Florida. A possible explanation for this lack of political support is that the effects of unmitigated growth from the period before the 1985 Omnibus Growth Management Act are becoming apparent, and deficient understanding of the delayed effects of Smart Growth principle implementation creates cynicism regarding the act's usefulness. 72 Lacking support from the governor (both Chiles and Jeb Bush), the DCA is hesitant to label comprehensive plans or amendments as sprawl-conducive. Smaller agencies have difficulty convincing the courts that county actions are causing sprawl when the DCA will not say the plans are inconsistent with state anti-sprawl objectives. Between 5,000 and 7 ,000 plan amendments are completed annually, and the DCA approves virtually all of them. There are 67 counties and 420­plus towns in Florida, all with independent land use authority.73 The vision of the Orlando Planning and Development Department is a strong, New Urbanist one solidified by the city council in the 1991 Growth Management Plan. This vision remains fully embraced by the mayor, city councilmembers, and employees of the planning department as of 2002 and is unlikely to fade anytime in the foreseeable future. While the strength of the state's interest in growth management and the Department of Community Affairs has been in decline since the Chiles administration,74 the City of Orlando remains committed to its Smart Growth objectives. The vast majority of the community is also devoted to growth management and its "better quality of life'' objectives, further insurance that Orlando will continue as a leader in Florida growth management. 75 While the top-down approach has not been a successful one for growth management at the state level, it has worked well for Orlando because of strong leadership focused on Smart Growth objectives and has led to strong participation and interest by the local community, ensuring successful program implementation into the future. Outcomes As the regional population has continued to move to Orlando to seek greater accessibility than offered in the suburbs, there has been an increased demand for community enhancement projects. Community enhancement projects can help reverse past development mistakes and continue to develop a neighborhood's sense of place, thus helping attract increased population to the city center. However, the lack of flexibility in federal funding has not enabled many of these projects to be realized. The population of Orlando wants to change roadways into village centers, yet this vision is difficult to fulfill because of federal transportation funding inflexibility.76 The Martinez Plan, which states development should not occur unless there is sufficient school capacity, is argued to be an example of Orange County's and Orlando's successful growth management planning. According to many, there does not seem to be a direct link between the impact fees and increased school capacity.77 The lack of enforcement behind this concurrency requirement has worsened the educational crisis in the county. Orange County does not seem to be receptive to creative solutions from developers in this area. Randy Lyons' North Lake Park Community School in the southeast sector of Orlando has been publicly rejected by the staff at OCPS as a model for future school development because they feel they have too little control over it.78 Problems with school capacity shortage will continue to plague the area into the foreseeable future and might quickly develop into a crisis. Problems with concurrency are not limited to the Martinez Plan, but extend also to the core concurrency requirements. 79 At first concurrency seemed an appropriate tool to manage growth, yet in practice it appears less useful than originally hoped. It needs to be sensitively a~plied at the regional level if it is to work, and revenue capacity must follow growth. Some concurrency requirements had unintended sprawl outcomes and were not coordinated among adjacent communities. In Orlando and Orange County this lack of coordination caused development to leapfrog into Lake County and other surrounding counties because of the attractively inexpensive land and homes available. The Transportation Concurrency Exception Area discussed previously is one creative solution for dealing with the unintended outcomes of transportation concurrency requirements. Another shortcoming of concurrency is a dearth of environmental concurrency measures and the related lack of understanding of concurrency's environmental outcomes. For example, there are no water concurrency measures available, and thus groundwater withdrawals are not incorporated into growth management plans beyond mandatory level of service standards.81 Water authority was given to one of the five statewide water management districts and the Department of Environmental Protection. These departments do not have strong ties to separate localities' land management plans. Water withdrawal was not discussed in conjunction with development and land use planning until very recently. 82 ECFRPC is attempting to rectify this problem through myregion.org and its cumulative natural system impact perspective.83 Transportation planning is a challenge for most localities and congestion tends to worsen the more a population spreads away from the urban core in a low-density pattern. Despite the gains made by the City of Orlando's Transportation Planning Department, e.g., the lessening of VMT within mixed-use activity centers, the problem of congestion continues to trouble the city. As the population expansion that defines Florida continues to grow, it does so where it is cheaper to develop, which is outside the city limits, and the growth of the suburban population may mean more VMT for the overall area. Orlando's successful infill development projects attract developers and home buyers who are able to afford these infill options. However, greenfield development continues to be a less expensive alternative, where home buyers can purchase more land and house for the dollar. Because neighborhood interests are not as numerous or as vocal on the suburban fringe, developers are able to determine the style and quality of greenfield development. 84 This puts the onus of choosing Smart Growth principles on individuals not under the city's jurisdiction. Orange County' s stance toward growth is that most kinds of development are fine. This attitude promotes sprawl, despite the best efforts of Orlando and other municipalities, and does not encourage the adoption of Smart Growth principles by developers. 85 Congestion will continue to trouble the region if this pro­growth outlook, without regard to social, economic, or environmental costs, remains unchanged at the county level. Another shortcoming of the Growth Management Plan is its previously discussed lack of monitored indicators. The lack of measurements tied to objectives is one reason for problems with program performance. As an example of this, Orlando has a policy of reviving blighted areas in Section 1.3.1 of the Growth Management Plan's future land use policies,86 yet has no blight measure in use. Performance indicators were created in 2002 and should go into use soon and rectify this weakness. Orlando also lacks statutes for enforcement. 87 Incentives are often used in place of mandates and have successfully worked to direct development using Smart Growth principles primarily based on Orlando's Growth Management Plan. Consistent preservation efforts, strong leadership, and active community involvement deserve much of the credit for the growth management successes in Orlando. Findings Orlando's Planning and Development Department has been remarkably successful despite a philosophy largely at odds with the county's "any development is good development" philosophy. The city planners surveyed and interviewed all agree that program benefits exceeded costs and that the city would be worse off without the Growth Management Plan guiding development. The lack of coordination between the city and county is the defining dynamic of the region. As the population continues to increase in the county and surrounding area, the sense of impending crisis is likely to force the county to become more Smart Growth-oriented because of the costs associated with unhampered sprawl. The county's renewed interest in mass transit systems suggests that this is already beginning to occur. Hopefully, Orlando's strong growth management history will serve as an example to the region and the state. Notes 1 City ofOrlando. Applicationfor Certification Under the Local Govemment ComprehensiYe Planning Certification Program, Florida Statutes. Section 1633246. Orlando. FL. Decemba 11. 2002. 2 Richard E. Foglesong. Married to the Mouse: Walt Disney World and Orlando (New Haven. CT: Yale University Press. 2001), p. 3. 3 Ibid. "Ibid.. p. 4. s Ibid.. pp. 87-88. 6 Ibid.. p. 5. 7 lnterview by Kirsten Jelic with Kevin Tyjeski and Paul Lewis. City Planning Bureau. Growth Management Division. City of Orlando Planning and Development Department. Orlando. Florida, December 18. 2002. 8 City ofOrlando. Applicationfor Certification under the Local Govemment Comprehensive Planning Certification Program. 9 Sprawl City. Overall Sprawl in Florida's Older Urbanized Cities. Online. Available: http://www.sprawlcity.org/cbarts/FL_tablel .html. Accessed: January 13. 2003. 10 Correspondence from Kevin Tyjeski. City Planning Bureau, Growth Management Division. City of Orlando Planning and Development Department. Orlando. Florida. to Kirsten Jelic. Mardi 21. 2003. 11 Tyjeski interview. 12 Tyjeski and Lewis interviews. 13 Paper modification from Bob Paterson. As-~stant Dean. School of Ardri.tecture and Urban and .Regional Planning. University ofTexas at Austin. Austin., TX. February 10. 2003. 1 " lnterview by Kirsten Jelic with Charles Pattison. Director. 1000 Friends ofFlorida. Tallahassee, Florida. January 8, 2003. 15 Interview by Kirsten Jelic with Randy Lyon. President. Late Nona Properties. Orlando. Florida. December 17. 2002. 16 Debbie Salamone, "A Drying Oasis." Orlando Seruinel (March 3. 2002). Online. Available: infoweb7 .newsbank.comliw-search/we/lnfoWeb?p_action=doc&p_docid=OF20E28471A24C82&p_doc. Accessed· December 17. 2002. n Tyjeski correspondence. 11 Interview by Kirsten Jelic with source requesting anonymity, Orlando. Florida, December 16, 2002. 19 Tyjeski correspondence. 211 Paterson paper modification. 21 Pattison interview. 22 Tyjeski and Lewis interviews. 23 LBJ School ofPublic Affairs, Growth Management and Open Space Protection: A National Swvey of State, Regional, and Local Efforts. Online. Available: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/% 7Ebobprplstatesprawl/class%20communication/CRS_Smvey_l2_ 4.doc. Accessed: March 15, 2003. Three respondents were from the Orlando case study. All three were plamas; two at the city level and one at the regional level Three other responses came from the Apalachicola study, yet spoke about general conditions in Florida. Smveys were mailed to interviewees in November 2002 and were received in Decembec 2002 and January 2003. 2A Anonymous source interview. 25 Interview by Kirsten Jelic with Daniel Gallagher, Tramportation Planning Bureau. City ofOrlando Planning and Development Department, Orlando. Florida. Decembec 18, 2002. 26 Interview by Kirsten Jelic with Jennifer MacMmtray. Defeodecs ofWildlife, Orlando, Florida, December 16, 2002; anonymous source interview. 27 MacMurtray interview. 28 LBJ School ofPublic Affairs, Growth Management and Open Space Protection: A National Swvey of State, Regional, and Local Efforts (online). 29 Gallagher interview. 30 LBJ School ofPublic Affairs, Growth Management and Open Space Protection: A National Swvey of State, Regional, and Local Efforts (online). 31 Lyon interview. 32 Interview by Kirsten Jelle with Francis DeJesus, Housing and Community Development Bureau, City of Orlando Planning and Development Department, Orlando, Florida, December 18, 2002. 33 LBJ School of Public Affairs, Growth Management and Open Space Protection: A National Survey of State, Regional, and Local Efforts (online). 34 Ibid. 35 Tyjeski correspondence. 36 Lewis interview. 37 Tyjeski and Lewis interviews. 38 Tyjeski correspondence. 39 Tyjeski and Lewis interviews. 40 Tyjeski correspondence. 41 Tyjeski and Lewis interviews. 42 Tyjeski correspondence. 43 Tyjeski and Lewis interviews. 44 City of Orlando, Application for Certification under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification Program. 45 Tyjeski correspondence. 46 Tyjeski and Lewis interviews. 47 Ibid. 48 Interview by Kirsten Jelic with Jeffrey Jones, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Orlando, Florida, January 8, 2003. 49 Tyjeski correspondence. 50 Ibid. 51 Anonymous source interview. 52 MacMurtray interview. 53 City of Orlando, Application for Certification under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification Program. 54 Tyjeski correspondence referencing Mark J. Eppli and Charles C. Tu, Valuing the New Urbanism (Washington, DC: The Urban Land Institute, 1999). 55 Tyjeski correspondence. 56 Anonymous source interview. 57 Tyjeski and Lewis interviews. 58 Correspondence from Daniel Gallagher, Transportation Planning Bureau, City of Orlando Planning and Development Department, Orlando, Florida, to Kirsten Jelic, March 24, 2003. 59 Gallagher interview. 60 Ibid. 61 Tyjeski and Lewis interviews. 62 Tyjeski correspondence. 63 Gallagher interview. 64 Gallagher correspondence. 65 City of Orlando, Housing and Community Development. Online. Available: http://www.cityoforlando.net/planning/housingandcommunitydev/default.htrn. Accessed: October 30, 2002. 66 Lewis interview. 67 City of Orlando, Application for Certification under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification Program. 68 Gallagher correspondence. 69 Gallagher interview. 70 Pattison interview. 71 Correspondence from Charles Pattison, Director, 1000 Friends of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida, to Kirsten Jelic, March 23, 2003. 72 Pattison interview. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 75 Interview by Kirsten Jelic with Phil Diamond, Orlando City Commissioner, Orlando, Florida, December 16, 2002. 76 Gallagher interview. n Lyon interview; Tyjeski and Lewis interviews. 78 Tyjeski and Lewis interviews. 79 Anonymous source interview. 80 Jones interview. 81 Tyjeski correspondence. 82 Pattison interview. 83 Jones interview. 84 Interview by Kirsten Jelic with Bob Paterson, Assistant Dean, School of Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning, University ofTexas at Austin, Austin, Texas, February 20, 2003. 85 Lyon interview. 86 City of Orlando, Growth Management Plan. Online. Available: http://www.cityoforlando.net/planning/cityplanning/cpgmp.htm. Accessed: October 30, 2002. 87 Pattison interview. Appendix 3.11-Bluegrass Tomorrow A nonprofit regional planning organization in the Central Bluegrass Region of Kentucky. Bluegrass Tomorrow promotes coordinated growth planning for the seven-county central Bluegrass Region of Kentucky. Formed in 1989 by a coalition of business, agricultural, development, and conservation interests, the program developed a guiding framework. the Bluegrass Regional Vision, in 1993 through a broad-based regional planning process. Federal grants through the Department of Transportation have assisted with the creation of a number of the planning instruments available for local county governments. According to Kentucky HB 55, all planning and zoning administrators must complete mandatory training programs. The dissemination of information has been the central focus of Bluegrass Tomorrow in coordinating regional planning. Since its inception, Bluegrass Tomorrow has spoken to nearly 400 regional groups consisting of over 8,000 individuals. Bluegrass Tomorrow has also served as a key facilitator in a number of planning initiatives throughout the seven-county area. Table 1.b Land Use Data for the central Bluesmw; Reeion, Kentuck v Land Use/l'ransportation 1987-1997 Loss of Farmland (as% of total l'elion) 1980-1990 Increase in Housing Units 1980-1990 Increase in Housing Units (as% of county's total) Percent Daily Commuters to Other Counties for Employment (2000) County Bourbon 9.7 1,641 19.6 47.7 Clark 5.5 3,218 23.4 45.2 Fayette 12.6 29,820 25.7 14 Jessamine 13.1 4,830 16.3 53.8 Madison 9.8 8,676 29.3 30.2 Scott 11.2 3,531 27.2 38.6 Woodford 1.9 2,724 29.1 54.8 Totak 63 54,440 26.6 Sources: Lexmgton-Fayette Urban County Government, 2001 Comprehensive Plan, Lexmgton, KY, 2001, sec. 3, p. 36; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary Files. Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: January 28, 2003; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1987, Census 1997, and Census ofAgriculture. Online. Available: http://govinfo.library.orstedu. Accessed: January 28, 2003. Background Socioeconomic Information One of the most pressing issues for the Lexington metro area relates to its economy. Because the Lexington urban core is the major employer ofthe regi~many residents from neighboring communities commute there to work each day. Nearly 41 percent of all jobs in the Lexington metro area are located within 3 miles ofLexington• s Central Business District (CBD), with 75 percent located within 10 miles of the CBD.1 Commuting trends recorded by the 1990 census indicate that five ofthe six swrounding counties send more than a quarter of their working residents to jobs in Lexington-Fayette County. Moreover, the commuting patterns indicate that 27 perrent ofits work force was from the swrounding counties.2 Jessamine County is by far the most dependent county, with almost halfof its worlcers making the trip.3 This trend is expected to continue, with population forecast to increase outside Lexington-Fayette County by as much as 50 percent in Scott County and 81 percent in Jessamine County from 2000 to 2020. The lack of a more dispersed pattern ofemployment among the various counties leads not only to increased congestion along the arterial roads to Lexington but to a reduced tax base, with the payroll tax solely benefiting Lexington-Fayette County. 1be city and county governments of the Lexington metro area rely heavily on the payroll tax for operational funding of growth and services, resulting in an unbalanced regional 4 economy. The Lexington metro area is served by two transportation organi;ratioos, the Bluegrass Area Development District's Transportation Planning Committee and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MP0).5 The Bluegrass Area Development District's Transportation Planning Committee seeks regional consensus on road projects, while the MPO coordinates transportation planning in Lexington-Fayette and Jessamine Counties, with a policy committee of 18 Lexington-Fayette County representatives and four Jessamine County representatives. Although the U.S. Department ofTransportation­funded MPO is responsible for long-range planning for these two counties, the results can impact the other surrounding counties.6 The other five counties of the Lexington metro area must therefore compete with the ten counties in the Bluegrass Area Development District for the necessary federal and state funds to undertake transportation improvements.7 This shortcoming may continue despite the fact that 55 pen:ent of the metro area's growth is expected to occur outside Lexington-Fayette County. Although the MPO is a joint planning organi:ration, critics say the 22-member organi;ration has failed in cross-county cooperation. This was evident in 1998, when the MPO vetoed a proposal to connect Jessamine County with Interstate 75, a project seen as critical fO£ furthering economic development in that county. 8 This proposal to connect the county to Interstate 75 was designed to benefit Jessamine County commuters; however, Lexington­Fayette County officials were against the development and vetoed the proposal with their majority role in the MPO. Land Character The Bluegrass Region of central Kentucky covers approximately 520,000 acres, with a number of distinct topographical areas consisting of varying soils. 9 It is a rolling plateau that becomes more rugged near the edges, with long, narrow ridge tops and steep hillsides. Areas with more plains and plateaus are better suited for both development and cultivation. Additionally, much of the Bluegrass Region is composed of a porous, limestone substrate and maury silt loam, resulting in prime agricultural land laden with nutrients.10 The seven-county Lexington metro area includes a subset of the Bluegrass Region counties: Bourbon, Clark, Jessamine, Madison, Scott, and Woodford. There are many positive agricultural indicators throughout the Lexington metro area. Four of the top six agriculturally valued counties within Kentucky lie within the metro area: Fayette, Bourbon, Jessamine, and Scott. The same order holds true nationally for thoroughbred horse production as well.11 Agriculture in 2003 was a $4 billion a year industry for the state of Kentucky, while the thoroughbred horse industry maintains revenues at approximately $600 million annually.12 Because the Bluegrass Region of Kentucky retains such agricultural prominence, the importance of planning remains key to the area's vitality, both historic and economic. The landscape has and will continue to influence urban planning among the seven counties of the Lexington metro area. With a strong metropolitan center in Lexington and the surrounding six counties, each land use policy has ramifications for the region. Common issues across the region transcending county and city borders involve soil and water quality, economy, heritage, and transportation. Rapid unplanned development can lead to a variety of problems like compromised environmental quality. Damaged ecosystems and increased flooding have been of concern to the Bluegrass Region throughout the past decade. Specifically, the Kentucky River is a critical environmental issue for the entire Bluegrass Region. Because it provides a number of counties with more than half their drinking water supply, protecting water quality should be of great concern in land use planning.13 Additionally, there is no regionally coordinated sanitary sewer planning, which could adversely affect water quality throughout the seven-county region.14 Until 1999, the City of Lexington­owned West Hickman sewage plant located in Jessamine County was prohibited from treating any sewage from Jessamine County, resulting in more than 750 mobile homes within the county forced to rely on septic systems, which often prove unreliable.15 Growth Management History Growth management is becoming an important issue for the state of Kentucky. In 2001 Governor Paul Patton created the state's first Smart Growth Task Force to examine how and where Kentucky is growing and what practices and policies could make the process most beneficial for all citizens. 16 Furthermore, if a city or county has zoning ordinances, they are required by state law to submit a comprehensive plan that must also be updated every five years.17 In 2000, Urban growth boundaries were established by the state in legislation put forth by representative Jim Wayne, mandating that no local government would extend urban levels of sewer service to underserved parcels in designated limited-service areas.18 Each of the counties within the Lexington metro area is responsible for a comprehensive plan in order to set policies to guide future growth and land use in urban and rural areas. The goal of most of these plans is to accurately assess population, housing, and employment needs, which subsequently guide decisions on the amount of land that will be required for future development along with the phasing of public improvements to match the pace of development. Preservation of farmland is encouraged within each of the counties' land use plans, although few policies have been enacted to ensure adherence to this goal. Program Description Structure and Development Bluegrass Tomorrow is a nonprofit organization founded in 1989 by a coalition of business, preservation, agricultural, and development interests. The mission of the organization is to help the Lexington metro region make the best planning decisions about their collective future. Bluegrass Tomorrow maintains a 50-plus member Board of Directors, who facilitate in fundraising. Appointments to the board are held annually. The primary impetus for the creation of Bluegrass Tomorrow was the location of a major Toyota r,lant in Georgetown County in the late 1980s, adjacent to Lexington­Fayette County. 9 The Toyota plant was to be the largest in the nation, providing over 10,000 jobs. Bluegrass Tomorrow was formed in 1989 to bring the cities and various sectors together to plan for the changes needed to accommodate the plant while not placing excessive demands upon the current infrastructure. The guiding framework for the organization is the Bluegrass Regional Vision, developed through a broad-based regional planning process in 1993.20 Bluegrass Tomorrow created a "toolbox" of appropriate planning tools and information needed to plan effectively for the region. Its primary mission is the dissemination of planning knowledge to the seven-county central Bluegrass Region that will contribute to balancing the need for growth with the preservation of the unique scenic and natural features that define the region. 21 Each year Bluegrass Tomorrow presents its plan to over 50 organizations and to the media through citations, radio interviews, and article contributions.22 Policy During the Kentucky General Assembly's 2000 session, lawmakers passed a bill requiring planning commissioners, members of boards of adjustments, planning professionals, zoning administrators, and other zoning officials to complete four hours of mandatory training programs.23 Bluegrass Tomorrow has provided much of this required training to the local officials of the Lexington metro area and beyond. The region's first training session, held in Madison County, provided extensive reviews of regional issues, trends, state laws, and development regulations. Subsequent training sessions have included the Georgetown-Scott County Joint Planning Commission, Winchester-Clark County Joint Planning Commission, and the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Planning Commission. The training sessions involve techniques for creating new developments, road corridor planning and management, re~onal trends and issues, subdivision regulations, and manufactured housing regulations. Although the mandatory training session is intended to increase planning awareness among many officials, the compliance for training requirements can be achieved simply by reviewing literature from Bluegrass Tomorrow, albeit foregoing much of the effectiveness of the visual presentations which are such an integral part of the training. 25 In addition to the dissemination of information, Bluegrass Tomorrow was instrumental in bringing the issue of the minimal lot requirement and the option of a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program to the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government's planning forum. Although no single organization manages the region's rural land, Fayette County instituted a Purchase of Agricultural Easement/Development Rights program. In response to incredible growth after WWil, in I964 the Fayette County government, in accordance with the local Board of Health, implemented a "IO-acre rule," which called for a IO-acre minimum lot size requirement for lots utilizing septic tanks for waste disposal.26 However, when public water was extended to each of these IO-acre lots, the unintentional consequence was a development explosion in the rural sector.27 The IO-acre lot was an economically viable alternative for high-end single-family homes, with an average price comparable to that of the Lexington suburbs.28 With 429 lots consuming over 4,700 acres of land, preservationists derided the IO-acre limit for its inefficient use of Fayette County's best farmland.29 Leaders of key constituencies approached Bluegrass Tomorrow about acting as a neutral convener of an informal group that would address rural land management in Fayette County. 30 The group represented a diverse coalition of people, with government, farm, business, neighborhood, and environmental interests all represented and Bluegrass Tomorrow serving as the facilitator of the debate.31 After five years of deliberation and hearings, a proposal calling for a 40-acre lot size minimum for the rural service area along with a Purchase of Development Rights program were presented to the Urban County Council, where it was subsequently passed in January 2000.32 The program is voluntary, enabling farmers to sell their development rights while holding fee simple title to the land and continuing to farm.33 Landowners who participate receive financial compensation for their development rights, the price of which varies based on individual appraisals.34 In its initial year, 36 farmers applied to the program and 24 easements were purchased. The following year, I03 farms applied and 52 easements were purchased. 35 Funding As a nonprofit organization, Bluegrass Tomorrow has no secure long-term financial stability and has the potential to be adversely affected by downturns in regional economic conditions. When a budget shortfall was expected for fiscal year 2002, Bluegrass Tomorrow called for an emergency board meeting to help resolve the situation. Through the direct efforts of the board, enough funding resources were secured to allow Bluegrass Tomorrow to avoid any type of deficit. The board has been critical to the success of Bluegrass Tomorrow, not only in its cross-sectional representation and leadership, but also its strong ability to acquire necessary funding. In 200I a federal grant through the Department of Transportation allowed Bluegrass Tomorrow to produce an informational planning guide titled Bluegrass Corridor Management Planning Handbook. The handbook was managed as a joint project between Bluegrass Tomorrow and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, providing a common frame of reference for people interested in roadway planning. Federal funding will likely be sought in the future for additional planning handbooks. Program Evaluation Program Outputs The Purchase ofDevelopment Rights program. however, is not without criticism, especially from the surrounding counties ofthe Lexington metro area. Boorboo, Clark, Scott, Jessamine, and Madison counties have 1-to 5-acre minimum lot size requirements. The Lexington-Fayette County restrictions are expected to lead to increased development in these nearby counties. Additionally, the program employs public money to compensate rural landowners who agree not to develop their land, causing many Lexington-Fayette County residents to protest. Additionally, Lexington-Fayette County underwent an expansion ofits Urban Service Area Boundary in 1996. Although Bluegrass Tomorrow did not form the centerpiece ofthe expansion area process, it did participate and was credited by the chairman ofthe county's Planning Commission for providing important resources to assist in resolving what had become a very divisive debate on whether or not the boundary should be expanded.36 In 1996 Bluegrass Tomorrow facilitated discussions concerning the Royal Springs Aquifer.37 Georgetown residents of Scott County depend primarily on the aquifer for their drinking water supply. However, approximately 80 percent of the Royal Spring Aquifer lies in northern Lexington-Fayette County, an area that bas seen renewed development interest since the mid-1990s.38 Bluegrass Tomorrow was recogni:zed for its involvement in the drafting of a Wellhead Protection program for the area, 39 in which officials from the city ofGeorgetown, Scott and Fayette Counties, and the Kentucky Division ofGroundwater Supply worked together to determine ~ateprotection practices to prevent contamination ofwater supply wells and springs. Because approximately 4,200 acres of the aquifer recharge area are located in the Fayette County's rural service area, the increase in minimum lot siz.e from 10 to 40 acres will have a direct impact on preventing contamination ofthe aquifer, since the number of potential septic tanks would be limited41 Although Fayette County bas little to gain from this type of environmentally sensitive development, it recognized the important need for regional cooperation on water quality issues contributing to the long-term sustainability ofthe Bluegrass Region. In 2002, Bluegrass Tomorrow sponsored a mayoral debate in Lexington-Fayette county to discuss regionalism. The debate involved discussion of transportation and environmental issues as well as open space and parkland issues. Moreover, questions involved the regional payroll tax imbalance and regional infrastructure needs.42 1be debate was covered by media representatives from all parts of the Lexington metro area, resulting in widespread coverage of very important issues. In addition to such things as farmland preservation, Bluegrass Tomorrow promotes maintaining the scenic character oflocal roadways. Former executive director Jean Scott expressed the importance of roads as the windows to the unique Bluegrass Region landscape as well as providing social and economic connections.43 In 2001 a federal grant from the Department of Transportation allowed for the creation of the Bluegrass Corridor Management Planning Handbook in order t~videa common frame of reference for all parties interested in roadway planning. 1be handbook provides the process through which consensus can be reached in design and land use planning. The Kentucky Department of Transportation sought to widen Paris Pike into a four-lane highway, connecting Lexington with the city of Paris. As of 1993, traffic volumes between the two communities had risen to an unprecedented 12,000 cars per day, with consequently frequent accidents and fatalities; however, residents were reluctant to accept the proposal.45 After an injunction was sought, state officials and residents created a memorandum of understanding that called for the incorporation of design features into the widening plan.46 Bluegrass Tomorrow collaborated with the Transportation Department in the coordination of the public involvement process. Paris Pike was ultimately rebuilt with four lanes with variable-width medians allowing for detours, wooden guard rails, stone walls, and median crossovers.47 This was a first-ever multi jurisdictional collaboration for road planning and land use development in the region.48 Outcomes Bluegrass Tomorrow has been instrumental in bringing together diverse coalitions to implement changes in land use policy, as evident through the Purchase of Development Rights program, the Royal Springs Wellhead Protection program, and the Paris Pike expansion. Because Bluegrass Tomorrow is a nonprofit organization, the majority of its funds are provided by corporations as well as private donations; federal funds, however, have assisted in the creation of planning information disseminated by the organization. Furthermore, federal allocations through the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Transportation played a role in funding both the Purchase of Development Rights program and the Paris Pike expansion. The region's various planning departments generally agree that obtaining an outside consultant to mediate disputes and streamline discussion is particularly helpful when staff is under incredible scrutiny.49 Given that regional planning is neither mandated by the state of Kentucky nor implemented in a number of Central Bluegrass Region county planning departments, efforts must evolve from the type of direct, constant, communitywide conversation brought forth by Bluegrass Tomorrow.50 Findings Many feel that the State of Kentucky needs to mandate countywide and regional planning in order to adequately develop regional goals through local government cooperation.51 There is no discussion for regional revenue sharing or linking regional economic development more closely with the region's housing patterns. With much of the counties' labor force commuting to other locations and thus leaving their payroll taxes within those counties, expectations of high-level community benefits are not readily met since an affected county's tax base is subsequently limited. Also, with such a high percentage of metro area residents commuting into the Lexington Central Business District, congestion has increased. Nearly 80 percent of the region's labor force relies on single-car transportation while less than 5 percent utilizes public transportation.52 With this trend expected to continue, congestion will remain likely for the area. Additionally, protection of the Kentucky River should be a regional priority in future planning, since it provides drinking water to a number of the counties; however, land use along the river is not regulated to ensure this.53 Lexington-Fayette is the only county that maintains a clearly defined goal concerning the importance of the thoroughbred horse industry to the community. Due to both the economic and cultural benefits of this industry to the region, land preservation should be a priority. With the exception of Lexington-Fayette County, no other planning department within the Lexington metro area lists the promotion of ·regional planning and coordination as a major goal of its department.54 Notes 1 Bluegrass Tomorrow, "Traffic Information reported by Brookings Institution," Washington D.C., July 2001. Online. Available: http://www.bluegrasstomorrow.org. Accessed: February 10, 2003. 2 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG), "2001 Comprehensive Plan," Lexington, KY, 2001, sec. 3, p. 14. 3 Peter Baniak., "Moving Violation: Commuter Decries Traffic Sprawl on Nicholasville Road," Lexington Herald-Leader (May 9, 1999), reprinted in "Common Ground: Deciding How the Bluegrass Should Grow," n.d., p. 17. 4 l~terview by Amanda Dewees with Steve Austin, Executive Director, Bluegrass Tomorrow, Lexington, Kentucky, January 6, 2003. 5 LFUCG, ''2001 Comprehensive Plan," sec. 8, p. 1. 6 Ibid. 7 Woodford County Planning Commission (WCPC), ''Background Study for the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update," Woodford County, KY, November 1, 2002, p. 6. 8 Peter Baniak. and Chad Carleton, ''Traffic, Water, Sewage Know No Boundaries," Lexington Herald­ Leader (May 22, 1999), reprinted in "Common Ground: Deciding How the Bluegrass Should Grow," n.d., f· 17. Bluegrass Tomorrow, Bluegrass Choices, Lexington, KY, n.d. (handbook). 10 LFUCG, "2001 Comprehensive Plan," sec. 3, p. 36. 11 WCPC, ''Background Study for the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update," p. 7. 12 Interview by Amanda Dewees with Dag Ryen, Director ofResearch, Kentucky League of Cities, Lexington, Kentucky, January 7, 2003. 13 WCPC, "Background Study for the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update," p. 17. 14 Ibid., p. 8. 15 Baniak. and Carleton, ''Traffic, Water, Sewage Know No Boundaries," p. 17. 16 Office of the Governor, State of Kentucky, A Report ofthe Governor's Smart Growth Task Force, (Frankfort, KY, November 2001), p. 2. 17 Interview by Amanda Dewees with Jennifer Brockman, Planner, Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Comprehensive Plan Expansion, Lexington, Kentucky, January 9, 2003. 18 American Planning Association, Planning for Smart Growth: 2002 State ofStates, p. 64. Online. Available: http://www.planning.org. Accessed: February 10, 2003. 19 Austin interview. 20 Morris Newman, ''Moving Mountains," Planning, vol. 66, no. 2 (February 2000), p. 5. 21 Steve Austin, Lessons in Redevelopment: Building Great Downtown, (Lexington, KY: Bluegrass Tomorrow, 2001), p. 1. 22 Bluegrass Tomorrow, "Vision Report: 2001 The Year in Review," Lexington, KY, n.d. (circular). 23 American Planning Association, Planning for Smart Growth: 2002 State ofStates, p. 63 (Online). 24 Bluegrass Tomorrow, ''Bluegrass Tomorrow Trains Planning Commissions," Bluegrass Tomorrow (Summer 2002), p. 4 (newsletter). 25 Austin interview. 26 LFUCG, "1999 Rural Service Area Land Management Plan," Lexington, KY, 1999, sec. 1, p. 1. 27 Brockman interview. 28 Ryan interview. 29 Peter Baniak., "Losing Pensions by the Acre?" Lexington Herald-Leader (May 12,1999), reprinted in "Common Ground: Deciding How the Bluegrass Should Grow," n.d., p. 8. 30 Bluegrass Tomorrow, Preserving the Bluegrass, Special Project Report (Lexington, KY., 2002), p. 1. 31 Interview by Amanda Dewees with Margaret Graves, Executive Director, Bluegrass Conservancy, Lexington, Kentucky, January 9, 2003. 32 Graves interview. 33 Bluegrass Conservancy, "Purchase of Development Rights," Lexington, KY, Fall 2002 (fact sheet). 34 Ibid. 35 Graves interview. 36 Cristina Lucia Jackson, ''Maintaining the Rural Divide: The Lexington Kentucky Experience" (Professional Report, The University of Texas at Austin, 1998), p. 58. 37 Austin interview. 38 Baniak and Carleton, "Traffic, Water, Sewage Know No Boundaries," p. 17. 39 Austin interview. 40 Ryen interview. 41 LFUCG, "1999 Rural Service Area Land Management Plan." sec. 4, p. 7. 42 Bluegrass Tomorrow, ''Regionalism Debate," Bluegrass Tomorrow (Fall 2002), p. 3 (newsletter). 43 N ''Movmg. M . " p. 5. 44 Bluegrass Tomorrow, ''Vision Report: 2001 The Year in Review" (circular). 45 Jennifer Gavin, "A Road Runs through It," American City and Council, vol. 115, no. 17 (Decembei' 2000), p. 3. 46 Ryen interview. 47 Gavin, "A Road Runs through It," p. 3. 48 WCPC, "Background Study for the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update," p. 34. ewman, ountams, 49 Jackson, ''Maintaining the Rural Divide: The Lexington Kentucky Experience," p. 55. 50 Henry G. Cisneros, ''Regionalism: The New Geography of Opportunity," National Civic Review, vol. 85, no. 2 (Spring/Summer 1996), p. 35. 51 Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, survey of growth management and open space protection: a national study of state, regional, and local efforts, Kentucky, January 2003. 52 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990, General Characteristics: Population and Housing. Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet. Accessed: January 3, 2003. 53 WCPC, ''Background Study for the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update," p. 20. 54 Ibid., p. 28. Appendix 3.12-Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government The LFUCG provides city planning for the metropolitan center of the Kentucky Bluegrass Region. The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) seeks to promote economic and viable job development while protecting and enhancing existing neighborhoods and the rural Bluegrass Region's cultural landscape. Since the creation of the first Urban Service Area Boundary in 1958 by Fayette County, the LFUCG has implemented numerous planning initiatives. The government is involved in comprehensive planning, infill redevelopment, a Purchase of Development Rights program, and the creation of a Rural Service Area Land Management Plan. Combining growth management and open space initiatives has greatly contributed to the overall program effectiveness. The LFUCG employs federal funds in a number of its planning initiatives, including infill redevelopment, transportation planning, and its Purchase of Development Rights program. Table 1 Socioeconomic, Transportation, and Land Use Data for Lexington-Fayette County, Kentucky 1990 2000 1990 to 2000 Change (in%) Socioeconomic Total county population 225,366 260,512 15.5 Rural population (% of total) 2.8 4.6 64.3 Residential building permits issued 20,371 20,660 1.4 Total number of households 97,742 116,187 18.9 Families below ooverty level (%of total) 15.2 14.1 -7.2 White oonulation (% of total) 84 81 3.6 Black oonulation (% of total) 13.4 13.5 .75 Hispanic population (% of total) 1.1 3.3 66.7 Transoortation Percent using oublic transportation 1.6 1.3 -18.7 Mean travel time to work 19.3 19.6 1.5 Land Use Bluegrass Region farmland in acres 147,154 135,923 12.6 Creation of 10 to 15 Acre Lots 17 412 2323.5 Acres of prime soil (% of total) 87 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, Census 1990, and Census 2000 Summary Files. Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: January 28, 2003; Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, ''2001 Comprehensive Plan," Lexington, KY. 2001, sec. 3, p. 3; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990, Census 2000, and Census ofAgriculture. Online. Available: http://govinfo.library.orst.edu. Accessed: January 28, 2003. Background Socioeconomic Information The fast-growing Lexington-Fayette County is at the core of the central Kentucky Bluegrass Region. It has a long history of land use planning and is the center of the region's economic, educational, and cultural activities. Lexington-Fayette County measures 258 square miles with a developing core of 85 square miles and is surrounded by 200 square miles of rural land.1 As a compact urban center, the Lexington Central Business District is outlined by a distinct rural landscape and is rimmed by relatively compact smaller communities, each with its own distinct character. Lexington-Fayette County retains a balanced economy and work force with substantial employment in the manufacturing, education, health care, and retail sectors. This diversified range of employers has worked to create a stable economic environment for the Lexington area. The 2000 median family income was $53,264 among a total labor force of 147,226 people.2 From 1980 to 2000, Lexington-Fayette County population increased by 28 percent and is forecast to increase another 25 percent for the following 20-year time period. While population growth is expected to slow somewhat for Lexington-Fayette County, growth in the six surrounding counties continues to escalate and is expected to increase by as much as 50 percent in Scott County and 81 percent in Jessamine County from 2000 to 2020.3 Land Character Lexington-Fayette County lies in two geologic areas: the Inner Bluegrass Physiographic Region and the Hills of the Bluegrass Physiographic Region. The majority of the locale lies within the Inner Bluegrass Region, characterized by upland plains and stream bottomlands. The Hills of the Bluegrass Region accounts for only a fraction of southeastern Fayette County and primarily comprises steep hills and narrow ridge tops, making it ill suited for cultivation or large-scale development.4 Soil type for the area is high in natural fertility, with clayey subsoil formed in place by the underlying limestone.5 Lexington-Fayette County is dissected by nine distinct watersheds, seven of which impact the urban area while two are completely rural.6 Both the watersheds and soil types have been factors in determining where development will be allowed. The geology and soils create favorable conditions for livestock and crop farming, and agriculture continues to be an important land use for Lexington-Fayette County. Cash farm receipts for 1996 totaled $329,384,000, with $27,166,000 crop related and $302,218,000 livestock related. In 1997, Lexington-Fayette County ranked 18th among the 120 Kentucky counties in crop production and first in livestock.7 Between 1963 and 1995, the amount of developed land in Lexington-Fayette County more than doubled, from 17,926 acres to more than 36,000, with an average of 500 acres inside Lexington's urban area developed each year. 8 Demand for land quadrupled the average price of property in Lexington during the growth period from 1975 to 1995.9 The median household price for Lexington-Fayette County in 1990 was $110,800 for a three-bedroom house, while the surrounding counties maintained average prices from $84,500 in Bourbon County to $93,500 in Clark County.10 The Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that in 1996 more than 11,000 people worked in construction, building homes and businesses in Lexington-Fayette County; about twice as many as worked in farm-related jobs.11 The rate of growth has resulted in once-vacant or agricultural land being developed to serye the needs of housing, shopping, employment, and the accompanying public/semipublic land uses to accommodate the community's growth.12 Additionally, the high prices coupled with tighter land use policies in Lexington-Fayette County are among the factors that have led home buyers to the surrounding counties. From 1980 to 1990, the population for the entire seven-county Bluegrass Region increased 9.5 percent while the housing units grew by 18.5 percent.13 Growth Management History The Fayette County Planning and Zoning Commission was created in 1928 with the adoption of the first Subdivision Control Regulations in 1929. In 1930 the Board of City Commissioners passed the first zoning ordinance for the city of Lexington, followed by the adoption of the first Comprehensive Plan in 1931.14 The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) has been a nationally recognized leader in planning for both urban growth and rural preservation since the 1950s. The LFUCG also has an established history of citizen participation and interest in land use planning. In 1958 the City-County Planning and Zoning Commission adopted a comprehensive plan amendment that dramatically influenced the planning in Lexington. Under the advice of the Ladislas Segoe city planning consulting firm, the commission defined and established the first Urban Service Area Boundary in the United States along with a joint city-county planning board to oversee development.15 The idea was to contain development by preventing the city from geographically expanding beyond its ability to provide the costly sewers and roads that growth demands. Given the jurisdictional conflicts of maintaining the two governments, on November 7, 1972, the voters of Lexington and Fayette County decided by a substantial margin to consolidate their city and county governments into a single, unified "urban county government." 16 The governmental unity has fostered greater social mobility as well as coordination within the planning department.17 Factors Leading to Policy Initiation The challenge facing Lexington-Fayette County is how to strike a balance between growth and community distinctiveness in accommodating its new population while maintaining the greenbelts and farmlands which characterize the locality and the region as a whole. The surrounding counties are beginning to serve as bedroom communities for Lexington, resulting in a dramatic increase in traffic congestion. Less than 1 percent of each county's commuters utilize public transportation.18 Environmental issues have also escalated, with water contamination of the Kentucky River and Royal Springs and ozone warnings during the summer due to increased air pollution. Additionally, one of the greatest contributors to the impairment of Lexington-Fayette County streams is thought to be the impact of urban development upon natural stream systems.19 The loss of farmland is seen to affect the area both economically and historically. As Lexington mayor Pam Miller wrote, ''The preservation of the horse farms, of our green spaces and rural lands is at the core of our city's identity."2°From 1978 to 1997, the total number of farms within the county declined over 20 percent. 21 Changes in land use policies strive to continue to retain significant rural lands of Lexington-Fayette County as active agricultural operations. Program Description Structure and Development The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council consists of 12 district representatives and three at-large members, while the Planning Commission is a group of 11 citiz.ens appointed by the mayor. 22 Both the commission and the council were formed in 1974 and charged with the responsibility ofleading the area's planning efforts. The LFUCG Department ofPlanning serves as the professional staff in assisting the commission and council in their planning duties. The LFUCG Planning Department's four main divisions are Current Planning, Long Range Planning, Planning Services, and Transportation Planning. The Long Range Planning Section is responsible for preparing the Comprehensive Plan update and related growth management activities such as coordinated neighbothood planning, environmental and greenspace planning, and mapping and drafting services. 23 Planning Services is the implementation agency for the Comprehensive Plan, involved primarily in zoning ordinance and subdivision regulation as well as administrative, adjustment, and architectural appeals.1A The Cwrent Planning Division was created in early 1997 to address the needs that fall between the traditional roles of long-range planning and development regulation. Many of the projects involve Comprehensive Plan implementation outside typical zoning and subdivision regulations.25 Lastly, the Transportation Department collaborates with the Metropolitan Planning Organi7Jltion (MPO) in roadway planning and monitoring. The MPO oversees transportation funding for both Lexington-Fayette and Jessamine counties. The 22­member policy committee has 18 members from Lexington-Fayette County and four from Jessamine County.26 Although the Urban Service Area Boundary was primarily created in order to reduce sewage costs, in the 1970s it was discovered that the boundary effectively separated urban intensity uses from horse farms and other rural activities, reduced sprawl development along major roadways, provided for better cost control of government infrastructure and services, reduced impacts on fragile environments, and helped to maintain the central focus ofthe downtown.n The Urban Service Area Boundary delineates the location ofurban growth by dividing the county into an urban service area and a rural service area. With the boundary in place, development areas were identified. Having the boundary inside a single governing entity has helped protect the boundary (which has not been perforated since the establishment of the LFUCG) and significantly reduced the need for intergovernmental cooperation.28 In 1991, the American Institute of Certified Planners recogniz.ed the Lexington Urban Service Area as a National Historic Planning Landmarlc. 29 Although it is only one aspect ofthe comprehensive planning framework for Lexington, the Urban Service Area Boundary has become the centerpiece ofLexington-Fayette County's growth management efforts.30 Policy From the establishment of the Urban Service Area Boundary in the late 1950s to the year 2000, population within the county doubled to 240,000. In 1995, the LFUCG formed a citizen advisory committee to advise on a possible expansion ofthe Urban Service Area Boundary in response to growth and development pressures underway throughout the county. The controversy during the boundary expansion process centered on the amount of land in the expansion area and how to enforce the boundary.31 LFUCG planning staff initially recommended no change to the boundary and limiting expansion to an ad hoc basis. However, the Homebuilders Association formally requested a 10,000­acre expansion that forced staff to reexamine future land supply and demand projections.32 After months of analysis and community efforts, the 1996 updated Comprehensive Plan called for an expansion of the Urban Service Area Boundary by approximately 5,400 acres of agricultural land, a shift which proved to be controversial.33 The resulting Expansion Area Master Plan (EAMP) provides additional space for future growth by designating planning areas with density and design criteria for the various types of development. The LFUCG introduced a set of tools for upholding the boundary, including zoning and subdivision regulations as well as development exactions, land use categories, impact fees, and sewer provision. However, even with inclusion of the additional acreage, development stalled due to an increase in land prices beyond what developers had expected coupled with impact fees to cover the costs of roads and sewers, resulting in little to no development.34 In 1998, city officials wrangled over a sani~ sewer expansion that would address new growth at a potential cost of $176 million.3 Developing vacant land in the inner city, a technique known as infill, is one of the main tools Lexington-Fayette County is seeking to address additional housing needs while preserving the rural greenbelts and farms surrounding Lexington's urban core. Previously, the city lacked the necessary rules to promote attractive infill. As a result, unattractive developments often encroach into uncooperative neighborhoods throughout Lexington-Fayette County. 36 Residents of nearly a dozen older neighborhoods, most near downtown, sought to keep new duplexes and apartments from locating next to single-family homes, worrying that less-expensive, hir-density development will hurt property values and bring traffic and other problems.3 In 2001, LFUCG undertook a study to address infill and redevelopment in existing neighborhoods in the oldest parts of the city's core, an approximately 10-square-mile area around downtown.38 Funding Sources of funding for land use programs are sought through various federal programs. The LFUCG's Department of Community Development administers various federal housing programs such as the Community Development Block Grants Home Investment Partnerships and Emergency Shelter Grants to assist in providing affordable housing to the community. In order to receive these federal funds, the Department of Community Development has created a "Consolidated Plan" that states the community's objectives for addressing housing and community development needs over a five-year planning period. 39 The LFUCG also seeks funding from a number of state and federal historical preservation programs. The National Register of Historic Places, a federal designation awarded by the Department of Interior, has designated 26 National Register Districts in Lexington-Fayette County. Additionally, there are 54 individual properties on the National Register of Historic Places in and around downtown Lexington as well as three National Historic Landmarks.40 Roadway planning has also significantly aided historical preservation efforts. In the 1990s, federal programs such as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century provided funding for transportation enhancement projects. Inter-govemmentaVInterlocal Relationships/Partnerships The 1974 merger of the Fayette County government with the City of Lexington government resolved any potential conflicts of interest that might arise between separate city and county governments. As of 20()3, open space can be found between the boundary and the adjoining counties, with the exception of Jessamine County to the south of Lexington-Fayette. Although Jessamine County's Comprehensive Plan calls for greenspace between the two jurisdictions, the LFUCG and Jessamine County Planning Department maintain two disparate views on what constitutes greenspace. While the LFUCG defines the term as a wide strip of land that separates one community from another, Jessamine County considers greenspace to be a setback or a 200-foot strip of grass. The result of Jessamine County's definition is the virtual absence of greenspace at the boundary of the two counties. Program Evaluation Program Outputs The Residential Infill and Redevelopment Design Standards, adopted as elements of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan, seek to address these problems through the implementation of • regulatory changes, • redevelopment incentives, • systematic education programs, • coordinated planning, and • neighborhood character overlay districts.41 Encouraging compatible infill can moderately increase density, thereby making delivery of services such as infrastructure maintenance.and neighborhood facilities more efficient.42 Through the development of the infill standards, the LFUCG implements something more than guidelines (found in other Comprehensive Plans throughout the region) that are regarded as preferences rather than requirements.43 Under this provision, mixed use will have a minimum residential requirement.44 Because residents expressed concern about the unique characteristics that distinguish individual neighborhoods, key design features of properties and neighborhoods were defined in the companion publication, "Identifying Residential Neighborhood Design Character." Additionally, in order to discourage developers seeking to build at the lowest cost possible, resulting in less attractive developments, redevelopment incentives will be adopted to lure developers into pr~ects that will blend well with existing development in terms of density and design. 5 . The 1996 expansion of the Urban Service Area Boundary by 5,400 acres of agricultural land raised many questions about the future of greenspace and farmland throughout Fayette County. The rural service area land management study and planning process was initiated soon thereafter in order to adequately address rural land management practices. Lot size restriction in the rural service area had been 10-acres since the 1960s.46 However, during the 1990s, economic forces made 10-acre lots a viable alternative to other high-end urban residential lots, with over 4,700 acres of rural Fayette County converted to lots to accommodate a mere 429 single-family hornes.47 Two farm groups, the county Farm Bureau and the Thoroughbred Association, made it clear that unless the county adopted a plan to compensate farmers with public money, they would not support another key preservation proposal.48 It was in this context that community effort to create a new amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, specifically for the rural service area, was undertaken, culminating with the adoption in April 1999 of the plan entitled "Rural Service Area Land Management Plan: Our Rural Heritage in the Next Century."49 The main achievements of the plan include a Purchase of Development Rights program and an increase in the minimum lot requirement to 40 acres in the rural service area. The Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program is an important tool for ensuring the preservation of rural land and character identity for the Lexington-Fayette County area. In Fayette County, the right to develop land represents significant economic value. With this in mind, the PDR program compensates property owners who agree to permanently restrict nonagricultural development on their land.so After a number of years of deliberation, the PDR ordinance was enacted in January 2000 by the LFUCG, additionally creating a 13-member citizen-based Rural Land Management Board to oversee the program.st The plan received strong support from both the mayor's office and the city council. s2 House Bill 644, passed in the 1998 legislative session, authorizes additional funding for the PDR program.s3 The program received an initial commitment of $2 million from local revenues and a state grant of up to $15 million in matching funds. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farmland Protection Program awarded $150,000 to the program.s4 When combined, these funds provided the PDR program with potential working capital of approximately $18 million during its initial year.ss Outcomes The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government has a strong history of land use planning dating back to the adoption of the nation's first Urban Service Area Boundary. After the expansion of the boundary in 1996, LFUCG explored innovative planning mechanisms to equip the area with the means to protect and enhance the cultural landscape. As a key link to both economic vitality and land character, the LFUCG enacted policies in order to ensure the longevity of its agricultural sector, with the adoption of a 40-acre minimum lot size requirement coupled with a Purchase of Development Rights program. In 2001, 36 farmers applied to the program and 24 easements were purchased.s6 The following year, 103 farms applied to the program and 52 farms were purchased.s7 The preservation of this land is also seen to positively affect the underlying watersheds in reducing potential non-point source pollution.ss Some critics argue that Lexington has lost its sense of place with its outcroppings of strip malls and tract housing lining the arterial roadways. s9 Because developable land is relatively costly and somewhat scarce within the county, developers have been hesitant to try newer, more risky design plans.60 The Residential Infill and Redevelopment Design Standards, put in place in 2001, seek to provide development design and economic incentives in order to address the need for innovative housing projects while addressing vacancies throughout the city. In 1999, a $19.3 million U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development grant was used by county officials to demolish the Charlotte Comt public housing complex and rebuild it as a mixed-income community of single-family bomes.61 Other projects include building on a wedge ofland between older subdivisions in the north end ofthe county, and small, affordable developments near downtown planned cooperatively by the Urban League and the housing developer Barlow Homes.62 Although infill redevelopment is seen as a necesury means to achieve increased urban density, much ofthe city's core infrastructure requires repairs that will stall additional development in many parts ofLexington.63 Critics argue that existing roads and sewers cannot accommodate increased demand, with older neighborhoods already suffering from stonnwater flooding, ovedlowing sanitary sewers, and ttaffic congestion throughout Lexington's urban core. Another underlying problem facing the LFUCG as well as the other six counties swrounding Lexington is the need for coordinated, regional planning. The 40-acre minimum lot si7.e requirement bas forced home buyers to neighboring counties where the minimum lot si7.e requirement remains 1 to 5 acres, although water quality is at risk with unreliable septic systems accompanying new rural development in these counties. With a shared resource such as the Kentucky River as well as the location ofunderlying watersheds overlapping county lines, coontinated development needs to occm. The LFUCG bas implemented the Reforest the Bluegrass program to systematically restore riparian areas within its borders in addition to the introduction ofstonnwater management districts to enforce stonnwater regulatioos on a watershed basis rather than incrementally based on individual development applications.64 Planning officials agree that this should not be a single-county effort; they are hopeful that the new statewide Smart Growth legislative efforts may strengthen the promotion ofcooperative, multicounty planning thought processes and efforts. Proponents ofregional planning call for a state-mandated approach or, at minimum, a state-supported large-lot agricultural requirement as well as statewide Transfer ofDevelopment Rights or PDRs. Statewide planning is envisioned as a means to potentially remove a lot ofthe politics involved with local decisions. ~ 1be Lexington-Fayette Uiban County Government bas undergone a number of changes since its inception in 1972. By combining growth management policies with open space initiatives, the LFUCG bas developed into in a more diversified, effective program. Comprehensive planning for a 20-year horizon as well as the implementation of a 20-year Capital Needs Outlook Program bas further enabled the government to achieve long-term growth management planning. This long-term envisioning process along with the constant reinvention ofobjectives has allowed the LFUCG to take a proactive stance in the growth management planning arena. Rather than delay the resolution of major planning i~ues until updates ofthe comprehensive plans are needed, the l.FUCG has a continuous planning process in order to empbasi7.e the importance of annual efforts to address general and specific planning efforts. Notes 1 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG), ''2001 Comprehensive Plan Update," Lexington, KY, 2001, sec. 1, p. 2. 2 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990, General Characteristics: Population and Housing. Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet. Accessed: February 12, 2003. 3 Ibid, Accessed: January 3, 2003. 4 LFUCG, ''2001 Comprehensive Plan Update," sec. 3, p. 36. 5 Ibid., sec. 3, p. 41. 6 Ibid., sec. 3, p. 36. 7 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Census ofAgriculture. Online. Available: http://govinfo.library.orst.edu/php/agri. Accessed: January 15, 2003. 8 Peter Baniak, "Boundary on the Brink," Lexington Herald-Leader (May 9, 1999), reprinted in "Common Ground: Deciding How the Bluegrass Should Grow," n.d., p. I. 9 Ibid. 10 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990, General Characteristics: Population and Housing. (online). Accessed: January 3, 2003. 11 Peter Baniak, "Windows: Businessmen See Growing Profits," Lexington Herald-Leader (May 15, 1999), reprinted in "Common Ground: Deciding How the Bluegrass Should Grow," n.d., p. 5. 12 LFUCG, ''2001 Comprehensive Plan Update," sec. 3, p. 20. 13 Baniak, ''Boundary on the Brink," p. I. 14 LFUCG, "2001 Comprehensive Plan Update," sec. 1, p. 1. 15 Ibid., sec. 1, p. 3. 16 W.E. Lyons, The Politics ofCity-County Merger (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1977), f.· 148. 7 Henry G. Cisneros, "Regionalism: The New Geography of Opportunity," National Civic Review, vol. 85, no. 2 (Spring/Summer 1996), p. 35. 18 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990, General Characteristics: Population and Housing. online. Accessed: January 3, 2003. 19 LFUCG, "Reforest the Bluegrass: Empowering the Citizen Watershed Manager," Lexington, KY, 2001, ~I. Peter Baniak, ''Tax Breaks Reward Those Who Rule Out Development" Lexington Herald-Leader (April 19, 1998), "Common Ground: Deciding How the Bluegrass Should Grow," n.d., p. 5. 21 LFUCG, ''2001 Comprehensive Plan Update," sec. 3, p. 17. 22 Cristina Lucia Jackson, "Maintaining the Rural Divide: The Lexington Kentucky Experience" (Professional Report, The University of Texas at Austin, 1998), p. 44. 23 LFUCG, "Long Range Planning Division" database. Online. Available: http://www.lfucg.com/PlanDiv/LongRangePlan. Accessed: January 15, 2003. 24 LFUCG, "Planning Services Division" database. Online. Available: http://www.lfucg.com/PlanDiv/PlanningSvcs. Accessed: January 15, 2003. 25 LFUCG, "Current Planning Division" database. Online. Available: http://www.lfucg.com/PlanDiv/CurrentPlan. Accessed: January 15, 2003. 26 Peter Baniak and Chad Carleton, 'Traffic, Water, Sewage Know No Boundaries," Lexington Herald­Leader (May 22, 1999), reprinted in "Common Ground: Deciding How the Bluegrass Should Grow," n.d, ~.17. 7 LFUCG, ''2001 Comprehensive Plan Update," sec. 5, p. 7. 28 Jackson, "Maintaining the Rural Divide: The Lexington Kentucky Experience," p. 46. 29 Ibid., p. 44. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid., p. 53. 32 Ibid. 33 Interview by Amanda Dewees with Margaret Graves, Executive Director, Bluegrass Conservancy, Lexington, Kentucky, January 8, 2003. 34 Peter Baniak, "Developers Won Access, but Now Avoid New Area," Lexington Herald-Leader (May 16, 1999), reprinted in "Common Ground: Deciding How the Bluegrass Should Grow," n.d., p. 12. 3s Peter Baniak, ''Long-term Plan Fell by the Wayside but Coming Back," Lexington Herald-leader (May 15, 1999), reprinted in "Common Ground: Deciding How the Bluegrass Should Grow," n.d., p. 6. 36 Linda J. Johnson, "Solution with a Problem," Lexington Herald-Leader (May 15, 1999), reprinted in "Common Ground: Deciding How the Bluegrass Should Grow," n.d., p. 6. 37 Ibid. 38 LFUCG, ''2001 Comprehensive Plan Update," sec. 5, p. 15. 39 Ibid., sec. 5, p. 27. 40 Ibid., sec. 5, p. 21. 41 LFUCG, "Resident Infill & Redevelopment Design Standards," Lexington, KY, pp. 2-3. 42 Ibid. 43 Interview by Amanda Dewees with Henry Jackson, City Planner, Current Planning Division, Lexington­ Fayette Urban County Government, Lexington, Kentucky, January 8, 2003. 44 Ibid. 4 S Ibid. 46 Graves interview. 47 LFUCG, ''2001 Comprehensive Plan Update," sec. 6, p. 55. 48 Linda J. Johnson and Linda Niemi, "Preservation at a Price," Lexington Herald-Leader (May 12, 1999), reprinted in "Common Ground: Deciding How the Bluegrass Should Grow," n.d., p . . 49 LFUCG, ''2001 Comprehensive Plan Update," sec. 6, p. 56. 50 Bluegrass Conservancy Fact Sheet, Lexington, KY. (pamphlet). st LFUCG, ''2001 Comprehensive Plan Update." s2 Graves interview. s3 LFUCG, "1999 Rural Service Area Land Management Plan," Lexington, KY, 1999, sec. 5, p. 11. 54 LFUCG, ''2001 Comprehensive Plan Update. SS Ibid. s6 Ibid, sec. 5. p. 27. s7 Graves interview. s3 Kentucky .Water Resources, ''2000 Kentucky River Basin Management Plan: Watershed Plan for the South Elkhorn Creek Watershed." Online. Available: www. uky .edu/W aterResources/W atersheds. Accessed: February 21, 2003. s9 Interview by Amanda Dewees with Steve Austin, Executive Director, Bluegrass Tomorrow, Lexington, Kentucky, January 6, 2003. 60 Peter Baniak, "Home Builder Dared to Be Different, Now Builds Home in Different Town," Lexington Herald-Leader (May 16, 1999), reprinted in "Common Ground: Deciding How the Bluegrass Should Grow," n.d., p. 12. 61 Johnson, "Solution with a Problem." 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 LFUCG, ''Reforest the Bluegrass: Empowering the Citizen Watershed Manager," p. 1. Appendix 3.13-Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) A two-fold approach to preserving farmland in Maryland. The Maryland Agricultural Land preservation Foundation (MALPF) was created in 1974 by the Maryland General Assembly. The program seeks to protect prcxiuctive farmland, control urban sprawl, and preserve open space within the state of Maryland through the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program (MALPP).The foundation uses a two-fold approach to achieve its goal of securing a "critical mass" of agricultural land. First, willing landowners create agricultural preservation districts where farming is recognized as the preferred use of the land. Once an agricultural preservation district is created, it is then eligible for the easement acquisition program. This program allows landowners to sell their development rights to MALPF, ensuring that fanning will continue on the protected property. At the close of 2001, perpetual easements preserved 198,276 acres on 1,395 farms. Additionally, 382,987 acres on 2,927 farms are protected in agricultural districts.1 Table 1 Socioeconomic, Tramoortation, and Land Use Data for Maryland and the United States Socioeconomic Ponulation (2000) Ponulation (1960) Percent change in oooulation, 1%0-2000 Urban oonulation (2000) Rural oooulation (2000) Ratio of urban to rural oonulation (2000) Land Use Data Land area in sauare miles Density in persons per square mile (2000) Single-family detached houses as percentage of total housing units Multifamily units as oercen1:a2e of total housin~ units Tramoortation Data Mean travel time to work (in minutes) Percentai?e of the oooolation that drives alone to work, 2000 Marvland 5,296,486 3,100,689 70 4,558,668 737,818 6:1 9,775 541 51 26 31.2 74 United States 281 ,421,906 178,554,916 82 222,360,539 59,061,367 26:1 353,537 ,438 78 60 26 25.5 76 Sources: U.S. Census Burean, 1990 and 2000 Summary Files. Onlme. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: March 30, 2003; Maryland State Data Center, Population ofMaryland's Regions and Jurisdictions. Online. Available: http://www.op.state.md.us/msdc/census/Historical_Census/histcens.xls. Accessed: March 30, 2003; U.S. Census Bureau, United States Historical Census Data Browser. Online. Available: http://fisher.lib.virginiaedu/census/. Accessed: March 30, 2003; Maryland Department of Planning, 1990 and 2000 Population Density per Square Mile for Maryland's Jurisdictions. Online. Available: http://www.mdp.state.md.us/MSDC/pop-Oens/den90-00.pdf. Accessed: March 30, 2003. Background Socioeconomic Information According to the 1997 Agricultural Census, there were in that year 12,084 fanns in operation in Maryland,2 of which 6,235 were operating full-time while the remaining 5,849 were operatingpart-time.3 The average net cash return per farm was $14,312 combining both the full-and part-time o~ons.4 Maryland has a 6:1 wban-to-rural population, a decline from 4:1in1990. This indicates a significant decline in persons living in urbanized areas. Land Character Maryland's land area is 9,775 square miles, or approximately 6,256,000 acres. In 1997 2,154,875 acres of this land remained in fanning, indicating that 34 percent ofthe state's land area was used for agriculture.6 According to the Center for Agriculture and Natural Resource Policy, the number offarms and farmland acreage in Maryland is cwrently on the decline. 7 Since 1980, farmland has disappeared from the central metropolitan counties (Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Howard, Montgomery, and Prince George's) at a rate of 2.1 percent annually, while agricultural land in the rest of the state declined at a rate of 1.0 percent annually. In contrast, the national average was a 0.05 percent annual decline. A loss of approximately 40,000 acres offarmland is expected by 2010,8 despite the fact that when combining the foundation's success with county-level programs, Maryland has the most preserved farmland in the United States.9 Growth Management History Maryland is considered very active in growth management and open space preservation. MAI.PF is just one of a number of open space programs operating at the state level. Other efforts to preserve open space include Program Open Space, the Rural Legacy program. and Green Print. Additionally, growth management goals were outlined in 1992 through the Maryland Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act. Smart Growth lePoslation enacted in the 1990s and early 2000s build on the ideals set forth in this Act. 0 Program Description Structure and Development In response to concerns about loss of farmland, the Maryland General Assembly established MALPF through the Agricultural Article, Sections 2-501 through 2-515, of the Annotated Code of Maryland, with the intention to ...preserve agricultural land and woodland in order to: provide sources of agricultural products within the State for the citizens of the State; control the urban expansion which is consuming the agricultural land and woodland of the State; curb the spread of urban blight and deterioration; and protect agricultural land and woodland as open­space land.11 When first created, the foundation attempted to achieve these goals by accepting easement donations. While donated easements were less costly for the state, it quickly became clear that a targeted incentive would be necessary for farmers to cede their development rights. In 1980, MALPF acquired its first purchased easements.12 Policy Since 1980, MALPF has utilized two basic tools in order to preserve agricultural land. These are the creation of agricultural preservation districts and the purchase of agricultural conservation easements. To create an agricultural preservation district, landowners must meet a series of requirements, including size, productivity, and locational criteria. There is a minimum district size; however a district can be owned by multiple property owners. Agricultural preservation districts can be established on land that is currently or has the capability for producing food or fiber or is a woodland. To ensure that prime farmland is being preserved, soils must be a minimum of 50 percent Class I, II, or ill and/or Woodlands Soils Class I or II according to the United States Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service Land Classification System, which assures proper drainage and future productivity. Generally, lands within a IO-year water and sewer service area are ineligible since these are areas where future development is planned. 13 Once a district is established, fand must be kept in agricultural use for five years and nonagricultural subdivision is not allowed. Landowners benefit by gaining the security of having farming acknowledged as the preferred use of the land. This bolsters a farmer's defense if a nuisance suit is brought against a farmer within an agricultural district. Additionally, some counties offer tax benefits to properties in agricultural districts.14 Creating an agricultural district is also the first step in the easement acquisition process. 15 When landowners participate in the purchase of development rights program, they voluntarily sell their right to develop a farm for nonagricultural uses. They forfeit the right to subdivide (with the exception of "tot lots" or lots reserved for each of the landowner's children, or subdivision with an agricultural purpose), the right to display billboards, and trash cannot be dumped on the property (except for that which is related to agricultural uses). A property owner is required to implement the soil and water conservation practices approved by the local soil conservation district, and the landowner must allow representatives to periodically inspect the property for compliance.16 MAI.PF's easement acquisition program is separated into two rounds of offers. The state makes round one offers ranked by the county-determined criteria. Round two offers are made by the state with any remaining funds and are based on ranking properties statewide by the landowners' willingness to discount. Because counties determine their own priorities in the program, the program can address the needs of individual counties, an important feature since there is a wide range of landscapes and different needs throughout the state.17 County administrators are responsible for monitoring 10 percent of the properties with MALPF conservation easements annually. The organizational location of the program demonstrates the way county officials view the program, and who they consider their target audience.18 For example, a county that places the program in its planning department may view agricultural land preservation as a land use issue, while one that locates the program in the economic development office might be more concerned with the role of farming in the county economy. Ha county places the program within an office of environmental affairs, it may view the program as a means to protect the environment. The goals of the program as defined by the statement of legislative intent in the annotated code include all of these issues, but at the county level, one aspect may be stressed more than another. Similarly, the location of MALPF in the state's Department of Agriculture and the practice that a majority of the board members are full-time or retired farmers suggests that the program is intended to primarily serve the farming community.19 In the 2000 legislative session, House Bill 740 created a task force to study MALPF and make recommendations to improve the program. The 18-member task force was commissioned to submit a report with its recommendations to Governor Parris Glendening Parrisand the General Assembly in December 2000; a second report was issued in August 2001. 20 According to Section 2-503 of the Maryland Annotated Code, MALPF is to be governed by a Board of Trustees composed of the state treasurer, the comptroller, the secretary of agriculture, and nine other members from the state at large, of which at least five must be farmer representatives from different regions of the state. One at-large member (who is not one of the five farmer representatives) must be from the Maryland Department of Planning. Of the five farmer representatives, the Maryland Agricultural Commission must nominate one, the Maryland Fann Bureau must nominate one, and the Maryland State Grange must nominate one. 21 The enabling legislation also requires that each participating county have an Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board appointed by the county governing body. Each board consists of five members, of which at least three earn 50 percent or more of their income from the operation their own commercial farms.22 Funding Funding for MALPF consists entirely of "special funds," derived principally from the state transfer tax. The state transfer tax is assessed on all real estate property transfers. After the state allocates long-term obligations, the foundation receives 14.5 percent of the remaining funds. Additional funding is provided by the agricultural transfer tax. This tax is assessed when farmland is converted to an alternative use. These funds are shared by the counties and the state. In FY 2001, MALPF collected and made $14.3 million available for easement purchase through the agricultural transfer tax and state transfer taxes. Some counties provide local matching funds, often derived from their share of the agricultural transfer tax. Matching funds totaled $6,606,115 in FY 2001. Other sources of funding included grants, donations, and reimbursements for acres released for lot exclusions. The Federal Farmland Protection Program provided $500,000 in funding for the year 2001. 23 · Because the budget depends on taxes assessed during the previous year, the economy affects the revenues received. For example, in 2000, the revenue allocated through the state transfer tax and the agricultural transfer tax amounted to $20,134,000. The following year, the two taxes only amounted to $14,300,000.24 This difference of $5,834,000 means that at an average cost of $1,683 per acre (the average cost of an acre in FY 2000), nearly 3,500 fewer acres could be purchased by MAI.PF. A poor fiscal year can discourage people from applying, given that only about 25 percent will receive offers.25 In FY 1991and1992, the program was unable to purchase any easements due to budget cuts. 26 Program Evaluation Program Outputs Performance is measured by the number of acres preserved, the number of easements acquired, and the per acre cost of acquisitions. Performance is also evaluated by the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Task Force, which has made several recommendations to improve the program's ability to achieve its goals. At the close of the year 2001, the foundation had a total of 2,927 farms enrolled in MALPF, preserving 382,987 acres. Of this district acreage, the foundation has either purchased or acquired the option to purchase perpetual preservation easements on 198,276 acres on 1,395 farms.27 Outcomes While Maryland has the most preserved farmland of any state at the close of FY 2001,28 it is apparent that the program is inhibited by a scarcity of funds. Each year about 75 percent of the applicants do not receive offers. According to a 1995 article, at an average price of $2,000 per acre, the program would need $116 million to cover all the offers, as opposed to the $10 million it had budgeted in 1995.29 One of MALPF's goals is to control urban expansion. When farmland is fragmented by new subdivisions, this causes conflicts between farmers and residential neighbors. To achieve the goal of protecting rural areas from development pressure, local zonin§ to support agriculture in areas where agriculture is encouraged is 3 necessary. This goal is further compromised by the competitive bidding component and a scarcity of funds. The competitive bidding component allows the foundation to purchase easements at a discounted value in the statewide round and during round one offers in a few counties. The foundation then has the ability to purchase a greater number of easements by prioritizing those that the landowners are most willing to discount. However, this means that the program ranks a large proportion of its properties based on the willingness to discount, rather than on the development pressures being experienced. In essence, one of the program's means for evaluating success also indicates a shortcoming in the policy. The task force has recommended establishing "Priority Preservation Areas" to concentrate funds in areas where agricultural preservation is most desired. By doing so, the local land use management authority would be given the tools to more effectively limit development.31 Another goal of the program is to keep farms productive. By placing too many restrictions on the land, the program can be obstructive to this goal. Counties need additional flexibility in the allowable land uses to encourage prospective applicants and to allow landowners with existing easements to generate additional farm income in a weak farm economy. The task force recommended modifications in the law to reflect the changing nature and condition of the agriculture industry.32 In 1974, the Committee on the Preservation ofAgricultural Landrecommended to the Maryland Secretary of Agriculture that an acreage goal be established for the program. Only in 2002 was a clear acreage goal established. While there is uncertainty about what exact amount of farmland constitutes the "critical ~.. that will ensure the continued viability of the farming industry in Maryland, the General Assembly set a goal of 1.02 million acres to be preserved by the state and COllllties by 2022. 1be task fon:e recommends a preservation goal of 500,000 acres for MALPF over the next 20 years. It will be necessary to raise $1.6 billion dollars in funding to achieve this goal, at an average per-acre cost of $2,000.33 'The legislative language that established the easement conditions states that development rights are sold in peq>etuity. There is a provision in the law that would allow a landowner to purchase his/her easement rights back after 25 years; however, stringent criteria are being developed in statute and regulation to make the repurchase option extremely difficult to exercise. Among these criteria would be the provision that profitable farming is no longer feasible on that tract of land34 1be first easements to reach this 25-year mark will do so in 2005. In evaluating MALPF's achievements in preserving open space. it must be viewed in the context of the variety of open space preservation programs available in Maryland The combined efforts of all state and county land preservation programs. parks. and federal and state lands have protected 1,181,971 acres of land MALJ>F is credited with 20.2 percent of this total.35 Some of these open space preservation programs include Program Open Space (POS), Rural Legacy, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and GreenPrint While each bas the common theme of "Open Space Preservation," the goals are quite different depending on the implementing agency as well as the legislative intent36 For example, POS and Rural Legacy are both implemented by the Department of Natural Resources. The Rural Legacy program is a grant program that facilitates the purchase of development rights in "Rural Legacy Areas." POS was established in 1969 to dedicate funds for parks and conservation areas. 'The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is also a PDR program administered by the Department ofNatural Resources' Forest. Wildlife and Heritage Services Division. This program purchases highly erodable lands, stream buffers, wetlands, etc., to buffer water resources. The goals of CREP differ from those of MALPF in that CREP can remove productive farmland from production to protect water quality, while the MAL.PF seeks to keep farmland actively in agriculture while using "Best Management Practices" to protect the environment MALPF and CREP are currently trying to address these fundamental differences to allow landowners to sell easements to both programs. 37 The differing goals ofeach program allow landowners who want to sell an easement to preserve open space a variety of options so they can chose a program that works best for their needs. The creation in 2000 of the task force to review MALPF in a changing fann economy is another indicator of success for the program. This recent effort shows that the program bas the flexibility to change to keep up with the needs of the cmICnt fann community and ultimately achieve program goals. As of the writing ofthis case study, bills have been intnxluced the General Assembly to change the legislation governing MALPF's policies. Recommendations that do not require legislative changes are being made by the MALPF Board of Trustees.38 Findings Virtually all of the staff and stakeholders interviewed or surveyed believe that the program has been very effective. The program administrators believe that the benefits of the program exceed the costs and that overall quality of life would be much worse in the state had the program not been adopted. The Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation has contributed significantly to the preservation of the agriculture industry in Maryland. In doing so, it has preserved vast amounts of open space, and it is evident that the rural character of Maryland has been preserved in much of the state. The creation of the task force in 2000 shows forward-thinking policies that, if enacted, have the potential to strengthen what is already one of the most successful farmland preservation programs in the nation. Notes 1 Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MAL.PF), ''Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Annual Report Year 2001," Annapolis, MD, page l. 2001. 2 Maryland Department of Agriculture, Maryland Census ofAgriculture Count ofFarms. Online. Available: http://www.mda.state.md.us/agstats/lhtm.htm. Accessed: February 25, 2003. 3 Maryland Department of Agriculture, Comparison ofFull-Time and Part-Time Farming 1997. Online. Available: http://www.mda.state.md.us/agstats/9htni.htm. Accessed: February 24, 2003. 4 Maryland Department of Agriculture, Net Cash Retumfrom Agricultural Sales. Online. Available: http://www.mda.state.md.us/agstats/2htm.htm. Accessed: February 24, 2003. 5 U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Summary Tape File 1 (STF 1 ). Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DITable?_ts=64190587590. Accessed: February 24, 2003. 6 Maryland Department of Agriculture, Land Use 1997. Online. Available: http://www.mda.state.md.us/agstats/5htm.htm. Accessed: February 24, 2003. 7 Center for Agricultural and Natural Resource Policy at the University of Maryland, Economic Situation and Prospects for Maryland Agriculture, Policy Analysis Report No. 02-01, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (2001). p vii. 8 Ibid. p x. 9 MALPF, ''Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Annual Report Year 2001," p 1. 10 Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, State Growth Management and Open Space Preservation Policies, Policy Research Project Report Series, no. 143 (Austin, TX, 2002). 11 Maryland Annotated Code, Agricultural Article, Sections 2-501through2-515. Online. Available: Lexis Nexus Academic Universe, http:/1198.187 .128.12/maryland/lpext.dll ?f=templates&fn=fs­main.htm&2.0. Accessed: January 11, 2003. 12 Interview by Ellen Wilmer with James Conrad, Director, MALPF, Annapolis, Maryland, December 20, 2002. 13 Maryland Department of Agriculture, MALPF, Fact Sheet One. Online. Available: http://www.co.worcester.md.us/Agfactl.htm. Accessed: November 10, 2002. 14 Email from James Conrad, Director, MALPF, to Ellen Wilmer, February 25, 2003. 15 Maryland Department of Agriculture, MALPF, Fact Sheet One (online). 16 Maryland Department of Agriculture, MALPF, Fact Sheet Two. (Online). Available: http://www.co.worcester.md.us/Ag%20Preservation/agFACT2.htm. Accessed: November 10, 2002. 17 Conrad interview. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 MALPF, "Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Annual Report Year 2000," Annapolis, MD, 2000, page 9. 21 Maryland Annotated Code, Agricultural Article, Sections 2-501through2-515. 22 Ibid. 23 MALPF, ''Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Annual Report Year 2001," page l. 24 Ibid. 25 Conrad interview. 26 Associated Press, "Preservation Group Adds to Farmland List; Maryland Foundation Enrolls 9,700 Acres," Washington Post (February 18, 1995). 27 MALPF, "Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Annual Report Year 2001," p 1. 28 Ibid. 29 Associated Press, "Preservation Group Adds to Farmland List; Maryland Foundation Enrolls 9,700 Acres," page not available. 30 MALPF Task Force, "Report of the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Task Force" prepared for Governor Parris N. Glendening and the Maryland General Assembly, 2001, p 14. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 248 . 34 Maryland Department of Agriculture, MALPF, Fact Sheet Two (online). 35 Comad email ''The Big Picture," MALPF, Annapolis, MD, n.d. (unpublished document). 36 Comad interview. 37 MALPF, ''Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Annual Report Year 2000." P. 6. 38 Comad email. Land area in souare miles 495 9,775 Protected onen space in acres 56,700 198,276 Density in nersons ner souare mile (2000) 1,764 541 Percentage of single-family detached housing units 59 58 Percentage of housing units in multifamily dwellinl!S 18 23 Transportation Data Mean travel time to work (in minutes) 32.8 31.2 Average vehicle miles traveled (2000) Percentage of population that drives alone to work (2000) 68 74 Appendix 3.14-Montgomery County Farmland Preservation An analysis of farmland preservation in the Agricultural Reserve. Table 1 Population (2000) 873,341 5,296,486 Population (1960) 340,928 3,100,689 Percent change in population, 1960-2000 156 70 Urban population (2000) 848,752 4,558,668 Rural J>Opulation (2000) 24,589 737,818 Ratio of urban to rural (2000) 35:1 6:1 Land Use Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary Files. Onhne. Avallable: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: March 30, 2003; 1990 and 2000 Population Density per Square Mile for Maryland's Jurisdictions. Online. Available: http://www.mdp.state.md.us/MSDC/pop-dens/den90-00.pdf. Accessed: March 30, 2003; Population of Maryland's Regions and Jurisdictions. Online. Available: http://www.op.state.rod. uslmsdc/census/Historical_ Censuslhistcens.xls. Accessed: March 30, 2003. Montgomery County, Maryland, adopted a comprehensive land use plan in 1964 that called for growth to be concentrated in corridors. Between each corridor would be a "wedge" of green space that, among other things, would protect agriculture and its associated industries. Since that time, a variety of tools, including agricultural zoning, purchase of development rights (PDR), transfer of development rights (TDR), and tax incentives, have been used collaboratively to preserve farms and the rural quality of Montgomery County. As of January 2003, 93,000 acres make up the Agricultural Reserve, where rural zoning protects the character of the area. Conservation and agricultural easements go further to permanently preserve 56,750 acres within the reserve. Background Socioeconomic Information In 2000, Montgomery County, Maryland, was one of the most densely populated counties in Maryland.1 The population of Montgomery County grew significantly from 340,928 in 1960 to 873,341in2000.2 The farming industry in Montgomery County collectively contributes over $350 million to the county's economy, indicating that a viable farm industry continues despite significant growth pressure. 3 Land Character · The land area of Montgomery County covers about 495 square miles (316,800 acres). Of this acreage, 93,000 acres make up the Agricultural Reserve, where a variety of farmland preservation tools are combined in an attempt to protect the area. 4 In 2003, there are 89,181 acres of farms in Montgomery County, most of which are situated within the Agricultural Reserve. In 1987, there were 103,377 acres of farmland in the county, showing a decline of approximately 25 percent by 2003. According to the 1997 Agricultural Census, there were 526 farms in Montgomery County,5 representing a decline in farms of 21.4 percent since 1987.6 Within the Agricultural Reserve, groundwater quality is a major concern. In 1998, an EPA study declared the Piedmont Aquifer a "sole source aquifer." The Piedmont Aquifer Oversight Commission oversees issues related to the aquifer. Other environmental concerns in the Agricultural Reserve relate to an incinerator, landfill, and 7,700-acre compost facility.7 Growth Management History Montgomery County is acknowledged as having thoughtful, long-term policies for growth and land use.8 An agenda was established by The Mass Transportation Survey Report (1959) andA Policies Plan for the Year 2000 (1961).9 In 1961, the Wedges and Corridors Plan was conceptualized in A Policies Plan for the Year 2000, a plan proposed by the National Capital Planning Commission and the National Capital Regional Planning Council. The original plan for the entire Washington, D.C., area called for a center of dense urban growth with six linear areas of preferred development radiating out from the center along transportation corridors, like spokes on a wheel. Between the spokes were to be the ''wedges," areas reserved for rural uses.10 This plan was virtually abandoned in the region, with the exception of Montgomery County, having never been adopted in most areas, and was abandoned in Prince George's County within a few years of its adoption there. On Wedges and Corridors: A General Plan for the Maryland-Washington Regional District in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties was adopted in 1964. The 1969 General Plan Update was a revision to the 1964 plan. Between 1964 and 1969, Prince George's County removed itself from this regional planning effort. In 1993, The Approved andAdopted General Plan Refinement ofthe Goals and Objectives for Montgomery County was added as an amendment to the general plan to endorse the wedges and corridors concept as the model of development for Montgomery County and also to reevaluate the goals of the plan. On Wedges and Corridors (1964) was deemed necessary in response to the rapid population growth the region was experiencing. The county council during this period was perceptive to the potential effects of this kind of unplanned growth, and the effects it might have on "quality of life" in this highly desirable area. 11 Program Description Structure and Development The general plan provides a loose framework for land use, growth management, and resource management for Montgomery County. It is the top tier in a hierarchy of more detailed plans that individually focus on a more specific geographical area. These more specific flans are usually shorter in scope and are updated more frequently than the general plan. 1 Master plans, sector plans, and functional plans are the means by which a general plan is implemented. These plans are adopted as amendments to the general plan and are required to conform to it.13 The general plan's recommendations for development in the wedges has four main principles. These are to make the urban pattern efficient, to provide open space for recreational purposes in large expanses, to provide an environment cohesive to productive rural industries being carried out, and to conserve natural resources and protect the water supply. 14 The general plan does not specify how the goals should be implemented; however, The Functional Master Plan for the Preservation ofAgriculture and Rural Open Space in Montgomery County, adopted in 1980 develops the policy and provides recommendations for more specific agricultural and rural open space preservation alternatives. 15 Policy Montgomery County owes much of its success to the multiple tools being used in tandem to preserve the rural character of the area. The variety of options offered to those landowners who want to protect their land ensures that the needs of each landowner are met. With the exception of rural zoning, the variety of easement programs available allows the landowner to choose an option that is right for him or her. For example, a conservation easement would be preferable for someone wanting to protect the environment or the viewshed, while an agricultural easement would be preferable to someone who wants to keep a viable farm in production. Rural Zoning In 1973, Montgomery County established a Rural Zone requiring a minimum 5­acre lot size. This rural zoning proved too lenient, and Montgomery County lost 12,268 acres of farmland between 1973 and 1979.16 In 1980, The Functional Master Plan for the Preservation ofAgriculture and Rural Open Space in Montgomery County was adopted by the county council, 17 requiring 25 acres per dwelling unit. The plan also created the Agricultural Reserve, which expanded the boundaries of the Rural Zone from 80,000 acres to 93,000 acres. 18 Transfer ofDevelopment Rights (TDR) Montgomery County's transfer of development rights (TOR) program was developed at the same time as the rezoning for the Agricultural Reserve. It was a method to compensate property owners for lost land value within the reserve. Property owners in the reserve could sell their development rights to developers interested in building at higher densities than would usually be allowed in designated receiving areas where higher densities are appropriate.19 In this way, TDR primarily functions in the private market. For TDR to be successful, there must be a high demand for development in the receiving areas. Over 42,000 acres of land in the Agricultural Reserve have been permanently protected using the TDR program.20 Purchase ofDevelopment Rights (PDR)/Conservation Easements Easement acquisition programs are also in place to purchase development rights from landowners. PDR programs function in a similar manner as TDR, but the land is purchased primarily by a government agency. PDR relies heavily on government funding, rather than relying on the private market. There are a variety of PDR programs available to landowners in the Agricultural Reserve. The Rural Legacy Program (RLP) is a statewide program administered through the Department of Natural Resources and coordinated at the county level by the Agricultural Services Department. RLP purchases conservation easements in targeted areas and has protected 3,386 acres in the Agricultural Reserve. The Montgomery County Agricultural Easement Program (AEP) is the county's agricultural easement purchasing program. It is administered by the County Agricultural Services Department and has protected 6,678 acres of farmland. The Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) is a statewide agricultural easement program administered by the Department of Agriculture and is also coordinated at the county level. MALPF has protected 2,529 acres of farmland in Montgomery County, with the county providing matching funds to achieve this end. 21 Easement Donation The Maryland Environmental Trust (MET) is a nonprofit organization that accepts easement donations. Easement donations offer a state income tax credit as well as a federal income tax deduction. Conservation easements donated to MET have protected 2,086 acres. Like RLP, MET easements do not require farming to continue on the property. 22 Funding Each of the various agencies has its own funding sources. RLP is funded primarily through Program Open Space (POS) funds that are derived from the state transfer tax. The state transfer tax is assessed on all real estate transactions. MALPF is also funded in part by the state transfer tax as well as the agricultural transfer tax, which is assessed when agricultural land is sold and developed for other uses. Montgomery County's AEP is funded primarily by the portion of the agricultural transfer tax that it retains and investment income generated by general obligation bonds. Federal farmland protection funds are also obtained; however, the proportion of federal funds involved are unsubstantial when compared to the funds provided by the county and state. 23 Program Evaluation Program Outputs Farming continues to be a viable industry in Montgomery County, Maryland, with over 526 farms in operation and 350 horticultural businesses contributing $350 million to the ~state product.24 Their viability is, in part. owed to the variety ofprograms offered to landowners to assist them in maintaining productive fanm.. Simultaneously. those who are not interested in farming but who do want to preserve the rural character ofthe area also have many preservation options available to them. These collective programs have been very successful in Montgomery County. 1be most obvious way that s~is measmcd is by looking at the numbers ofacres protected and preserved. Rural zoning protects the entire 93,000 acres ofthe Agricultural Reserve. at a zoning of one unit per 25 acres. Preservation ofland occms when the right to develop it at any density is sold, transferred, or donated in perpetuity. In Montgomery County's Agricultural Reserve. the preserved acreage can be illustrated by program (fable 2). Table2 -.Raerft ~ofAas Pluu•ed U7I 2,52' 421171 3.,.186 ·-2,816 Ootmmes As stated earlier, the goals set up by the Wedges and Corridors Plan were to create an efficient wban space. provide recreational opportunities that were aa;es.gble. maintain open space in large expanses. create an environment conducive to productive fanning. and protect water quality and natural resources. The variety ofprograms used in the county make the overall accomplishment of these goals a success. with only a few w~. Montgomery County bas an average population density of 1,764 persons per square mile. which is the second-highest density by county in the state ofMaryland. At the same time. there are 93,000 acres ofland zoned rural, totaling almost a tbiid of the county's land area. demonstrating an extremely efficient use of space. 1be TDR program owes much ofits success to its reliance on the market rather than dependence on funds from a government agency. A recent study has revealed social equity shortcomings within the IDR program set up by The Functional Master Plan/or the PreseTVahon ofAgriculture and Rural Open Space in Montgomery County. 25 'These social equity issues include the notion that transferring the IDRs to receiving areas already experiencing a high rate of growth places even greater stresses on the receiving areas. When the demand for IDRs declines. the price also declined.26 Farmland owners. who view the program as compensatory for downzoning. believe the county should revive the TDR market by increasing the number of receiving areas. However. the demand for TDRs had increased substantially in the six-month period during which this research was conducted. They have now doubled in price from $7,500 per IDR to $15,000 per TDR.n TDRscheme 5 TDRs r 25 acres 20TDRs The TDR program was adopted as compensation for lost land value in conjunction with the downzoning from one unit per 5 acres to one unit per 25 acres. A criticism of the TDR is a situation commonly referred to as the "5th TDR." A discrepancy exists between the number of development rights per 25 acres and the number of dwellings allowed under rural zoning. Each 25 acres carries five development rights, even though only one dwelling could be built per 25 acres under the current zoning scheme. For example, if a landowner had 100 acres of land before the downzoning, they could build 20 units on it, or one unit per five acres. After the downzoning, the same 100 acres of land can yield only four units. However, there are five development rights associated with each 25 acres, totaling 20 development rights for this same 100-acre farm. Iflandowners were inclined, they could sell 16 of their 20 development rights and build four dwelling units, which is the same as what current zoning allows (Table 3).28 While this characteristic of the TDR program is often criticized, there are certainly strengths to it as well. Agricultural zoning is the least protective of all the tools used. Zoning is fairly easy to change; however, once a TDR is transferred, the density is locked in regardless of zoning changes. The TDR program has also been criticized for inequitable processes in receiving areas. Many development rights are transferred to a few areas, causing inadequacies in public services. The result is unplanned growth in these areas. This inequity is further demonstrated by the allowance of TDRs in two areas with development moratoria. Development moratoria are enacted when a planning entity sees an extreme need to slow or hinder development in an area with insufficient infrastructure. 29 Other equity issues include process equity, defined as opportunities for participation in the development of the program. While farmland owners felt that they had been involved in the process, receiving area communities felt that they had been left out of the process. 30 The source of funds is an important factor to examine in comparing the TDR program and the PDR programs. The TDR program has preserved three times as much land as the PDR programs combined, and it also does not require the state and county to supply the funds to purchase the development rights. The equity issues that result from the TDR program are absent in the PDR programs because the state absorbs the costs, and fewer externalities result. The staff and stakeholders interviewed or surveyed believe that the program has been very effective. The program administrators believes that the benefits of the program exceed the costs and that the overall quality of life would be much worse in the region had the program not been adopted. Some members of the farming community feel that stronger regulations are necessary to retain the rural character of the area; however, they agree with program administrators that the county was much more successful at preserving farmland than the counties surrounding Montgomery. Findings In conclusion, the variety of programs at work in Montgomery County have created an area where the rural nature is preserved and a viable farming community thrives. There are costs associated with the TDR program; however the TDR program has preserved an impressive amount of acreage and operates at a very small cost to the county. The main factor that has created this successful region is the variety of programs, which allows landowners to chose an option that works best for their needs while promoting the broader goals of agricultural land preservation. Notes 1 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, SF-1 Data. Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SFl_U_GCTPHlR_ST2S_geo_id=04000U S24.html. Accessed: January 27, 2003. 2 Maryland's Historic Census, "The Population of Maryland's Regions and Jurisdictions" database. Online. Available: http://www.op.state.md.us/msdc/census/histcens.xls. Accessed: January 12, 2003. 3 Montgomery County Agricultural Services, Ag Initiatives. Online. Available: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/siteHead.asp?page=/content/ded/AgServices/aginitiatives.html. Accessed: January 27, 2003. 4 Maryland State Data Center, Number ofFarms in Maryland and Its Jurisdictions. Online. Available: http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/Cen_Agri/parcel97.pdf. Accessed: January 27, 2003. sThis represents traditional horticultural farms. Equine farms are not included. 6 Maryland State Data Center, Acres ofLand in Farms in Maryland and Its Jurisdictions. Online. Available: http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/Cen_Agri/acre97 .pdf. Accessed: January 27, 2003. 7 Interview by Ellen Wilmer with Dolores Milmo, Maryland Conservation Associate, Montgomery County, Maryland, December 18, 2002. 8 Kaid F. Benfield, Jutlca Terris, and Nancy Vorsanger, Solving Sprawl: Models ofSmart Growth in Communities across America (National Resources Defense Council, 2001). Online. Available: http://www.nrdc.org/cities/smartGrowth/solve/mont.asp. Accessed: January 17, 2003. 9 The Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission, On Wedges and Corridors: A General Plan for Montgomery and Prince George's Counties (online). 10 Montgomery County General Plans, I993 Supplemental Fact Sheet. Online. Available: http://www.mc­mncppc.org/community/general_plans/supplement_fact93/supplement_fact1993.shtm. Accessed: January 17, 2003. 11 The Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission, On Wedges and Corridors: A General Plan for Montgomery and Prince George's Counties (online). 12 The Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission, The Approved and Adopted General Plan Refinement ofthe Goals and Objectives for Montgomery County (1993). Online. Available: http://www.mc­mncppc.org/community/general_plans/general_plan_refinementl 993/gen_plan_refinement1993.shtm. Accessed: December 10, 2002. 13 Ibid. 14 The Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission, On Wedges and Corridors: A General Plan for Montgomery and Prince George's Counties (online). 15 The Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission, The Functional Master Plan for the Preservation ofAgriculture and Rural Open Space in Montgomery County (1980). Online. Available: http://www.mc­mncppc.org/community/plan_areaslrural_area/master_plans/ag_openspace/toc_ag_open80.shtm Accessed: March 27, 2003. 16 Benfield, et al., Solving Sprawl: Models of Smart Growth in Communities across America (online). 17 The Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission, The Functional Master Plan for the Preservation ofAgriculture and Rural Open Space in Montgomery County (online). 18 Benfield, et al., Solving Sprawl: Models ofSmart Growth in Communities across America ( online ). 19 Ibid. 20 Montgomery County Agricultural Services, Ag Facts. Online. Available: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/siteHead.asp?page=/content/ded/index.htm. Accessed: January 27, 2003. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Telephone interview by Ellen Wilmer with John Zawitowski, Director of Planning and Promotions, Agricultural Services Division, Department of Economic Development, Montgomery County, Maryland, February 21, 2003. 24 Montgomery County Agricultural Services, Ag Facts (online). 25 The Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission, The Functional. Master Plan for the Preservation ofAgriculture and Rural Open Space in Montgomery County (online). 26 James R. Cohen and Ilana Preuss, "An Analysis of Social Equity Issues in the Montgomeiy County (MD) Transfer of Development Rights Program" (2002). Online. Available: http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/research!TDRequity.text.pdf. Accessed: January 13, 2003. 27 Correspondence from John Zawitowski, Director of Planning and Promotions. Agricultural Services Division, Department of Economic Development, Montgomery County, Maryland. to Ellen Wilmer. March 20, 2003. 28 Cohen and Preuss, "An Analysis of Social Equity Issues in the Montgomeiy County (MD) Transfer of Development Rights Program" (online). 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. Appendix 3.15-Upper Mississippi American Heritage River Initiative A program administered by the federal Council on Environmental Quality. The American River Heritage Initiative (AHRI) is a federal initiative beginning in 1998 and administered by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Local River Navigators facilitate the initiative. The AHRI assists community efforts to find and use federal programs for economic development as well as environmental and · cultural preservation along 14 rivers in the United States. Specifically, this evaluation focuses on the activities related to the AHRI within the metropolitan areas of Minneapolis and Saint Paul (also known as the Twin Cities) Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The area includes 58 communities and 1,200 miles of river; however, this case focuses on the 18 communities. The federal initiative has a small budget that, while limiting funding sensitivity to political shifts also limits its actions. However, the Upper Mississippi AHRI is effective in enhancing communication between agencies. Table 1.a Population Data for the Twin Qties MSA 1980 1990 2000 Population 2,113,533 2,464,124 2,929,382 Percent of oooulation increase over past ten years 5.9 8.5 15.4 Percent of population below povertv line 6.8 8 17 Unemployment rate NIA 4.6 2.6 Median income NIA 36,565 47,111 Median a£e 29 29 32 Table 1.b Land Use Data for the Twin Gties MSA TwinGties State of Land use MSA MN U.S. Percent of population increase from 1990 to 2000 16.9 9 10 A vera2e vehicle miles traveled oer day (2000) 33 0 0 People per square mile (2000) 2,643 125 76 Unemolovment rate (2003) 2.6 2.1 5.7 4.5 Amountofdebt(2003) 100 million billion 6 trillion Sprawl ranking among 250 similarly sized MSAs (2001) 127 NIA NIA Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, The 1990 and 2000 Census. Online. Available: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. Accessed: February 21, 2003.1 259 Background Land Character The land in the Upper Mississippi American Heritage River Initiative (AHRI) region varies in composition and ecological sensitivity, and is affected by population and suburban growth. The Upper Mississippi River runs through the Twin Cities MSA, and contains wetlands, farmlands, and suburban and urban areas. Over 60 percent of the land is nonurban, consisting of farmlands and suburban communities. Slightly less than 40 percent of the land is urban, consisting of residential single-and multi-family homes, commercial and industrial land, and open water bodies. 2 In the Twin Cities trails, parks, pedestrian and automotive bridges, and remnants of old flour mills are found along stretches of riverfront. Growth Management History Former mayors of the Twin Cities and former governors of Minnesota promoted Smart Growth, but the current mayors and governor face serious budget constraints because of homeland security, the economic slump, and public debt. In addition to diminished resources, Tim Pawlenty, the governor as of 2003, does not favor Smart Growth. An action taken by Governor Pawlenty before he officially assumed office suggests that he does not consider smart growth a priority, or suggests that he does not support the current regional planning governmental agency, the Metropolitan Council (MC). He requested that the council postpone voting on a long-term regional growth plan called "Blueprint 2030" that had been developed over the previous two years with substantial public participation. Pawlenty wanted the new members of the MC, who he would appoint shortly, to consider the plan.3 This attitude toward growth management suggests that organizations involved with AHR.I may face political challenges. Prior to Governor Pawlenty, Governor Jesse Ventura did much to facilitate communications between agencies dealing with growth management and open space preservation; he passed several laws that integrated the issues of property tax distributions, new affordable housing units, and environmental and cultural protection into the overall growth goals for the state. In 1999, Governor Ventura endorsed ten Smart Growth principles for Minnesota cooperatively prepared by 40 Smart Growth advocacy organizations.4 These advocacy groups exist in many sectors, including neighborhood associations, public and private nonprofit organizations, and municipal and regional governmental agencies. 5 Private corporations are not credited as being leaders in growth management. Two oft-mentioned leading growth management organizations in the area are the MC created in 1967 and the Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, a private nonprofit organization created in 1984 that represents developers and new urbanism interests. Both organizations, and hundreds of others, were involved in nominating the Upper Mississippi River as a designated American Heritage River. Prior to the federal AHR.I designation, many other programs attempted to protect the Upper Mississippi from ecologically and economically harmful development. The portion of the river running through the Twin Cities is overseen by the National Park Service and has been known as the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) since 1988.6 Additionally, many communities in the MNRRA corridor, including Minneapolis and Saint Paul, have been redeveloping sections of both riverbanks. Another program predating the AHR.I designation is the Mississippi River Trail Initiative, which aims to connect the Twin Cities to New Orleans by biking and walking trails. This initiative has been in progress since 1998. Lastly, the MC has many active growth management programs preceding the AHRI. Program Description Structure and Development The AHRI was implemented in 1997 by President William Clinton through Executive Order 13061.7 One year later 14 rivers received American Heritage River designations, including the Upper Mississippi. The timing of the designation complemented recently enacted state legislation. In 1995 the Livable Communities Act and the Sustainable Development Act were passed. These state laws focused primarily, but not exclusively, on facilitating communication between state agencies routinely dealing with growth management, environmental quality, affordable housing and cultural preservation issues.8 The AHRI has three tenets: natural resource and environment protection; economic revitalization; and historical and cultural preservation. The goals of the AHRI and Minnesota growth management legislation were compatible. Additionally, the resulting infrastructure developing from the state's new laws could be used by Upper Mississippi AHRI participants. The process of nominating the Upper Mississippi River for a heritage designation facilitated communication between the 68 riverfront communities and organizations that participated in the nomination process.9 So many groups participated in the nomination process because development and redevelopment projects along the riverfront using the principles of Smart Growth were occurring in multiple counties. Groups saw a need for coordination, and it was believed that the AHRI represented a means to facilitate cooperation and communication between organizations. It was also believed that the technical expertise provided by the River Navigator would help existing projects and encourage new projects. Applicants were aware that the initiative offered no new funding, but hoped that the designation would help to secure other federal funds and cut red tape.10 Originally, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) planned to designate only ten rivers, but it eventually accepted 14 rivers into the initiative.11 Groups advocating on behalf of over 126 rivers in 46 states and the District of Columbia applied for the designation. The proposal to nominate the Upper Mississippi for American Heritage River status originally involved applications for four separate areas. One area contained rural communities north of the Twin Cities, another area contained rural communities south of the Twin Cities, a third area was the Twin Cities itself, and the last area was the Quad Cities, an interstate urban region of Minnesota, Missouri, Illinois, and Iowa. The CEQ suggested consolidating these proposals together to form the Upper Mississippi portion of the initiative, and President Clinton, making the official and final decision, concurred.12 Policy Executive Order 13061 states that each American Heritage River will be provided with a minimum of one River Navi~,who acts as an intermediary between communities and federal agencies.1 The Upper Mississippi designation bas a single River Navigator, as is the case with all designations. The navigator provides assistance in identifying relevant federal grant programs and providing infonnation to federal agencies that administer grants. Communities that nominatro the river provide supplemental support to the initiative, because one navigator cannot coordinate such a large and varied region. When the initiative began, the River Navigator met with all organizations along the Upper Mississippi that participated in the application process. In these meetings, organizations shared the results ofpast projects as well as current goals and plans. As a result ofthese meetings, Twin Cities MSA organizations created a steering committee to take advantage of the AHRI designation. The committee has representatives from varying areas and interests, including regions both downstream and upstream ofMinneapolis and Saint Paul. Governmental agencies representing various county, regional, and state organizations also have seats on the committee. Topical interests are also represented, some of which include public education, historical and cultural groups, and economic revitalization. Working groups organized from the steering committee focused on setting agendas such as brownfield redevelopment and trail projects for green space and community uses.14 Many nonprofit organizations and advocacy groups formed partnerships and community networks through AHRI working groups. Funding The AHRI has no formal budget and all 14 River Navigators and their superiors in the CEQ are borrowed from other federal agencies.15 The Upper Mismssippi River Navigator receives his salary from the U.S. Army ofCorps ofF.ngine.ers. Other navigators receive salaries from the F.nvironmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as other agencies. The agency chosen to provide an employee to oversee a particular designation depends on the needs ofthe communities involved; in the case of the Upper Mississippi, the Anny Corps ofEngineers made sense because it had done extensive survey wOik along the Mississippi River and was familiar with its ecological and cultural resources.16 River Navigators often have responsibilities outside of AHRI. During the first two years ofthe initiative approximately 80 percent of the Upper Mississippi River Navigator's time was spent on AHRL but from years 2000 to 2003, closer to 30 percent oftheir time was spent onAHR111 The informal nature of the budget can in part be attributed to the controversy surrounding the signing ofExecutive Order 13061. Some said President Clinton bypassed the legislative budget process by signing such an order.18 A lawsuit was filed by four members of Congress who considered the action tantamount to a federal takeover. Although the case was not successful, resident communities and conservative groups remained skeptical of the federal government's intentions with Executive Order 13061.19 In addition to the salaries of the River Navigators, funds are required for annual and biannual conferences. The designated river chosen to host a conference receives a great deal of attention and has the opportunity to present and justify work completed along its riverfront. As of 2003, the conference had not yet met in the Upper Mississippi region. Most funds for these conferences come from the designated host community. Federal agencies provide transportation funds to their employees and occasionally to individuals directly from the community with assistance from private, public, or nonprofit partners playing a lead role in implementation of the initiative.20 Program Evaluation Program Outputs Although the Upper Mississippi AHRI is not credited for completing any of its own projects as of 2003, the initiative is credited with increasing momentum, awareness, and coordination as organizations plan and complete their own projects.21 One such project, which focused on reforestation, resulted in the planting of thousands of trees, shrubs, and wildflowers on 50 acres of prairie along the river. This project was facilitated by a partner of the Upper Mississippi AHRI called the Greening the Great River, one of many organizations that was involved in the region's AHRI application. Another such initiative, which has focused on housing construction, has 3,000 units completed or under construction in central downtown Minneapolis. Again, this initiative was facilitated by AHRI partners. Although the units are intended for both rental and ownership, none of these units is classified as affordable. A third project, which focuses on a historical riverfront park, showcases old mill ruins that were exposed by an archeological excavation. Construction of an adjacent museum that will be an interpretative center for the park is underway.22 The enhanced communications among organizations involved in the Upper Mississippi AHRI are credited for leveraging funding for projects. Funding was leveraged in two ways. First, organizations receiving grants that required a funding match could fulfill the requirement by joining with another organization involved with the project that had its own funding. Second, if an AHRI partner discovers a new funding source not meeting its own objectives but meeting those of another partner's, information about the new funding would be shared. These two funding leveraging efforts have decreased competition for identical funding sources, facilitated timely completion of projects, and also decreased duplication of labor.23 Outside of projects facilitated by AHRI partners, the initiative has produced few results. Enhanced communication and cooperation between organizations, which was expected by interviewees as a result of the initiative, has not been long-lasting. In the beginning, the River Navigator compiled an electronic newsletter for participants. Several participants stated that they had not received a newsletter in some time. The meetings arranged by the River Navigator, which were intended to bring similarly focused organizations together by sharing goals and programs, have occurred with less frequency in recent years.24 The interviewees, however, recognize the information shared in earlier meetings as quite valuable. They now claim to have a larger vision of what needs to accomplished in order to revitalize riverfront development both economically and culturally.25 An additional shortcoming is a failure to meet fund leveraging expectations. Interviewees' expectations concerning the use of American Heritage River status to leverage funding from other federal programs have not been met. Program Sensitivity to Changes in Environment The piecemeal nature of the AHR.I budget can be interpreted both positively and negatively. The initiative cannot easily be blamed for spending public money capriciously, since its employees come from multiple federal agencies. This makes the initiative less vulnerable to political shifts that might jeopardize its funding. However, the informal budget spread among multiple federal agencies limits the potential effectiveness of the initiative. The fact that the Upper Mississippi River Navigator receives his salary from the Army Corps of Engineers, rather than directly from the CEQ deserves analysis. Historically, the corps has not focused on environmental and cultural preservation, but rather on dam construction, mapping, and mitigating damage to communities caused by flooding or other environmental traumas. Since environmental issues have become a greater public concern, however, the corps has undertaken projects along the Upper Mississippi to improve the river, such as controlled burnings of prairies lining the shore and shoreline preservation efforts. Nonetheless, the 14 River Navigators can potentially have mixed allegiances simply as a result of the initiative's funding structure. Outcomes Two major local outcomes exist. First, in part because an inter-heritage river conference has yet to meet in the Twin Cities MSA, the Upper Mississippi AHRI is organizing an event called Grand Excursion 2004. 26 The event is a collaboration of 40 cities and 15 regional organizations showcasing the $3 billion worth of economic and environmental improvements that have occurred along the Upper Mississippi. The capstone event is a 1,200-person steamboat ride from the Quad Cities to the Twin Cities, a recreation of an event that originally occurred in 1854 when the first railroad connecting the East Coast to the Mississippi River was celebrated. The second outcome resulting directly from the Upper Mississippi AHR.I is a program called Bridging the River that was administered by the University of Minnesota.27 Bridging the River was created as a complement to the Upper Mississippi AHR.I. Although this program ceased operation in 2001, it achieved several results. It helped the Minnesota Land Trust continue its mission of protecting high-quality agricultural and environmentally sensitive land. 28 The program also collected data on the Twin Cities MSA physical attributes. Findings Individuals involved in the nomination process credit this experience with giving them a broader picture of what is necessary to combat sprawl. Individuals also realized that organizations needed to begin working together and stop competing for the same resources. Notes 1 Additional Sources for Table 1: Dave Senf, ''Understanding our Economy: Lifecycles of Economic Slowdowns," The Minnesota Work Force Center System. Online. Available: http://www/mnwfc.org/lmi.trends/jun01/und2.htm. Accessed: February 21, 2003; Minnesota Planning, Minnesota Milestones: Measures that Matter. Online. Available: http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/mm/indicator/btml?ld=57. Accessed: February 21, 2003; The Metropolitan Council, Regional Statistics and Data. Online. Available: http://www.metrocouncil.org/metroarea/stats.btm. Accessed: February 21, 2003; Haya El Nasser and Paul Overburg, "A Comprehensive Look at Sprawl in America," USA Today (February 22, 2001). Online. Available: http://usatoday.com/news/sprawl/main.htm. Accessed: February 21, 2003; Smart Growth America, Index ofSprawl. Online. Available: http://smartgrowthamerica.com/sprawlindex/sprawlindex.btml. Accessed: February 21, 2003. 2 The Metropolitan Council, Land Use in Acres. Online. Available: http://www.metrocouncil.org/metroarea/stat_prof.pdf. Accessed: February 21, 2003. 3 David Peterson, ''Pawlenty Wants Met Council to Put Blueprint 2030 on Hold," Minneapolis Star Tribune (December 10, 2002). Online. Available: http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3521530.html. Accessed: December 22, 2003. 4 1000 Friends of Minnesota, Top Smart Growth Principles for Minnesota. Online. Available: http://www.lOOOfom.org/principles_of_sg.htm. Accessed: January 1, 2003. s Seven individuals involved with the AHRI were interviewed by Rebecca Epstein personally or by telephone in Minneapolis and Saint Paul from January 6 to January 10, 2003. Some were involved in implementing and facilitating the initiative, others worked for nonprofit organizations affected by the initiatives, and still others looked at the Upper Mississippi AHRI from an academic perspective. 6 Mississippi River Coordinating Commission and National Park Service, Comprehensive Management Plan, (Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior, 1994), p. iii. 7 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Executive Order 13061: Federal Support of Community Efforts Along American Heritage Rivers (September 11, 1997). Online. Available: http://www.epa.gov/rivers/eo13061.html. Accessed: January 3, 2003. 8 Minnesota Statutes, 2001, chapter 473, section .25 to .252. Online. Available: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/473/25.btml. Accessed January 2, 2003. 9 Upper Mississippi Communities, American Heritage Rivers Nomination Packet Application. Online. Available: http://www.epa.gov/rivers/plan/uppermissmn.pdf. Accessed: January 12, 2003. 10 Ibid.; interview by Rebecca Epstein with Ann Calvert, Economic Development staff, Minneapolis Community Development Agency, Minneapolis, Minnesota, January 7, 2003; interview by Rebecca Epstein with Linda Henning, Environmental Service Department staff, Saint Paul, Minnesota January 9, 2003; interview by Rebecca Epstein with Patrick Seeb, Executive Director, Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, Saint Paul, Minnesota, January 10, 2003. 11 EPA, American Heritage Designated Rivers. Online. Available: http://www.epa.gov/rivers/98rivers. Accessed: January 12, 2003. 12 Calvert and Henning interviews. 13 EPA, Executive Order 13061 (online). 14 Twin Cities MSA AHRI Communities, "AHRI in the Twin Cities," Minneapolis, Minnesota, October 2001 (computer printout). 15 Telephone interview by Rebecca Epstein with Owen Dutt, Upper Mississippi River Navigator, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. February 21, 2003. 16 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Corps ofEngineers Upper Area Lock and Dam Statistics for the 2002 Navigation Season. (Saint Paul, MN, December 4, 2002.) Online. Available: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/pressroom/default.asp?pageid=567. Accessed: January 12, 2003; Dutt interview. 17 Dutt interview. 18 Chris Cannon, Statement about the American Heritage River Initiative. Online. Available: http://www.house.gov/cannon/rivers.html. Accessed: April 16, 2003. 19 A Clear View, American River Heritage Lawsuit. Online. Available: http://www.ewg.org/pub/home/clear/view/CV _ Vol5_Nol.html. Accessed: April 16, 2003. 20 Henning interview. 21 Interview by Rebecca Epstein with Patrick Nunnally, Professor, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, January 6, 2003. 22 Twin Cities MSA AHRI Communities, "AHRI in the Twin Cities," (computer printout). 23 Calvert and Henning interviews. 24 Telephone interview by Rebecca Epstein with Kathy Wine of River Action, January 9, 2003. 25 Seeb interview. 26 Grand Excursion 2004, America Celebrates the Mississippi River. Online. Available: http://www.grandexcursion.com/g5-bin/client.cgi?G5genie=l. Accessed: January 14, 2003. 27 Nunnally interview. 28 Minnesota Land Trust, Minnesota Land Trust Regions. Online. Available: http://www.mnland.org/. Accessed: January 31, 2003. Table 1 Population and Land Use Data for the Twin Cities MSA 1980 1990 2000 Population 2,113,533 2,464,124 2,929,382 Percent of population increase over past ten years 5.9 8.5 15.4 Percent of population below poverty line 6.8 8 17 Unemoloyment rate 4.6 2.6 Median income 36,565 47,111 Median age 29 29 32 Twin Cities MSA State of MN U.S. Percent of population increase, 1990 to 2000 16.9 9 10 Average vehicle miles traveled per day (2000) 33 0 0 People per sauare mile (2000) 2,643 125 76 Unemoloyment rate (2003) 2.6 2.1 5.7 Amount of debt (2003) 100 million 4.5 billion 6 trillion Sprawl ranking among 250 similarly sized MSAs (2001) 127 Appendix 3.16-Livable Communities A program administered by the Metropolitan Council, a regional governmental agency. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, The 1990 and 2000 Census. Online. Available: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. Accessed: February 21, 2003; additional sources: Dave Senf, "Understanding our Economy: Lifecycles of Economic Slowdowns," The Minnesota Work Force Center System. Online. Available: http://www/mnwfc.org/lmi.trends/jun01/und2.htm. Accessed: February 21, 2003; Minnesota Planning, Minnesota Milestones: Measures that Maner. Online. Available: http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/mm/indicator/html?ld=57. Accessed: February 21, 2003; The Metropolitan Council, Regional Statistics and Data. Online. Available: http://www.metrocouncil.org/metroarea/stats.htm. Accessed: February 21, 2003; Haya El Nasser and Paul Overburg, "A Comprehensive Look at Sprawl in America," USA Today (February 22, 2001). Online. Available: http://usatoday.com/news/sprawl/main.htm. Accessed: February 21, 2003; Smart Growth America, lndex ofSprawl. Online. Available: http://smartgrowthamerica.com/sprawlindex/sprawlindex.html. Accessed: February 21, 2003. The Livable Communities Program (LC) is administered by the Metropolitan Council (MC), a regional governmental agency managing growth in the Twin Cities' seven­county area. LC began in 1995 with the passage of the Livable Communities Act. The act gave MC the responsibility of administrating a program that relied on incentives to promote compact development, brownfield cleanups, and affordable housing. The program has helped mitigate the effects of sprawl through its three separate granting initiatives. One initiative focuses on creating demonstration models of mixed-use, compact, walkable, transit­friendly development. The second granting initiative concentrates on rehabilitating polluted land for redevelopment. Both of these initiatives have been fairly successful. However, the third initiative has not been as successful because affordable housing needs have not been met. Background Land Character and Growth Management History Twin City MSA land character, leadership, and state-level growth management history are discussed in the other Minnesota case study in this volume, the Upper Mississippi American Heritage River Initiative. Regional growth management history begins when the Metropolitan Council (MC) was created in 1967 by a Republican governor and a bipartisan legislature. The legislature created the MC to coordinate planning and development in the Twin City MSA. The area MC coordinates encompasses nearly 200 county and municipal jurisdictions. Several state-mandated reorganizations have occurred since its inception, and additional tasks, like managing public transportation and wastewater, have been assigned to the agency. MC was given the responsibility of administrating LC because its overarching goals were compatible with the program and MC's existing infrastructure was sufficient to administer the program. The Livable Communities Act was passed in 1995. Governor Ame Carlson, an Independent/Republican, had already vetoed three bills dealing with affordable housing, and this act was considered a compromise between the Democratic and Republican parties.1 In 1996, when Jesse Ventura, an advocate of healthy development and affordable housing, assumed office, Smart Growth and affordable housing became more important. The combination of Ventura's leadership and a federal lawsuit implicating the City of Minneapolis as having discriminatory public housing practices brought these two topics onto the public and legislative agenda. Other legislation followed the Livable Communities Act. In 1997, the legislature passed the Community-Based Planning Act, which provided state assistance for local planning and created statewide guidelines and goals for comprehensive municipal plans. 2 This helped to create a regional planning framework encouraging coordination between regional and municipal organizations as well as encouraging public participation.3 A group of policies collectively called "Smart Growth" were presented to the legislature in 2000 and 2001. Despite Governor Ventura's support, the bills failed to become laws.4 Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota as of 2003, has a history of not supporting Smart Growth initiatives. An example in the other Minnesota case study illustrates this point. Since affordable housing is a main component of LC, it is important to first understand the market. Compared to other major MS As, the region's vacancy rate is the third-lowest in the nation (1.5 percent).5 Although households of all income levels experience difficultly finding reasonably priced housing, lower-income households confront special challenges. Rents have increased 34 percent from 1990 to 2000 while median renter income has only increased 9 percent. The U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) states that affordable housing must be 30 percent or less of income.6 The same measure is used by the LC.7 Workers earning the median wage must spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent for an average one­ bedroom apartment in the Twin Cities.8 Estimates of the affordable units needed vary; some claim that currently 100,000 more affordable units are needed. However, according to the 1990 U.S. Census the Twin Cities MSA needed 30,000 more affordable homes and 12,000 more affordable rental units.9 Program Description Structure and Development The LC operates within the MC's Community Development Division along with six other programs related to coordinating planning, regional growth, and reinvestment. A total of seven divisions exist within the MC. This division reports to the deputy regional administrator who in turn reports to the regional administrator. The regional administrator reports to the chair of the MC and the 16 councilmembers. The council chair and councilmembers are appointed by the governor, hence the MC's leadership can change dramatically when a new governor talces office. In addition to reporting requirements to the MC, the LC administration is required to submit a yearly report to the Minnesota Legislature.10 Policy The LC program emphasizes cooperation and incentives to achieve regional goals. As of 2003, $98 billion has been awarded for projects since 1996 that are expected to leverage public and private investment. The program consists of three distinct granting initiatives, with one employee administering each initiative. One initiative focuses on creating demonstration models of mixed-use, compact, walkable, transit-friendly development. These grants encourage efficient and creative development pattems.11 The second granting program, called the Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA), concentrates on rehabilitating polluted land for redevelopment. In addition to brownfield redevelopment, these rzants are said to provide economic development through job growth opportunities. 2 Communities eligible for both demonstration and TBRA grants need to participate in the housing incentives program and work toward their housing goals in cooperation with the MC.13 Many TBRA projects receive matching grants from Minnesota's Department of Trade and Economic Development. The third initiative develops affordable, inclusionary, and life-cycle housing, which was authorized in the original legislation during the creation of the program. This housing is intended for people of all ages and incomes and especially for new workers. Enhancing affordable housing was seen as important to the community tax base, livability of the region, and to businesses. A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1994 affected the MC's efforts to provide affordable housing.14 The Court ordered the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority to drastically change its policies.15 This decree resulted from the Hollman lawsuit, in which the Minnesota Legal Aid Society and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People proved that public housing and Section VIIl programs in Minneapolis perpetuated segregation by race and income. The Court directed $117 million to implement the terms of the Hollman lawsuit. This decision led to the MC establishing its Family Affordable Housing Program to take charge of distributing these funds. Although the decision does not directly affect the LC program, the decision does illustrate an extension of affordable housing efforts. The amount and number of grants provided in each initiative vary. Since 1996, the demonstration account has allocated approximately $45 million. Another $39 million was allocated to brownfield redevelopment from the TBRA. The affordable housing initiative gave $10 million to create affordable housing and $4 million to create inclusionary housing. 16 Projections calculated by LC staffstate that an additional $70 million will be distributed through LC by the year 2010.17 1beTBRA has given 107 grants to 25 communities; the demonstration account furnished 94 grants to 31 communities; and 62 grants to 43 communities were provided for affordable housing. The Environmental Protection Ageocy gives communities nationwide support for brownfield redevelopments through its Supedund program and its Brownfields Action Agenda.18 However, the TBRA account operates without fedttal fonds. LC staff encourage ~-agencyparticipatioo in grant making Demonstration account applications are reviewed by a 17-member advisory committee who share expertise in development, redevelopment, finance, transportation, mban design, local and county governments, and local nonprofit organi7.ations. Members ofthe advisory committee come from outside the MC. Another initiative, the TBRA, is coordinated with other polluted site cleanup fimds from the Minnesota Department ofTrade and Economic Development's Contaminated Site Cleanup Program and Minnesota's Pollution Con1ml Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup staff. Partnerships also occur in the affordable housing initiative. The Family Housing Fund, a nonprofit organi7'.31ioo whose mission is to preserve and expand quality affordable housing for low-and moderate-income families in the Twin Cities MSA, is one such partner.19 The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency is an additional partner, one that bas received multiple awards from the public, nonprofit, and private sector.20 Both these organi7.ations and the MC fonn the Metropolitan Housing Implementation Group. which coordinates and streamlines the funding. solicitation, evaluation, and proposal selection for affordable housing developments in the seven-county Twin Cities area. Funding 1be MC revenues come from a variety ofsources, including pmperty taxes, state revenue, and federal transit money as well as local funds coming from sewer service charges and passenger fares from buses and trains.21 MC total operating revenue in 2002 was $369,716,889. Approximately less than 1 percent ofits budget comes from local funds; 42 percent ofits budget comes from the state and 47 petrent comes from the federal government. An additional 2.8 percent comes from property taxes, and the reminder ofthe budget comes from other sources. LC revenue is a1most exclusively from property tax levies and the MC's general fund. The exception is $4 million appropriated for the lnclusionary Housing Account, a fourth granting initiative in operation from 199'J to 2000. From 1996 to 2003, revenues for LC have gradually increased from year to year.22 Program Evaluation Program Outputs Many projects fimded by LC attempt to combat the effects ofmban sprawl. One particular project, in the city of Bmnsville, is worth mentioo. 1becity was given two grants. each for a different phase ofredevelopment. First, a low-density 40-acre area was made compact by constructing a town center consisting ofnew streets with relativdy short block lengths and a community plam.23 This redevelopment is not yet complete. The second phase will consist of an arts and cultural facility, plus new rental and ownership housing that includes affordable rental property.24 The city's grants came from the demonstration account, which in part aims to develop models to revitalize older cities and suburbs and create mixed-use town centers for newer suburbs. Although the effects of the Burnsville project on sprawl cannot yet be measured, the project meets design criteria of a high-quality new urban development and the citizens of Burnsville are quite pleased with the development. 25 The TBRA initiative has distributed 82 grants since its inception. Many of the grants involved removing asbestos, replacing contaminated soil with healthy soil, addressing industrial contamination, and moving landfill debris. 26 Public concern exists over the affordable housing granting initiative provided through the LC program.27 Although 21,500 affordable homes and 4,082 rental units have been produced from 1996 to 2001, many more people need affordable housing.28 Estimates of the need vary; some claim that currently 100,000 more affordable units are needed. However, according to the 1990 U.S. Census the Twin Cities MSA needed 30,000 more affordable homes and 12,000 more affordable rental units. A report analyzing income and housing needs from the 2000 U.S. Census will be released in April 2003, at which time the LC program will reevaluate and perhaps revise its goals. The LC staff is aware of existing and growing needs and realizes the unmet need for affordable housing units in the Twin Cities area is quite substantial. In addition to this granting initiative, the MC also has one other program in a separate division creating more affordable housing units. Program Sensitivity to Changes in Environment The State of Minnesota faces a $4 billion debt in 2003 and, given that the governor places low priority on growth management, some changes to the MC's budget may occur in the new state budget. Many public state agencies are facing potential budget cuts. The diversity of MC funding may protect it from dramatic change caused by decreased state funding, but other funding sources are also in question. Both of the Twin Cities also face debts, and the need to contribute to homeland security. Another problem is the country's economic downturn. These factors create funding uncertainties for LC in coming years. Outcomes Two of LC's three granting initiatives, the demonstration account and the TBRA, have met their goals. Not only has the demonstration account helped 29 communities develop and build walkable, transit-oriented cities, the account's projects have met new urbanism design standards as well as citizen approval . . The TBRA has redistributed funds and established partnerships with the Department of Trade and Economic Development and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The affordable housing initiative has not met its goals but is in the process of reevaluating community needs and may meet future goals. Although one cannot conclusively state that the LC program mitigates sprawl in the Twin Cities region, one can conclude that its three granting initiatives fund projects that will most likely have an effect on limiting sprawl by altering land use patterns. However, the effect could be jointly attributed to both the LC program and the many projects and programs within the MC and the Twin Cities that encourage healthy growth. Dozens of nonprofit organizations focused on Smart Growth exist in the area, and many of them are partners of the other Minnesota program evaluated in this research project, the Upper Mississippi American Heritage River Initiative. Altogether, these programs are difficult to evaluate because they have slightly different objectives and outcomes. Yet directly attributable to the LC program are the strengthened communities that received development grants. The completed projects provided jobs and enhanced the neighborhood aesthetics. Findings The administrative infrastructure developed by the MC and the general pro-Smart Growth attitude of the Twin Cities MSA led to LC's implementation and facilitation. Leadership was also important; when the Livable Communities Act was passed, the chair of the Metropolitan Council, Ted Mondale, helped lead the compromise leading to its implementation. Additionally, Governor Ventura's advocacy of Smart Growth helped sustain political support for LC. The fact that a regional government existed before LC' s inception is important because Smart Growth in the region has occurred and will continue to occur incrementally. Although the federal role with LC is fairly indirect, it is important. The federal government partially funds the MC, and since LC operates under the MC, it does benefit from federal funds. Also, HUD's Section VIIl housing program impacts the affordable housing units issue in the Twin Cities area. Section VIIl housing, like LC, does not meet affordable housing needs. However, since multiple levels of government are focusing on affordable housing in the Twin Cities, perhaps a solution is more likely to be forthcoming than if a single sector of government was focusing on the problem. Notes 1 Edward G. Goetz and Lori Mardock, ''Losing Ground: The Twin Cities Livable Communities Act and Affordable Housing," Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota (April 1999), vol. 29, no. 2. Online. Available: http://www.cura.umn.edu/reporter/99­Apr/article3.pdf. Accessed: April 18, 2003; Minnesota Politics, Ame H. Carlson: Independent-Republican Party. Online. Available: http://minnesotapolitics.net/Govemors/37Carlson.htm. Accessed: April 18, 2003. 2 Deborah Pile, ''Report: 1997 Community-Based Planning Act," Minnesota Planning (September 1997). Online. Available: http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/Report.html?ld=2265. Accessed: April 18, 2003. 3 Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, State Growth Management and Open Space Preservation Policies, no. 143, Policy Research Project Report Series (Austin, TX, 2002), p. 112. 4 Ibid. 5 Jean Hopfensperger, "State's Rental Vacancy Rate Is among Tightest in Nation." Minneapolis Star Tribune (January 30, 2001). Online. Available: http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/32075.html. Accessed: December 22, 2002. 6 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Performance Funding System. Online. Available: http://www.hud.gov/progdesc/opsubl06.cfm. Accessed: February 25, 2003. 7 Interview by Rebecca Epstein with Joanne Barron, Community Development Staff, Metropolitan Council of Saint Paul, Minnesota, January 9, 2003. 8 Hopfensperger, "State's Rental Vacancy Rate," (online). 9 Interview by Rebecca Epstein with Guy Peterson, Community Development Staff, Metropolitan Council of Saint Paul, Minnesota, January 9, 2003. 10 Minnesota Statutes, chapter 473, sections .25 to .252 (online). 11 Livable Communities Staff, "The Facts about the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act," The Metropolitan Council, Minneapolis, Minnesota, November 2002 (computer printout). 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Livable Communities Staff, Metropolitan Livable Communities Act: Accomplishments from 1996 through November 2000. Online. Available: http://www.metrocouncil.org/services/livcomm/LivCommSummary Apr2003.pdf. Accessed: December 22, 2002. 15 Edward G. Goetz, "The Hollman Report: Deconcentrating Poverty in Minneapolis," The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (University of Minnesota, 2002). Online. Available: http://www.cura.umn.edu publications/Hollman.html. Accessed: January 4, 2003. 16 Ibid. 17 Livable Communities Staff, Metropolitan Livable Communities Act: Accomplishments from 1996 through November 2002 (online). 18 National Association ofLocal Government Environmental Professionals, Building a Brownfield Partnership from the Ground Up: Local Government Views on the Value and Promise ofNational Brownfield Initiatives. Online. Available: http://www.nalgep.org/brownfields.htm. Accessed: April 20, 2003. 19 Family Housing Fund, About the Fund. Online. Available: http://www.thfund.org/About/Default.htm. Accessed: January 30, 2003. · 20 Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, 2002 Partners in Affordable Housing Award. Online. Available: http://www.mhfa.state.mn.us/about/awards2002.htm. Accessed: January 30, 2003; The Metropolitan Council, ''Regional Report: Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, Report to the Minnesota State Legislature," Minneapolis, Minnesota: April 2002. 21 The Metropolitan Council, "Metropolitan Council: 2002 Unified Operating Budget," Minneapolis, Minnesota: April 2002, pp. 1-1to1-4. 22 Livable Communities Staff, "Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Evaluation 1996-2001: Report to the Minnesota State Legislature," The Metropolitan Council, Minneapolis, Minnesota, January 2003, (computer printout), pp. 1-6. 23 Ibid, p. 24. 24 Larry Werner, "About Excelsior & Grand" Minneapolis Star Tribune. (Decembei' 8, 2002). Oolioe. Available: bttp://www/startribune.com/stories/462/3481251.html. Accessed: December 22, 2002. 25 Ibid; John A Dutton, New American Urbanism: Reforming the Suburban Metropolis (Milano, llaly: Skira, 2000), p. 12; Peter Katz, The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture o/Comnumity (New Yort: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994), p. xxx. 26 Livable Communities Staff, Livable Communities Tax Base Revitali:mtion Grants: 1996-2000. Oolinc. Available: http://metrocouncil.org/mnsmartgrowth/livcommffBRAgraots.htm. Accessed· December 22, 2002. 27 Interview by Rebecca Epstein with David Peterson, reporter, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Minoeapolis., Minnesota, January 7, 2003. 28 Ibid. Appendix 3.17-Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan A program of the State of New Jersey to protect the Pinelands and its unique natural and cultural resources. The Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (PCMP), a conservation and land use management program, monitors the level and types ofdevelopment that occur within the Pinelands and planning, research, education, and land acquisition. Congress created the Pinelands National Reserve in 1978 and it was the country's first National Reserve. The State of New Jersey was given the responsibility of evaluating the Pinelands' resources and how best to preserve them. Over 600,000 people live in the Pinelands National Reserve. Population densities range from fewer than 10 persons per square mile in the interior sections to over 4,000 persons per square mile in the more developed areas. The Pinelands' environment is distinguished as being a habitat for over a thousand species of plants and animals, almost 100 of which are threatened or endangered. From 1980 to 2001, 145,000 acres of land have been purchased with federal or state funds. Overall, the PCMP is very successful. It has achieved its objectives and has contained growth within the different growth zones. However, the growth management aspect of the plan seems weak and thus needs attention in the future. Table 1 Socioeconomic, Transportation, and Land Use Data for the Seven-County Region within the Pinelands Comprehensive Manae:ement Plan Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Ocean 1990 2000 1990to2000 Chan2e (in % ) Socioeconomic (total for all counties) Total region population 2,018,644 2,199,231 8.95 Total population inside urbanized area 1,544,029 2,038,225 32 Regional population per square mile 612.9 667.8 8.9 Median Household Income Atlantic County 33,716 43,933 30.3 Burlington County 42,373 58,608 38.3 Camden County 36,190 48,097 32.9 Cape May County 30,435 41,591 36.7 Cumberland County 29,985 39,150 30.6 Gloucester County 39,387 54,273 37.8 Ocean County 33,110 46,443 40.3 Transoortation Transit availability Yes Yes Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Files. Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: February 20, 2003; NJSDRP 2000 Census Publication, New Jersey Population Trends 1790 to 2000. Online. Available: http://www.wnjpin.state.nj.us/OneStopCareerCenter/LaborMarketlnformation/lmi25/pub/NJSDC-P3.pdf. Accessed: March 26, 2003. Background The New Jersey Pine Barrens, or Pinelands, is a unique environmental treasure that spreads as a continuous patch of protected land in the nation's most urbanized and densely populated state. It covers an area of roughly one million acres and is located in the southern part of New Jersey. It is designated as a biosphere reserve by the United Nations and a "Last Great Place" by the Nature Conservancy for its environmental importance.1 Below the Pinelands Reserve area is the Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer, which is estimated to contain over 17 trillion gallons of some of the purest water in the country. The New Jersey Pinelands contains many rare and interesting plant species, such as the Bog Asphodel that grows nowhere else in the world. As a United States Biosphere Reserve, the Pinelands also serve as a laboratory for fostering a harmonious relationship between humans and their environment. 2 Socioeconomic Information In 2000, the population of the Pinelands National Reserve was 616,000 and that of the state Pinelands Area was 277 ,000. Population densities range from fewer than 10 persons per square mile in the interior sections to over 4,000 persons per square mile in more developed communities at the edge of the region. 3 The largest Pinelands employment sectors are government, services, retail trade, construction, and manufacturing. Agriculture is recognized in the federal and state Pinelands Acts as an industry of special significance. Twenty percent of the Pinelands area is actively fanned and it ranks third nationally in cranberry and blueberry production. Other important economic activities include forestry, sand gravel mining, and shell fishing.4 Land Character The Pinelands are a unique experiment in land management in New Jersey. The region is divided into the following nine areas of different land use capacities: the preservation area district; the special agricultural production area; the forest area; the agricultural production area; the rural development area; the pinelands village area; the pinelands town area; the regional growth area; and the military and federal installation area. The preservation area district occupies 31 percent of the total Pinelands' area; this area comprises the most critical ecological region and supports numerous plant and animal communities and many threatened and endangered species. The special agricultural production area is primarily used for berry agriculture and horticulture of native Pinelands plants and occupies 4 percent of the total area. The forest area occupies 27 percent of the Pinelands. This largely undeveloped area contains high-quality water resources and wetlands and provides suitable habitat for many threatened and endangered species. The agricultural production area occupies 7 percent and supports active agricultural use. The rural development area occupies 12 percent and maintains a balance of environmental and development values that is intermediate between the forest areas and the existing growth areas. The pinelands village area occupies 3 percent and has small, spatially discrete settlements that are appropriate for infill residential, commercial, and industrial development compatible with their existing character. The pinelands town area occupies 2 percent and comprises large, spatially discrete settlements. The regional growth area occupies 8 percent and combines growth zones and adjacent land capable of accommodating regional growth influences while protecting the essential character and environment of the Pinelands. Lastly, the military and federal installations area occupies 6 percent and contains areas used by the military.5 Growth Management History From the 1760s through the 1860s lumber, iron, charcoal, and glass industries were in the Pinelands area. However, these early industries declined, and as the state's major roads bypassed the area, the Pine Barrens gradually became known as a remote part of New Jersey and were often referred to as the "Jersey Devil. "6 After World War II, parts of New Jersey experienced urban sprawl. At that time, the future of the Pinelands became controversial. Debates were held on the future use of the region. Some people propagated grandiose development projects, while others wanted the region's open spaces, natural features, and traditional lifestyles to be preserved against uncontrolled development.7 In addition, in 1967, John McPhee wrote a book called The Pille Barrens. This book talked about the importance of preserving this huge area and its importance to the region. This book raised public awareness and gradually the realization set in that the Pinelands was an environmental asset of national and international importance, deserving safeguards to divert the flow of growth from metropolitan Philadelphia, northern New Jersey, and New York. Atlantic City's casino gambling boom furthered the need for Pinelands development controls. After years of study and debate a choice was made. 8 In 1978 Congress created the country's first national reserve, the Pinelands National Reserve. A collaborative effort of federal, state, and local programs was assigned the task of safeguarding the environmental and cultural resources of this reserve. The state was required to evaluate the Pinelands' resources and plan how best to balance their protection with new development. 9 As provided by federal law, Governor Brendan T. Byrne established the Pinelands Commission by executive order on February 8, 1979, and charged it with formulating the plan. The New Jersey Legislature passed the Pinelands Protection Act in June 1979. The act resulted in temporary limitations on development while the plan to protect the Pinelands was being created. It also required that county and municipal master plans and land use ordinances be brought into conformance with the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (PCMP) that the commission was developing. Io The plan was adopted in two phases. The Preservation Area Plan was approved by the commission on August 8, 1980, and took effect on September 23, 1980. The Protection Area Plan was adopted on November 21, 1980, and became effective under state law on January 14, 1981. Development is highly restricted in the 295,000-acre preservation area, which encompasses the largest tracts of relatively unbroken forest and most of the economically vital berry industry. The larger surrounding area, known as the protection area, contains a mix of valuable environmental features, farmland, hamlets, subdivisions, and towns.II The boundaries of the Pinelands National Reserve and the State Pinelands Area differ as defined by state legislation. The Pinelands National Reserve, totaling 1.1 million acres, includes land east of the Garden State Parkway and to the south bordering Delaware Bay, which is omitted from the 927 ,000-acre state Pinelands Area 1be two jurisdictions together cover all or parts of 56 municipalities spread across portions of seven counties: Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, and 0cean.•2 Program Description Structure and Development The Pinelands Commission is the organfaational body charged with the development and implementation of the PCMP. It plays significant roles in monitoring the level and types of development that occm within the Pinelands as well as the acquisition of land, planning in the growth districts, scientific research, and education. The commission consists of 15 members. Seven are appointed by the governor ofNew Jersey and one each are appointed by the seven counties within the Pinelands (Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, and Ocean). One member is appointed by the U.S. Secretary ofthe Interior. The commission wmks closely with all levels of government, organi:rations, and interested citizens to help them understand and implement the PCMP.13 The Pinelands region is 45 percent publicly and 55 percent privately owned Public lands ofthe State ofNew Jersey comprise over 493,000 acres and include parks and forests such as Wharton, Lebanon, Belleplain, Island Beac~ and Colliers Mills. Federal properties include three military installations and the Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. Numerous county and municipal parks, as well as conservation lands owned by nonprofit organi:zations, exist within the Pinelands. The historic villages ofBatsto and Double Trouble are administered by the Division of Parks and Forests of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.14 Policy The PCMP is regulatory in nature. The Regulatory Programs Office coordinates the commission's enforcement activities. Municipalities play key roles in implementing Pinelands land use and resomce protection standards when they review development proposals. The Pinelands Commission intervenes in less than 7 percent of all developments approved at the local level and overturns local approvals in only 0.5 percent of all cases annually.15 There are zoning regulations, land use restrictions, and permit requirements for building in the pinelands area. However, variances are allowed. Implementation of the PCMP is a four-step process. First, the county and municipal master plans and zoning ordinances have to conform to the PCMP and be certified by the Pinelands Commission; then the municipalities review local development proposals; and then the Pinelands Project Review staff reviews all proposed development projects, including on-site inspections. Finally, the Pinelands Commission verifies local approvals and bas the power to nullify them in case ofnonconformity.16 Program regulation occurs at various levels through different committees. The Pinelands Commission administers many resource protection programs; manages regulatory programs relative to forestry, agriculture, waste management, and resomce extraction; reviews and conducts on-site inspections; leads various research projects; and maintains comprehensive long-term economic and environmental monitoring programs to support its policy and regulatory decisions. 17 The PCMP calls for a comprehensive review of the commission's regulations on a regular basis. Since 1983, there have been three such reviews assessing the plan at 10­ year intervals.18 To fulfill its objectives, the PCMP uses a number of growth management tools such as regional growth areas, residential and nonresidential zoning districts, a planning infrastructure trust fund, operations and permit streamlining, and regional review. The plan uses open space protection strategies like permanent land protection, land acquisition programs, development credits program, density transfer programs, clustering, and on-site easements. The coordination and integration processes are carried out through the comprehensive plan, planning commission, and various other coordinating committees mentioned earlier.19 Funding The federal government's primary role in the Pinelands protection effort is to provide funds for public land acquisition, scientific research, and to monitor the implementation of the plan. In 1978, federal law authorized $26 million for land acquisition and planning for the Pinelands. The commission proposed in the plan that the state acquires about 100,000 acres in the Pinelands. However, the estimated cost of that . program came to $81 million, which was obtained from various federal and state sources. From· 1980 to 2002, 145,000 acres of land were purchased with state and federal funds. Out of this, 73,000 acres was purchased with Section 502 federal funding.20 For the year 2003, the anticipated operating revenue is $5.5 million, 55 percent of which is through state appropriation and supplemental funds and 36 percent is restricted revenue. Total expenditures are equivalent to $5.5 million, 65 percent of which is generated through personnel funds and 30 percent through services like insurance, telephone, and postage. 21 One-third of the Pinelands budget is allocated to local, regional, and statewide planning, one-third is for economic monitoring, coordination, and infrastructure, and the rest is for permanent land protection, watershed planning, and cultural resources. 22 Federal, state, county, and municipal agencies all assume an important, ongoing role in the management of the Pinelands. To consolidate intergovernmental coordination and to permit streamlining of initiatives, a three-staff Office of Regulatory Programs was created in 1996. This office oversees coordination of multiple government levels-federal, state, county, and municipal. This office also coordinates the commission's enforcement activities. In addition, it monitors proposed state legislation and rule proposals of other state agencies to identify matters that may affect the implementation of the PCMP. 23 Program Evaluation Program Outputs Since the Pinelands' designation, more than 150,000 acres of land have been protected through public purchases and easements. Forty-five percent of the Pinelands is now considered to be permanently protected. The Pinelands Development Credits (PDC) program alone has been considered successful in protecting 6,000 acres of important agricultural and forest land, raising the total amount of protected land to 37,000 acres in 2003. The PDC resulted in preservation of critical land at an average cost of $850 per acre. The land use strategy set forth by the PCMP in 1980 remains largely unchanged after 22 years. 24 An analysis of the acreage changes in the management areas since the adoption of the plan in 1980 indicates that forest, agricultural production, and special agricultural production areas have been increased in size since 1991by1.03 percent, 1.85 percent, and 1.89 percent, respectively. On the other hand, the rural development area has decreased by 1.28 percent and the regional growth area by 3.51 percent. The net change in the total Pinelands management area, however, is zero. 25 This is due to the commission's offset program that requires that management area changes that increase the development potential for certain areas be offset by management area changes that decrease the development potential for other areas within a municipality. Since parts or all of 56 municipalities and seven counties fall within the jurisdiction of the Pinelands Commission, the PCMP significantly affects their land use decisions. Studies have indicated that the PCMP has been somewhat effective in controlling urban growth.26 Analysis of recent growth within the Pinelands management area provides corroborating evidence for the effectiveness of the Pinelands management strategy. The rates of development of available land within the Pinelands versus that outside the management area illustrate that each county, with land controlled by the PCMP, has proportionately less development on lands that fall within the Pinelands.27 This suggests an overall growth-controlling effect of the PCMP. The PCMP, however, did not stop urban growth within the Pinelands; 15,667 acres were developed between 1986and1995, suggesting that the PCMP has been effective in channeling urban growth away from sensitive lands and into designated growth areas. The majority of growth occurred in the regional growth and rural development areas of the PCMP, whereas the preservation area, agricultural production area, and special agricultural production area combined received less than 5 percent of the total growth. Within the Pinelands management area sensitive lands remain reasonably intact while planned growth areas and existing towns and villages received the majority of new development growth.28 Water resource protection remains at the forefront of the Pinelands program. Small property owners are afforded the opportunity to sell their land to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Under its program 266 such properties were purchased and protected by 2002. Countless varieties of endangered plant and animal species have been protected within the unique ecosystem of the Pinelands. 29 Outcomes The PCMP is very successful. It has achieved its objectives and has been successful in containing growth within the different growth zones. However, the plan has shortcomings. Although all stakeholders could not be interviewed, among those who were interviewed, many believed that substantial attention was given to open space preservation efforts but aspects of growth management were ignored. For example, none of the growth areas have reached the required densities. Municipalities do not seem to want growth, which would necessitate additional schools and other services. The zoning ordinance could be designed, as in Oregon, so that the growth areas have a minimum density requirement rather than a maximum density requirement. The PDC program is widely cited in growth management literature as a model for transferring development away from critical and ecologically sensitive areas. However, there is some dissatisfaction among some of the stakeholders. Because there is less demand for higher density, the PDC program, whose success depends upon the easy exchange of development credits, is not very popular. In addition, lack of interest in the extra density credits creates a poor market for the landowners. Some people feel that the layout of the PDC program is too complicated to understand and interpret. However, according to the New Jersey Pinelands Economic Monitoring Program, the median selling prices of homes within the Pinelands area are comparable to the regional selling prices for Southern New Jersey.30 There also seems to be inadequate representation of all the stakeholders in the decision-making process. For example, at the time of the design of the plan, there was inadequate participation, and thus certain program aspects were ignored, such as high density zones, which were allocated but were not supported with adequate infrastructure to accommodate that growth.31 The PCMP has been successful in achieving its goals and therefore may be a good model to transfer. In addition, it is a unique program with well-designed and tested strategies for open space preservation and growth management. The policy tools that this program adopts, especially the PDC program, are widely studied and some of their aspects are considered very successful. For ecosystem and natural resource protection, the PCMP serves as a very good example and can be easily adopted by other states where similar needs for extensive ecological protection exist. Findings The PCMP was established as a federal-state partnership and the Pinelands was the first National Reserve in the country. It thus set the stage for ecosystem preservation efforts nationally. The success of the PCMP can be attributed to the fact that the program had a strong foothold from the beginning. Federal funds were available for establishing the comprehensive plan and later for implementation. Federal representation on the PCMP board and federal land in the Pinelands area ensured constant monitoring and the involvement of higher levels of government. In addition, the Pinelands issues were discussed and debated nationally. Thus, the urgency of the need to protect the Pinelands area was so well established and backed by federal, state, and local partnerships that the program was very strong. However, over the years the program has matured and so have the issues in the region. While the PCMP seems equipped to address ecosystem protection needs, it needs significant additions to its goals to address the growth management needs of the region. The plan needs to coordinate with areas that fall outside the Pinelands jurisdiction because while there are immense development pressures from counties outside the Pinelands, there are areas within the Pinelands that have not even reached the allowed densities. Notes J The Nature Conservancy. Pine Barrens. Online. Available: http:/ /natme.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/newjer5ey/volunteer/art355 l ..html. Accessed· January 28. 2003. 2 New Jersey Pinelands Commission. A Summary ofthe New Jeney Pinelands ComprelrensiYe Manageinent Plan. Online. Available: http://www.state.nj.uslpinelandslcmp..hbn. Acassed· January28. 2003. 3 New Jersey Pinelands Commission. Pinelands Facts. New Lisbon. New Jersey (pampblc:t. Deccmbel" 2. 2002). 4 Ibid. s New Jersey Pinelands Commission. Comprehensive Management Plan: The Third Progress Reponon Plan Implementation (New Lisbon. NJ. January 2002). p. 7. 6 Burlington County Library System. A Tune-line History ofthe Pinelands (May 2001). Online. Available: http://www.burlco.lib.nj.us/pinelandslhistory.htm. Accessed: January 28. 2003. 7 New Jersey Pinelands Commission. Pinelands National Reserve. Online. Available: http://www.state.nj.us/pinelands/pmpc.htm. Accessed· January 28. 2003. 8 Interview by Anuradha Parmar with Francis Rapa. Communicatiom Officel". New Jersey Pinelands Commission. New Lisbon. New Jersey, December 18, 2002. 9 New Jersey Pinelands Commission. Pinelands National Reserve (online). JO Ibid. 11 Ibid. J2 Ibid. 13 Ibid. J4 Ibid. JS New Jersey Pinelands Commission. Comprehensive Management Plan, p. 79. J6 Ibid. 17 Ibid. JB New Jersey Pinelands Commission. Press Releases. Online. Available: http://www.state.nj.us/pinelands/press.htm. Ac.cessed: January 28. 2003. J9 New Jersey Pinelands Commission. Comprehensive Management Plan, p. 79. 20 Rapa interview. 21 Eagleton Institute ofPolitics. "Pinelands Commission Retreat" (Powcr:Point slide printouts used in Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan review meeting. New Brunswick, New Jersey. December 17, 2002). zz Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 New Jersey Pinelands Commission. Comprehensive Management Plan, p. i. 2S Ibid. 26 Center for Remote Seming and Spatial Analysis, Measuring Urban Growth in New Jersey (2001). Online. Available: http://www.crssa.rutgers.edu/projects/lclurbangrowtb/nLmban_growth.pdf. Accessed· January 28, 2003. rT Ibid. 2S Ibid. 29 New Jersey Pinelands Commission. Comprehensive Management Plan, p. ii. 30 New Jersey Pinelands Commission. New Jersey Pinelands Commission Long Term EclHUJIJUc Monitoring Program (2000). Online. Available: http://www.state.nj.us/pinelandslOOreprt.pdf. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 3J Interview by Anuradha Parmar with Joanne Harkins, Director ofLand Use and Planning, New Jersey Builders Association. Robbinsville, New Jersey. DecembCI' 18, 2003. Appendix 3.18-New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan The New Jersey State Planning Commission and the Department of Smart Growth are jointly ii:i charge of reviewing and implementing the plan. The New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan is a policy document that intends to coordinate and maintain growth management and integrate planning at municipal, county. regional, and state levels. The document serves as a guide to increase efficiency and predictability and to optimize public and private investments. The New Jersey State Legislatme enacted the New Jersey State Planning Act in 1985. As a result, a State Planning Commission and an Office of State Planning were established. In 1992 the commission adopted the first State Development and Redevelopment Plan. The most recently revised State Development and Redevelopment Plan was adopted on March 1, 2001. A high degree ofjurisdictional fragmentation and the nonregulatory nature of the state plan make it difficult to implement the objectives of this comprehensive document. However, the impact assessment studies show that1he state plan has tremendous potential to create a positive development future for New Jersey. Table 1 Socioeconomic, Transoortation, and Land Use Data for New Jersey 1990 2000 1990to2000 Chane:e (in % ) Socioeconomic Total state oooulation 7,730,188 8,414,350 9 Total population inside urbanized area 6,630,217 7,753,948 17 State population rer square mile 1,042.24 1,134.4 8.8 Average household size 2.7 2.68 -0.74 Families below poverty level (% of total) 5.6 6.3 0.7 White population (% of total) 79.3 72.6 -6.7 Black population (% of total) 13.4 13.6 0.2 Hispanic oooulation (% of total) 9.6 13.3 3.7 Transportation Total daily vehicle miles traveled 144,908 184,033 27 Transit availability Yes Yes Land Use Housing units in buildings with 10 or more units (in % of total housing units) 14.7 14.5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Files. Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 283 Background Socioeconomic Information The state of New Jersey is home to 8.2 million people and more thari 4 million jobs. It is the most densely populated state in the nation and is expected to grow at a rate of more than 10 percent between 2000 and 2020. New Jersey is comprised of 21 counties · that further consist of a total of 567 municipalities. New Jersey's active planning has been shaped by the state's unique geography, bounded by New York City, Philadelphia, and a developable coastal region. New York City and Philadelphia are major growth generators whose markets nearly touch somewhere in Central Jersey.1 Even though New Jersey is the most densely settled state in the nation, with an estimated average population density of 1,077 persons per square mile, the population distribution trends show dispersion since residents continue to move to newer suburbs and rural areas while the population in the urban centers decreases. The majority of residential growth has been in newer suburbs and rural areas, mostly in areas 30 to 50 miles from Manhattan and 15 to 25 miles outside Philadelphia.2 Economic trends in New Jersey are influenced by both national and international conditions. New Jersey is located in a megalopolis between two of the largest cities in the nation. Economic forces beyond its control therefore affect it. For 2000-2025, New Jersey is projected to have a 25 percent growth in employment. All counties are projected to experience job growth, with the highest percentage increases expected in Hunterdon and Somerset Counties.3 Land Character The state of New Jersey occupies approximately five million acres. The land can be categorized into four areas: nearly 1.35 million acres of urban land (cities, towns, and suburbs) exist largely in the metro regions of Philadelphia and New York; 740,000 acres of agricultural lands can be found in New Jersey's farming belt; 1.6 million acres of forest exist largely in the Pine Barrens and the Highlands region; and 17 ,000 acres of wetlands exist mainly throughout the Pine Barrens, the Great Swamp, and along the coastal and riparian estuaries.4 Together these land use types describe the land character of the Garden State. Growth Management History New Jersey has a long history of land use planning, starting in the early twentieth century when the state was still evolving. In the 1920s and 1930s the focus shifted to the "New Deal greenbelt towns" with the construction of Radburn City, which was a planned community inspired by the Garden City concept. In the 1950s and 1960s planning was more project oriented, with the focus on highways and state parks. In the 1970s, however, a new pattern of land use characterized by the construction of massive campus-style commercial and industrial facilities in sprawling residential suburbs emerged. In the 1970s, thus, the focus shifted to regional planning. In 1978 the Pinelands Commission was formed. 5 The three main issues faced by New Jersey are that, first it is the most densely populated state in the nation. Second it experiences a high degree ofjurisdictional fragmentation. New Jersey has 21counties, 566 municipalities, and over 600 school districts. Additionally, its home-rule status, heavy reliance on local property taxes, and weak county government jointly reinforce the fragmented decision-making pattern. Third New Jersey has a unique relationship to two major urban centers-New York City and Philadelphia. These two metropolises are major growth generators and New Jersey acts as a convenient corridor connecting these two places.6 The initial impetus to planning that was unique to New Jersey came in the 1980s with the Mt. Laurel case. New Jersey courts oversaw a deluge of litigation over exclusionary zoning in Mt. Laurel. The typical pattern of development at that time was one of low-density, segregated uses on the urban periphery and a deteriorating urban core. The New Jersey Supreme Court realized that many local governments had used their police powers to zone in exclusionary ways. The court found that the metropolitan growth pattern was not a naturally occurring outgrowth of private market forces, but rather reflected the results of multiple governments' decision-making in ways that distorted private markets. The court thus reflected the need for a state plan that could provide ways to coordinate multiple planning and regulatory efforts. 7 Thomas Howard Kean, governor of New Jersey from 1974 to 1982, supported the state planning efforts during the last three years of his term. 8 In 1985 the New Jersey State Legislature enacted the New Jersey State Planning Act. A 17-member State Planning Commission and an Office of State Planning were formed to develop a statewide comprehensive growth management plan. After seven years, in June 1992, the State Planning Commission approved the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan. A statewide planning process, called Cross­acceptance, was used to ensure that governments at all levels and the general public had a chance to participate in the process of preparing the state plan and its future revisions. Governor Christine Todd Whitman, during her second term in 1997, directed her cabinet "to use the State Plan as a fundamental guide in making permit and funding decisions."9 Under the Whitman administration, the state legislature approved an initial $3 million appropriation for Smart Growth grants, followed by a second annual appropriation for the same amount. The purpose of these grants was to facilitate local government planning in ways compatible with the state plan. 10 The most recently revised State Development and Redevelopment Plan was adopted on March 1, 2001. Most governors have placed a high priority on growth management issues; however, sustained support at the highest level has been provided by the current governor, James McGreevey, who has focused his attention to some of the weaker aspects of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, namely its implementation power and strategies. Program Description Structure and Development The New Jersey State Planning Commission consists of 17 members representing state government, local government, and the public. Local government and public members are appointed by the governor and approved by the legislature for three-year terms. The full commission generally meets monthly; however, committees of the commission meet as needed. The Director of the Office of Smart Growth serves as Executive Director and Secretary of the State Planning Commission.11 The Office of Smart Growth is the land use planning unit for the State ofNew Jersey. The office provides administrative and technical support to the New Jersey State Planning Commission and the New Jersey Brownfields Redevelopment TmForce. The State Planning Commission is charged with comdinating state land use policies, implementing the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan, reviewing legislation for capital appropriations as they relate to the state plan, and encouraging the use of effective and efficient planning resources, tools, and techniques to local governments, businesses, and citi.7.ens. 12 The New Jersey Brownfields Redevelopment Task Foree as&sts municipalities and counties in using brownfield redevelopment to help implement Smart Growth strategies. The Office of Smart Growth works with the Governor's Office through the Smart Growth Policy Council to ensure that st.ate agencies incorporate the State Development and Redevel?fIDent Plan and Smart Growth principles in its plans. regulations, and programs.1 The New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan (NJ-SDRP) bas eight fundamental goals and strategies. Its main goal is to revitaliz.c the state's urban centers while maintaining beneficial economic growth and renewal. In addition, the plan recogni7.CS the need for conserving the st.ate's natmal resourees and protecting its environment. The plan outlines strategies for maintaining adequate public services and providing housing at reasonable costs. Finally, the plan alim to preserve and enhance historical, cultural, open space, and recreatiooal land and structures while maintaining sound and integrated planning statewide. 14 To achieve its above mentioned goals, the NJ-SDRP identifies the need to invest sufficiently in the human resources and infrastructure systems to attract private investment. The plan promotes growth in compact forms at locations and intensities of use that make efficient use ofexisting and planned infi:astructure. It allows for increased infrastructure capacities and growth potential in areas where development will not damage water resources, critical habitats, orimportant forests and makes transportation alternatives available to achieve and maintain air quality. 1be plan promotes the locations and patterns of growth that maintain existing and planned capacities ofinfi:astructure, fiscal and nalural resomre systems, and minimize the need for substantial public investment in infrastructure where it does not exist and is not planned In addition, it encourages housing densities close to both employment opportunities and public transportation to reduce housing and commuting costs for low-income, moderate-income, and middle-income groups.15 The NJ-SDRP is revised every three years and has a planning horizon until 2020, providing adequate time to meet the project's objectives. In addition, a comprehensive impact assessment study has been done by Rutgers University. An infrastructure needs assessment is done to develop and refine policies and a continuous monitoring and evaluation process is maintained Public participation is encouraged at various stages.16 Policy Since the plan is not regulatory, it lacks effective implementation and coordination. Compliance to the NJ-SDRP was established at the initial stage tlnoogh the voluntary Cross-acceptance process. However, for implementation the plan depends upon a number of parallel agencies and local partnerships. Incentives exist in the fonn of grants. Other incentives in the form of points are available for counties to participate in the Cross-acceptance process. Priority in funding is provided to programs that are in accordance with the state plan. Designated centers are eligible for special development points. Additionally, the plan heavily depends upon intensive educational and awareness campaigns, which should lead to an overall value change among officials and local citizens, for its implementation. The New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan delineates five zones of land use based on existing land character and the future potential of land for development and planning. These zones are: (1) PAl Metropolitan Planning Area, (2) PA2 Suburban Planning Area, (3) PA3 Fringe Planning Area, (4) PA4 Rural Planning Area, and (5) PA5 Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area. These growth zones have different growth capacities and criteria. The planning areas prescribe the type of development and land preservation that is most appropriate for each zone. Through specific programs they promote infill development, core revitalization, and focusing growth where there is existing infrastructure and investment. The plan uses urban growth boundaries to identify areas for growth, limited growth, agriculture, and open space conservation. Land acquisition is used for open space preservation in sensitive areas. The state plan has monitoring variables in the economic, infrastructure, community-life, and intergovernmental coordination areas that are evaluated on an ongoing basis. There are six key indicators and targets and 27 additional indicators and targets that relate to the above mentioned five zones.17 In addition, the Office of Smart Growth provides a series of resources in the form of programs and subcommittees to promote Smart Growth. Some of these subcommittees are: the State Agency Strategic Resource Direction Committee; State Agency Intergovernmental Coordination and Facilitation Committee; New Jersey Smart Growth Planning and Program Resources Technical and Financial Assistance Committee; Brownfields Redevelopment Interagency Team; Highlands Task Force; Urban Education and Outreach Committee; Office of Smart Growth Planning and Technical Assistance; Smart Growth Planning Grants Committee; Plan Endorsement Committee; and New Jersey Mayors Institute on Community Design.18 The Office of Smart Growth utilizes teams to implement the NJ-SDRP. These are the Planning Team (assisting municipalities and counties in achieving endorsed plans), the Implementation Team (providing expert support to municipalities and counties in creating a comprehensive, well-conceived growth and preservation strategy), the Outreach Team (supporting planning coordination in Brownfields, Highlands, and urban education), and the Research Team (generating the research and data for the state plan policy map and other teams).19 Funding The New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan is primarily state funded with limited federal funding, received through specific programs that form only a part of the state plan. Federal funding is available for the watershed protection program, transportation and water quality programs, federal domestic assistance programs, and the brownfields cleanup and development programs. 20 There are some federal funds for land acquisition. In addition, there is local and private funding available directly and indirectly through numerous other programs and departments. In the year 2001, $5 million in Forest Legacy funds helped the state acquire 9,000 acres of critical watershed land. From 1993 to 2000, New Jersey received $4.2 million through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 34 Superfund cleanups were completed, $4.8 million was received for brownfields redevelopment, and $15.5 million was received through Environment Protection Agency grants. 21 Program Evaluation Program Outputs The outputs of the program have been presented under broad categories that represent the larger goals of the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan, separated by functional area. While some programs facilitate investment, others encourage implementation of the goals in a nonregulatory manner. The urban revitalization and economic development goal of the NJ-SDRP is promoting compact development in existing and new urban and regional centers, towns, and hamlets. Financial incentives are provided for cleaning up and redevelopment of brownfield sites. The Housing Mortgage Finance Agency and New Jersey Redevelopment Authority offer programs related to neighborhood preservation, urban homeownership, rehabilitating buildings for mixed uses, downtown business improvement districts, and faith-based community development. In addition, an award­winning rehabilitation subcode has greatly reduced the cost and administrative obstacles to rehabilitating older buildings, thereby facilitating reinvestment in urban areas. Under the McGreevey administration, more than $5 million in Smart Growth planning grants has been awarded. 22 In terms of environmental protection, New Jersey accommodates its 8.15 million people, 3 million households, and 3.9 million jobs on approximately 1.35 million acres. Of the state's 4.8 million acres, 1.9 million remain undeveloped and unprotected, two­thirds of which are forests and one-third of which are agricultural lands. 23 However, an analysis of the land developed in New Jersey from 1986 to 1995 reveals that while there was a net increase in urban land statewide, farmlands, forestlands and wetlands experienced a net loss. 24 Additionally, an analysis of the actual urban growth in the State Development and Redevelopment Plan zones indicates that new devel~menthas occurred in rural and environmentally sensitive lands from 1986 to 1995. Of the 135,000 acres of new development that occurred from 1986 to 1995, 13.6 percent occurred in the environmentally sensitive planning area PAS, 14.5 percent of growth occurred in rural planning area PA4 and 10.2 percent occurred in the environmentally sensitive rural planning area PA4B.26 Thus, although the state plan has conceived, in its goals and objectives, the importance of channeling growth toward centers and away from sensitive lands, its nonregulatory status has limited success in meeting those goals. In terms of transportation a state-level partnership supporting the county-level planning processes by providing technical assistance, consulting services, and funds has resulted in linking the transportation and economic goals of the state plan. A Community Transportation Plan is required before a county can receive a variety of federal and state funds. The state plan and the Department of Transportation's "New Transportation Vision" both emphasize increased use of public transportation. New Jersey Transit plans an 8.8-mile, 16-station system linking the cities of Newark and Elizabeth, the site of several recent brownfield redevelopments. 27 The NJ-SDRP has had some success in improving the state's heritage areas and cultural assets. For every $1 million spent on historical rehabilitation, 38.3 jobs are generated. The state's historic properties, valued at $6 billion, raise $120 million in annual property taxes. The New Jersey Historic Preservation Bond program, one of the first of its kind in the nation, has provided nearly $55 million in matching grants for preservation projects. 28 Outcomes A number of state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and representatives from the stakeholder groups work in a coordinated manner to carry out the goals of the NJ-SDRP. While the planning commission updates and maintains the plan document, it is these parallel organizations that help implement the plan. However, a common feeling among the staff and managers interviewed was that while the plan was a very strong and well-organized document, it was not accomplishing its objectives effectively because it did not have regulatory implementation power and enough incentives for voluntary abidance to the plan. 29 For example, the plan's strategies to limit growth in designated growth areas, as mentioned in the previous section, have not been successful. Even though most of the implementing agencies were supportive of the plan, administrators rated the New Jersey state plan's performance as not being very efficient relative to other growth management programs. There was also some criticism of the fact that the state plan was very verbose and that there needed to be a simplified version that could be easily understood and adopted by the various municipalities.30 New Jersey is a home-rule state, under which each of the 566 municipalities engage in planning and zoning practices of their own, often disregarding adjacent town and statewide policies. The current property tax structure is such that towns tend to exploit the home-rule status to compete for commercial and senior housing projects that generate more revenue while requiring minimal services.31 The incentives for abiding by the state plan are very limited. State government has played an active role in the plan design process but now needs to assume the same in the implementation process. Since the NJ-SDRP is nonregulatory, a high degree of state, local, and regional level cooperation is required in order to successfully carry out the objectives of the plan. However, the NJ-SDRP has provided a vision to the state of New Jersey. Under the McGreevey administration, there is strong political will and effort to make the implementation process more vigorous. In addition, local partnerships and nongovernmental organizations are helping focus attention on implementation and education. It is a slow process, but with adequate political support at the federal, state, and local level, it might be very successful. In terms of transferability, the NJ-SDRP forms a comprehensive document with a number of policies and ideas about growth management and open space preservation. However, the fragmented political structure in New Jersey and the nonregulatory nature of the plan hamper its growth management potential. The ideas compiled in the NJ-SDRP could work more effectively in other states where the administrative agencies have stronger powers of implementation due to their regulatory nature. Findin~ NJ-SDRP's primary strength lies in the fact that it is a comprehensive document that addresses the concerns of all stakeholders. In addition it lays out a number ofdetailed strategies to control growth. However, this has made the plan document very complex and lengthy. For public administrators to be able to readily follow the plan, it needs to be translated into forms consistent with their capabilities and requirements. Further, state agencies and municipalities need specific information for implementation and problem­solving purposes, which the casual nature of the plan does not fumish."32 Even with the above-mentioned shortcomings, the NJ-SDRP promises strong growth management and economic development strategies. While the state and local government could improve coordination and incentives for better implementation, the federal government could play an active role in the growth management process as well. Programs funded by the federal government could require an additional criterion of compliance to the state plan. Additional funds could be provided toward Smart Growth projects. Additionally, there are certain loopholes in the federal and state funding processes. For example, the department of community affairs has a federal program for distressed communities. Here funding is allocated on need but no consideration is given to whether the uses conform to the state plan or not. Similarly, the Department of Transportation funds have mandates such as safety concerns, but no additional criterion of conformity with the state plan is required.33 Notes 1 New Jersey Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan, Transportation Choices 2025. Online. Available: http://www.njchoices.com/reports/lrp/III_ Overview _Historical. pdf. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis, Measuring Urban Growth in New Jersey (2001). Online. Available: http://www.crssa.rutgers.edu/projects/lc/urbangrowth/nj_urban_growth.pdf. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 5 Interview by Anuradha Parmar with Martin Bierbaum, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Office of the Governor-Smart Growth, New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Trenton, New Jersey, January 8, 2003. 6 Institute of Public Administration, Smart Growth: A Tale ofTwo States, New Jersey and Maryland (May 2001). Online. Available: http://theipa.org/publications/smartgrowth_bierbaum.pdf. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 7 Bierbaum interview. 8 Institute of Public Administration, Smart Growth: A Tale ofTwo States, New Jersey and Maryland (online). 9 Ibid. IO Ibid. 11 New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Office ofSmart Growth. Online. Available: http://www.state.nj.us/osp/. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 New Jersey Office of State Planning, Statewide Planning and Growth Management in the United States (August 1997). Online. Available: http://www.state.nj.us/osp/doc/trd/osptrl13.pdf. Accessed: January 28, 2003. IS Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Office ofSmart Growth (online). 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 EarthDay2000, Earth Day 2000: New Jersey. Online. Available: http://clinton3.nara.gov/CEQ/earthday/accomps/New_Jersey.html. Accessed: February 21, 2003. 22 Institute of Public Administration, Smart Growth: A Tale ofTwo States, New Jersey and Maryland (online). 23 New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, The Costs and Benefits ofAlternative Growth Patterns: The Impact Assessment ofThe New Jersey State Plan (September 2000). Online. Available: http://www.state.nj.us/osp/plan2/ias/ia2000es4.htm. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 24 Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis, Measuring Urban Growth in New Jersey (online). 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Institute of Public Administration, Smart Growth: A Tale ofTwo States, New Jersey and Maryland (online). 28 Ibid. 29 Interview by Anuradha Parmar with Teri Hover, Planning and Policy Analyst, New Jersey Future, Trenton, New Jersey, December 17, 2002. 30 Interview by Anuradha Parmar with Joanne Harkins, Director of Land Use and Planning, New Jersey Builders Association, Robbinsville, New Jersey, December 18, 2002. 31 Smart Growth Online, Smart Growth News: New Jersey Growth Problems Rooted in Unfair Property Tax, Home Rule Policies. Online. Available: http://www.smartgrowth.org/news/article.asp?art=3226&State=3 l&res= l 024. Accessed: February 21, 2003. 32 Bierbaum interview. 33 Interview by Anuradha Parmar with Helen Heinrich, New Jersey Farm Bureau, Trenton, New Jersey, January 7, 2003. Appendix 3.19-Metropolitan Regional Services (Metro) Regional growth management for the Portland, Oregon, area. Metro's land use planning, especially the use of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), has been a model for growth management programs across the United States. Metro's UGB seeks to limit urbanization within proscribed areas to reduce the fiscal burden of city services, preserve farmland, forestland, and natural habitat, and foster compact and dense development. Contained urbanization under the UGB has reduced the extension of city infrastructure and services to accommodate inconsistent and scattered land development. Metro's UGB has similarly been successful in limiting development into farmland and forestland. These same UGB conditions of contiguous urbanization mentioned above safeguard these resources. The distinction between urban and rural uses is strikingly evident by visual observation. Although the UGB has significantly and positively altered the development patterns of the region, additional time is needed to fully evaluate the long-term effectiveness of the program. Table 1 Socioeconomic Data for the Portland-Vancouver (OR-WA) Urban Area 1990 2000 1990 to 2000 Chan2e (in % ) Total population 1,053,799 1,583,138 31 Averaj!;e household size 2.45 2.49 1.6 Median household income (in $) 30,499 46,360 52 Families below poverty level(% of total) 7.1 6.7 Housing units in buildings with 10 or more units (% of total housing units) 17 18 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Files. Onlme. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: March 27, 2003. Background Socioeconomic Information Various socioeconomic trends in the Metro region bring some vital growth management questions to the forefront: • Rate of Growth-How fast are we growing? • Urban Form-What type of community are we building? • Affordability-Are per capita income levels matching housing prices? The Portland Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) experienced rapid population growth in the 1990s, growth rates exceeding the national average for the United States during this same time period. Similar to national trends, the subwbs grew at a faster rate than cities. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) contained growth within the region, but the city of Portland lost population share relative to outlying cities. Median per capita income levels increased 38 percent between 1980 and 2000; in 2000, Oregon median per capita income was 3 percent ($640) less than the national median.1 For 2000, the median per capita income for the Portland (OR)-V ancouver (WA) Urban Area is 109 percent of the national median.2 Since 1990, median household income has increased by approximately 28 percent while median home prices have increased by approximately 100 percent3 Land Character Hills west of downtown and the Willamette River to the east constrict urban Portland development along the west riverbank. Beyond the densest urban core, development east toward Fairview and Gresham and development west toward Beaverton and Hillsboro experience no appreciable geographical or geological baniers. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is the primary, and in most cases only, form of development containment. Of special consideration, Vancouver (WA) is situated directly to the north of the Metro region across the Columbia River. Metro and Vancouver coordinate some activities and planning, but Metro and Oregon planning laws do not have jurisdiction in Washington State. Growth Management History General History Oregon's rapid growth in the 1960s rekindled the concerns of the 1940s reganling unchecked development. By the end of the 1960s, Willamette Valley residents from Eugene to Portland viewed rapid development as an environmental disaster wasting scenery, farmland, timber, and energy.4 Governor Tom McCall attempted to address many of these environmental concerns by authorizing legislation related to environmental quality, public ownership and management of natural resources, and scenic beautification projects.5 Despite this legislation, groups of citizens, business owners, and farmers continued to be concerned primarily with growth along the Willamette Valley between Portland, Salem, and Eugene-exhibiting a prescience for the area's sprawl potential. The cities ofPortland, Salem, and Eugene along futerstate 5 provided a potential development infrastructure to create urban sprawl similar to the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex along Interstate 30 in Texas or the Miami/Fort Lauderdale/West Palm Beach urban and exurban developments along Interstate 95 in Florida. In response to continued development concerns, the Legislative Interim Committee on Agriculture met to craft Senate Bill 10 (SB 10) in 1967. SB 10 was adopted by the legislature in 1969 and encouraged cities and counties to prepare comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances to meet ten broad goals by December 31, 1971.6 While succeeding in preparing the plans, the legislation lacked a binding mechanism or criteria for evaluating or coordinating local plans. 7 Governor McCall and Senator Hector Macpherson, a Linn County dairy farmer, formed the informal Land Use Policy Committee to suggest ways of improving SB 10. Senator Macpherson was instrumental in quelling the demand of farmers to preserve property rights that provided the future potential of sale to developers.8 An improvement to SB 10, Senate Bill 100 (SB 100), was passed in May 1973 and signed into law by Governor McCall.9 SB 100 created the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) to oversee compliance of local planning with statewide goals. The commission is comprised of seven members-one from each of Oregon's congressional districts and two from the state at large-appointed for four-year terms by the governor and confirmed by the state senate. The LCDC is sugported by the staff at the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).1 To facilitate the numerous land use clarifications and interpretations created by SB 100, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) was created in 1979 by the governor and legislature to facilitate the prompt resolution of land disputes and provide consistent interpretation of Oregon land use laws.11 Following dozens of public workshops throughout the state, LCDC wrote the state planning goals in 1974. The ten goals of SB 10 were clarified and four new goals were added. All 14 goals were adopted by the LCDC in December 1974. One goal addressing the Willamette Valley River Greenway was added in December 1975 and four goals focusing on coastal zone issues were added in December 1976.12 The program survived three ballot initiative challenges in 1976, 1978, and 1982. During the initiative of 1982, LCDC requirements on land use planning were perceived by some to be exacerbating the economic recession of that time. The survival of the program in these ballot initiatives and the net emigration of population during the 1980s provided a stable environment for LCDC, DLCD, LUBA, and the Oregon Planning Goals to mature.13 Successive governors provided strong executive leadership for the continuation, maintenance, and enhancement of growth management policies statewide. 14 A central component of the program sought to assure urban development within the UGBs under Oregon Planning Goal 14 (Urbanization). These UGBs were established in the LCDC-certified comprehensive plans from each city and county. Resource lands outside the UGB were governed by land use policy to support the viability and vitality of the agriculture and forest industries.15 · Leadership Over the past 30 years, Oregon state government, Metro regional government, three county governments (Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington), many municipalities, water districts, sewer districts, individual politicians, lobbyists, nonprofit groups (especially 1000 Friends of Oregon), and citizens have all participated in the construction of a system of growth management. 16 Christopher Leo expressed the belief in Regional Growth Management Regime: The Case ofPortland, Oregon, that this cooperation of disparate interests was essential to the fulfillment of a binding and coherent set of land use planning objectives.17 Leo also notes that Oregon Planning Goal 1 (Citizen Participation) as it pertains to Metro, was vital in providing the political support required of this growth management regime. Initiative defeats in 1976, 1978, and 1982 of measures to abolish SB 100 firmly established growth management as part of the political landscape.18 Private interests were brought into the growth management regime by establishing tight deadlines for decisions by LCDC and LUBA on land use issues and by Goal 10 (Housing), which required the development of housing within the UGB for all levels of income. Furthermore, local governments are ~uiredin some cases to respond to a developer's proposal in no more than 120 days.1 Environmentalists, farmers committed to long-term pursuit of commercial agriculture in the Willamette Valley, and members of the business community who believed in the importance of a regional plan for the area's continued economic competitiveness formed the political component of the growth management regime for metropolitan Portland. 20 Low-income housing and property rights advocates were not part of this initial coalition.21 Factors Leading to Policy Initiation Many of the statewide factors that support growth management are present in the Metro region. In particular, these factors influenced the adoption of Metro's primary policy tool -the UGB. These factors are: • A strong connection to the land. The Willamette Valley is a very fertile region of Oregon, farmed and logged by successive generations. Additionally, a high proportion of the population of the state lives in this farming valley. Land use laws as outlined in SB 100 in large part came out of this farmland and forestry preservation ethos and history.22 • An abundant natural environment. The Coast Range to the west and the Cascade Range to east are visible along the entire drive along the Willamette Valley from Portland to Salem. Mount Hood dominates the eastern skyline, 23 and the Willamette River and the Columbia River provide habitat for wildlife and spawning areas for steelhead salmon, an integral part of state culture. • Active participation in government by citizens. Oregon allows vote by mail and the placing of referendum and initiative on state and local ballots (those meeting Oregon constitutional guidelines). Many departments of the Oregon ~vernment . also receive their policy guidance from citizen-volunteer committees. This type of political and advisory feedback loop seems to have provided for a government more responsive to the needs of the citizenry. • Senate Bill JOO-State Planning Goals and Guidelines. In the approximately 30 years since its passage, SB 100 has become a permanent feature of the landscape through the required comprehensive plans and UGBs.25 Program Description Structure and Development Metro was first established as a complement to the Columbia River Association of Governments (CRAG). CRAG was established in 1966-1967 in response to pressure from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD threatened to withhold federal grants unless 90 percent of metro~olitan area residents were represented in a voluntary association of elected officials. 6 CRAG subsequently lobbied the legislature for the establishment of the Tri­County Metropolitan Transportation District (Tri-Met) to run the region's transit system. The legislature complied and Tri-Met was formed in 1969.27 The legislature r~uired CRAG to allow a vote in Portland on the Metropolitan Service District (MSD).2 The MSD was a~froved and was assigned the tasks of managing the zoo and the region's solid waste. Another referendum for the region, in 1978, called to "Reorganize Metropolitan Service District, Abolish CRAG." Many believed that the referendum would remove any and all metropolitan plannin§ agencies from the region. Yet the reconfiguration of MSD was the precursor to Metro.3 Metro was reorganized as the Portland regional authority in Oregon (CRAG had included Clark County, WA), upholding the State Planning Goals and Guidelines (and hence the UGB), coordinating a solid waste disposal system, and operating regional facilities (Oregon Zoo, Oregon Convention Center, Portland Metropolitan Exposition Center, and Portland Center for the Performing Arts). 31 The legislature in 1990 referred a constitutional amendment to Oregon voters to allow the creation of a home-rule charter for regional governments.32 In 1992, Metro voters approved a home-rule charter for their region. 33 Amendments to the charter were approved by the region's voters in the 2000 election.34 The 1992 charter and 2000 amendments reaffirm Metro's primary responsibility in regional land use planning, transportation, and waste service delivery. In addition, the charter and amendment grant Metro the authority to assume resr:onsibility for nonspecified present and future issues of metropolitan concern. 5 The 2000 charter amendment consolidates the executive and council officers. A council president is elected regionwide and sets the governance agenda. This officer has authority to appoint all members of Metro committees, commissions, and boards. The council president also appoints a chief operating officer to carry out the administrative duties previously handled by the executive officer. Council districts have been consolidated into six regions, with one councilor elected per each single-member district. The office of the auditor remains unchanged.36 This three-division structure of Metro became effective as of the November 2002 elections and the new members took office in January 2003. 37 The new structure is believed for various reasons to be more efficient than the past Metro structure. The former executive office, although elected regionwide, had no voting authority on the council. The Metro staff (currently 693 full time positions)38 answered and worked for the executive officer, not the Metro Council. This structure led to unnecessary conflict and lack of coordination between the staff, executive officer, and council. It is believed that the new structure will be more effective and efficient in implementing Metro's mandate to deal with regionwide concerns. 39 The office of the auditor, in addition to performing financial audits, will also conduct evaluations measuring program results, objectives, costs, effectiveness, and legal compliance.-40 Metro is responsible for long-range regional growth management and transportation in the tricounty/multicity Metropolitan area. Metro provides regional coordination and sets the UGB for the counties and cities in the Metro region. Local governments provide planning functions such as wning, permitting, transportation access, and neighborhood design. 41 Metro is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) through the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACf) responsible for the allocation offederal transportation funds to projects in the region under ISTEA and TEA­ 21.42 . Metro has developed a regional data center to forecast transportation and land use needs to prevent duplication of data collection and the existence of disparate data sets. Local jurisdictions contribute to the data center and use the base data of the center when determining transportation and land use initiatives in compliance with the regional comprehensive plan.43 The data is additionally used to support Metro planning, modeling, and forecasting.44 The initial UGB for the Metro region was established in 1979 by CRAG and confirmed by LCDC in 1981.45 This UGB boundary was larger than some thought was required for the effective mban growth of the region. It was speculated that Mayor Neil Goldschmidt's (1973-1979) work to block the Mount Hood Freeway concurrent with the UGB negotiation necessitated the concession of land to each county/city in excess of necessary growth management boundaries.46 Policy SB 100 and the Metro charter are the definitive statutes for implementing growth management and open space policies for the region. Under SB 100, Oregon land use and development policy for the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) is determined by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). LCOC was established by SB 100 concurrent with the administrative DLCD. The seven commissioners of the LCOC are unpaid volunteers appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate.47 LCDC has been delegated authority to • adopt state land use goals, • assure local plan compliance with the goals, • coordinate state and local planning, and • manage the coastal zone management program. 48 The primary policy tools for growth management are the UGB and the creation of comprehensive plans as mandated by SB 100.49 Each of these tools must be consistent with the Oregon Planning Goals and Guidelines and approved by LCOC. The 2040 Growth Concept is the Metro region's growth management policy for the next 50 years (using 1990 as a baseline). The 2040 Growth Concept is guided by the following principles for the Metro region: • Promoting efficient land use by encouraging development in existing urban centers and along major transportation corridors. • Promoting a balanced transportation system accommodating bicycles, pedestrians, mass transit, and automobiles. • Supporting the regional goal of complete communities by encouraging the location of jobs and commercial centers in a mixed-use environment (housing/commerce/employment).so The specific Metro Code implementation for growth management policies are Title ill, Section 3.01: Urban Growth Boundary and Urban Reserve Procedures, and Section 3.07: Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.s1 Funding Metro is funded primarily by fees charged for solid waste consolidation, transportation, and disposal, by user fees for the various parks and Oregon Zoo, and by 2 sales of maps and mapping services. sSolid waste fees provide the largest amount to the 3 Metro budget. s Metro's total budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 is $303 million. Additionally, Metro has approximately $62 million in fund balances to spend on voter-approved bond measures such as capital construction at the zoo and acquisition of natural areas. s4 Metro, with the approval of the voters, also has the ability to levy property taxes, sales taxes, or income taxes to fund initiatives.ss These limited-duration capital levies have included a bond measure in 1995 for open space acquisition, funding to build the Oregon Convention Center, a 1990-approved tax base for operation of the zoo, and a 1996 initiative to provide better facilities for animals and new exhibits at the Oregon Zoo.s6 Metro's only operations property tax levy is dedicated to the support of the Oregon Zoo. s? Initially, state government maintenance grants were to be withheld from jurisdictions that did not apply for comprehensive plan acknowledgment under SB 100. The state also had the right to withhold cigarette, liquor, and gas tax revenues from jurisdictions in noncompliance. ss The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is coordinated with and 9 also funds the Metro Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). sTransportation planning funds are available to the Metro region via the Transportation and Growth Management program. U.S. Department of Transportation ISTEA and TEA-21 funds compose the majority of federal money available to the Metro region. These funds are available to the region via the 17-member JPACT recognized as the MPO coordinating federal transportation funds. Program Evaluation Program Outputs A regional and national recession in the 1980s did not significantly test the UGB limits. Expansion of the UGB has become a larger issue as population growth in the region reached approximately 20 percent during the 1990s. According to SB 100, the region must maintain a 20-year supply of land within the UGB for present and forecasted future growth. A periodic review every five years must evaluate the current UGB and make recommendations for any necessary changes.60 Executive Director Mike Burton recommended the addition of approximately 18,000 acres to the Metro UGB for the most recent expansion in 2002.61 In accordance with SB 100, Metro must consider "exception land" first. Exception lands are areas exempted from strict application of farm and forest policies because they are already built-up or committed to low-density use.62 In 2002, the executive director recommended the addition of these 18,000 acres of land in the Damascus region south of Gresham to the· UGB. This addition was in excess of all additions to the UGB during the previous 20 years combined.63 Former Metro Executive Officer Mike Burton has suggested that the "finish line" of 20 years in UGB planning be extended to 150 years. It is his opinion that the five-year review to look for the next parcel to add to the UGB is "flawed and shortsighted."64 An open space bond in May 1995, authorized by a 62 percent positive vote, provided for $136 million in general obli~ation bonds to acquire and protect a system of regional open space, parks, and streams.6 This 1995 bond has been almost completely exhausted in the purchase of more than 8000 acres. The newly elected Metro Council president plans to name a new park bond initiative for public vote in 2004.66 Program Sensitivity to Changes in Environment The current state of the national and Oregon economy may affect the growth management policies being pursued by Metro. The Oregon unemployment rate has increased from 4.9 percent in 2000 to 6.3 percent in 2002.67 Similar to national trends, the building market still remains strong in Oregon; residential construction permits were valued at $2,533,000 in 2000 and increased to $2,985,000 in 2002.68 Development pressure and population growth despite difficult economic times will continue to influence Metro's UGB policy. Metro has determined that the Metro region will require 14,200 acres of industrial land to meet the employment needs of population growth in the region for the next 20 years (2000 through 2020). Conversion and development of land within the UGB will provide 8,500 acres and the most recent (2002) UGB expansion will provide an additional 2,234 acres. Therefore, 76 percent of industrial land needs for the next 20 years has been met.69 A further 3,466 will be required to satisfy industrial land use needs completely. The Portland Development Commission (PDC) feels that not enough attention is given to the industrial land issue and the need to accommodate large employers. PDC cited various cases where land constraints and Metro inflexibility drove employers out of the region.70 Metro's infill strategy for conversion of land not currently suited to industrial use was deemed to not be realistic, given limitations on infrastructure.71 Various actors in the region involved with this industrial land issue share this acknowledgement of industrial land scarcity. PDC believes as well that only the economic slowdown prevented Metro from reaching a crisis of industrial land need that would have significant! y hindered future industrial growth.72 In response to PDC concern for industrial land need within the UGB, several interviewees also felt that redevelopment within the Metro UGB was possible and that too much responsibility had been placed upon Metro to solve this complicated economic problem. 73 All parties agreed that this problem needs to be addressed before the next upturn in the economic cycle. Some other opportunities and concerns to the changing program environment are: the emergence of the Oregon Health & Science University as a leader in research grants and additions to their employment base; a vibrant and active downtown Portland; continued high quality-of-life rankings; fewer new technologies and commercialization within the economic base; fewer new and fast-growing companies; Port of Portland business declining relative to other West Coast ports; and airport traffic in comparative terms with other metropolitan regions is decreasing. 74 Growth in Vancouver (WA) should continue to be a concern for the Metro region since the city is beyond Metro's jurisdiction. Growth management laws passed by the Washington State Legislature may provide relief by establishing some urban · development consistency across the Oregon/Washington state boundary. Outcomes Metro's application of Oregon Planning Goal 14 (Urbanization) policy has restricted development beyond and into farm and· forestry lands. Policy management and strict development guidelines have created a development pattern dominated by small-to medium-sized residential builders. Larger builders (6,000+ unit subdivisions typical) have been unwilling or unable to work within Metro guidelines for growth and have also ·been limited by the relatively small size of development parcels within the UGB. Metro has primarily focused on residential concerns due to political considerations and previous charter restrictions. Residents have been committed to open space and natural resource protection: the current open space acquisition bond was widely supported and a new bond is being considered in the current Metro session. This natural environmental bias is a component of the sociocultural support for growth management expressed earlier in this case study. Focus on residential issues seems to have marginalized economic concerns for the region. Metro's political obligations to neighborhoods and the limited availability of land have made economic development difficult to achieve. Increased globalization and the reduced role specific locations exercise in a firm's decision to place industry have further exacerbated this dilemma. Special attention should be given to the methodology in which Metro handles these issues, given the current definable constraints and limitations of the developable land within the UGB. Findings Metro's primary strength as a growth management program devolves from the political process. Election of single-member councilors, bond measures, open debate of issues, and citizen participation on various committees within the region establish a broad base of support. While conducting an informal survey during field resean:b, this broad support for regional government was reiterated although many citi7.ens encountered on the street were unsure as to the exact role ofMetro. Such a deep beliefin regional governance reflects many years oftrial and error through the democratic process. Although Metro has successfully built support through many successive elections and much public debate. other communities may also begin to~issues ofregional concern. Support and conflict within the process is vital in creating a growth management environment with legs to withstand future challenges. Urban development patterns within the Metro region did not appear unique relative to form and density in other cities. Single-family homes continued to dominate residential developments. Densities, however. are considerably higher in close proximity to downtown Portland 1bese downtown areas have experienced significant value appreciation during the 1990-2000 decade. Contrary to the majority of development. residential and commeicial construction along the MAX (Metro Light Rail) is of considerably greater density. Orenco Station and Gresham City Hall along the Blue Line incorporate design guidelines ofNew Urbanism and Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Tri-Met continues to encomage development along the MAX with the support of federal funds through JPACT. Federal funds are vital to continued development along the MAX. JPACT recommendations to divert financial resowres to these transit-Oriented projects should increase urban densities and encourage more efficient use of land area within the UGB. TEA-3. the potential new federal transportation funding pro~is expected to be ratified during the 2003 Congressional session. All growth management foundations have been based on broad state support through the State Planning Goals and the DLCD. State organization provides an important policy and political framework to support the Metro regional growth strategies. Notes 1 Metropolitan Regional Services (Metro), Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (Portland, OR, June 22, 2000), pp. 10-11. 2 U~S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 3, DP-3 Profile ofSelected Economic Characteristics. Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: April 22, 2003. 3 Metro, Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. . 4 Carl Abbott, Deborah Howe, and Sy Adler, eds., Planning the Oregon Way (Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, 1994) p. xii. sIbid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. IO Ibid. 11 Land Use Board of Appeals, Land Use Board ofAppeals. Online. Available: http:/nuba.state.or.us. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 12 Abbott et al., Planning the Oregon Way, p. xiv. 13 Ibid. 14 Interview by David Knoll with Peter Wong, Reporter, Salem Statesman-Journal, Salem, Oregon, January 9, 2003. 15 Abbott et al., Planning the Oregon Way, p. xv. 16 Christopher Leo, ''Regional Growth Management Regime: The Case of Portland, Oregon," Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 20, issue 4 (1998). Online. Available: http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=l459655&db=f5h. Accessed: December 13, 2002. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Interview by David Knoll with Bob Stacey, Executive Director, 1000 Friends of Oregon, Portland, Oregon, January 10, 2003. 23 Observations of the author, Willamette Valley, Oregon, January 6 through January 12, 2003. 24 Wong interview. 25 Author's observations. 26 Carl Abbott, Portland: Planning, Politics, and Growth in the Twentieth-Century City (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, 1983), p. 242. 27 Ibid., p. 249. 28 Ibid., p. 254. 29 Ibid., p. 255. 30 Ibid., p. 262. 31 Metro, Metro's Home-Rule Charter, Portland, OR, n.d. (pamphlet). 32 Oregon Blue Book, Metro. Online. Available: http://bluebook.state.or.us/locaVother/other02.htm. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 33 Metro, Frequently Asked Questions about Metro, Portland, OR, n.d. (pamphlet). 34 Metro, Metro's Home-Rule Charter (pamphlet). 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Metro , Frequently Asked Questions about Metro (pamphlet). 39 Interview by David Knoll with Mary Weber, Manager, Growth Management Services, Metro, Portland, Oregon., January 10, 2003; interview by David Knoll with Ethan Seltzer, Director, Institute for Metropolitan Studies, Portland, Oregon, January 10, 2003. 40 Metro, Metro: Office ofthe Auditor. Online. Available: http://www.metro-region.org/pssp.cfm?ProgServlD=4l#Auditor_role_and_responsibilities. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 41 Metro , Frequently Asked Questions about Metro, (pamphlet). 42 Oregon Blue Book, Metro. (online). 43 lbid. 44 Letter from Ethan Seltzer, Director, Institute for Metropolitan Studies, to David Knoll, February, 28, 2003. 45 Metro, Metro: History ofthe Urban Growth Boundary. Online. Available: http://www.metro­region.org/article.cfm?ArticlelD=277. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 46 Interview by David Knoll with source requesting anonymity, Portland, OR, January 10, 2003. 47 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, DLCD LCDC Commission & Advisory Committee. Online. Available: http://www.lcd.state.or.us/lcdc.html. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 48 Ibid. 49 Abbott et al., Planning the Oregon Way. 50 Metro, Metro: History ofthe Urban Growth Boundary (online). 51 Metro, Metro: Metro Code, by Title. Online. Available: http://www.metro­region.org/article.cfm?ArticleID--408 Accessed: January 28, 2003. 52 Metro, Frequently Asked Questions about Metro (pamphlet). 53 Interview by David Knoll with Jacob Brostoff, Transportation Advocate, 1000 Friends of Oregon, Portland, Oregon, January 10, 2003; Stacey interview. 54 Metro, Frequently Asked Questions about Metro (pamphlet). 55 Metro, Metro's Home-Rule Charter (pamphlet). 56 Metro, Frequently Asked Questions about Metro (pamphlet). 57 Metro, Metro's Home-Rule Charter (pamphlet). 58 Mitch Rohse, Land-Use Planning in Oregon: A No-Nonsense Handbook in Plain English (Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, 1987), p. 6. 59 City of Portland, Traffic Calming -Glossary -Portland Transportation. Online. Available: http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/trafficcalming/how/glossary.htm. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 60 Mike Burton, "In My Opinion," The Oregonian (July 28, 2002). 61 lbid. 62 Arthur C. Nelson and Thomas W. Sanchez, "Lassoing Urban Sprawl," Metroscape (Winter 2003), p. 13. 63 Interview by David Knoll with Laura Oppenheimer, Staff Writer, Metro West New Bureau, The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon, January 8, 2003. 64 Mike Burton, Executive Director, Metro, ''Letter to Metro Council Introducing the UGB Recommendation," Portland, OR, August 1, 2003. 65 Oregon Blue Book, Metro (online). 66 Laura Oppenheimer, "New Metro President Put Parks Atop List," The Oregonian (January 6, 2003), p. B-1. 670regon Economic and Community Development Department, Oregon Statistical Information. Online. Available: http://www.econ.state.or.us/orstat.htm. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 68 lbid. 69 Mike Burton, Executive Director, Metro, ''Letter to Metro Council Introducing the UGB Recommendation." 70 Interview by David Knoll with Mary Schwab Harris, Economic Development Director, Michael D. Ogan, Business Development Senior Manager, and Elissa Gertler, Economic Development Manager, Portland Development Commission, Portland, Oregon, January 7, 2003. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 Seltzer interview. 74 Scott Learn and Ted Sickinger, "Economic Strengths: Economic Weaknesses," The Oregonian (August 18, 2002), pp. A12-A13. Appendix 3.20-Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program A joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) was founded in 1992 as a complement to the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) of 1991 requiring Transportation Planning Systems (TPS) for Metrcrthe regional government in the Portland, Oregon, area-and each city within Oregon. The federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991 and the federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998 provide funding for TPR. Additionally, TGM is supported in its policies by the Oregon State Planning Goals, commonly referred to as SB 100. Table 1 Socioeconomic, Land Use, and Ta--.11Urtation Data for Orei?on 1990 2000 1990to2000 Chan2e (in % ) Socioeconomic Population 2,843,321 3,421,399 20 Urban population 2,002,999 2,692,680 34 Land Use Housing units in buildings with 10 or more units (% of total housing units) 9.9 11.6 Transoortation Work commuters traveling 30 min. or more (% of total workers) 22 27 Workers using public transportation to get to work (% of total workers) 3.4 4.2 Workers driving car, truck, or van alone to get to work(% of total workers) 73 73 Increase in vehicle miles traveled (% increase from 1991-2001) 29 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Files. Onlme. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: March 27, 2003; TRIP: The Road Information Program, National Jnformation­Appendix A: Interstate Vehicle Miles ofTravel, Highway Capacity, and Interstate Share ofTravel. Online. Available: http://www.tripnet.org/InterstateAppxAJan2003.PDF Accessed March 27, 2003. 305 Background Socioeconomic Information Oregon population growth rates exceeded the U.S. national average between 1990 and 2000. Yet due to the existence of strong state planning laws mandating Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) and preservation of rural lands, population growth was concentrated within urban areas in excess of the national average during this same time period. The share of Oregonians traveling more than 30 minutes during work commutes increased above the national average, but growth in transit riders increased greatly in excess of transit ridership in the U.S. as a whole. The majority of Oregon's population lives in the northwestern comer of the state. The Portland Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) has the highest urban population in the state: 1,444,219 persons in 2000.1 Also, four of the six largest cities in Oregon (Portland, Gresham, Beaverton, and Hillsboro) are within the Portland MSA.2 Median per capita income levels increased 38 percent between 1980 and 2000; in 2000, Oregon median per capita income was 3 percent or ($640) less than the national median. During this same period, the economy of Oregon has undergone a dramatic change. Farm and agricultural services output as a total share of the economy has gone from 3.2 percent of the total state economy in 1980 to 2.3 percent ($1.4 billion) in 2000.3 Service economies have seen the greatest rise, increasing from 16.9 percent of the total state economy in 1980 to 25.8 percent ($16 billion) in 2000.4 Land Character Oregon covers an area of 98,386 square miles.5 The state is divided into six land regions: the Coast Range, the Willamette Lowland, the Cascade Mountains, the Klamath Mountains, the Columbia Plateau, and the Basin and Range Region. 6 Growth Management History General History Oregon's rapid growth in the 1960s rekindled the concerns of the 1940s regarding unchecked development. By the end of the 1960s, Willamette Valley residents from Eugene to Portland viewed rapid development as an environmental disaster wasting scenery, farmland, timber, and energy.7 Governor Tom McCall attempted to address many of these envjronmental concerns by authorizing legislation related to environmental quality, public ownership and management of natural resources, and scenic beautification projects. 8 Despite this legislation, groups of citizens, business owners, and farmers continued to be concerned primarily with growth along the Willamette Valley between Portland, Salem, and Eugene, exhibiting a prescience for the area's sprawl potential. The cities of Portland, Salem, and Eugene along Interstate 5 provided a potential development infrastructure to create urban sprawl similar to the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex along Interstate 30 in Texas or the Miami/Fort Lauderdale/West Palm Beach urban and exurban developments along Interstate 95 in Florida. In response to continued development concerns, the Legislative Interim Committee on Agriculture met to craft Senate Bill 10 (SB 10) in 1967. SB 10 was adopted by the legislature in 1969 and encouraged cities and counties to prepare comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances to meet ten broad goals by December 31, 1971. 9 While succeeding in preparing the plans, the legislation lacked a binding mechanism or criteria for evaluating or coordinating local plans. 10 Governor McCall and Senator Hector Macpherson, a Linn County dairy farmer, formed the informal Land Use Policy Committee to suggest ways of improving SB 10. Senator Macpherson was instrumental in quelling the demand of farmers to preserve property rights that provided the future potential of sale to developers.11 An improvement to SB 10, Senate Bill 100 (SB 100), was passed in May 1973 and signed into law by Governor McCall.12 SB 100 created the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) to oversee compliance of local planning with statewide goals. The commission is comprised of seven members-one from each of Oregon's congressional districts and two from the state at large-appointed for four-year terms by the governor and confirmed by the state senate. The LCDC is sufported by the staff at the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).1 To facilitate the numerous land use clarifications and interpretations created by SB 100, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) was created in 1979 by the governor and legislature to facilitate the prompt resolution of land disputes and provide consistent interpretation of Oregon land use laws.14 Following dozens of public workshops throughout the state, LCDC wrote the state planning goals in 1974. The ten goals of SB 10 were clarified and four new goals were added. All 14 goals were adopted by the LCDC in December 1974. One goal addressing the Willamette Valley River Greenway was added in December 1975 and four goals focusing on coastal zone issues were added in December 1976.15 The program survived three ballot initiative challenges in 1976, 1978, and 1982. During the initiative of 1982, LCDC requirements on land use planning were perceived by some to be exacerbating the economic recession of that time. The survival of the program in these ballot initiatives and the net emigration of population during the 1980s provided a stable environment for LCDC, DLCD, LUBA, and the Oregon Planning Goals to mature.16 Successive governors provided strong executive leadership for the continuation, maintenance, and enhancement of growth management policies statewide.17 A central component of the program sought to assure urban development within the UGBs under Oregon Planning Goal 14 (Urbanization). These UGBs were established in the LCDC-certified comprehensive plans from each city and county. Resource lands outside the UGB were governed by land use policy to support the viability and vitality of the agriculture and forest industries.18 The transportation component of the goals and guidelines sought to consider plans for transportation facilities and services to support planned land use and to conform these transportation plans to local and regional comprehensive plans.19 The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and DLCD jointly developed the language of the Transportation Planning Rule that was adopted as an Oregon Administrative Rule by LCDC in 1991. Passage of the TPR integrating transportation and land use coincided with the passage of the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) by Congress. ISTEA provided the initial funds necessary for the overall land use and transportation programs to succeed. 20 Leadership 307 Gubernatorial leadership has been important to the TOM program from its inception. Governor Neil E. Goldschmidt recognized the relationship between transportation and land use policies. This foresight may have been a result of his experiences as commissioner and mayor of Portland and his tenure as transportation secretary from 1979 through 1981. He began to push for creation of an intra-agency organization between ODOT and DLCD to coordinate these policies. Governor Barbara K. Roberts continued the push for TOM and formally began the program in 1992. Passage of the Transportation Planning Rule in 1991 and her executive order encouraging interagency cooperation provided a substantial impetus. TOM was created to help achieve state benchmarks for reducing traffic congestion, increasing mobility, and providing transportation options.21 Successive governors have continued to provide strong leadership for the continuation of the TOM program. Administrative and managerial leadership devolves directly from the comanagers of the program-Barbara Fraser at ODOT and Anna Russo at DLCD. Craig Greenleaf, Deputy Director of Transportation Development at ODOT, also provides leadership by continuing to integrate transportation and land use planning through the TOM program. Mr. Greenleaf is a professional planner and has previous managerial experience with DLCD.22 Nonprofit groups such as 1000 Friends of Oregon (1000 Friends) have been instrumental in providing leadership outside of the government structure. 1000 Friends was founded by former governor Tom McCall and Henry Richmond in 1975. It was created as the "citizens' voice for land use planning to protect(s) Oregon's quality of life from the effects of growth. "23 Factors Leading to Policy Initiation The Western Bypass Highway project in southwest Portland was a galvanizing event for the TOM program in the 1980s and 1990s. 1000 Friends had been expressing their opposition to the project throughout planning and preconstruction. Also, the grassroots organization Sensible Transportation Options for People (STOP, founded in 1989) also argued against the Western Bypass and brought suit against Metro to stop the highway from being adopted into local and regional land use plans.24 STOP had emphasized the importance of transportation planning in the context of land use. The suit, in which lawyers from 1000 Friends represented STOP,25 was affirmed by LUBA and upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals. The Oregon Supreme Court refused to grant the case further appeal. 26 In 1996, 1000 Friends released their study "Analysis of Alternatives-LUTRAQ Volume 5" that considered alternative land use solutions to a freeway. Previously strong support for the bypass began to waver, and Metro suspended the project indefinitely in June 1997.27 ODOT, exasperated by the highway project stalemate and abandonment, came to LCDC in the late 1980s for rules on land use when planning for highways. LCDC took the opportunity to look not only at where to put the highways, but also to examine the integration of land use and transportation. The Oregon Transportation Planning Rule of 1991 was a direct result of these discussions.28 Program Description Structure and Development In 1992, ODOT and DLCD joined forces to integrate transportation planning with the statewide land use planning program and to achieve benchmarks set for mobility and community design. Following this year of initial work, the Transportation and Growth Mana~ement (TGM) program was officially approved by the Oregon Legislature in 1993. 9 The TGM program is directed by the Management Oversight Committee (MOC) composed of representatives of ODOT, DLCD, and the Governor's Office.30 Daily management of the program is coordinated by a joint ODOT/DLCD staff of 18, consisting of ten full-time positions at DLCD and eight full-time positions at ODOT. With regard to the ODOT, six employees in the TOM program work from the five ODOT field administrative regions.31 An intergovernmental agency agreement defines the TGM partnership between ODOT and DLCD. The TGM program manages two programs to coordinate transportation and land use planning under either the Grants or Community Assistance Programs. The Grant Program is the largest and most visible component of TGM. TGM provides funds for two types of planning processes: Category 1: Transportation S~stem Planning, and Category 2: Integrated Land Use and Transportation Planning. 2 Category 1 grants are meant to assist local governments in fulfilling state transportation planning required under Oregon's TPR and the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. These grants may include transportation models for efficient management, planning, and design of capital improvement programs. Category 2 grants assist local governments to develop integrated land use and transportation system plans that create transportation-efficient land use plans for an entire urban area; specify development and refinement plans for a commercial area; or define intergovernmental agreements. 33 Priority for grant funding is given to communities that have not fulfilled their state planning guidelines under the TRP requirement for the creation of a TPS.34 Applications for TOM grant funding are sent to the DLCD office in Salem. 35 TGM also provides the following Community Assistance programs; Smart Develo~ment Code assistance project, outreach workshops, and the Quick Response project. 6 The Smart Development Code Assistance Project helps local governments amend their development and land use codes to provide greater transportation choices, use land more efficiently, maximize utilization of existing public facilities, and foster mixed-use development. This project hires outside consultants using TOM program funds. Local governments apply with TGM for selection.37 Outreach workshops are conducted by the TOM program in the areas of Smart Development and Main Street and are available to a variety of civic and neighborhood groups. Smart Development workshops introduce the concepts of smart growth (Smart growth incorporates a variety of transportation choices, increased efficiency, maximization of resources, mixed-use, and human centered design). Typically, a workshop will begin with a slide show and progress to a question-and-answer or community discussion period. The Smart Development workshop may be used as a kick­ off to a larger planning endeavor for the community. Main Street workshops encourage discussion of the intersection of rural towns and state highways through the TGM publication Main Street ... When a Highway Runs 309 through It: A Handbook/or Oregon Conununitil!s. The workshop consists ofa short presentation, a walking tour of the local main street (typically a state highway), md a group discussion. The workshop attempts to balance the community's needs for a pedestrian-friendly and commercially viable retail district along main street with ODOT's need for efficient traffic ~onthe state highway.38 The Quick Response project provides local governments a team of urban design and transportation planning profemonals to provide assistance with an existing development issue. The project seeks to incorporate pedestrian-friendly, tnmsit, md mixed-use principles into existing development plans pending imminent regulatory approval. Due to the inunOOiacy of this project, TOM does not solicit preapplicalions for "derati 39 CODS1 00. Beyond its own interagency coordination, TOM works closely with the Federal Highway Administration for the majority ofthe funding for the program. Federal funding requires transportatioo to be the primary focus ofTOM-coordinated transportation/land use planning. Review of the grant program by FHW A is cooductcd on a quarterly basis.40 Fmtber funding issues will be discussed later in this case study. TGM also brin~ together local institutions for transportation planning purposes or facilitates transportation planning with the existing Metropolitan Planning Organiz.ation (MPOs) in the area. Policy TGM policy tools are based upon the criteria established in the Oregon Planning Goals. TGM incorporates UGBs, TI311Sit Oriented Development (IUD), comprehensive plans, and TPSs as policy tools to implement the program. TGM is given policy direction by various entities: the TGM Advisory Committee, the Oregoo Transportation Commission (OfC), and the LCDC. The TGM Advisory Committee is composed ofrepresentatives oflocal governments and program stakeholders from the development, environmental, and agricultural communities. The role of the advisory committee is to develop a set ofprogram principles to guide the allocation offunds, measure the efficiency ofthe TGM pro~ provide final grant approval for successful projects, and provide counsel to the TGM Management and Oversight Committee. Oregon transportation policy and comprehensive long-range goals for ODOT are developed and maintained by the OTC. This five-member board is appointed by the governor with the approval of the Oregon Senate. Each board membec serves a four-year term. At least one member of the board must be from east ofthe Cascades and no more than three members may be from any one political party."1 Both ODOT and DLCD have their own appointed Local Officials Advisory Committees (l.OAC) to promote better understanding and cooperation between the agencies and local governments. LOAC members are elected city and county officials appointed by the arc and by LCDC."2 Also, the LCDC is advised by the Citi7.eo Involvement Advisory Committee (CIAC). The CIAC is an extension of the citi7.eo involvement program outlining public participation included in each city and county plan in Oregon. 43 Funding Local financial support for the program may be available through Transportation Improvement Funds (ITF) and any funds available to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Local governments may also donate the use of facilities and services, especially during outreach and workshop projects for the community. The Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) is the Oregon transportation capital improvement program. STIP covers funding and scheduling of transportation projects and programs. STIP is budgeted for a four-year period but is reviewed at two-year intervals. The current 2002-2005 STIP budget is :J>proximately $1.1 billion (of which 80 percent, or $880 million, is federally funded). STIP, although including Oregon Transportation Investment act (OTIA) projects, does not include additional revenue from the act. The OTIA, passed in 2001, provides ODOT authorization to use the proceeds from truck and automobile title fees to finance the sale of construction bonds up to a value of $400 million. A special legislative session in early 2002 added an additional $100 million of bonding capacity.45 According to ODOT, OTIA was "the first significant funding increase for transportation in Oregon in nearly a decade.'.46 Both STIP and OTIA funding must be used exclusively for construction projects.47 All U.S. Department of Transportation-funded transportation construction projects and all regionally significant state and locally funded transportation construction projects (those with air quality impacts of significant interest to the local community) are identified in the STIP. All programs and projects must be in accordance with state and local land use laws and are developed in accordance with the Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP).48 The limits of federal funding for the TGM program is established in yearly reviews of the program with the state representative for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Federal financial sources are matched with state funds during each yearly cycle. The amount of federal funding is dependent upon state matching fund availability.49 STIP and OTIA funds are not available for planning purposes.50 Federal funding for TGM planning has been available through the ISTEA!fEA­21 general budget allocations for transportation. TGM does not use Enhancement or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)-specific funding.51 Program Evaluation Program Outputs Since its 1993-1995 biennium initiation, the TGM program has distributed $21.6 million in planning grants to local communities.52 The 1997-1999 legislature approved $6 million of TGM grants for the 1999-2001 biennium.53 In the 2001-2003 biennium, grants of $4.9 million have been awarded to local entities (cities, counties, council of governments, transportation districts, MPOs, and Metro). Grants are awarded on a yearly basis. 54 Program Sensitivity to Cha.nges in Environment The current state of the national and Oregon economy may affect the growth management policies being pursued by the TGM program. The Oregon unemployment rate has increased from 4.9 percent in 2000 to 6.3 percent in 2002. Travel industry 311 employment has also decreased from 95,300 in 2000 to 94,100 in 2002; a 1 percent decrease.55 Current economic difficulties have required the newly elected governor Ted Kulongoski to propose 20 to 30 percent reductions in state budgets. The full effects on TOM (through ODOT and DLCD reduction in full-time employees) have yet to be determined, but the DLCD comanager of the program has been reassigned to another state agency.56 Additionally, program staffing is expected to be reduced by at least two full-time employees in the 2003-2005 biennium. TEA-21 requires reauthorization within this 108 congressional session for continued funding. Funding for the next TEA has not been determined as of this writing. Program Outcomes The TOM program, leveraging federal funds, has sponsored transportation/land use plans across the state of Oregon. Outputs of the program have created viable alternatives to traditional highway, street, and transit planning consistent with comprehensive land use planning. These plans should influence future development patterns within their jurisdictional areas and have long-lasting outcomes on urban/suburban form. Through outreach and community workshops, greater public emphasis has been given to the integration of transportation and land use planning. Systems of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) are perceived as potential development patterns consistent with community, neighborhood, and city goals. Main Street ... When a Highway Runs through It: A Handbook for Oregon Communities has been tremendously beneficial for small-to medium-sized towns attempting to balance the needs of FHW A and ODOT for pass-through highway traffic and community, commercial, and civic vitality in downtowns. Code assistance projects providing immediate revisions to existing land-use codes in municipalities throughout Oregon that were previously incompatible with integrated transportation planning should produce direct and indirect program outcomes in the future. Federal funds available for TOM are essential to its continued implementation. Because of this reliance on federal funds, results of the current TEA negotiations in Congress may influence the scope of the program and future directions. Findings TOM, a tenuous agreement initiated in 1992 following passage of the Transportation Planning Rule in 1991, has since gained credibility and organizational effectiveness. Recognized bureaucratic shortcomings and difficulties in jointly coordinating two large state departments at the program's inception have been corrected. Formal evaluations have yet to be undertaken to consider the program's overall effectiveness. Effectiveness for TOM may be measured on two distinct levels: transportation planning and planning implementation. Under the requirements of the TPR, TOM has been very effective in assisting municipalities in fulfilling state guidelines. Conversely, many of the plans conceived have not been implemented and the associated construction has not begun. This evaluation of effectiveness may be premature as the value of the TOM program may not be expressed explicitly until the forthcoming decade. Transportation plans and the construction plans associated with them require time and further elaboration for implementation. TOM has recognized the need for implementation and is looking for additional funds to create the detailed documentation necessary to facilitate construction. On a longer term horizon, the TOM program has fulfilled an important public education role on the necessity of transportation/land use integration; it has also provided a firm foundation of integrated codes to municipalities. These activities should provide additional benefits in the upcoming decade. The comparatively small population of Oregon does not create a unique set of conditions within TOM. Plans and grant projects have been conducted in cities of various sizes, similar to cities in other portions of the United States. Therefore the individual projects of the program should be transferable without undue difficulty. Funding from the federal government via the next TEA in 2003 is essential to the continuation of the program. Federal programs providing financial support for implementation of transportation and land use plans would invigorate the program and assist in providing tangible and physical results. 313 Notes 1 Metro Regional Services (Metro), Metro Regional Data Book (Portland. OR, Metro Regional Service. date), p. 8. 2 Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia. Oregon. Online. Available: http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=OR026500&db=fuok&tg=AN. Accessed: May 31, 2003. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. s Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Carl Abbott., Deborah Howe, and Sy Adle£, eds., Planning the Oregon Way (Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, 1994), p. xii. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Land Use Board of Appeals, Land Use Board ofAppeals. Online. Available: http:Jnuba.state.or.us. Accessed· January 28, 2003. 15 Abbott et al., Planning the Oregon Way, p. xiv. 16 Ibid. 17 lnterview by David Knoll with Peter Wong, Reporter, Salem Statesman-Journal, Salem. Oregon, January 9, 2003. 18 Abbott et al., Planning the Oregon Way, p. xv. 19 Ibid. p. 301. 20 Letter from Craig Greenleaf, Manage£, Tramportation Development Division, Oregon Department of Transportation, to David Knoll, Much 24, 2003. 21 Letter from Bob Cortright. Tramportation Planning Coordinator, Transportation and Growth Management. to David Knoll, February. 28, 2003. 22 lnterview by David Knoll with Bob Cortright. Transportation Planning Coordinator, Tramportation and Growth Management Program. Salem, Oregon, January 9, 2003. 23 1000 Friends ofOregon, About 1000 Friends ofOregon. Online. Available: http://www.friends.org/aboutfmdex.html. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 24 Cortright letter. 25 Email from Jacob Brostoff, Tramportation Advocate, 1000 Friends ofOregon, to David Knoll, February 20, 2003. 26 Christopher Leo, "Regional Growth Management Regime: The Case of Portland, Oregon," Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 20, isme 4 (1998). Online. Available: http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=l459655&db=f5h. Accessed: December 13, 2002. rt 1000 Friends of Oregon, About 1000 Friends ofOregon (online). 28 Cortright interview. 29 Tramportation and Growth Management Program, About the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program. Online. Available: www.lcd.state.or.us!tgm. Accessed· January 28, 2003. 30 Oregon Department of T~onand Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon's Transportation and Growth Management Program: 199'J-2()()J Biennial Repon (Salem, OR, January 2001). 31 Interview by David Knoll with Barbara Frasec, Manager, Planning Group, Oregon Department of T~on,Salem, Oregon, January 9, 2003. 32 Tramporation and Growth Management Program, About the Transporation and Growth Management (TGM) Program (online). 33 Ibid. 34 Oregon Department ofTransportation and Oregon Department ofLand Conservation and Development. Oregon's Transportation and Growth Management Program: 199'J-2()()J Biennial Report. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 Telephone interview by David Knoll with Fred Patron, Senior Transportation Planning Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Salem, Oregon, January 21, 2003. 41 Oregon Department of Transportation, Transportation Key Facts 2002: Useful Information about Transportation in Oregon (Salem, OR, 2002), p. 2. 42 Greenleaf letter. 43 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, DLCD LCDC Commision and Advisory Committees. Online. Available: http://www.lcd.state.or.us/lcdc.html. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 44 Oregon Department of Transportation, Transportation Key Facts 2002, p. 28. 45 Ibid., p. 34. 46 Ibid. 47 Greerueaf letter. 48 Oregon Department of Transportation, Transportation Key Facts 2002, p. 28. 49 Patron interview. so Greenleaf letter. 51 Patron interview. 52 Transportation and Growth Management Program, Grants. Online. Available: http://www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/grants.htm. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 53 Transportation and Growth Management Program, 1999-2001 Grant Awards. Online. Available: http://www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/grants/99-0lawards.htm. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 54 Transportation and Growth Management Program Grants, (online). 550regon Economic and Community Development Department, Oregon Statistical Information. Online. Available: http://www.econ.state.or.us/orstat.htm. Accessed: January 28, 2003. 56 Cortright interview. 315 Appendix 3.21-Lancaster County Agricultural Preservation Program A Purchase ofAgricultural Conservation Easements program ensures that farming remains a vital part ofLancaster County's economy. Pennsylvania was recognized in 2000 for protecting more farmland than any other state in the nation, approximately 220,000 acres,1 and Lancaster County has preserved more farmland than any other county, a little over 55,000 acres as of fall 2002. 2 Lancaster employs a number of growth management tools to preserve agricultural lands, and by far the most effective is its Purchase.of Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE) program, a component of the state-level model. Despite considerable growth pressure from its east, Lancaster County has managed to create an environment that sustains farming as a viable part of the local economy. Table 1 Socioeconomic and Land Use Data for Lancaster County Socioeconomic Population Urban papulation (%of total pap.) Rural population (% of total pop.) Farm papulation (%of total pop.) Persons oer sq. mile Land Use Acres in arncultural use 1980 362,346 197,766 54 164,580 45 24,556 6.7 NIA 1980 NIA 1990 422,822 243,431 57 179,391 42 18,182 4.3 NIA 1990 403,964 2000 470,658 354,537 75 116,121 25 13,494 2.8 495.9 2002 400,000 1980-2000 Change (in%) 29.9 79.3 38.9 -29.4 -44.4 -45.0 -58.2 1990-2002 Change (in%) -1 Acres zoned for arncultural use NIA 262,944 320,000 21 Acres in Agricultural Security Areas Number of farms County preserved acres NIA NIA NIA 83,106 4,775 7,000 130,220 5,910 55,000 57 23 685 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Files. Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: March 3, 2003; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980 General Social and Economic Characteristics and Census 1980 General Population Characteristic (Washington, D.C., 1981) ; County of Lancaster Agricultural Preserve Board, Program Guidelines (Revised-9127tfJl) (Lancaster, Pennsylvania, December 13, 2001), p. 2. Department of Agriculture, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Annual Report on the Farmland Protection Program, (Harrisburg, PA, 1990) Appendix C-3; Correspondence from June Mengel, Director, Lancaster Agricultural Preserve Board, to Mona Nichols, May 6, 2003. Background Socioeconomic Information The culture of farming in Lancaster County bears the influence of the Plain Sect people-the Amish, Old Order Mennonites, and Brethren-and their tradition of working small, individually owned farms has strongly influenced Lancaster County's efforts to preserve not only agricultural land, but the small-scale farming way of life. Current statistics about the size of these communities and their economic output are difficult to find; however, one estimate put the number of Plain Sect farms at about 30 percent of the county total,3 and county officials feel that these numbers are increasing dramatically.4 Though large-scale, corporate farming does not pervade the county landscape, agriculture is a robust sector of the economy. According to information released in the 1997 Census of Agriculture, Lancaster ranked second in the nation in number of farms with sales of $100,000 or more, bested only by Fresno, California, a county more than five times its size. The market value of its products ranked fifteenth highest in the nation.5 Farming in Lancaster brings in $726 million dollars per year, and one in five county jobs is connected to the agriculture business.6 Given its acclaimed soils, one might conclude that Lancaster specializes in the growing of produce. However, receipts from crops account for just $82 million of agriculture's total receipts. Farmers have chosen to specialize in products where profit margins are highest, namely in the production of dairy products, chicken, and other meat products, a business that accounts for $645 million of the county's agricultural receipts. Tyson Foods, a major employer in the area, bases some of its poultry operations in New Holland, Lancaster County,7and many farms specializing in dairy production are entering into cooperative relationships with companies like Land O'Lakes. Much of what is grown in Lancaster is grain for livestock and produce from the subsistence farming of the Plain Sect people.9 A lucrative byproduct of agriculture in Lancaster has been tourism, or agritourism; the seven million yearly visitors to the county add $1.3 billion to the 10 economy. The transformation of Lancaster County from a primarily agrarian community to an increasingly urbanized area is reflected in the county's urban, rural, and farm population changes over two decades. Since 1980, when Lancaster County's efforts to preserve agricultural lands began in earnest, the urban population has grown by 80 percent; over that same period, the rural population declined by almost 30 percent. A more dramatic exodus from Lancaster's farming communities is reflected by the 45 percent decline in the area's farm population. The rural population did increase between 1980 and 1990, despite an overall decrease in the farming population during the same ten-year period (Table 1). Lancaster County's growth was inevitable given its proximity to East Coast population hubs-during the 1980s and 1990s, it became a popular locus for urbanites seeking a less-expensive, idyllic existence. The area has also become a popular destination for retirees.11 To better measure growth trends, the County Planning Commission has developed a growth tracking system and recently released data pertaining to the period from 1994 through 2001. The report cites that 10,368 acres were developed in Lancaster County during that seven-year period, an average of l,300 acres 12 per year. Land Character Lancaster is situated just 60 miles west of the Philadelphia area, the country's sixth-largest metropolitan statistical area, and is proximate to populations surrounding New York City and Washington, D.C.13 A 1997 Census of Agriculture found that the Lancaster County-Piedmont Region of Pennsylvania was ideally situated for the efficient delivery of food to one-fifth of the U.S. population.14 In 2002, of the COllllty's 630,000 acres, roughly half-f'..dimated to be somewhere between 375,00015 and 420,00016 acres-were estimated to be in agricultural use. 1be soils in Lancaster, along with the neighboring counties ofChester and York, provide the largest expanse of productive, noninigated farmland in the nation.17 Area residents involved in agricultural industries are passionate about the quality of their fannland; soils in the region are among the highest class in the world Indeed, more than 50 percent of the county's land is classified as prime farmland, possessing Class I and II soils.18 1be growth and development Lancaster County experienced during the 1980s and 1990s occurred on prime agricultural soils, converted from farm to residential use, with the most extensive loss of farmland occurring in Lancaster County.19 In its third biannual resident survey since 1998, the Hourglass Foundation, a nonprofit organization committed to preserving the high quality oflife in Lancaster County, reported that over 75 percent ofcounty respondents felt that loss of fannland in the county was a serious problem. The corollary to the finding-that residents felt growth in the area had been unchecked or ill-planned-was confirmed by two Hourglass Foundation survey results, one finding that 42 percent of respondents felt that overdevelopment threatened quality of life and the second finding that 85 percent of respondents support restrictions on future growth.20 1be county's growing pains are evident. Three surveys conducted by the Hourglass Foundation since 1998 have consistently found that traffic and congestion are the things residents like least about living in Lancaster County;21 additionally, there are a host of private organizations whose purpose is to maintain the high quality of life in the county.22 Growth Management History The alarming loss of farmland Pennsylvania experienced during the 1980s and 1990s galvanized statewide support for agricultural land preservation. However, state lawmakers began laying the foundation for agricultural land protection as early as 1968, with Act 247, the Municipalities Planning Code and its subsequent amendments, which allowed for agricultural zoning. In Pennsylvania, local governments hold all land use power, and therefore when Act 247 passed, the authority to create agricultural zones rested with municipalities. As of 2003, local governments in Pennsylvania maintain control over land use, though the legislature has, over the years, taken steps to encourage greater county-level planning. Also in 1968, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed Act 442, which authori7.ed the state and counties to acquire and hold land for open space uses; this was an important first step toward the creation of a conservation easement purchase program. In 1981, state legislators passed Act 43, which significantly strengthened agricultural protection policies. Act 43 benefited agriculture in two ways. First, it allowed landowners to emoll their acreage in Agricultural Security Areas, a land protection tool that offered the following benefits: • Strengthened right-to-farm laws: Township supervisors agree not to enact nuisance ordinances which will restrict normal farming practices within a security area; and • Increased protection against eminent domain: Government bodies who would condemn land in a security area must first receive approval from the state Agricultural Lands Condemnation Acceptance Board and the township.23 A further benefit of Act 43 was a provision allowing the creation of the Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements, or PACE, program. Only those landowners who enroll their lands in an Agricultural Security Area can apply to sell their development rights to a county's Agricultural Preserve Board. The state has also passed bills to address taxation of farms. An act passed in 1966 and another passed in 1974 allowed farmers to enroll for preferential tax assessments if their land was in agricultural use. 24 Recent growth management measures passed by the state legislature have also helped Lancaster County's effort to protect agricultural lands. In June 2000, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed Acts 67 and 68, which amended the Municipalities Planning Code to strengthen intermunicipal planning; the laws were designed to give cities and towns incentives, principally financial, to work with county-level planning offices to develop multimunicipal plans. Included in the laws were two new and important powers for cities and towns: the ability to designate growth areas and the ability to distribute land uses over a collaborating (multimunicipal) area-prior to the law, municipalities had to zone for a full range of uses. In addition, since municipalities can work together to zone, the new legislation also allows them to enact transfer of development right programs across borders. Through Act 67 and 68, state lawmakers attempted to redress inequities in planning authority between counties and municipalities, the latter being the party with exclusive rights over land use. While it is too soon to determine the laws' effectiveness, they are thought to be less strong than the growth management laws of Florida or Oregon. 25 Thus far in Lancaster County, officials feel that the laws have afforded county planners with increased cooperation and collaboration from the area's municipalities.26 Lancaster County employs all of the abovementioned land use tools to protect its premium soils and to manage its growth. However, the centerpiece of farmland preservation in Lancaster County is the PACE program administered by the Agricultural Preserve Board. 27 The creation of the Agricultural Preserve Board dates back to 1980, when a nine-member board was appointed to develop and administer a voluntary deed restriction program to preserve selected areas of the county's best agricultural land, actions allowed by Act 442of1968 and Act 43of1981.28 Though the state laid the groundwork for the program, it dedicated no funds for the purpose; hence, Lancaster County's agricultural land preservation program as it was formed in 1980 was funded exclusively with county funds.29 The commonwealth finally authorized funding for the PACE program with Act 149of1988, which became effective in February 1989.30 Soon after Act 149's passage, the county commissioners of Lancaster reestablished the county's Agricultural Preserve Board according to the provision of Act 43 of 1981 to handle the purchase of conservation easements.31 Because of its early involvement with the purchase of land conservation prior to receiving state funding, the Lancaster County PACE program became the state's model. In addition to the Agricultural Preserve Board, Lancaster Farmland Trust occupies a highly visible role in preserving county farms. The nonprofit began in 1988 to preserve . farms among the Plain Sect people, whose tradition of nongovernmental participation prevented them from accepting public funds for easements. The organization purchases easements and accepts easement donations from the Plain Sect population and from the community at large. Program Description Structure and Development For Lancaster County, maintaining agriculture is about more than preserving scenic beauty and cultural heritage; it is an economic development tool which ensures the county a diversified employment base and affords residents some protection from economic downturns in other sectors. The county uses tools and policies handed down by the state not only to preserve open space, but to achieve a broader goal of maintaining a "working landscape." Preserving a working landscape differs from preserving open space in that the "working landscape forms a part of a local or regional economic base, and produces food, fiber, and minerals that provide employment directly on the land and indirectly through supply, processing, and transportation businesses."32 County planning officials, who work to integrate county-level growth management plans with agricultural preservation efforts, aim to create an environment where the land and the infrastructure essential to the propagation of profitable agriculture are sustained. 33 Lancaster County believes it can accomplish this by using the following growth management tools to create a "critical mass" of farmland to enable support businesses to survive, maintain affordable land prices, sustain the farming community's trust in the reliability of the land protection program and hold down costs associated with a successful preservation program. 34 Zoning Agricultural zones can be changed, a notable weakness of the tool; however agricultural zoning is inexpensive, and therefore, it is a much-utilized tool in the county.35 Localities have control over zoning, and there is no single zoning standard across the municipalities. Generally, the townships allow agriculturally zoned areas to develop one building lot, a maximum of 2 acres in size, for every 25 acres owned. A less-prevalent zoning standard is one lot of development per 50 acres.36 Agricultural Security Areas Areas at least 250 acres in size can be part of Agricultural Security Areas and the properties do not have to be contiguous. As of 2003, an Agricultural Security Area is established after a petition is submitted to the township supervisors by the farmers. 37 The areas are reevaluated every seven years, but new land can be added at any time. 38 In order for lands to be purchased by the state-funded PACE program, they must be contained within an Agricultural Security Area. PACE Program Those associated with agricultural preservation in Lancaster agree that the purchase of easements is the most powerful agricultural land preservation tool by virtue of the duration of protection afforded. In its literature to prospective farmers, the Agricultural Preserve Board lists a total of 20 steps that must be completed in the easement purchase process, everything ranging from appraisal to approval by the county commissioners and the State Agricultural Preserve Board. Because resources are finite, the county preserve board must prioritize farms to be purchased on a yearly basis; the ranking process assigns farms points based on myriad farm qualities-dass of soil, zoning, size of farm, farm product sales, historic and scenic qualities, proximity of other farms with conservation easements, consistency with county future land use map, etc. 39 In general, the ranking process complements the county's overarching agricultural preservation goals by giving farms that contribute to the creation of a critical mass of farms a higher priority. After the ranking process is complete, the board must !fprove the current ranking of farms before it disburses funds and has farms appraised. Conservation easements purchased by the board must have the following characteristics: be entirely within an official Agricultural Security Area consisting of 500 acres or more; have contiguous acreage at least 50 acres in size (some exceptions exist for this rule); possess at least 50 percent of its soils in USDA soil capability-classes I-IV; have at least 50 percent of its acreage in current use as harvest cropland, pasture, or grazing land; and not be located within an established growth area.41 Easements that are donated to the Agricultural Preserve Board are subject to the following slightly different criteria and must be (1) at least ten acres in size; (2) in agriculture and open space use; (3) zoned for agriculture; and (4) cannot be located within an established growth area.42 Absent from the stipulations for donated easements is the necessity of the farm being contained within an Agricultural Security Area; the board decides whether to accept these types of donations on a case-by-case basis. Following the purchase of the easement, the Agricultural Preserve Board takes responsibility for overseeing that the use of the property conforms to the purchase agreements by performing farm audits every seven years. Urban Containment Techniques Designated growth areas, Pennsylvania's variant of an urban containment technique, are allowed by Acts 67 and 68 of 2000. The Lancaster County Planning Commission assists localities, who have the authority to make land use decisions, in creating growth boundaries and in using other growth management techniques. Implementation of this tool has caused some consternation among Lancaster citizens, as there seems to be differing philosophies on the extent to which the borders of designated growth areas are flexible. Growth management scholars differentiate between two types of urban containment techniques: Urban Service Areas and Urban Growth Boundaries. The former are seen as more easily expanded because they are drawn to expand public facilities in the most economically advantageous way; the latter have other policy objectives-in addition to providing efficient services-and therefore may not be as flexible, depending on the other policy objectives.43 The text of Act 67 defines designated growth areas as areas where: "orderly and efficient development to accommodate the projected growth of the areas within the next 20 years ... and the services to serve such development are provided or planned for."44 This definition, included in the act's recommendations for the contents of county-level plans, would make designated growth areas akin to urban service boundaries, a more flexible border line utilized to coordinate infrastructure development with local planning goals. On the other hand, Act 67 also states that localities should "designaterural resource areas ... where rural resource uses are planned for and where develO(JllM211 at densities that are compatible with rural resoun:e uses are or may be pennitted."'5 In other words, Act 67 asks localities to provide for a specific policy objective, the preservation of agricultural activities. In light of Act 67's provision to also designate "rural resoun:e areas," Lancaster County's designated growth areas must be used not only as a tool for the coordination of infrastructure and growth but also as a tool for promoting a broader policy goal-in this case, agricultural land preservation. Hence, designatOO growth areas that abut prime farmland should be regarded as an urban growth boundary, with fixed borders to prevent development. Lancaster County planners and developers continue to grapple over the degree to which designatOO growth boundaries are expandable, and the topic becomes more convoluted in light ofeasement purchases. Ifconservation easements are purchased directly adjacent to a farm boundary, then the designatoo growth area is hemmed in by the easement, which limits land use to agricultural purposes in perpetuity. On occasion, the Agricultural Preserve Board has bought farms that abut designated growth area boundaries, much to the aggravation of area developers. Were the preserve board to ticat the designated growth boundary as an urban service area, it would try to pmchase farms at a considerable distance from the designated growth area, leaving room for the future expansion of infrastructure and growth in the area adjacent to the boundary. As of2003, the preserve board will purchase farms adjacent to designated growth areas. Intergovemmentalllnterlocal. Relationships/Partnerships The degree to which agricultural land preservation is integrated with the county's growth management plan is apparent in the PACE stipulations, which make frequent references to urban growth boundaries and agricultural zoning practices. Further evidence of the close relationship between county planning and agricultural preservation is the fact that the bead ofthe Agricultural Preserve Board is housed within the planning commission office suite. The Lancaster County Planning Commission wads closely with the preserve board to keep farming a viable economic sector in the county-this is no easy task, since the county has little control over land use decisions. 1beCounty Planning Commission, however, has managed to convince municipalities to wort together to plan for growth, which benefits agricultural land preservation. Another major partner in farmland preservation is the nonprofit Lancaster Farmland Trust (LFT) which, as of 2001, had preserved about 140 farms, totaling a little over 9,000 acres of preserved farmland46 1be relationship between the preserve boanl and the LFf has been described by one evaluator as "a unique public-private partnership" where the ..county possess ample funds ... while as a private organiz:ation, [sic] the lFT possesses the ability to act quickly.""7 For example, the preserve board is limited to purchasing farms within Agricultural Security Areas, while the I.Ff is subject to none of the state's limitations. The preserve board, therefore, has avoided the red tape associated with preserving a farm which is not part of an agricultural security area by asking the LFf to preserve the farm and then purchasing the easement from IFfafter the farmland meets state program requirements. On several occasions, the I.Ff has acted at critical moments to preserve farms in imminent danger ofdevelopment; this usually occurs for the reason described in the example above, or when the farm ranks low on the preserve board's preservation hierarchy, and therefore would have not been preserved for some time.48 Finally, the preserve board and LFf work together to establish the critical mass of farms necessary to sustain agricultural businesses; notes one source, "easements owned by the Preserve Board are adjacent to easement held by the LFf contributing to the creation of large blocks of protected lands."49 Previous sections have described the strong, state-level support of county-level programs in Pennsylvania. The federal government's influence on farmland preservation in Lancaster County merits discussion as well. Recently, farm legislation passed by Congress has allocated funding for farmland preservation. In addition, federal policies concerning the tax implications for the sale of conservation easements benefit agricultural land preservation. For instance, the federal government allows farmers to deduct from the easement value his or her basis-what the farmer paid for the farm plus any improvement minus depreciation-in the farm. Allowing deductibility of the basis from the easement price results in considerable tax savings for farmers. Older farms with a relatively small basis have other avenues for tax savings; the IRS allows the use of an easement payment in a like-kind exchange-allowing the landowner to use the easement money to acquire real estate involved in business, trade, or investment and to defer any capital gains taxes that might be due. 50 Farmers who donate conservation easements have the opportunity for tax savings as well. Thirty percent of the value of donated conservation easements can be deducted from a farmer's income for up to six years. While this could potentially result in large income tax savings for farmers, those who donate easements often fail to realize the full benefit of the tax savings because they are unable to deduct the full amount of the donated easement over the six-year period.51 There are other potential income tax benefits from donating easements. Farms with donated easements are valued at a lesser rate for estate tax purposes; additionally, in 1997, Congress revised the IRS Code to grant further reductions in the value of taxable estates located within 25 miles of a metropolitan area.s2 Funding Lancaster's Agricultural Preserve Board has a budget of approximately $8 million per year with which to purchase farms;53 the LFf has a much smaller pool of financial resources, derived from loyal contributors and from endowments.54 The county's money is a mix of federal, state, and county funding. The 2002 Federal Farm Bill provided $260,000 for farm preservation, enabling Lancaster to purchase four farms in 2002. Typically, state funds that come to Lancaster, are matched by the county. The state money consists of funds collected from a two-cent tax on cigarettes, which is capped at $20 million annually,55 and from Act 15 of 1999 that authorized $43 million in supplemental farmland preservation funding for the counties.56 As of 2001, funding from Act 15 was spent. The county has consistently raised money for farmland preservation, typically from the county's general revenue fund. More recently, the county issued $25 million dollars of bonds in 1999, to be used within a two-year time frame. This bond is now exhausted, but the county has committed to additional bond funding to continue the program in 2002 and 2003.57 In its 2002 Annual Report, the State Farmland Preservation Program reported that total funding for Lancaster County was composed of $4,017,916 in county appropriations and $3,553,292 in state funding; there were more total funds for the purchase of apcultural easements available in Lancaster than any other county in the commonwealth.5 In 2003, Lancaster's average easement value was $2,900 an acre; historically, the highest value has been around $5,000 per acre and the lowest around $1,000 an acre.59 The average farm size in Lancaster County is 71 acres, which makes the board's typical purchase of a conservation easement a little over $200,000. Program Evaluation Program Outputs As of 2003, Lancaster has achieved two of its four goals associated with preserving its small farm character. The Agricultural Preserve Board purchased easements on enough continuous acres to create several critical masses of agricultural lands. By doing so, the county won the community's trust in the sustainability of the program, as farmers who operate in or near these farming masses are confident that agricultural activity will persist despite growth pressures. The county has been less successful at holding down the per-acre cost of county agricultural land. Land that is adjacent to preserved farms, especially a critical mass of farms, has been bid up by farm buyers for two primary reasons: land adjacent to preserved land will stay under cultivation-further proof of the PACE program's efficacy in garnering public trust-and land close to preserved fanns has a greater chance of being preserved by the county.6() While the increase in agricultural land values indicates the success of Lancaster's PACE program, it also poses problems. Higher land prices jeopardize the county's goal of holding down costs associated with a successful preservation program, as higher land values lead to higher easement purchase costs. An evaluation of the outputs of the program's four major growth management tools further shows that while the county has achieved significant results for its investment in agricultural land protection, there many thousands of farming acres left unprotected. 'Zoning Municipalities in Lancaster have zoned 320,000 acres for agriculture, of which 276,000 acres are effective agricultural zoning, which allows less than or equal to one housing unit per 20 acres.61 The proportion of land zoned for farming roughly equals the amount of county land currently used for agriculture. While zoning is not permanent, petitioning municipalities to change zoning ordinances is burdensome; therefore, zoning, the most widely used growth management tool in the county, represents a significant barrier to converting agricultural land. Agricultural Security Areas A good portion of land that has been zoned for agricultural use, as well as some land that is zoned for other uses, is designated part of the county's Agricultural Security Areas.62 The county has, as of 2003, over 130,000 acres designated as Agricultural Security Areas.63 The county PACE program can only purchase easements in Agricultural Security Areas, thus approximately one-third of the land currently used for farming is eligible for the purchase of easements. PACE Program Lancaster County has preserved more than 55,000 acres as of fall 2002.64 The PACE program has been quite popular in the fanning community, and in 2003, the board had a list of 300 farms waiting to sell development rights.65 The PACE program's outputs as of 2003 are significant; still, 55,000 protected acres represents less than 20 percent of the total amount of land currently used for agricultural uses in the county. Urban Containment Techniques Forty-four of the county's 60 munic~alities actively participate in the implementation of designated growth areas, and the County Planning Commission is, in 2003, working to develop the Lancaster Inter-municipal Committee, an agreement to plan for growth between 11 urban areas surrounding the city of Lancaster.67 The County Planning Commission continues to convince municipalities to use the planning tools handed down by the legislature to manage growth. Nevertheless, of the 6,382 acres of development outside the county' urban growth areas that occurred between 1994 and 2001, 74 percent was within the jurisdiction of 31 municipalities with draft or adopted growth area plans. 68 Outcomes No government program earns the unqualified support of its citizenry, and the conservation easement program in Lancaster County is no exception. Dissenting groups have emerged within the county, especially among those in the home building industry and representatives of businesses not associated with agriculture. The local Chamber of Commerce, an earnest advocate for farmers and farm-related business in the county, admits that balancing non-fanning-related business interests with the demands of sustaining agriculture as a viable industry is no easy task.69 This dilemma was illustrated in 2003 by the Manheim Auto Auction's nearly three-year effort to expand on 268 acres of farmland in Penn Township. Though the Auto Auction is a major employer in the area and a homegrown business, it has faced staunch opposition.70 Other businesses face similar difficulties finding areas for expansion. Lancaster developers and home builders also express frustration with the community's current agriculture preservation policies. One of their grievances concerns the preservation of land within designated growth areas. While the preserve board strictly adheres to a policy of not preserving farms within growth areas, other private land trust organizations will. The Agricultural Preserve Board admits the uselessness of such purchases, which often result in a farm being completely surrounded by residential or other urban use land. 71 In such cases, fanning is virtually impossible on the preserved farm. Another conflict between developers and the preserve board concerns the use of easements to create boundaries to designated growth areas. As discussed above, when the board purchases easements adjacent to designated growth areas it permanently prevents any other use of that land, apart from agriculture. Developers bemoan this practice, as they feel it conflicts with what they perceive as the purpose of desifiated growth area, namely to coordinate the expansion of infrastructure with growth. 2 Not everyone agrees with this interpretation. One evaluator of Lancaster's preservation model notes that in the county, "the easements and growth boundary work together to curb sprawl and channel development into appropriate locations."73 Developers, however. claim that farms preserved near growth boundaries only exacerbate leapfrog developmen~ since utilities may be extended through a preserved farm. 74 Designated growth areas and county-level planning can be subsumed by a greater issue. the need to address municipal-related planning issues in Lancaster County. The County Planning Commission. for its ~is doing a goodjob ofworking with municipalities to plan for growth; but the critical weakness in the system, as pointed out by several different parties. is that in Pennsylvania all planning power is held by municipalities. While Acts 67 and 68 provide a carrot for intermunicipal planning in the form of cash incentives. they fail to give the county government a stick to penalize nonconforming municipalities. While many municipalities in Lancaster have established urban growth areas. they are failing to accompany this growth management tool with complementary growth management tools such as planning for concurrency. or updating municipal zoning ordinances to allow for denser development. During an interview. representatives of the Lancaster County Builders Association complained that residential zoning ordinances had not been adjusted so that high-density building can take place within designated growth areas. citing that most municipalities don't allow densities beyond 5.5 units per acre. 'The most recent Growth Tracking Report cited 4.9 dwellings per acre as the average density inside the county's mban growth areas. 75 Builders would prefer densities closer to 8 dwellings per acre. In fact, the larger issue ofmban revitaliz.ation is one that has been sorely ignored by the area. The Hourglass Foundation's 2003 survey found that 64.6 percent ofcitiz.ens felt like the fate ofLancaster city impacts the county. and 53.3 ~tof residents felt that downtown revita1iz.ation in the city was "very important. "7 Officials at the Chamber of Commeree admit that making the city of Lancaster a more attractive place to reside is one of their goals. n Other problems with agricultural land preservation could arise in the future. In 2003. much of the farmland in Lancaster. revered for its prime soil, was being used for animal husbandry; the principal reason for this use is that profit margins on livestock farming are higher. Amish farmers, also seeking higher profits, are opting for only subsistence farming and are running cottage industries-e.g.• woodworking shops-as their primary income source. In the future, as residential land becomes scarce and more expensive. popular opinion may begin to question the wisdom of the easement program. especially when the land is not being used for crop-growing purposes. While builders and land preservationists do seem to have their differences. the system forces parties to work together in the community. Representatives from the building community meet regularly with representatives from the City Planning Departmen~ the head of the Agricultural Preserve Boanl. and other stakeholders to discuss the development of the community and to hammer out principles to accommodate the growth that is bound to happen. Despite the problem of balancing economic development in other sectors with the maintenance of an agricultural economy, Lancaster's model has managed to maintain a strong agricultural basis for the local economy. F~ The protection of so many acres in Lancaster can be attributed not to one pmpose. but to the confluence many different purposes to support a single goal. Farmers and farm-related business owners want to maintain their livelihood; the Plain Sect population wants to maintain its autonomy and tradition; older generations seek to save the county from the headaches of traffic and congestion that plague other areas nearby; and newly arrived citizens attempt to maintain the pastoral charm of the countryside. All of these different motivations work together to create a strong agricultural land preservation program in Lancaster County. The degree to which outside communities can imitate Lancaster County's success may depend on the ability of factions within the community to recognize their common interests in agricultural land preservation. Notes 1 Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, Department of Agriculture, Farmland Preservation 2001-2002 Annual Report (Harrisburg, PA, 2002), p. 2. 2 Interview by Mona Nichols with June Mengel, Appointed Head of the Agricultural Preserve Board of Lancaster County, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, January 16, 2003. Figure includes farms with development rights purchased and farms waiting to have their development rights purchased. 3 Tom Daniels and Jay Parrish, GIS and Farmland Protection: The Case ofl.Ancaster County, Pennsylvania (1997), p. 1. Online. Available: http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings97/daniels.html. Accessed: December 18, 2002. 4 Interview by Mona Nichols with Ronald Bailey, Executive Director, Lancaster County Planning Commission, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, January 16, 2003. 5 Memoranda from Bill Fulton, Executive Director, the County of Chester Planning Commission, "Statistics on Agriculture in the Piedmont Region," to County Commissioners of Chester County, August 16, 2001, p. 3. 6 Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Lancaster Farming Facts, 3rd ed. (Lancaster, PA, 2002). 7 Tyson Foods, Inc., Company Information. Online. Available: http://www.tysonfoodsinc.com/corporatellocations/poultry .asp# Anchor-2821. Accessed: January 23, 2003. 8 Bailey interview. 9 Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Lancaster Farming Facts; Bailey interview. 10 Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Lancaster Farming Facts. 11 Interview by Mona Nichols with Arthur Mann, Sr., Hourglass Foundation Chairman, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, January 17, 2003. 12 Lancaster County Planning Commission, Lancaster County Growth Tracking Report 1994­200J(Lancaster, PA, November 2002), p. 3. 13 U.S. Census Bureau, Ranking Tables for Metropolitan Areas: Population in 2000 and Population Change from 1990 to 2000 (PHC-T-3). Online. Available: http://www.census.gov/. Accessed: December 21, 2002. 14 Fulton memoranda, "Statistics on Agriculture in the Piedmont Region," p. 3; population estimates based on 1990 census data. 15 Mengel interview. 16 Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Lancaster Farming Facts. 17 Fulton memoranda, "Statistics on Agriculture in the Piedmont Region," p. 1. 18 Daniels and Parrish, GIS and Farmland Protection, p. 1 (online). 19 County of Lancaster Agricultural Preserve Board, Program Guidelines (Revised-9127101) (Lancaster, PA, December 13, 2001), p. 2. 20 The Hourglass Foundation, "2002 l.Ancaster County Quality ofLife Survey Results," conducted by the Polk-Lepson Research Group (York, PA, 2002), pp. 2-4. 21 Ibid., p. 17. 22 In addition to the Hourglass Foundation, Lancaster Conservancy-at http://www.lancasterconservancy.org/index.htm-and Lancaster Healthy Communities-at http://www.lancasterhealthycommunities.org/index.htrnl-are two other citizen-initiated groups dedicated to preserving the quality of life in Lancaster County. 23 Daniels and Parrish, GIS and Farmland Protection, pp. 2-3 (online). 24 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor's Office, "Executive Order 1997-6." Online. Available: http://sites.state.pa.us/oa/Executive_Orders/. Accessed: April 13, 2003; interview by Mona Nichols with John Keene, Professor of City and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, January 13, 2003. 25 Ibid. 26 Bailey interview. 27 Act 43 of the Pennsylvania Legislature (1981) established state funded, county-level PACE programs. 28 County of Lancaster Agricultural Preserve Board, Program Guidelines, pp. 1-2. 29 Tom Daniels, .. Saving Agricultural Land with Conservation Easements in Lancaster County," in Protecting the Land: Conservation Easements Past, Present and Future, eds. Julie Ann Gustanski and Roderick H. Squires (Island Press: Washington, DC, 2000) p. 173. 30 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Agriculture, Farmland Preservation 2001-2002 Annual Report, p. l. 31 County ofLancaster Agricultural Preserve Board, Program Guidelines, p. 2. 32 Tom Daniels, "Integrated Working Landscape Protection: The Case ofLancaster County, Pennsylvania," Society and Natural Resources, April/May 2000, vol. 13 no. 3, pp. 1-10. Online. Available: Academic Search Premier, http://web17.epnet.com. Accessed: November 17, 2002. 33 Bailey interview. 34 Daniels and Parrish, GIS and Farmland Protection, p. 5 (Online). 3s Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor's Office, "Executive Order 1997-6" (online). 36 Daniels and Parrish, GIS and Farmland Protection, p. 2 (online). 37 Ibid., pp. 2-3. 38 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Agriculture, Farmland Preservation 2001-2002 Annual Report, p. 2. 39 County of Lancaster Agricultural Preserve Board, Program Guidelines, p. 40. .4() Ibid., p. 11. 41 Ibid., p. 10. 42 Ibid., p. 9. 43 Arthur C. Nelson and James B. Duncan, Growth Management Principles and Practices (American Planning Association Planner Press, Chicago, 1995), p. 75. 44 Pennsylvania General Assembly, 1999-2000 Regular Session, H.B. 14 (Act 67 of 2000). 4 S Ibid. 46 Interview by Mona Nichols with Heidi Schellenger, Executive Director, Lancaster Farmland Trust, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, January 15, 2003. 47 Gustanski and Squires, eds., Protecting the Land, p. 173. 48 Schellenger interview. 49 Gustanski and Squires, eds., Protecting the Land, p. 174. solbid.,pp.178-179. si Schellenger interview. s2 Gustanski and Squires, eds., Protecting the Land, p. 180. s3 Mengel interview. S4 Schellenger interview. ss Correspondence from June Mengel, Director, Lancaster Agricultural Preserve Board, to Mona Nichols, March 27, 2003. 56 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Agriculture, Farmland Preservation 2001-2002 Annual Report, p. 2. s7 Mengel correspondence. · ss Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Agriculture, Farmland Preservation 2001-2002 Annual Report, Appendix Table 3. s9 Mengel interview. 60 Ibid. County farm sales analysis show a steady increase in per-acre farmland prices since the beginning of the program. This data is available in farm sales analyses conducted by the Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board from 1979 to 2002, excluding the years 1998 through 2000. 61 County of Lancaster Agricultural Preserve Board, Program Guidelines, p. 2. 62 Mengel interview. 63 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Agriculture, Farmland Preservation 2001-2002 Annual Report, Appendix Table 1. 64 Mengel interview; figure includes farms with development rights purchased and farms waiting to have their development rights purchased. 65 Ibid. 66 Lancaster County Planning Commission, Lancaster County Growth Tracking Report 1994-2001, p. 1. 67 Interview by Mona Nichols with representatives from the Lancaster County Building Industry Association, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, January 15, 2003. 68 Lancaster County Planning Commission. Lancaster County Growth Tracking Report 1994-2001, p. 4. 69 Interview by Mona Nichols with Brent Landis, Agricultural Services Coordinator, I ;mcaster Chamber of Commerce, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, January 15, 2003. 70 David O'Connor. "2 Sides File Appeals in Manheim Auto Auction." Lancaster New Era (November 12, 2003), Section B 1. 71 Mengel interview. n Lancaster County Builders Association interview. 73 Gustanski and Squires, editors, Protecting the UuuJ, p. 174. 74 Lancaster County Builders Association interview. 15 Lancaster County Planning Commission, Lancaster County Growth Tracking Report 1994-2001, p. 3. 76 The Hourglass Foundation, "2002 Lancaster County Quality ofLife Survey Results. " 77 Landis interview. Appendix 3.22-Lower Delaware River Wild and Scenic River A federal program administered by the National Park Service establishes a partnership management plan for the Lower Delaware River. On November 1, 2000, President Clinton signed a law designating approximately 67.3 miles of the lower sections of the Delaware River as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Two states (Pennsylvania and New Jersey), six counties-Northampton and Bucks in Pennsylvania and Warren, Hunterdon, Mercer, and Burlington four in New Jersey-and 58 municipalities are included in the area's management plan.1 Successful implementation of the Lower Delaware River Management Plan (LDRMP), a meticulous inventory of the area's resources and the goals and methods to protect them, will require cooperation between all these levels of government and also regional commissions, individual landowners, and nonprofit organizations.2 Table 1.a Socioeconomic Data for the Six-County Area in the Lower Delaware River Mana2ement Plan 1990 to 2000 Change (in%) Counties 1990to2000 Change (in % ) States Socioeconomic Population Bucks (PA) 10.4 3.4 Burlington (NJ) 11.7 8.6 Hunterdon (NJ) 13.1 8.6 Mercer(NJ) 7.7 8.6 Nornuu.uuton (PA) 8.1 3.4 Warren(NJ) 11.7 8.6 Table 1.b Land Use Data for the Six-County Area in the Lower Delaware River Mana2ement Plan Land Use I Decentralized Employment Measure (in % ) Philadelphia MSA-59.63* Growth in land area (in%) from 1970-1990 Philadelphia-59.4 Trenton-46.5 Urban land consumption (in sq. miles) from 1970-1990 Philadelphia-412.3 Trenton-30.4 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Files. Onlme. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: February 20, 2003.3 *Figure represents share of the workforce residing beyond a ten mile ring around the Philadelphia MSA. Background Socioeconomic Information The acreage covered by the river corridor has not yet been tallied, but generally, the area protected follows the prominent ridge lines on both sides of the river and extends farther inland to encompass three Pennsylvania tributaries: Cooks, Tinicum, and Tohickon. The designation connects the lower river segment with the two upper portions of the Delaware River that were made National Wild and Scenic Rivers in 1978.4 The five counties which border the Lower Delaware National Wild and Scenic River possess, for the most part, populations with education levels and incomes that are higher than their respective state's averages. In the Pennsylvania counties, the median home values are significantly higher than the median home value for the state, although this is not the case for the New Jersey side of the river, with the exception of Hunterdon County. However, New Jersey, the wealthiest state in the nation at the time of the 2000 U.S. Census, has a median home value much higher than the national average. Therefore the comparison of median home values for the New Jersey counties with the state average is somewhat misleading; measured against the average home value for Pennsylvania or for the nation, the median home values for the New Jersey counties of Warren, Mercer, and Burlington appear appropriately high (Table 2). Land Character The Delaware River, the longest free-flowing river on the East Coast, is within easy driving distance of some of the nation's most densely populated areas. The section of the Delaware River granted National Wild and Scenic River designation in 2000 possesses outstanding natural beauty and historic value. The designated area begins at a section of the river known for its scenic magnificence, the 1000-foot cliffs of the Delaware Water Gap, and ends at a section celebrated for its national historical significance, Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania, the location where General George Washington crossed with the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, just above Trenton, New Jersey. After Washington Crossing the river flows through Philadelphia and enters Delaware Bay, which flows to the Atlantic Ocean. The region supports a number of valuable enterprises: the ports of Philadelphia, Camden, and Wilmington; fisheries; and a growing recreational industry.5 Area residents depend on the river for much more than scenic and cultural entertainment, though. Impoundments on the Delaware River tributaries divert enough water out of the river basin to provide drinking water for 10 percent of the population of the United States, or over 17 million people.6 Of the 12,757-square-mile area that forms the Delaware River watershed, half is located in Pennsylvania, one-fourth is in New Jersey, and the remainder fall, in New York and Delaware. 7 Table 2 Socioeconomic Data for the Six-County Area in the Lower Delaware River Mana2ement Plan 2000 By County 2000 By State Median Household Income (in $) Bucks (PA) 67,481 40,106 Burlington (NJ) 58,608 55,146 Hunterdon (NJ) 79,888 55,146 Mercer(NJ) 56,612 55,146 Noc1· ton (PA) 45,234 40,106 Warren(NJ) 56,100 55,146 Median Home Value (in$) 2000 By County 2000 By State Bucks (PA) 163,200 97,000 Burlington (NJ) 137,400 170,800 Hunterdon (NJ) 245,000 170,800 Mercer(NJ) 147,000 170,800 Nornl4llwton (PA) 120,000 97,000 Warren(NJ) 155,000 170,800 Population with bachelor's degree or hillher (in % ) 2000 By County 2000 By State Bucks (PA) 31.2 22.4 Burlington (NJ) 28.4 29.8 Hunterdon (NJ) 41.8 29.8 Mercer (NJ) 34 29.8 Northampton (PA) 21.2 22.4 Warren (NJ) 24.4 29.8 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Files. Onlme. Avadable: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: February 20, 2003. The river's water is distributed according to a series of interstate agreements, known in aggregate as the Delaware River Compact, a multistate commercial contract that was created to settle interstate disputes of rights to water in the Delaware River. 8 The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) is the organization responsible for ensuring that there is enough water to deliver to customers based upon the agreement. The commission is comprised of the governors of each of the four states included in the Delaware River watershed, in addition to a federal representative who has traditionally been the secretary of interior.9 In 1994, the DRBC admitted that impoundments on the river made it impossible to provide enough flow in the river to keep saltwater from infiltrating the water supplies of Camden and Philadelphia. The situation sparked another report the following year, this time by the Delaware Estuary program, south of Philadelphia and therefore south of the Lower Delaware River designation, finding diversions and impoundments as one of the major problems for the estuary. 10 The threat of brackish water in Camden and Philadelphia wells and intakes is but one of the many issues to arise from the stress that area population growth has placed upon the Lower Delaware's natural resources. The areas through which the Lower Delaware River flows experienced unprecedented growth during the 1980s, as did much of the upper East Coast, and the 1990s saw high growth rates as well. The New Jersey counties of Burlington, Hunterdon, and Warren as well as both affected Pennsylvania counties saw percentage population increases from 1990 to 2000 that exceeded their respective state's percent change in population. The combined population ofthe six counties included in the l.DRMP numbered almost two million inhabitants in 2001!1 and officials expect population increases for the Lower Delaware River region ofabout 14 percent by the year 2020. 12 Regional population increases in the Lower Delaware River area have not led to denser development in Philadelphia and Trenton, the major metropolitan areas justsouth of the plan's area. A 2001 report on decentralized employment measures found that less than 60 percent of the workforce of the primary metropolitan statistical area of Philadelphia lived within 10 miles of the central business district. Mean commute times for the six counties all approach or exCeed 30 minutes. Given data about the decentralization of the workforce and commute times, it comes as no surprise that city growth consumed large amounts ofnonurban land around both Philadelphia and Trenton during the 20-year period from 1970 to 1990 (fable l ). The prodigious expansion ofjobs and wealth in New York City and-to a much lesser extent-Philadelphia dming the 1980s and 1990s accounts for much of the growth in the Lower Delaware region. The completion of Interstate 78 in the early 1990s has also been cited as one reason for the proliferation of growth in the area. 13 Increased population and industrialization over the last century generated much concern over the Delaware River's resources. Documentation shows that efforts to protect the Delaware River's water quality have been ongoing since the early twentieth century, as the effects of population growth and industrialization on the resources ofthe entire Delaware River have been deleterious.14 The efforts have met with some success. 15 At the time of the l.DRMP's development in 1997. some information about the quality of the water in the the-proposed area was known. In 1991, the entire area had reached the swimable goal of the federal Clean Water Act, though still subject to occasional fish advisories. Other studies found that two of the tributaries that contribute major volume to the river have very poor water quality.16 While the Delaware River F.stuary Program issued specific reports detailing the decline in its water quality dming the 1980s, the DRBC has no data addressing water quality in the specific stretch ofriver designated as the Lower Delaware Wild and Scenic River in 2000, though efforts to ascertain the information have recently been underway and are discussed below.17 The Delaware River is the backyard retreat for densely populated metropolitan areas of the East Coast; not swprisingly, increased visitation bordering parldands will take a toll on the Lower Delaware River's resources. Three million people each year visit the three state parks in the Lower Delaware River area; the Delaware and Raritan Canal State Parle., the Delaware Canal State Park. and the Ralph Stover State Part.18 Prior to receiving Wild and Scenic designation, advocates for the Lower Delaware River used the overwhelming number of visitors to parks in the Upper Delaware River regions as one of the many reasons for the creation of a river management plan for the lower river sections. A comprehensive study of the Upper Delaware National Scenic and Recreation River completed in 1986 found that the impact of visitors on the park generated $20 million in direct expenditures by the National Parle Service.19 Growth Management History The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed in 1968 to balance long­standing federal policies that promoted the construction of dams, levees, and other river development projects with a program that would permanently preserve the selected rivers, or river segments, in their free-flowing conditions. The original act designated eight rivers as components of the National Wild and Scenic River System and specified the processes by which other rivers could be added to the system. The program was designed to provide river protection through the combined efforts of private landowners and other citizens, river-related organizations, and all levels of government, though, as discussed below, many Wild and Scenic designations are on portions of rivers that run through national parks, and therefore do not require extensive collaboration with outside parties. To qualify as a part of the National Wild and Scenic River System, the river must be free-flowing and possess exceptional scenery, recreational opportunities, fisheries and wildlife, historic sites, or cultural resources. 20 Whether or not the candidate river possesses such assets is determined by an advisory committee of area stakeholders­representatives from all levels of government and parties affiliated with nonprofit organizations and other groups-who workwith the National Park Service. Upon finding a river eligible, the committee summarizes its findings in a report along with recommendations for preservation, which then serve as the basis for designation. The penultimate step in the process is working with area stakeholders to draft legislation to be approved by Congress. The consent of Congress and the president complete the desigtlation process. Following designation, a management plan is developed for the river.21 The designation of the area of the Lower Delaware River as a National Wild and Scenic River differs somewhat from the typical designation, where the river-elect is contained within a national par and is therefore already owned by the federal government and managed by the National Park Service. In such instances the river's designation as a National Wild and Scenic River is made prior to the creation of a management plan. However, much of the land in the Lower Delaware River corridor is privately held, and landowners feared endorsing the scenic river designation before they knew the specifics of a management plan. 22 To assuage landowner fears, the management plan for the Lower Delaware River was developed prior to the designation, so that local landowners might be assured that their property rights would be protected. 23 Wild and Scenic Rivers like the Lower Delaware, where there is private ownership of a significant portion of land in the river corridor, are referred to as "partnership" Wild and Scenic Rivers. River management is complex in the northeast, where the boundaries of numerous governmental entities crisscross natural resources and . where higher population densities make private ownership of potentially protected lands more likely. Such environments necessitate a "diversity of Wild and Scenic River management options and models," which the National Park Service readily provides through the partnership river philosophy.24 Residents were particularly sensitive to land ownership issues in conjunction with Wild and Scenic River designation for the Lower Delaware, given troubling memories of federal government actions regarding the upper portions of the Delaware River. In 1978, Congress selected two sections of the river as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System: The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (Middle Delaware), spanning 37 miles, and above this section the Upper Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River, spanning 73 miles. Area residents greatly resented federal government actions regarding the former area. In 1960, the Army Corps of Engineers had plans to construct a dam in the area now known as the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, the area directly above the Lower Delaware Wild and Scenic River. However, the corps eventually decided against building the dam, and the federal land that had been condemned for that purpose, much to the chagrin of those forced to sell their property, was part of the Delaware River given National Wild and Scenic River designation in 1978.25 Residents of the upper regions of the Lower Delaware National Wild and Scenic River, close to the area where the land had been condemned in the 1960s, were circumspect of the Lower Delaware management plan, and several municipalities in the area refused to have their land included in the area designated by Congress in 2000.26 The bad experiences of residents near the upper portions of the Delaware River failed to discourage the enthusiasm of municipalities farther down the river. In fact, the movement to obtain Wild and Scenic designation for the Lower Delaware River was largely a grassroots movement that began in the early 1980s, when plans to to provide cooling water to a nuclear power plant in Reading, Pennsylvania, involved cutting a 40-mile ditch through the center of Bucks County and pumping water out of the Delaware River to the plant. This plan was vehemently opposed by local and county residents and provoked the "Dump the Pump" movement in Bucks County. Residents passed a referendum in 1983 to thwart the ditch, but to no avail. The ditch was eventually permitted 1987, much to the disappointment of area residents.27 However, the issue aroused permanent interest in working to protect river resources and provided the area with community leaders dedicated to preserving natural resources in the area, an important step in the Wild and Scenic designation process. By 1992, area residents had marshaled enough support to win authorization for Congress to consider portions of the Lower Delaware River for National Wild and Scenic River designation. The Lower Delaware Wild and Scenic River Study was authorized by Congress on October 23, 1992 to be conducted on the area of the river that falls between the Erie Lackawanna Bridge south of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania.28 Essential to the designation's success was public support for river corridor protection, as the successful implementation of the plan depended upon the cooperation of local government officials and landowners in the study area. To bolster support for the plan, the study prepared a survey in early 1994 that was mailed to 2,980 landowners with property fronting the Delaware River within the study area and on Tinicum and Tohickon Creeks. The results indicated strong support for river preservation, with 89.9 percent of the respondents supporting land use regulations and programs to conserve and protect the river.29 In addition to ascertaining public support for the Wild and Scenic designation, the study task force had to ensure that the Lower Delaware possessed the program's requisite characteristics. The task force found ample support that the river's resources would qualify for the designation, and the task force was then replaced by a management plan committee of 56 members. The committee then developed the management plan and the accompanying legislation that led to the official designation in November 2000. Program Description Structure and Development The National Park Service cites 11 separate benefits that result from National Wild and Scenic River Designation. In general, rivers in the program receive "permanent protection from federally licensed or assisted dams, diversions, channelizations, and other water resource projects that would have direct and adverse effects on the river's free­flowing condition or outstanding resources."30 The act also prohibits new dams and hydroelectric projects licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.31 Other benefits involve enhanced communication across political boundaries and education initiatives that assist the public in protecting river resources. In addition to the 11 specific benefits, the program also reports that private landowners on river corridors enjoy the potential for increased property values and enhanced control over river-related uses as a result of the designation. Further discussion of these benefits will take place in this case study' s program evaluation section. A Wild and Scenic River realizes program benefits through the development and implementation of the river management plan, in this case the LDRMP. The LDRMP identifies six goals. The first five concern categories of resources that require proper management in order to protect the river corridor: water quality, natural resources, historic resources, recreation, and open space. The sixth plan goal presents additional strategies for economic development that will not degrade the river's resources.32 Associated with each of the six goals are specific policies the plan promotes as well as implementation strategies. The plan gives general implementation strategies associated with each goal but is particularly explicit in its instructions to local governments wanting to implement the plan, listing a separate set of specific municipal implementation strategies for each of the six goals. 33 Governance/Management/Oversight/Penalties The LDRMP is an impressive catalog of river assets and an excellent resource for the local communities who, ultimately, must ensure the plan's success. The plan is careful not to tread on the primacy of landowner rights, and is explicit about the scope of the program, as evidenced by the following excerpt: the high level of protection that great national parks enjoy is not envisioned for the corridor of the Lower Delaware River, given its history of multiple uses, private property ownership, and complex resource management. . . . Primary responsibility for the river remains with property owners through proper stewardship of their land, with local governments thorough land use regulations, and with those who enjoy the scenic and recreational value of the river.34 While the plan is quite overt about the predominance of landowner rights, it is less straightforward when it comes to detailing how the plan will be administered and monitored. The LDRMP delineates the complex web of relationships among the municipalities, counties, state agencies, commissions, and federal entities responsible for protecting the river resources, and recognizes that "no single player can adequately implement the plan." Therefore, it advises the "creation of a management committee and a citizens advisory committee coordinated by the Delaware River Greenway Partnership" to coordinate all parties responsible for the plans implementation.35 The committee's purpose is to remind participating agencies of the LDRMP' s goals and provide oversight and guidance to participating agencies. The management plan sets forth the roles to be played by different entities involved in implementing the plan: • Dewware River Greenway Partnership (DRGP): Land use and open space preservation issues, education and outreach, municipal contacts and notification, biannual river management report, and coordination partner issues (government, business, nonprofit). • Dewware River Basin Commission (DRBC): Water quality and flow management and regulation concerning biological issues (i.e., fisheries). • Municipal.ities: Land use regulation and protection, recreation and access, water quality; as land use regulators, the municipalities assume the key role in the implementation of the management plan. • Watershed Associations: Stream conservation, stream planning, advocacy, and landowner and stream user education • States ofNew Jersey and Pennsylvania: Resource protection, scenic byways, grants and technical assistance, recreation and access, open space, and visitor service and facilities. • Counties: Land use review and assistance, recreation, access, open space, and planning support. • Dewware & Lehigh Canal National Herita.ge Corridor Commission: Resource protection, resource interpretation, land use planning assistance, and economic development enhancement. • National Park Service: Recreation and tourism coordination, coordination with federal agencies, visitor services, and facility development; 36 These entities have at their disposal various regulatory powers to assist in protecting the Lower Delaware River's resources. While too numerous to list, the regulations-which are federal, regional, and state in origin-demonstrate that in addition to the Wild and Scenic River designation, the Lower Delaware is protected by a host of other programs and laws. The river management plan, then, is a tool for coordinating the parties responsible for administering these regulations. To give more structure to the process of implementing the management plan, a memorandum of understanding "to protect and enhance the values that have caused the Lower Delaware River and its tributaries to be designated by the United States Congress as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System" was entered into by the following parties: the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the State of New Jersey; Bucks, Burlington, Northampton, Mercer, Hunterdon, and Warren counties; the DRBC; the United States Department of Interior, National Park Service, Philadelphia Support Office; the Delaware River Greenway Partnership; the Delaware and Lehigh Corridor Commission; the municipalities in Pennsylvania and New Jersey that have endorsed designation of the Lower Delaware River as part of the Nation Wild and Scenic Rivers System; and other governmental and nongovernmental organizations with an interest in the Lower Delaware Wild and Scenic River. 37 These entities agree to appoint one member to serve on the Lower Delaware River Management Committee. Organization within the Management Committee is loose; there is no formal system for decision making, and most of the members volunteer their service. 38 Policy The plan cites zoning and comprehensive planning as two necessary goals for localities seeking to implement the plan. With regard to comprehensive planning, local governments are advised to incorporate the goals of the LDRMP into their comprehensive plan, to conduct a natural resource inventory to identify important resources, and to consider natural and river resources in recommendations for type, location, and intensity of land uses. The plan's recommendations regarding zoning involve protecting floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, etc. Finally, the plan offers local governments specific ideas for managing growth, such as lot size increases, impervious surface and building coverage limits, changing lot dimensions, transferring development rights, and open space zoning.39 Again, authority to implement the land use tools suggested by the plan rests with the localities in the plan area. However, aside from the regulatory measures mentioned in the previous section, communities suffer few consequences for not participating in the program. Indeed, there are six townships that have still not elected to be part of the Wild and Scenic River corridor.40 Ifthe designation offers little in the way of a stick to convince municipalities to implement the plan, the carrot for compliance is equally as meager. In the absence of both money and might, plan developers depend on the following to convince localities to implement the plan: the area's strong culture of grassroots support for conservation, the plan's emphasis on educating localities about land use issues, and on the general benefits associated with the Wild and Scenic River designation (increased property values, improved communication between stakeholders, prohibition of dams and large-scale projects by the federal government, etc.). The DRGP also plays an important implementation role; however, lack of monetary support for staffing the advisory board is a major impediment to implementation. Funding Congress determined that implementing the plan would cost $350,000 per year; however, as of 2003, the funds received by the plan total only $60,000. Part of the funding is used to pay the administrative head of the DRGP, and another portion is awarded to localities implementing the management plan. Congress allocates the money to the National Park Service, which then distributes it to the DRGP.41 A recent press release by the DRGP announced a total of $30,600-part of the $60,000 distribution allocated by Congress--dispersed through seven grants that administrators awarded to townships in New Jersey and Pennsylvania for projects ranging from efforts to create an inventory of environmental resources to the purchase of riverfront property for a park.42 Program Evaluation Program Outputs Though the law was passed to designate portions of the Lower Delaware River in 2000, outcomes can already be evaluated. The designation itself, the creation of the DRGP, and the signing of the memorandum of understanding are all important milestones for the program.43 Additionally, the LDRMP features an exhaustive list of specific of goals-the details cover almost 20 pages of text-for preserving the resources of the Lower Delaware. The overriding intent of these goals is the protection of the following river resources: • Water Quality: The plan seeks to maintain the existing water quality of the Delaware River and its tributaries from "measurably degrading and improve it where practical.'.44 To accomplish this goal, the DRBC has focused its attention on developing water quality indicators for the area specifically encompassed in the Lower Delaware River. In 1999, prior to the designation, the commission, recognizing that "little data existed to characterize water quality in the reach," established a monitoring network that will, over a five-year ~riod, ascertain water quality in the Lower Delaware Wild and Scenic River.45 Results will be published at the end of the five year period. In addition to the DRBC's efforts, the DROP has awarded West Amwell township in New Jersey a grant to examine how existing zoning has impacted water quality. • Natural. Resources: The plan seeks to preserve and protect the river's outstanding natural resources and encourages localities to create an inventory of natural resource in their area of the river corridor as a critical first step. As of 2003, the DROP awarded the townships of Kingwood in New Jersey and Bridgetown in Pennsylvania grants to develop environmental resource inventories. • Historical. Resources: The plan encourages the preservation and protection of the historical characteristics of the area. As of 2003, the townships of Hopewell, New Jersey, Tinicum, Pennsylvania, and Portland Borough, Pennsylvania, had all received grants for implementing historical preservation programs in accordance with plan policies. • Recreation: The plan encourages recreational use of the river corridor that will not corrupt the river's resources or threaten private property along the river corridor. • Economic Development: The plan calls for economic development on the river that minimizes the adverse impacts on the corridor. • Open Space Preservation: The plan encourages localities to preserve open space. As of 2003, Knowlton township in New Jersey received funds to purchase open space for a park.46 Additionally, the DROP is developing an open space plan for the entire corridor. 47 Outcomes The benefits of the designation for partnership rivers are federal funding for the creation of the management plan, the expertise of the National Park Service to develop the management plan, federal funding for the implementation of the plan on a yearly basis, and permanent protection from federally funded projects that would corrupt the river's natural, scenic, and cultural character. Since the plan's implementation, residents in the Lower Delaware River corridor have begun to experience many of these benefits. Implementation of the plan has engendered several other beneficial byproducts as well. First and foremost, the plan has provided a forum that brings together all related parties for discussing river issues. This increased communication among river stakeholders is critical to the plan's continued success. Given the complexities of ownership and governance on the Lower Delaware River corridor, the importance of this outcome cannot be overstated. In creating a framework that brings all parties to the table, the LDRMP has been able to better focus governmental attention on the area. At least one person associated with overseeing the plan's implementation feels that the designation has increased state­level funding for improvements to the Lower Delaware River corridor and attributes the increase in funding to the heightened visibility the plan has given the area. Findings The designation of the Lower Delaware River as a National Wild and Scenic River resulted from the collaboration of scores of grassroots organizations and governmental entities, including the federal government, multistate commissions, multistate task forces, various state-level agencies, and a multitude of municipal governments. While the plan itself has only been in existence since 1997, efforts to receive the designation have been ongoing since the early 1980s. The focus of this case is not so much the efficacy of the management plan, but the success of an extraordinarily complex designation process. Despite the enormous challenges associated with organizing the support and maintaining the focus and fidelity of so many disparate governmental, nonprofit, and regulatory entities, efforts to achieve the Wild and Scenic River designation persisted. What accounts for this success? The lands in the six-county area composing the Lower Delaware River Wild and Scenic River corridor are populated by well-educated, relatively affluent communities. Citizens in these areas would have the knowledge, skills, and resources to organize and sustain community support for this process. They also have the savvy to understand the designation's benefits to area landowners-the potential for increased property values and increased control over river uses.48 The socioeconomic characteristics of communities in the river corridor cannot be overlooked when explaining the success of complex designation processes like that of the Lower Delaware River. Another important element to success of the LDRMP is its emphasis on educating the community about growth management strategies; indeed, the educational component of the IDRMP gives localities a large measure of flexibility in tailoring the plan to meet community needs. Such an attribute is very important to the plan's eventual implementation in an area largely held by private ownership. The Wild and Scenic River program's weakness are easy to recognize, and have been noted. The program offers little monetary incentives to participating localities to implement the management plan and places restrictions only federal government actions along the river corridor. Also, the wholeheartedness with which the program is implemented is, in the case of a partnership management plan, contingent upon the participating municipality. However, as noted at the beginning of the Management Plan, the Wild and Scenic designation is not a program for natural resource preservation on a grand scale-a method for securing another Big Bend or Yellowstone. It is a strategy designed to unite the interests and focus the attention of several entities on protecting a natural resource. Viewed in this light, the partnership river process is an extremely cost-effective way for federal and state governments to organize the various entities dedicated to river preservation because the overwhelming grassroots flavor of the partnership river designation process ensures the collaborative, volunteer work of area residents. As noted by one interviewee, most of the people involved in the achieving Wild and Scenic designation for the Lower Delaware volunteered hundreds of hours to the process.49 Those closely associated with implementing the LDRMP feel that additional funds for staff are necessary. so Rivers cross many governmental boundaries-federal. state. local-tn our nation. Geography makes this especially so in the northeast region. where the partnership river concept is the dominant river management paradigm. Wild and Scenic partnership river plans are a very useful tool for high-growth corridors that abut areas of great scenic national beauty and heritage, and there are probably hundreds of areas that could make good use of a partnership management program like that used in the case ofthe Lower Delaware River. Notes 1 Lower Delaware River Wild and Scenic River Study (LDRWSRS) Task Force and the National Park Service, Northeast Field Area, Lower Delaware River Management Plan (Philadelphia: National Park Service, Northeast Field Area, August 1997), p. iv; Interview by Mona Nichols with William Sharp, National Parks Service Program Contact, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, January 13, 2003. 2 ''Memorandum of Understanding Implementing the Designation of the Lower Delaware River and Selected Tributaries As a Component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System," (Frenchtown, NJ, September 25, 2002), p. 2 (draft). 3 Additional Sources for Table 1: Edward L. Glaser, Matthew Khan, and Chenghuan Chu, "Job Sprawl & Metropolitan Policy," The Brookings Center of Metropolitan Policy (July 2001). Online. Available: http://www.brookings.org/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/glaeserjobsprawl.pdf. Accessed: March 31, 2003; and Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck, ''Weighing Sprawl Factors in Large US Cities," (Arlington, VA, March 2001), Appendix A. Online. Available: http://www.sprawlcity.org/index.html. Accessed: March 31, 2003. 4 LDRWSRS Task Force and National Park Service, Lower Delaware River Management Plan, p. 13. s Ibid., p. 7. 6 Delaware River Basin Commission, The Delaware River Basin. Online. Available: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/thedrb.htm. Accessed: December 17, 2002. 7 LDRWSRS Task Force and National Park Service, Lower Delaware River Management Plan, p. 7. 8 Delaware River Basin Commission, The Delaware River Basin (online). 9 Ibid. 10 LDRWSRS Task Force and National Park Service, Lower Delaware River Management Plan, p. 11. 11 Figures based on tallies of the six-county populations reported in the 2000 U.S. Census; this figure does not reflect the actual number of residents located in the plan area. 12 LDRWSRS Task Force and National Park Service, Lower Delaware River Management Plan, pp. 11, 13. 13 Interview by Mona Nichols with Jim Amon, Executive Director, Delaware Land Raritan Canal Commission, Stockton, New Jersey, January 14, 2003. 14 LDRWSRS Task Force and National Park Service, Lower Delaware River Management Plan, p. 24 IS Ibid. 16 Ibid., p. 25. 17 Delaware River Basin Commission, Quality Assurance Project Plan 2001 Update-Lower Delaware Monitoring Program (West Trenton, NJ, July 16, 2001), p. 4. 18 LDRWSRS Task Force and National Park Service, Lower Delaware River Management Plan, p. 11. 19 Ibid. 20 Lower Delaware River Wild and Scenic Study Task Force, National Wild & Scenic Study Report (Philadelphia: National Park Service, 1997), p. 3. 21 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "National Wild and Scenic Rivers Program­ Northeast Region" (Program pamphlet, see insert on river studies). 22 Sharp interview. 23 Ibid. 24 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "National Wild and Scenic Rivers Program.". 25 Sharp interview. 26 Interview by Mona Nichols with Suzanne Forbes, Project Director, Delaware River Greenway Partnership, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, January 18, 2003. 27 Amon interview. 28 LDRWSRS Task Force and National Park Service, Lower Delaware River Management Plan, p. iv. 29 Ibid., Appendix A. 30 LDRWSRS Task Force, National Wild & Scenic Study Report Study Report, p. 3. 31 Ibid. 32 LDRWSRS Task Force and National Park Service, Lower Delaware River Management Plan, p. 23 33 Ibid., pp. 23-51. 34 Ibid., p. 2. 35 Ibid., p. 103. 36 Ibid., pp. 104-105. 37 "Memorandum of Understanding," p. 1. 38 Amon interview. 39 LDRWSRS Task Force and National Park Service, Lower Delaware River Management Plan, pp. 56-83. 40 Email from Suzanne Forbes, Executive Director, Delaware River Greenway Partnership, ''Re: Deferment & answer!" to Mona Nichols, January 30, 2003.; The specific townships that have not agreed to participate in the LDRMP are: Upper Mount Bethel Township, Williams Township, and Durham Township (PA); White Township, Harmony Township, and Pohatcong Township (NJ). These are areas near the upper area of the LDRMP, townships that remember the federal government's condemnation of land that resulted in the Wild and Scenic designation for the upper regions of the Delaware River. 41 Amon interview. 42 Delaware River Basin Commission, "Grants Awarded for Scenic Rivers Protection" (September 20, 2002). Online. Available: http//www.state.nj.us/drbc/grants. Accessed: January 20, 2002. 43 Forbes interview. · 44 LDRWSRS Task Force and National Park Service, Lower Delaware River Management Plan, p. 3. 45 Delaware River Basin Commission, Quality Assurance Project Plan, p. 4. 46 Funding for all of the grants discussed in this section equals the $30,600 discussed in earlier sections of the paper. 47 Letter from James C. Amon, Delaware Raritan Canal Commission, Stockton, New Jersey, to Mona Nichols, February 28, 2003. 48 LDRWSRS Task Force and National Park Service, Lower Delaware River Management Plan, p. i. These are benefits specifically cited in official literature from the National Wild and Scenic River System. 49 Amon interview. so Forbes interview. Table 1 Socioeconomic and Transportation Data for Greater Memphis Region 1990 . 2000 1990to2000 Chanee (in % ) Socioeconomic MemphisMSA Population 1,007,306 1,135,614 12.7 Median household income $26,994 $39,779 47.4 Shelby County Population 826,330 897,472 8.6 Median household income $32,671 $39,593 21.2 Memphis (Central City) Population 650,110 610,337 6.5 Median household income $22,674 $32,285 42.4 Transoortation MemohisMSA Mean travel time to work (min) 21.6 24.5 13.5 Shelby County Mean travel time to work (min} 21.3 23.7 2.4 Memphis (Central City) Mean travel time to work (min) 20.8 23.0 10.6 Harbor Town Transit availability No No Appendix 3.23-Harbor Town A traditional neighborhood development by the Henry Turley Company. Started in 1989, Harbor Town ~s one of the oldest "New Urbanist" towns in the U.S. Harbor Town includes mixed-use development, traditional design, and pedestrian-friendly attributes. When Harbor Town started construction on Mud Island over ten years ago, the site was a neglected part of downtown Memphis. In 1987, developer Henry Turley bought a 135-acre vacant plot on a mud island in the middle of the Mississippi River, just five minutes from downtown Memphis. The project was completed in 1997. Harbor Town is a thriving new example of urban revitalization. The town has attracted a new generation of residents to downtown Memphis and has contributed significantly to downtown growth. This study evaluates the effects of this project in the context of growth management in the Memphis area. In particular, the evaluation is focused on whether the town has achieved new urbanist objectives, 1 whether it contributes to downtown redevelopment, and what the role of government should be. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Files. Onlme. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: February 20, 2003 345 Background Information Socioeconomic Information Downtown Memphis's residential population grew by thousands in the 1990s.2 In particular, the 18.3 percent growth of downtown population is larger than the 6.5 percent growth of the city and the 12.5 percent growth of the Memphis MSA. According to the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and the Fannie Mac Foundation,3 a 125 percent increase in population for downtown Memphis is forecast by 2010. Land Character General Characteristics Harbor Town is located on Mud Island, adjacent to downtown Memphis. Memphis' central business district is visible from the island Memphis is hemmed in by rivers and floodplain on three sides. Since the city's founding in 1819, the direction of expansion and population growth has generally been eastward, away from downtown. Harbor Town is located in Shelby County. The.county's evolution is similar to that of hundreds of other counties across America. Until the 1950s, the county consisted of two distinct elements: the central city of Memphis, which housed tens of thousands of residents within walking distance of stores, workplaces, and residences, and vast areas of pristine countryside surrounding Memphis and its satellite towns. Instead ofbuilding on these assets, people in Shelby County gradually abandoned their traditional downtown neighborhoods and created a new form of development in the ever-expanding outskirts. Shelby County no longer has sufficient developable land for additional growth. Sprawl Indicators A study by Sprawl City (2000) reported that while metropolitan Memphis grew in population by 40.4 percent between 1970 and 1990, it consumed 74.4 percent additional land mass.4 According to Ewing, Pendall, and Chen's (2002) sprawl index scores that measured 83 MSAs, Memphis MSA's score of 92.2, compared to the average score of 100, shows that it is a high sprawl-area.5 · Growth Management History ''New urbanism" (also called New Community Design, Neo-traditional Design, Traditional Neighborhood Development, and Transit-Oriented Development) is a set of development practices to create more attractive and efficient communities. Neo­Traditional Community Review6 argues that a plan based upon new mbanist objectives should be evaluated by such criteria as walkable community, transit-oriented development, housing prices, density, impact on suburbanization, balance ofjobs and residences, and market-oriented development. Harbor Town is a Traditional Neighborhood Development in Memphis. Tennessee. It seeks to recreate the sociable traits of places built 70 to 100 years ago. 7 Harbor Town, a private project by a developer Henry Turley, was launched in 1989 in response to the developer's vision. Turley' s main question was "What kind ofplace do people want to live in," not "What will the banks financeT' or ''What will the county let me build?" 8 With these personal intentions, developers' attention focused on the increasing demand for downtown housing. Downtown rebirth since the late 1970s was such a success that decades of fruitful residential development, new construction, renovation, and adaptive reuse projects began.9 Program Description Structure and Development Harbor Town provides an example of the village-scale community. According to the project's land planners and urban designers,10 the plan reflects scaled-down urban elements that are derivative of Memphis. It was not an urban renewal project but developed in a vacant area. It is now a livable island of creativity and innovation in the midst of the urban core of Memphis, Tennessee. The 135-acre town contains 500 houses, 400 apartments, 43,000 square feet of commercial and retail space, a small private school, and several town greens. Harbor Town boasts a density of 7. 7 units per acre.11 This density is another characteristic distinguishing it from other contemporary suburb developments, which typically have densities closer to one to three units per acre. The village is organized around a traditional street grid that is intersected by a series of diagonal boulevards oriented east to west. In 1987, the island was linked to Memphis by a bridge and made easily accessible to the downtown. Harbor Town has an exceptional setting.12 The view from Harbor Town looking across the Mississippi River to the floodplain greenbelt on the other side remains unchanged since the days of steamboats. To the east there are views of the Memphis skyline, a sport and cultural arena named The Pyramid and the graceful M-shaped span of the Hernando DeSoto Bridge, which is lighted at night. In spite of an early recession and a sluggish housing market, homes in Harbor Town were sold as fast as they were built. Harbor Town was designed to allow people to walk from place to place instead of driving, thus reducing trips in cars. The design deters people from driving by making it somewhat inefficient to do so. Streets are narrow and there is parking on both sides, but driving through the community requires caution. Most of the houses built in Harbor Town were designed by Looney Ricks Kiss Architects in the Federal or Georgian style, which have been popular in the Memphis area for some time. Houses are sited close to tree-lined streets, block dimensions are comparable to those in other Memphis neighborhoods, and the boulevards incorporate small commons or parks. The buildings feature front porches, balconies, and elevated entries, which are indigenous to the Memphis region and evocative of early waterfront towns. The town was planned around a commercial center that would serve the community's basic needs. This commercial center has a grocery store, a four-story hotel, a full-service restaurant, office space, and a yacht club. Policy The development of Harbor Town applied design criteria to new homes in the community. These criteria clearly depicted what would and would not be accepted by design review boards, providing developers with a clear visual image above and beyond typical standards such as height limits and floor-to-area ratios. The design review process included onsite meetings with prospective homeowners, during which architects and developers discussed how homes could be arranged to create courtyards or other private spaces, to capture views, and enhance opportunities for other sites. Funding Harbor Town project is basically a private development by developers and home builders. There were no subsidies or tax breaks from public governments. It is known that property was obtained at very low cost as a result of a banking failure by the Harbor Town developer.13 Program Evaluation Program Outputs This project appears to have been very successful in terms of commercial development.14 Harbor Town is very popular among those who live there and has turned out to be very marketable. The values of homes have tended to increase over time.15 It serves as a positive example for residents and developers of an alternative living model for the future. The price of houses ranges from $150,000 to $750,000. Rent in apartments ranges from $600 to $1,000. The composition of the residential community is diverse, including young families and single professionals. Outcomes It is difficult to assess the Harbor Town project's impact on growth management and sprawl in the Memphis area. An academician has pointed out that the project is so small that it is impossible to know the effects of the project on a regional area. 16 Yet despite this difficulty, some effects of Harbor Town on growth management can be estimated by interview data and historical census data. Positive outcomes are that the Harbor Town project contributed to bring about Smart Growth in Memphis. A planner with the City of Memphis stated that Memphis' downtown has developed and redeveloped more toward Smart Growth compared with downtown types from ten years ago. The 1990 population of the Memphis downtown was 7 ,606 and the 2000 population was 8,994. Harbor Town's residential units number 900, including 500 single-family homes and 400 apartments. The average household size in Memphis city is 2.52.17 Based on this household size, Harbor Town's population could be 2,268. This shows that Harbor Town contributed to downtown growth in population. In addition, through the Harbor Town project, the sense of community/place in the town has increased. Harbor Town residents report that they have extensive social networks within the community, larger than networks in conventional suburbs. When residents of Harbor Town were asked what drew them to the community, the majority said the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood was much more important than the size of their house. According to New Urban News, compared with residents in a nearby conventional suburb, Harbor Town residents have a high level of satisfaction with the level of privacy provided by their patios and back porches. 18 The project encouraged interaction among the residents. Harbor Town has succeeded in its goal of encouraging people to interact with each other. It has also attracted far more young families than was originally anticipated. Walking from place to place also makes a lot of sense in Harbor Town. Harbor Town's success and popularity are strong indicators of a good sense of place. Despite positive statements about the effect of Harbor Town on growth management, there are still negative responses claiming that Harbor Town is not a sustainable development.19 There are several criticisms: that it is an auto-dependent community with no transit; no infill development; no balance of jobs and residences; no affordable housing; and floodplain areas. Harbor Town is auto-dependent for travel to downtown.20 This community is very close to downtown, but not enough for walking. There is no public transport between Harbor Town and downtown. Residents use their autos for working and outside shopping. Harbor Town is more automobile dependent than the average suburb. Harbor Town is also greenfield development rather than infill development. This potentially contributes to suburbanization. Moreover, there are few commercial jobs, those generally available are low-wage retail jobs that could not support the high cost of home ownership in this development. Harbor Town project does not contribute to an increase in affordable housing. The price of housing in Harbor Town is a fairly high and is not affordable to low-income households. Although the project provides about 400 apartments, the high rents probably exclude low-income people. Finally, Harbor Town is located in floodplain areas. In the future, there may be a potential flood from the Mississippi River. But flood insurance is not required to residents and developers. According to Memphis history, in 1912 and 1937 major Mississippi River floods brought high water to downtown Memphis. 21 Findings In many communities, zoning laws and regulations continue to prevent development of new urbanist communities because the codes do not permit flexibility in design of streets or units or in unit density.22 "Smart Growth involves gaining political consensus and converting that into workable land use plans. "23 Harbor Town's smaller lot sizes, street design, and unit density caused difficulties in obtaining building permits. A negotiation between developers and planners resolved the problem. Currently, the City of Memphis has a mixed-use ordinance that can encourage more traditional neighborhood development in suburbs and in downtown redevelopments. To developers and home builders, Harbor Town is an impressive symbol of new alternative development as opposed to sprawl-oriented development in suburban areas. After the Harbor Town project, many developers in Memphis are moving ahead with plans for other such traditional neighborhood developments.24 Currently, developers in Memphis are interested in infill developments around the Memphis downtown. However, they argue that cleanup costs for infill are very high and expect help from government to clean up infill redevelopment areas. State and federal government played no role in the Harbor Town project. However, local government played several positive roles in the project. The 1987 bridge construction by local government, which linked the island with the Memphis downtown, aided the project and made a commercial success possible. This shows that infrastructure investments by state or federal government as well as local government could be very important to mobilize private investment that might not otherwise be forthcoming. Although the innovative ideas of the developer were very important in Harbor Town construction, the role of public planners should also be considered and can be made more effective. The planners in Memphis helped overcome problems ofzoning and regulation that developers faced during the project. Notes 1 Demographia, Neo-Traditional Community Review. Online. Available: http://www.demographia.com/dbx-nurvw.htm. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 2 Creating Quality Places, Case studies: Harbor Town. Online. Available: http://www.qualityplaces.marc.org/4a_studies.cfm?Case=l5. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 3 Brookings Institute Center, A Rise in Downtown Living. Online. Available: http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/top21 fin.pdf. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 4 Sprawl City, Poor Land Use or Population Growth. Online. Available: http://www.sprawlcity.org/cgpg/index.html. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 5 R. Ewing Pendall, and D. Chen, Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact, (Washington, D.C., Smart Growth America, 2002) p. 15. Online. Available: http://www.smartgrowthamerica.com/sprawlindex/MeasuringSprawl.PDF. Accessed: June 17, 2003. 6 Demographia, Harbor Town. Online. Available: http://www.demographia.com/db-nu-tnharbortown.htm. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 7 Traditional Neighborhood Design, Safe Harbor. Online. Available: http://www.tndhomes.com/home.html. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 8Newsweek Mix Housing Type. (May 15, 1995). Online. Available: http://www.loftsmemphis.com/images/newsweek-article.gif. Accessed: February 10, 2003. 9 Center City Commission, History ofDowntown Memphis. Online. Available: http://www.downtownmemphis.com/domain/about/about_history.asp. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 10 Traditional Neighborhood Design, Safe Harbor (online); National Association of Home Builders. Smart Growth Case Studies: Harbor Town (online). Available: http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=451. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 11 The Hamer Center for Community Design Assistance, Harbor Town. Online. Available: http://www.hamercenter.psu.edu/resources/HarborTown.pdf. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 12 Creating Quality Places, Case Studies: Harbor Town. Online. Available: http://www.qualityplaces.marc.org/4a_studies.cfm?Case=15. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 13 Demographia, Harbor Town (online). 14 The Hamer Center for Community Design Assistance, Harbor Town (Online). IS Ibid. 16 Interview by J~chul Jung with Susan Roakes, Professor, City and Regional Planning Program, University of Memphis, Memphis, January 5, 2003. 17 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Quick Table, General Characteristic: Population and Housing. Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: January 17, 2003. 18 New Urban News. Insights from the Front Porches. Online. Available: http://www.newurbannews.com/MayJunOO.html. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 19 Demographia. Neo-Traditional Community Review: Harbor Town . (online) 20 Ibid. 21 Shelby County History Department, Memphis History. Online. Available: http://www.memphislibrary.lib.tn.us/history/memphis2.htm. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 22 T Riggs, Smart Growth, Smart Companies, and Smart Workers: UU Conference Looks at Impact ofthe New Economy. Online. Available: http://www.digitalplaces.uli.org/press_3.html. Accessed: February 20, 2003. . 23 Smart Growth Alliance, Smart Growth Alliance Announces Program Highlight Development that Promotes Better Urban Growth Patterns. Online. Available: http://planet.uli.org/Content/DC/News!DC_News_SmGrAIIPro.htm. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 24 Interview by Juchul Jung with Mary Baker, Planner, City of Memphis, and Jerry Gillis, Home Builder. Memphis, Tennessee, January 6, 2003. Table 1 Socioeconomic and Transportation Data: Chattanooga, TN-GA MSA, Hamilton County, Chattanooga (Central City), and Chattanooga Downtown 1990 2000 1990 to2000 Chan2e (in % ) Socioeconomic Chattan002a, TN-GA MSA Population 424,347 465,161 9.6 Median household income $33,837 $38,257 13.l Hamilton County Population 285,536 307,896 7.83 Median household income $32,185 $48,037 49.3 Chattanooga (Central City) Population 152,466 155,554 2.0 Median household income $27,487 $32,006 16.4 Transoortation Chattanoo2a, TN-GA MSA Mean travel time to work (min.) 22.1 23.8 7.7 Hamilton County Mean travel time to work (min.) 21.2 22.6 1.4 Chattanoo2a (Central City) Mean travel time to work (min.) 19.1 19.8 3.7 Appendix 3.24-Chattanooga Smart Growth Project Chattanooga Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission Agency (CHCRA), a regional project to manage growth in the Chattanooga, Tennessee area. Formed in the 1950s, the Chattanooga­Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission Agency oversees planning and growth in the Chattanooga metro area. Chattanooga has transformed itself from a highly polluted city to one nationally recognized for its Smart Growth projects. The effects of Smart Growth projects on growth management can be separated into two periods. The first period occurred in the early 1980s and mid-1990s and the other occurred after 1998, when Chattanooga passed Public Chapter 1101 (the Tennessee Growth Management Law), which requires city and county governments to prepare a 20-year growth plan. This evaluation is focused on what the Chattanooga area has achieved through Smart Growth projects, what factors were important through two period comparisons, and what the role of government was and should be. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Files. Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: February 17, 2003. 352 Background Information Socioeconomic Information In the 1960s and 1970s, because Chattanooga offered several favorable characteristics, including inexpensive land, low taxes, and low labor and energy costs, it attracted a variety of industries such as textile mills, chemical plants, and coke foundries. 1 Chattanooga was commercially and industrially developed, but produced some of the worst air pollution in the country. Its air was so polluted that when women wearing nylon stockings walked outside, their legwear was apt to disintegrate. 2 It was called the dirtiest city in America. As a result, its downtown was decrepit and decaying. Chattanooga Creek was heavily polluted from toxic dumping by coke foundries and chemical factories. The riverfront was littered with dilapidated buildinfs, and the town's oldest bridge was considered so unsafe the state wanted to tear it down . "It was so bad that people couldn't stand it anymore," says an urban designer4 who has been involved in the city's adoption of a Smart Growth strategy. Land Character General Characteristics Chattanooga, the fourth largest city in the state, is located in southeast Tennessee near the border of Georgia at the junction of four interstate highways. It is the county seat of Hamilton County. The Tennessee River flows through the center of the city, which has a diversified terrain. The metropolitan statistical area (MSA) is centrally located in relation to other major population centers of the American Southeast, being within a 150-mile radius of Knoxville and Nashville, Tennessee; Birmingham, Alabama; and Atlanta, Georgia. 5 Sprawl Indicators According to USA Today, 6 Chattanooga metro's sprawl index is 345.7 In 1999, 67.1 percent of the Chattanooga metro population lived in urbanized areas, a relatively average level, giving Chattanooga a rank of 135 among the 271 major metro areas. In 1990, 71.1 percent lived in urbanized areas. This 4 percent drop from 1990 to 1999 in population change in urbanized areas gave Chattanooga a rank of 210. Adding those two rankings of 135 and 210 produces a sprawl index score of 345. Of the 271 metros, 82 have higher numbers than Chattanooga, which means they sprawl more, and 189 have lower numbers and sprawl less. Growth Management History and Leadership In the late 1980s, the concept of sustainable development was introduced in Chattanooga. Concerned leaders8 decided to attempt to improve the city's quality of life through a more sustainable development approach. Chattanooga tried to encourage a regional approach to metropolitan planning, promote walkable neighborhoods, facilitate the development of public transit systems, charge the actual cost of providing new utility services instead of the average cost, and foster multiple-use and mixed-income communities. In 1998, Tennessee enacted a law incorporating many Smart Growth themes, including urban growth boundaries and planned growth areas. The act was created to establish a comprehensive growth strategy for the state that would minimize urban sprawl. Each county was required to create a coordinating committee to recommend a growth plan by January 1, 2000, which was to be revised and/or ratified no later than July 1, 2001. Chattanooga adopted a 20-year growth plan, called the 2020 Plan (Growth by Design), and is implementing that plan. Program Description Structure and Development Since the 1980s, Smart Growth efforts in Chattanooga have encompassed several different objectives: transportation for reducing air pollution; citizen involvement to create a vision of a preferred future; affordable housing; a freshwater aquarium for downtown redevelopment; Chattanooga Creek cleanup; and a revitali:iation ofthe East Mall. After 1998, Smart Growth projects were adapted in response to new state law that required every county to prepare a 20-year growth plan. Policy Advances in transportation perhaps best exemplify Chattanooga's commitment to sustainable development, according to Chattanooga's planner.9 To improve the city's infamous poor air quality, for example, Chattanooga researched and developed a cutting­edge, electric bus public transportation system. The Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority started exploring the use of electric buses and began running two electric buses downtown in 1992. The city has replaced all ofits diesel buses with the new emission-free models. To encourage the use of public transportation, the city constructed three satellite parking areas on the outskirts of town and now uses the parking revenue to finance shuttle buses that riders can use for free. Also, Chattanooga and Hamilton County have developed an extensive greenway system that includes a 5-mile riverwalk that begins in the downtown and meanders through the historic art district and several parks. Chattanooga was "one of the first U.S. cities to effectively use a citizen visioning process to set specific long-range goals to enrich the lives ofresidents and visitors."16 In Chattanooga, civic leaders first mobilized widespread community involvement with town meetings. The intent was to encourage public private partnerships that have now accounted for $739 million in investments and 1,300 new permanent jobs and also to consider environmental costs. The effort began in 1984 with a "Vision 2000" process,11 which brought together citizens from many communities to identify the city's many problems. The local Lyndhurst Foundation and the newly formed Chattanooga Venture, a nonprofit organization that encourages citizen involvement, led a community visioning process entitled Vision 2000. Vision .2000 led to the creation of Chattanooga Neighborhood Enterprise (CNE), which brings together the necessary public and private resources for affordable housing. CNE tried to create new home ownership opportunities for low-and middle-income families through lending programs. In accordance with a students' proposal during public meetings, old warehouses were turned into the largest freshwater aquarium in the world. This freshwater aquarium has helped transform downtown from an industrial waste dump to a tourist attraction. To help reclaim the Tennessee River front, the aquarium features the river's ecosystem. The cleanup of Chattanooga Creek was designated as an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund site in 1994. It was anticipated that the cleanup would create jobs and transform a decrepit old business area into a new mixed-use community with environmentally pristine businesses. Eastgate Town Center is an urban redevelopment project located in Brainerd, 8 miles from downtown Chattanooga. When built in the 1960s the mall effectively eliminated the city's downtown retail base. But this area in turn declined when development continued beyond the "first-ring" suburb and another newer mall was built in the late 1980s further from the city. In 1997 Eastgate Mall's occupancy rate was just 27 percent. The mayor of Chattanooga directed the county planning agency to commission a study to revitalize the vacant Eastgate Mall. The designer conducted a weeklong public meeting with more than 300 residents. A new urbanist firm analyzed the market to determine untapped potential and an optimum mix of housing choices. 12 A transportation analysis examined automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian opportunities. The plan received immediate acclaim and was adopted by the city in 1998. Urban Growth Policy Act In 1998, the Tennessee legislature passed the Urban Growth Policy Act, nicknamed the "Smart Growth" law, 13 one of the most far-reaching land use laws ever introduced in the state. Legislators required all counties and cities to develop comprehensive regional plans with boundaries for growth around cities. The act required every city and county in the state to adopt a 20-year growth plan by 2001. According to the legislation, each of the ten municipalities in Hamilton County and Hamilton County as a whole must develop and report on the following four guidelines for its urban growth boundaries. The first guideline is that each county or city must make population growth projections. The second guideline is that each county or city must estimate current costs and projected costs of core infrastructure, services, and facilities necessary to promote full development of resources within the current boundaries of the municipality and to expand infrastructure, services, and facilities within any growth areas. The third guideline is that each county or city must estimate the need for additional land outside the municipality suitable for high density, industrial, commercial, and residential development only after taking into account all areas within the municipality's current boundaries that can be used, reused, or redeveloped to meet such needs (called infill). The fourth guideline is that each county or city must identify agricultural lands, forests, recreational areas, and wildlife management areas within its growth boundaries and examine the long-term effects of urban expansion on these areas. In addition, the county must identify both areas that are not in either the urban growth boundaries or planned growth areas and areas that, over the next 20 years, are to be preserved as agricultural lands, forests, recreational areas, wildlife management areas or for uses other than high density commercial, industrial or residential development. The planning process consists of three major activities: oversight, information gathering, and plan development. First, each county must establish a Coordinating Committee to develop the required countywide growth boundary plan. The Coordinating Committee's membership represents government, utilities, education, business, agricultural, homeowner, construction, and environmental interests. The second activity of the planning process involves information gathering. The Coordinating Committee in Hamilton County established five task forces. The purpose of the task forces is to provide public input into the gathering and analyzing of information that elected officials will consider before developing their growth plans and policies. The third activity involves plan development. Using the task forces' work and other information, the municipalities and the county develop their own growth boundary plans. As of 2002, many of the municipalities had initiated the planning process soon after the adoption of the act. Once adopted, these plans are to be combined into one comprehensive growth boundary plan for the entire county. This final comprehensive growth boundary plan must be ratified by the legislative bodies of each individual municipality and the county. The plan is then to be delivered to the state for approval. The growth boundary plan and the updated land use plan are implemented by municipal and county local legislative bodies, which already have broad-ranging authority on issues such as land use and investment in public infrastructure. If any existing laws and policies need to be changed to be more consistent with the plan, that will also be the responsibility of local governments. Funding In the first Smart Growth projects in Chattanooga, there were a lot of funding sources, ranging from private sector to the federal government. In particular, Chattanooga Neighborhood Enterprise used funding from all levels of government as well as private contributions. A total of $65.5 million was invested. Private funds invested $45 million in building the aquarium. The federal government provided funds through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). EPA provided funds for the Chattanooga Creek cleanup projects and HUD also provided affordable housing funds. In the second half of the 1990s there were few if any state and federal funds involved. Program Evaluation Program Outputs Chattanooga's electric bus fleet is one of the largest in the U.S., and Advanced Vehicle Systems (AVS), a local company, is now manufacturing the buses for other cities. The city is selling its locally produced buses around the world.14 During a series of weekly public meetings, the commission/agency helped the city develop 40 goals to accomplish by the year 2000. According to Chattanooga Venture, a 1992 survey showed that 37 of the 40 goals were completed or partially completed. In 1993 Chattanooga Venture facilitated a second communitywide visioning process, a series of nine meetings during which more than 2,600 citizens generated 2,559 ideas that were developed into 27 new goals for the city.15 This citizen involvement process helped initiate several new projects, such as downtown revitalization, affordable housing development, the restoration of the city's riverfront, and creation of more job opportunities. Between 1987 and 1994, CNE rehabilitated more than 4,200 family housing units. The aquarium generated an estimated $133 million for the city in 1992, its first year of operation, and has drawn an average of 1.3 million visitors annually since opening.16 Public-private cooperative planning resulted in a turnaround for a failing 1960s­era mall, transforming it into a mixed use town center. According to New Urban News, "The City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, was awarded the 1999 White House Joint Center Sustainable Community Award for instigating the redevelopment of the failing Eastgate Mall into a main street retail and office district with a future residential element."17 In the first nine months, the shopping center property rental rate improved from less than 27 percent leased to more than 90 percent leased.18 Outcomes Chattanooga has transformed itself from a choking, polluted city into a vibrant southern metropolis. The Washington Post described the city as an "alluring Cinderella of the Tennessee River."19 In 2000, according to Places Rated Almanac, Chattanooga is now one of the most desirable places to live in the U.S.20 However, did Chattanooga Smart Growth projects really contribute to growth management? The answer to that is provided by measuring downtown development, air quality index, and analyzing the regional ecosystem.21 According to 2000 U.S. Census data, Chattanooga's downtown population increased 4.8 percent from 12,900 to 13,529, from 1990 to 2000. So downtown redevelopmenfwas successful in the downtown area. But investigation of the large MSA shows that sprawl increased during the most recent ten years (1990-2000). The population growth in the MSA is 9.6 percent, which is twice downtown growth. Air pollution has tended to increase after 1995. Data from Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau supports this trend. A recent report also confirms this.22 In this report, the Chattanooga metropolitan area now appears on the 2001 list of America's 25 most ozone-polluted cities. According to regional ecosystem analysis, there was a large loss of vegetation cover. From 1974 to 1996, average tree cover declined from 39 percent to 22.5 percent of land area. 23 Findings In the future, more regional cooperation is needed in the Chattanooga MSA area. This underscores why "second period" Smart Growth projects are important and necessary in attaining sustainable development in the area. Until recently, Chattanooga second period Smart Growth projects appeared to be largely unsuccessful. A Chattanooga developer and ex-mayor said that proponents of the Smart Growth projects were disappointed and opponents such as home builders were satisfied.24 The director of the Planning and Design Studio in the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission Agency also said, "I can tell you that our Smart Growth project was not very successful in the end. "25 She pointed out that annexation has been a problem. Outside the city of Chattanooga, residents were reluctant to approve plans because they thought that annexations would make the tax burden too high. A former mayor of Chattanooga said, "Home builders opposed the plan because they were afraid that the plan will impose more regulations on their business."26 Although there are these negative perceptions about the result of the project, some interviewees pointed out that there is an increased sense of cooperation among participants. An important aspect of the planning process is that it provides a forum for cities, the county, utilities, economic development groups, and citizens to meet together and discuss and plan for the future of the community. Pointing out that there is no role for the federal government in the current Smart Growth projects, some stakeholders recommended that the federal government create new resources and incentives for states and communities pursuing Smart Growth. In the 1980s and 1990s, the federal government played an important role in the first Smart Growth projects by providing some funds from the EPA and HUD. In the second period (the late 1990s) there were few if any federal funds involved. Because air pollution and sprawl in the Chattanooga area are a function of activities in the two states, Tennessee and Georgia, there must be stronger regional coordination between the states for municipal and regional air quality planning and management. The federal government could facilitate greater regional cooperation as well as provide funds. The experience in Chattanooga suggests that the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission/Agency must make more effort to improve regional cooperation as well as promote bottom-up participation in the region. Notes 1 World Resource Institute, Air Pollution: Chattanooga, TN. Online. Available: http://www.wri.org/enved/suscom-chattanooga.html. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 2 Smart Communities Network. Cinderella Story: Chattanooga Transformed. Online. Available: http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/articles/cinder.shtml. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 3 Brookings Institute, Remarks as Delivered by Vice President Al Gore. Online. Available: http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OVP/speeches/sprawl.html. Accessed: February 20, 2003. •Interview by Juchul Jung with Karen Hundt, Director, Planning and Design Studio, Chattanooga­Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission Agency. Chattanooga, TN January 07, 2003. s City ofChattanooga, 2000 Finance Report. Online. Available: http://www.chattanooga.gov/finance/2000_CABR/Section_A.pdf. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 6 USA Today, "lndexo/271 Sprawl Metros from Worst to Least." Online. Available: http://www.usatoday.com/news/sprawVmasterlist.htm. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 7 The highest possible index score is 542 and would result from a rank of 271 on both measurements. The lowest possible score is 2. 8 Lyndhurst, a founder of Chattanooga Venture, and Mayor Gene Roberts. 9 Hundt interview. 10 Eco City Cleveland, Urban Innovation: Chattanooga. Online. Available: http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/whatcities/america.html. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 11 Rivercity Company, The Downtown Story, Vision #2000/Chattanooga Venture. Online. Available: http://www.rivercitycompany.com/dtstoryNision_2000.asp. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 12 Dover, Kohl & Partners Town Planning, Eastgate, Chattanooga. Online. Available: http://www.doverkohl.com/project_detail_pages/eastgate.html. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 13 Jesse Walker, Dumb Growth. Online. Reasonline (1999). Online. Available: http://reason.com/9911/ci.jw.dumb.shtml. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 1• Karen Ceraso, Cleaner, Greener, Chattanooga. National Housing Institute (1999). Online. Available: http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/103/ceraso.html. Accessed: February 20, 2003. IS Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 District Plan, What Are the Specific Goals ofthe District Plan Initiative? Online. Available: http://www.hercules-plan.org. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 18 Best Resources Policy Studies, Eastgate Mall, Chattanooga. Online. Available: http://www.nga.org/center/divisions/l, l l 88,C_ISSUE_BRIEF%5ED _2487 ,00.html. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 19 Smart Communities Network, Cinderella Story: Chattanooga Transformed. Online. Available: http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/articles/cinder.shtml. Accessed: February 20, 2003. ~ichard Boyer and David Savageau, Places Rated Almanac, 5th ed. (Foster City, CA: Hungry Minds, Inc. 2000) pp. 49-50. 21 Community Research Council, Environmental Air Quality. Online. Available: http://www.researchcouncil.net/localreport/environment.pdf. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 22 American Lung Association, The States ofthe Air 2001. Online. Available: http://www.lungusa.org/press/envir/sota200l_release.html. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 23 American Forests, Regional Ecosystem Analysis: Chattanooga, TN. Online. Available: http://www.americanforests.org/downloads/rea/AF_Chattanooga.pdf. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 2"Interview by Juchul Jung with Jon Kinsey, President, K.insey-Prebaso Company (also ex-mayor of city of Chattanooga), Chattanooga, TN, January 07, 2003. 25 Hundt interview. 26 Kinsey interview. 1990 2000 1990to2000 Chanee (in % ) Socioeconomic Total city population 163,007 181,743 12 City population per sauare mile 1495.2 1,666.1 2.6 A vera2e household size 2.4 3.13 30 Families below poverty level (% of total) 5.2 2.3 White population (% of total) 86 79 Black population (% of total) 1.6 1.9 Hispanic population (% of total) 9.5 18.8 Transportation Total daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 5,330,000 6,415,000 20 Daily VMT oer capita 32.7 35.3 7.9 Con2ested travel (as% of peak VMT) 29 51 Transit availability Yes Yes Land Use Housing units in buildings with 10 or more units (in % ) 23.8 24.9 Appendix 3.25-Gateway District A planning guide for an infill project area in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah. Table 1 Socioeconomic. Transoortation, and Land Use Data for Salt Lake Citv. Utah Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Summary Files, Online. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: February 20, 2003; PlacesNamed.com. "Salt Lake City." Online. Available: http://www.placesnamed.com. Accessed: March 22, 2003; Texas Transportation Institute, 2002 Urban Mobility Study. Online. Available: http://mobility.tamu.edu. Accessed: February 20, 2003. The Gateway Development Master Plan (Gateway Plan), published by the Salt Lake City Planning Division in 1998, guides the planning for the Gateway District, a 650-acre downtown area. for several types of land use: commercial, retail, residential, cultural, open space, and transportation. Implementation of the Gateway Plan as of 2002 includes environmental assessment and cleanup, consolidation of railroad tracks, shortening of viaducts, and construction of retail, residential, and office space. Funding for development in the Gateway District came from a variety of sources, including agencies in local, state, and federal levels of government and the private sector. Since the 1960s, the Gateway District had suffered from the stigma of environmental contamination, a result of its industrial history. Important factors in the successful implementation of the Gateway Plan were the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, large grants from the federal government, and a proactive and aggressive city administration. Background General Socioeconomic Information From 1990 to 2000, Salt Lake City saw modest growth, experiencing a 12 percent increase in population (see Table 1). However, the suburbs of the Salt Lake City-Ogden Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) have grown faster than the central city. Between 1990 and 2000, the rate of growth for the central city MSA was 16 percent, compared with a 27 percent increase in the suburban population of the MSA. 1 The minority population has also seen a considerable increase. Although the Salt Lake City population is overwhelmingly white, the Hispanic population doubled between 1990 and 2000 (see Table 1). About half of Salt Lake City's population is Mormon, reflecting the city's origins as a Mormon settlement in 1847.2 Land Character Salt Lake City consists of about 109 square miles, and sits in a valley bordered by two mountain ranges: the Wasatch Mountains to the east are 11,500 feet high and the Oquirrh Mountains to the west are 9,500 feet high. The city's elevation is 4,330 feet above sea level. The region's mountains and climate are ideal for skiing, and nine major ski resorts are less than an hour's drive from Salt Lake City's downtown.3 Growth Management History Salt Lake City's first attempts at managing growth occurred in the 1950s and were responses to the increasing suburban population. The city implemented numerous capital improvement projects during the 1950s to accommodate the suburban growth, including improved parks, upgraded storm sewers, and new water-treatment plants. 4 The Second Century Plan sought to guide the future of Salt Lake City's growth between 1962 and 1978. The fact that the Second Century Plan did not include the entire west side of the city, which includes the Gateway District, offers some insight into policy decisions in this period. First, the Gateway District was occupied with industrial uses and railroad activities, which rendered it an undesirable place for residential and commercial development. Second, while the demand for living near the scenic Wasatch Mountains to the east was growing and development was unrestricted, there was no reason to develop on the west side. The suburban population continued to grow throughout the 1960s and 1980s, while the population within the city limits actually declined by 14 percent.5 Residents and developers were fleeing the city and gravitating toward the scenic Wasatch Mountains, which border the eastern side of the city. In an effort to control the growth on the mountains, the city passed zoning ordinances limiting the slope at which developers could build This ordinance virtually stopped growth in the eastern direction, and Salt Lake City was obliged to find different avenues for growth. Meanwhile, the Gateway District was undergoing transformation from a busy industrial center to a decayed and abandoned brownfield-an area where development is hindered because of real or perceived contamination. 6 The construction of the Interstate 15 freeway in the 1960s over a Gateway District neighborhood contributed to this transformation. This freeway was built without off-ramps to the neighborhood that could have enhanced the accessibility of the adjacent neighborhood, and consequently it created isolated pockets of land unattractive for developmenL In addition, the west side suffered from poor infrastructure, the stigma ofbeing a crime-ridden and low-income area, and population flight from the city to the suburbs. The decline ofrailroad activity also changed the Gateway DistriCL As the railroads withdrew, the west side lost a key element ofits economy. Land on the west side, and in the Gateway District in particular, declined in market value and development became more viable. Due to the Gateway District's historic industrial and railroad uses, the site was considered a brownfield In September 1996, the U.S. :&vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) selected Salt Lake City as a Regional Brownfields Pilot. The pilot program awarded Salt Lake City $200,000 for "the assessment and remediation design for a few test sites" within the Gateway DistricL The resulting report found that although there was some environmental degradation, it was not widespread. but limited to localized areas.1 Leadership Deedee Corradini served as mayor ofSalt Lake City from 1992 to 2000 and played a large role as a leader in growth managemenL Corradini's electoral base consisted of widespread support. I3Dging from businesses to the Chmch ofJesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Her administration was plagued with scandals, including charges of bribing the International Olympics Committee to win the bid for the 2002 Winter Olympics, questions about her role in a company that was found guilty of altering financial reports, and charges of soliciting gifts as mayor for personal uses. Despite these scandals, Corradini nevertheless enjoyed general support from her constituents. Corradini' s part in the implementation ofthe Gateway Plan is attributed to her proactive attitude toward growth, her skill in forging partnerships, and her vision for the Gateway DistriCL 8 One ofthe main goals of her administration was to transform the Gateway District into an attractive site for developmenL It hoped to achieve this by making development in the Gateway District easier and more attractive to potential developers and small business owners. Corradini and her staff members effectively mobilized people to be involved in the developmenL Several federal, state, and local agencies, private companies, and nonprofit organizations were involved with the Gateway Plan and developmenL Her administration took the initiative to environmentally assess the area by securing the involvement of the State ofUtah Department ofEnvironmental Quality in moving parcels of land through the Voluntary Cleanup Program to reduce environmental liability and put blighted lands to taxable and productive use. The administration hoped to use a successful environmental cleanup of a brownfield area to attract more developmenL The administration also recognized the need to adhere to deadlines. 1be administration and The Boyer Company, a local developer, hoped to finish building The Gateway-a retail, office, and residential center-in time for the crowds attending the 2002 Winter Olympics, and Corradini's administration hastened the typically slow process to get permits and assistance from the city. Respondents said that the Gateway development would not have succeeded without Corradini's commitment, and certainly not within the timeframe that her administration achieved.9 Program Description Structure and Development The Salt Lake City Planning Department sponsored and led the planning process for the Gateway Development Master Plan (Gateway Plan), which included a diverse group of participants: the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA), city staff, property owners, residents, business leaders, developers, social service providers, and state agency staff. Forums such as planning workshops, public meetings, open houses, and briefings attracted widespread participation. The Gateway Plan offers guidance regarding the density of new developments, delineates urban design guidelines, gives direction on expanding existing uses, encourages new housing, and provides provisions relating to community facilities­including parks, open space, and social services.10 Upon successful completion, the Gateway District will contain seven types of land use: civic and cultural community, residential, commercial, retail, commercial support, parks and open space, and intermodal transportation. The RDA is the implementing agency of the Gateway Plan. By city statute, the city council provides oversight of the RDA and the mayor is the RDA's chief administrative officer. In addition, the RDA has an advisory committee consisting of professionals that submit recommendations. The RDA Board of Directors adopts a limited number of projects for implementation, although the RDA hopes to eventually implement the entire Gateway Plan. The RDA then allocates resources in the form of funding and staffing to implement plans. The RDA has adopted two out of the five subdistricts of the Gateway District as Redevelopment Project Areas: the Depot District was adopted in 1998 and the Granary District in 1999. As a Brownfields Showcase Community, Salt Lake City received special technical, financial, and other assistance from various federal agencies. The federal government's Brownfield Initiative is designed to "empower states, local governments, and other stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together to assess, clean up, and sustainable reuse brownfields."11 From August 1998 to August 2001, a temporary assignment from the EPA joined the Salt Lake City RDA under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) of 1970 that allows federal employees to work in nonfederal sectors. The IPA is meant to foster intergovernmental cooperation, offer mutually beneficial services to an organization, and give employees experience at other levels of government. The IPA assignee at the RDA coordinated federal agency efforts to implement the Brownfields Showcase Community project in the Gateway District, prepared grant proposals and applications, trained RDA staff, and worked with property owners. These tasks involved working with several entities, including the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, Union Pacific Railroad, local community councils, Economic Development Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, and the American Red Cross.12 Corradini and her administration also had an efficient working relationship with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality's Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). In addition to voluntarily cleaning a site in the Gateway District as an example to potential developers, the administration continued to collaborate with the VCP to execute the process. However, there has been a marked decrease in the communication and speed of the process since Corradini left office. 13 Over the course of development, the city also secured a widespread representation of nonprofit organizations in the implementation of the Gateway Plan. Salt Lake Neighborhood Housing Services provides mixed-income housing at the Gateway. TreeUtah enhances the Gateway area through tree plantings, and shares its office building with the Bridge Projects, a low-income housing development at the Gateway. Policy The Gateway Plan originated in the Salt Lake City Planning Division and was approved by city council. However, the RDA reviews the plans and adopts Project Areas, which are areas "of a community within a designated redevelopment survey area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to eliminate blight or provide economic development and which is selected by the Agency."14 After the Planning Commission determines that the Project Areas are consistent with the original plan, the plans are approved and submitted to the city council for adoption. Funding The Boyer Company invested $350 million in the Gateway development. Additional funding for other areas of implementation of the Gateway Plan came from the city, the RDA, and various federal agencies. The EPA Brownfields Assessment Pilot Program awarded the city $200,000 for environmental assessment and remediation of the Gateway District. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded $500,000 to the city for infrastructure and $1 million for streets in the Gateway District. The U.S. Department of Transportation awarded $40 million for construction of the Intermodal Transit Hub under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA­21). The Economic Development Administration (EDA) awarded $1.25 million to the city to redevelop a portion of the rail yard into a greenspace.15 The diversity of the sources of federal funding is attributed to the IP A assignee at the RDA, who used her knowledge of the federal agencies to identify and win ~ants. Prior to this IPA assignment, the RDA had not typically utilized federal grants. 6 Program Evaluation Program Outputs Efforts to implement the Gateway Plan as of 2002 include environmental assessment and cleanup, consolidation of railroad tracks, shortening of viaducts, and construction of a retail shopping mall, plus residential and office space. Progress made during the four years between the publication of the Gateway Plan in 1998 and 2002 was considered successful by different measures. A major component of the implementation of the Gateway Plan is The Gateway, owned by The Boyer Company, which contains 1,025,000 square feet of retail space and 482 residential units. Another important achievement was the consolidation of railroad tracks and shortening of viaducts.17 · Program Sensitivity to Changes in Environment As a city agency of which the mayor is chief administrative officer, the RDA and its operations were affected by the change of mayoral administration in Salt Lake City in 2000. A new mayor and staff resulted in a change in priorities, as well as the need to develop working relationships with the new staff. Outcomes The implementation of the Gateway Plan resulted in at least four outcomes. One outcome of the redevelopment of the Gateway District is an unhealthy tension between the downtown area and The Boyer Company's Gateway development. The city's support of the development is seen as undermining many local businesses in the downtown area. This problem was exacerbated by the fact that Main Street stores had already been suffering and the new stores at The Gateway attracted even more potential shoppers from the Main Street area. As of 2002, the claim that The Gateway has attracted consumers away from the downtown area cannot yet be validated. It is also uncertain whether the decline in shopping in downtown can be attributed to factors aside from The Gateway, such as general deterioration of the downtown area, poor business decisions by retailers, or enhanced competition from retailers in other areas. However, it is certain that there is a negative tension between the two areas of the city. At the very least, the problem of preserving the viability of two competing commercial centers has raised a necessary debate in the city. A second outcome of the redevelopment is an increased tax base. Although sales have been slightly disappointing, the city is still gaining increased sales and property tax revenue from an area that was previously generating a negligible amount. A third outcome is that the transformation of a previously blighted area could lead to future redevelopment of the rest of the Gateway District. A part of the vision for the Gateway Plan was to induce future development by setting an example of a successful venture. This includes reinvesting in existing businesses as well as encouraging new investors. Further, the emphasis is to invigorate the local economy and business owners. In place of environmental contaminants, abandoned rails, and stigma, one now finds a place for people to gather, functional businesses, and investment opportunities. Another outcome is the increased public participation and activism of westside neighborhoods. Neighborhood residents participated in the planning process, but neighborhood representatives feel that they were misled and that the Gateway Plan was not executed as had been agreed. 18 The Gateway Plan includes the replacement of a deactivated rail line that ran through the Glendale neighborhood with a trail.19 Neighborhood representatives protested the reactivation of this rail line and complained of the noise, the safety hazard, and the property damage caused by the trains. City officials responded that Union Pacific, the owner of the rail lines, has full authority over the railroad. The city poorly managed the expectations of the community by failing to effectively communicate that the details approved in the Gateway Plan were not legally binding, that the plan had a 20-to 50-year horizon (by which time the rails might be removed), and that in the end, the city does not have jurisdiction over Union Pacific. Findings The federal government contributed large amounts offunding for the implementation of the Gateway Plan, which helped to leverage funds from other soun:es as well. The EPA funding through the Brownfields Showcase Community~as well as the designation of the Gateway as such, for example, helped the city leverage additional funding, such as funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation for an intermodal hub in the Gateway District. In most interactions the federal government was viewed as cooperative and helped achieve the city's goals.2() A notable example is the EPA's mobility assignment to the RDA through the IP A, a highly effective contribution by a federal agency. Although the federal government was supportive, its role was overshadowed by the local actors, namely the strong Corradini administration and 1be Boyer Company. The federal government's contribution in terms of the ammmt of funding is comparable to The Boyer Company's $350 million investment in The Gateway. Mayor Corradini also heavily invested her time and energy in the efficient and timely implementation of the Gateway Plan. Corradini' s investment enabled Salt Lake City to maximi7.C federal investment to achieve a revitalization of a once-stigmatized downtown district. Notes 1 William Frey and Alan Berube, ''City Families and Suburban Singles: An Emerging Household Story from Census 2000," Census 2000 Series (2002), p. 16. Online. Available: http://www.frey­demographer.org/reports/brook02.pdf. Accessed: February 20, 2003. 2 Kurt Repanshek, "48 Hours: Salt Lake City," National Geographic Traveler. Online. Available: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/traveler/articles/l lOlsalt_lake_city.html. Accessed: March 24, 2003. 3 Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City Quick Facts at a Glance. Online. Available: http://www.slcgov.com/info/area_info/quick_facts.htm.