|
Smart Growth:
|
|
February 1999
About the National Audubon Society's
Everglades Conservation OfficeThe mission of the National Audubon Society Everglades Conservation Office is to aid in the restoration and conservation of a fully functioning, healthy Everglades ecosystem from the Kissimmee River Basin to Florida Bay and the Keys, through science-based local, regional, and national advocacy, cultivation of broad-based public and private support, development of innovative conservation programs, and collaborative participation in restoration efforts.
For further information on this report, please Allyn E. Landers, AICP, Senior Policy Analyst, or Erin Deady, Policy Analyst, at:
National Audubon Society
Everglades Conservation Office
444 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850
Miami, Florida 33131
305/371-6399
fax: 371/6399
Table of Contents
- 1
- Introduction
- 2
- Smart Growth Concepts
- 3
- Smart Growth Tools
- 4
- Implementation of Smart Growth Concepts at the State Level
- 5
- Implementation of Smart Growth Concepts within Florida at the Local Level
- 6
- Conclusion
- 7
- Bibliography
1 Introduction
As we near the end of the century, comprehensive planning is enjoying an increasingly solid role within local, regional, and state governmental policies throughout the United States. Born out of a need to address the needs of booming populations and the adverse effects of rapid urbanization on limited natural, community, and fiscal resources, planning has moved from its urban design roots, through the growth management phase of the seventies and eighties, to the Smart Growth focus of today. Smart Growth attempts to identify means to balances the economic, community, environmental, and fiscal needs of an area. This report will summarize various Smart Growth tools and describe state and local examples of Smart Growth initiatives and programs.
2.1 Evaluating how we build...
There are several driving forces behind the development patterns we witness today. Combinations of community interests, economic conditions, environmental issues, and local fiscal goals affect the patterns and rates of urban development. A correct balance of these forces is needed in order to provide the right type of development at the right place and time, while protecting our natural and socio-economic resources, to result in Smart Growth.
1.1.1 Community Issues
Development can be driven by people's need for a sense of community, traditionally consisting of town squares with commercial areas and surrounding small neighborhoods. Issues such as pedestrian safety and accessibility help shape community-driven urban design. Recent examples of community oriented planning theories that have grown in popularity over the last decade include Neo-Traditional planning and Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TND). Other important community concerns include school crowding, traffic congestion, and participation in planning processes. However, community needs and interests often are ignored in light of other driving forces, particularly economic issues.
1.1.2 Economic Issues
A healthy economy gives consumers the ability to buy larger lots and larger homes, encouraging the development of massive suburbs outside of existing urban centers. The construction of new developments on a blank landscape, uncluttered by existing structures, offers greater financial rewards to developers. The result is the establishment of lucrative auto-dependent residential developments despite such negative impacts increased traffic congestion and school crowding. Such sprawl development also encourages residents to leave existing urban cores by focusing extensive financial investments and improvements outside of their reach. Businesses within decaying inner cities are forced to compete with newer and brighter suburban communities and commercial centers, often failing and consequently furthering the decline of older urban areas. In turn, revitalization efforts for these urban centers become large-scale and expensive projects, a further obstacle to financial reinvestment in these areas.
1.1.3 Environmental Issues
Environmental issues can shape development by restricting locations and densities to what is best for local natural resources. However, such restrictions protective of the environment often come after many negative impacts have already been incurred from sprawl. For example, suburban sprawl development has had a negative impact on air quality due to extensive reliance on the automobile. Development also leads to increases in the impervious pavement coating our natural system, negatively impacting water quality and quantity and necessitating extensive treatment and disposal systems. These are just a few examples that illustrate the need for adequate urban design policies and regulations in order to protect our natural resources from the adverse effects of development.
1.1.4 Fiscal Issues
Fiscal responsibility should also shape development. However, many communities suffer from the misconception that increased growth results in increased revenues. Sprawl development actually causes municipalities financial hardship. They must provide community services to these new areas, while still paying for the maintenance of the original aging infrastructure. And, at the same time that redevelopment becomes more expensive, the population base at the core decreases, and municipalities are left with high costs and no tax base to pay for the maintenance and upgrade of the original infrastructure.
2 Smart Growth Concepts
The United States will undoubtedly continue to experience growth and development. However, it is up to local, regional, and state governments to appropriately guide growth through comprehensive land use policies and regulations. The need for development must be balanced with the need to protect natural, cultural, and fiscal resources. The solution is Smart Growth, an approach in which governments at every level create policies, plans, and programs that can satisfactorily balance these needs. By evaluating how we build, where we build, and how we provide for new development, we can create programs to promote Smart Growth.
2.1 Evaluating how we build...
There are numerous methodologies and techniques available today that reduce our reliance on non-renewable resources, and increases our utilization of recycled and environmentally friendly products. The following summarize a few "green" approaches to building construction and redevelopment activities.
2.1.1 Deconstruction
As we find the need to build new structures, we may find little need for older ones. In the past, demolition has been the traditional way to destroy older or unused buildings, necessitating the need for disposal of large quantities of useless materials. Deconstruction is an alternative with many advantages over the traditional method of removing structures from the landscape. Deconstruction is the disassembly of a building in a way that preserves the building materials, either to be reused or recycled. By creating less waste, deconstruction results in obvious benefits to the environment. It may also be a benefit to the economy in some areas, providing a source of employment and business development.
2.1.2 Green Materials
The utilization of "green" (environmentally friendly) building materials reduces the destruction of natural resources such as trees (lumber) and even rock formations (concrete). It is often cheaper to reuse building materials gleaned from deconstruction activities, particularly as markets for these items increase.
2.1.2 Green Buildings
In addition to utilization of environmentally friendly building materials, developments can also focus on energy efficient design. Such design elements include utilization of low wattage lighting and a lesser dependence upon air conditioning resulting from the use of natural shading to cool the structure.
2.2 Evaluating where we build...
The location of development directly affects the economic and environmental impacts of growth. By siting development correctly, natural resources can be protected and conserved and economic boosts can be given to depressed areas in need of revitalization.
2.2.1 Brownfield Redevelopment
Brownfields are industrial and commercial areas that have been abandoned. Their redevelopment is complex due to possible environmental contamination. In addition, the majority of these sites are located within minority and underserved communities, and the lack of prompt attention to cleanup of these areas is a basis for the Environmental Justice movement. Programs have been created in many areas to promote revitalization in an effort to clean these areas, providing a benefit to the local residents while also providing a useful alternative to sprawl.
2.2.2 Infill
Infill development identifies and targets vacant properties within existing urbanized areas that can be utilized for new construction activities. Infill attempts to reduce the waste of developable lands, containing growth in inner cities, and discouraging sprawl. Such efforts are often difficult due to the existence of numerous small parcels that alone offer little development opportunity. The resulting effort of land consolidation is a difficult process in regards to time, cost, and community trust in the process. Infill efforts must include adequate employment, investment, and business opportunities to existing residents in order to gain community trust of the project.
2.2.3 Eco-Industrial Parks
Eco-Industrial parks attempt to co-locate manufacturing and service businesses that are related. Their relationship is based on the waste that one produces and the raw materials that another needs. The idea is to closely locate businesses in order to maximize both the economic and environmental efficiency of production through usage of another industry's material disposal. Such parks further the recycling and reuse efforts of a community and help conserve natural resources.
2.3 Evaluating how we provide...
Generally, governments provide the necessary infrastructure for all areas that individuals choose to develop. Unfortunately, this is an expensive burden for governments at all levels. They promote sprawl as they begin to provide infrastructure, and more people move out from the core cities. In order to stop the cycle from further escalating, such infrastructure must be provided only as necessary. Attempts at phasing growth through the provision of infrastructure have included concurrency requirements and developer fees. However, the success of such concurrency programs has been limited, with new loopholes being found everyday by developers wanting to minimize project time and cost. Government still provides the majority of funding for infrastructure despite numerous and various efforts to transfer the costs of providing necessary services such as roads, water, and sanitary sewer to developers and residents. Smart Growth initiatives seek to balance this extensive outlay of fiscal resources with appropriately timed and located development.
3 Smart Growth Tools
Many different techniques, both in the private and public sector, can be utilized to help facilitate Smart Growth. These include a wide variety land acquisition and conservation, growth management, and comprehensive planning programs. Such tools may be applied both separately and cooperatively. To determine which tools are the most applicable, one must determine the exact area in which the Smart Growth program is to be initiated, as well as the severity of the future growth. By doing so, the best policies and techniques can be applied, and a solution can be achieved. The following summarizes various Smart Growth tools derived from various sources, including Colorado's Growth Management Toolbox (Duerksen 1996).
3.1 Land Acquisition, Development Rights, and Easements
By attaining titles and land rights through land acquisition, and the purchase of development rights, governments can attain an elevated level of control of the development of these lands. Easements provide further control of land development by allowing certain lands to remain private, and therefore protected by the owner. The main objective of these techniques is to obtain the legal rights of the land so that the preservation of the land is certain. While in theory acquisitions of these kinds appear to be the perfect solution, they have distant disadvantages. For example, government land acquisition and the purchase of development rights can be extremely costly. At the same time, this problem may be compounded by the common public belief that these techniques are not only intrusive, but that they violate individuals' rights. Easements, by remaining in private hands, offer less control over property development rights than government held land. Land acquisition techniques can be a very difficult but useful tool in facilitating the Smart Growth process. By utilizing various techniques of land acquisition along with other Smart Growth tools, the advantages can be maximized.
3.2 Exactions, Dedications, and Impact Fees
Exactions, dedications, and impact fees are three other techniques that mat be employed for land acquisition. Similar to the previously discussed techniques, these too have both advantages and disadvantages. The main concept of exactions and impact fees for acquisition is to charge a fee or to require land improvements as conditions for land development approvals. Dedications are the giving or donation of land in honor of someone and something; in essence it is a gift. These techniques are advantageous to the government because they not only reduce the appearance of government intrusion, but they also require that those who have chosen to develop the land pay for the new development costs. Many disadvantages can arise from land acquisition of these types. Exactions, dedications, and the requirement of impact fees can raise many legal questions, and resulting lawsuits may be costly and time consuming. Costs may become a further issue if impact fees are not great enough to cover the development costs of necessary improvements. Land acquisition techniques such as these may also necessitate the utilization of additional staff, again making the costs rise. As with other types of land acquisition techniques, these too pose the threat of generating community opposition, which will make development more time intensive and more difficult.
3.3 Land Banking and Land Trusts
Land banking and private land trusts are other types of land acquisition techniques. Land banking is the reservation or purchase of land for future uses. Many advantages can be found in this particular technique. Land banking assures that any future development of the land will be in accordance with the objectives of the government. Land banking is also beneficial because it limits the possibilities of leapfrog developing, as well as land speculation. As with all other types of land acquisitions, there are disadvantages. Land banking can be costly, time consuming, and politically controversial. Private land trusts are similar to land banking in that it is the attainment and preservation of land by private entities. This technique is beneficial to the government because it reduces their costs because the agency itself does not have to purchase the land. At the same time, it is beneficial to the private entity because trusts are tax-exempt and receive federal tax breaks. However, short-term disadvantages may occur if public access is denied to the area as a result of the establishment of a private land trust. Long-term problems may arise because as time passes, the objectives for the area may change, straining not only the financial resources, but staff resources as well.
3.4 Comprehensive Planning
Development guidance and growth management involves comprehensive planning and zoning on many levels of government. On a local level, land use planning and growth management provide an efficient, cost effective, and realistic view of planning. Local planning helps to focus state and regional agencies as to what policies are of the greatest concern and importance to the people of the area. However local planning and zoning is not enough. Local governments can make little difference without the support and funding of the larger state and regional governments. So while they provide a good basis from which Smart Growth can be developed, they alone are virtually powerless. Statewide planning increases the likelihood of successful Smart Growth development. Combined with the help of the local government, statewide planning not only increases the funding that will be needed for Smart Growth, but it also provides the local areas with access to better resources, therefore allowing for the creation of a better plan of action.
Regional planning can be further beneficial because it allows for the development of multi-jurisdictional plans. This is beneficial because often the area for which Smart Growth tools are needed is not solely within one particular county, but rather runs through several counties therefore making the planning on how to redevelop these areas a regional concern. If different county governments work together, then the plan established will address multi-jurisdictional issues and the work can be divided making the process more efficient. Smart Growth planning is most successful when different levels of government work together to create the solutions and the policies to solve the problems that arise during the development of the Smart Growth Initiatives. Local, state, and regional governments must work together to develop strategies that are effective, efficient, and beneficial.
3.5 Annexation
Annexation policies are another useful tool for development guidance and growth management. These state laws grant local governments the ability to incorporate lands outside of their municipal boundaries. Policies such as these are beneficial because they give local governments the ability to regulate growth patterns. Annexation policies are also beneficial because they can help local governments require developers to pay for the extension of public services to the newly incorporated areas. There are a few disadvantages to annexation policies. These policies, for example, may limit the ability to attain Smart Growth because the policies eliminate regional planning. Annexation policies may also obstruct Smart Growth development in other areas and therefore will lead to an increase in the cost of service obligations. These policies may also further complicate the Smart Growth process because they may lead to an increase in land development costs, which will therefor make the overall cost of Smart Growth development increase.
3.6 Growth Management Tools
Development and growth management can further be enhanced through the establishment of urban development boundaries and designated development zones. Urban development boundaries (UDB) and development zones separate areas which receive urban services from areas which do not. By making this delineation, prospective developers will be more inclined to develop within the UDB, thereby assuring themselves that they will receive needed urban services. Simultaneously, as these developers work within these boundaries, urban sprawl is being limited and controlled. There are many advantages to policies such as urban development boundaries and designated development zones. Besides limiting urban sprawl, the cost associated with the expansion of urban services can be kept down. Another advantage to such proposed policies is that limiting urban sprawl and protecting other areas from further development. As with other types of Smart Growth facilitating policies, urban development boundaries and development zones also have disadvantages. One main disadvantage of these types of boundaries is the adverse effects they pose on property values on both sides of the boundaries. If there is not enough land within the urban development boundaries to accommodate the needs of developers, then the price of property within the development boundary may be driven up. The cost of land on the outside of these boundaries where development is being limited will also suffer. Instead of the cost of land rising, this area may face a severe decrease in property value due to the lack of desire to develop land within an area that is not guaranteed to receive basic urban services.
3.7 Growth Rate Tools
There are several different tools that can be used to control an areas rate of growth. Development caps, rate allocation systems, phasing systems, and carrying capacity limits are all examples of tools which can be employed to manage and guide Smart Growth.
Development caps are an example of one tool in which a maximum development limit is set, thereby limiting not only the growth of the area, but the increase in population as well. The caps are beneficial because they allow an area to grow and prosper, but do not allow it to exceed the capabilities of its community facilities. However, the caps may be subject to federal constitutional challenges. Another disadvantage is that the caps do not address the concerns of siting such growth, nor do they address such issues as affordable housing needs.
A rate allocation system is another example of a tool that is applicable as a management tool to promote Smart Growth. Rate allocation systems stipulate a community's rate of growth. By determining the growth rate, communities are able to prepare public facilities to accommodate the growing population. This ability to prepare in advance for growth limits the negative feedback stemming from growing populations, thereby allowing for the expansion and growth of the area. Rate allocation systems are not without their drawbacks, however, because their institution requires the use of intricate regulatory programs which can be both time consuming and costly. Rate allocation systems may also disrupt the economic balance of an area by interfering with open market demands.
Phasing (tier) systems are another type of tool commonly employed to help manage and guide Smart Growth. By using phasing systems, communities can be guaranteed that growth will occur at a rate that is compatible with the growth rate of public facilities. Tier systems also assure that the developing party will procure any growth cost. Another positive attribute of phasing systems is that they help to eliminate leapfrog development by encouraging growth in inner tiers first. However, while leapfrog development is minimized in the adopting community, it may perpetuate this same behavior in surrounding communities which can be extremely harmful to the overall objective. Similar to other tools discussed in this section, the phasing tier system does not, attempt to direct the type or quality of growth. Another disadvantages with the phasing system is that it can be extremely complex in its regulations, which can cause the Smart Growth process to be slowed down.
Carrying capacity limits involve the use of data to determine growth limits. By using data, the determined growth limits are more accurate and therefore are more useful. The conclusions drawn from this data allow controlled growth to continue to occur until a solution to the problems that limit growth can be found. The main drawback to this type of tool is that it works best in areas that have definite boundaries.
3.8 Open Space and Agricultural Land Protection
Other techniques can also be applied to help assure Smart Growth. Quality development and open space protection policies are examples of programs used to facilitate desired growth in some areas, while simultaneously protecting other areas from any growth at all.
Cluster developments achieve open space preservation through the "clustering" of development activities on a portion of the overall property, leaving the remaining area free of development. This type of development is beneficial for many reasons. The first advantage of this type of development is that it allows for the necessary development of an area, yet it protects the area from over-development. Another advantage of a zoning policy of this type is that it encourages environmentally friendly development of areas. Unfortunately cluster zoning too has its faults. Zoning of this type can be difficult because it relies heavily on having a knowledgeable staff to facilitate this zoning process. Other problems that may arise from using this type of zoning policy is that it may lead to cluster sprawl or may even lead to unwanted development in certain areas.
Density transfers are another type of policy which can be implemented to promote Smart Growth. Density transfers involve the utilization of development potential of a site to an appropriate off-site location. There are two distinct advantages to this type of development policy. One advantage of a density transfer is that it reduces the pressure placed on the owner to develop the land. Another advantage of density transfers is that it has little to no impact on the areas property values. However density transfer does not always result in positive development. Similar to cluster zoning policies, density transfers require a knowledgeable staff and appropriate implementation in order to best site the available development rights.
Sensitive land overlays are another type of policy which can be employed to perpetuate Smart Growth. The implementation of this type of policy is good because it allows regulations to be created to protect specific areas of concern while at the same time it does not limit existing density rights. However, there are many disadvantages to this type of policy. One problem that may arise from overlays is that it may lead to an increase in the cost of housing and development in the area. Another problem that may arise as a result of instituting a policy of this type is that it often requires regional planning for areas of environmental importance that cross over county lines. This multi-jurisdictional need may cause further complications by complicating the already timely and difficult review process for overlay zones. The other disadvantage of instituting a policy of this kind is that it can lead to a "takings" issue which can be both costly and time consuming to handle.
Agricultural land large lot zoning is another example of a Smart Growth initiative. This type of policy is beneficial because it allows for economically viable farming to continue. It is also beneficial because it reduces the ability of subdividing lots into small areas for development and it reduces the possibility of land speculation. There are some disadvantages to zoning of this type. Large lot zoning may cause property values of the area to decrease. Another disadvantage is that zoning classifications frequently change, and therefore using zoning techniques such as this may result in only a temporary solution.
3.9 Incentive Programs
Incentive programs can assist in facilitating Smart Growth. These incentives encourage developers to develop land in an environmentally friendly manner. Grants, loans, revolving funds, and tax incentives are a few programs which can be employed.
Grants and loans can be targeted to activities within areas in need of development or revitalization. Using incentives of this type provides the government with the ability to govern land development in particular areas thereby facilitating the Smart Growth process. Using grants or loan incentives can also provide the government with "leverage" against the growing private industry. There are some disadvantages to programs of this type. Not only can it be costly to provide grants and loans, but it can also be quite burdensome for the administrators in charge of handling and awarding these grants and loans.
Revolving funds are another type of incentive program which can be employed in a Smart Growth initiative. Revolving funds are established by local governments and are used for both land acquisition and settlement. There are several advantages to revolving funds. They give local governments the ability to develop a significant amount of land at the same time, thereby facilitating the Smart Growth process. Revolving funds also provide the government with leverage against private investments and developments. Unfortunately revolving funds can be costly, especially in the initial stages of development, and also present a financial risk to the government in case of failed projects.
Tax incentives are used to encourage Smart Growth through credits and assessments. Tax incentives provide developers with direct benefits, making the development of particular areas in compliance with the overall objective of Smart Growth more appealing. There are many advantages to employing an incentive program such as this. The first advantage is that tax incentives allow areas to promote land conservation without employing laws and regulations. Another advantage of tax incentives is that they promote private investment in Smart Growth efforts. To accurately look at the benefits of tax incentives one must also weigh it with the negative aspects of such programs. Tax incentive programs can be costly, can cause long term land speculation, and may lead to inappropriate land development if the ability to make a profit outweighs the benefits received by the tax break.
4 Implementation of Smart Growth Concepts at the State Level
Various states have attempted to address the issues of Smart Growth through comprehensive planning programs and other initiatives aimed at guiding growth. State planning efforts began in 1961 with Hawaii, followed by Vermont (1970), Colorado (1970), Florida (1972), and Oregon (1973). Several other states enacted state planning and growth management legislation during the 1970s and 1980s (DeGrove 1984). However, the 1990s saw many new states gaining acceptance of such programs and supporting specific Smart Growth initiatives, including Maryland and Colorado. The following section will detail several state programs with a mixture of some recent examples and some that have a longer history in comprehensive land use planning.
4.1 Maryland -- Follow the Leader
Maryland has become the leader in Smart Growth legislation under the guidance of Governor Parris Glendening, who has established a comprehensive plan for controlling urban sprawl. The main thrust of Glendening's theory is to control sprawl by providing infrastructure only to areas that have been approved for growth. While at first this program appears to be denying funding to certain areas, in actuality it is "correcting the idea that state government has an open-ended obligation, regardless of where you choose to build a house or open a business, to be there to build roads, schools, sewers," according to state Planning Director Ronald Kreitner (Pierce 1997). Governments are not obligated to provide such necessities and in fact, by continuing to provide for each expanded area, they only promote further development. A state's environment and finances should not be controlled or adversely affected by the forces that drive sprawl.
The Governor's plan begins with "Priority Funding for Smart Growth Areas." By establishing such areas the state allows growth, but only that which stems from currently developed infrastructure rather than fostering sprawl (Maryland 2/7/97). Glendening states, "I am not interested in usurping local land use authority or instituting a state zoning board, but I am adamant about spending state funds wisely" (Maryland 1/11/97). The state will limit funding to areas that receive, or have already been budgeted for, water and sewage and meet the minimum density requirements to be zoned as residential.
Although the state can control growth by denying funding, Maryland also realizes that it must reinvest in currently developed areas and perk the public's interest in those areas. The 1997 General Assembly adopted a Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation initiative to satisfy these needs. The initiative was met with much support by mayors across the state. According to Gary Allen, Mayor of the City of Bowie, the plan will "strike a real balance in protecting local government authority while providing an appropriate State incentive for concentrating development in and around existing and planned communities" (Maryland 2/7/97). In addition to Priority Funding, the initiative currently includes the following programs.
4.1.1 Brownfields Program
"Brownfields" refer to sites that are undesirable to developers because of uncertainty about liability for possible contamination. If cleaned up, the sites would be appropriate for commercial or industrial businesses and already have the necessary infrastructure. Because of developers' concern with liability, they usually choose to develop on "greenfields" where there is no contamination, but also no infrastructure. The Brownfields Program is intended to limit the liability of developers to the contamination that they cause, not that which already exists. It also gives the developer the chance to apply for assistance in the clean-up procedure. Another aspect to the program is the "Brownfields Revitalization Incentive Program," which can provide low-interest loans to fund redevelopment.
4.1.2 Rural Legacy or Greenbelt Program
This program is based on land preservation and is designed to limit the impacts of sprawl. Its major tool to meet this goal is the purchase of conservation easements and less-than-fee interests. This gives the Maryland government the right to control the use of the land, while still providing financial benefits to the landowner.
4.1.3 1996 Job Creation Tax Credit Program
The tax credit program is designed to encourage businesses to locate in Smart Growth areas. By creating jobs in the area, they promote its economic position and hopefully increase its population. The businesses receive income tax credits for creating at least twenty-five jobs in a target area. The positions must meet a few additional requirements such as being full-time and above minimum wage.
4.1.4 Live Near Your Work Program
This final program is geared towards Maryland's citizens themselves. It has been created to encourage home ownership in core areas by offering an incentive. If employees buy homes near their workplace they may be eligible for $3000 towards that home. The program is a collaborative effort between local governments and employers who set eligibility requirements for their area.
Current projects in Maryland employ the Smart Growth programs separately or in combination. Some combine the programs with others designed by different levels of government, ranging from federal to local. The following projects are prime examples of how Smart Growth programs can interact and become a reality.
4.1.5 The Can Company
Maryland's wide-range of programs gives businesses and individuals multiple chances to get involved in Smart Growth, and reap benefits for their efforts. For instance, the firm of Struever Bros. Eccles & Rouse, Inc., is incorporating several of the programs in their restoration of a can factory in Baltimore. The project, "The Can Company," is a prime example of how a company can combine tax saving, redevelopment, and environmental protection initiatives.
In 1985 The American Can Company abandoned an old can factory in East Baltimore. It has remained vacant until the Struever Bros. decided to redevelop it into an area with restaurants, stores, offices, and a technology center. First, the developers took advantage of the "Priority Funding Areas Program" by choosing to develop in an area meeting the state's criteria for funding. Also, the particular site was eligible for state assistance in the renovation, since the new developer had not contributed to its current polluted state. The factory was also located in an historic area of the city, therefore the project qualified for up to $1.6 million in income tax credits from the state, and additional tax credits from the city of Baltimore.
Not only has Struever Bros. Eccles & Rouse, Inc. benefited from choosing to restore "The Can Company," but they have created opportunities for others. Businesses that move into the refurbished factory also have a chance to earn tax credits. Each can qualify for the "Job Creation Tax Credit Program" by creating just twenty-five new jobs in the factory. In turn, the employees may be eligible for the "Live Near Your Work" Program. They could receive money towards buying a home in neighborhoods close to the factory.
"The Can Company" is a prime example of the benefits that can be reaped by all parties. Maryland's Smart Growth Initiative enables developers to choose among many programs to best suit their needs, while protecting the environment, and the state's long-term cost (Frece 1997).
4.1.6 Westminster
The Westminster project similarly combines different programs. As part of the "Priority Funding" Program, The Department of Housing and Community Development offers a Community Development Block Grant (actually federally funded to the state). The Carroll County Bank and Trust Company is taking advantage of this grant to move from the outskirts of town to a location downtown. The state of Maryland and city of Westminster are contributing funds to pay for the acquisition and demolition of a vacant building that will soon become the bank's operation center, while also providing office space and a parking garage. In addition, Westminster has received a bond under the "Local Government Infrastructure Financing Program" to purchase the parking garage for the city.
The Westminster project is another great example how we can combine programs. In this case, all the programs concentrate on funding but on different levels ranging from federal to states to municipalities (Maryland 3/2/98).
4.1.7 Bridges to Work
A programs that focuses on the redevelopment of current areas, with no underlying environmental goal is East Baltimore's "Bridges to Work". The objectives of this program are purely to improve employment opportunities. It provides transportation for inner city residents and takes them to the work site. Therefore, the program creates a "bridge" to their work, so to speak. It improves employment opportunities for those on welfare who may find transportation to work too expensive or inconvenient. This way the number on welfare should decrease, while expanding businesses who need additional workers should also benefit. The program is being financed by Maryland, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Empower Baltimore Management Corporation. Once again, funding from different sources can make Smart Growth related plans a reality. Here, the project was also contributed to by the private sector (Glendening 1997).
4.1.8 Springfield State Hospital Center
While the state of Maryland owns the Springfield State Hospital Center, they have entered into a partnership with the Town of Sykesville to allow their use of the Warfield Complex. In exchange, Sykesville will be developing the Warfield Complex in a way that will promote Smart Growth by growing economically within an existing community. The fifteen buildings that compromise the complex will be used for educational, commercial, retail, or even senior living uses. The state has likewise chosen to develop the Martin Gross Complex. The area is being used as part of a police training facility. The state has chosen to use both complexes in an effort to promote redevelopment while halting sprawl. The area is expected to "showcase" the Smart Growth initiative, demonstrating the various benefits of the program and clearly indicating that the state is not calling for "no growth" (Maryland 12/17/97).
4.1.9 Maryland's Department of the Environment
Supplementing Maryland's Smart Growth Initiative, the Maryland Department of the Environment has mapped out ten goals in its efforts to direct new growth to appropriate areas:
- Target and track growth-related water and sewerage infrastructure funding to locally designated Smart Growth priority funding areas.
- Implement Maryland's voluntary clean-up program.
- Encourage local government to identify areas suitable/unsuitable for septic systems outside of designated Smart Growth areas.
- Maximize efficiency of state investment in water and sewerage infrastructure through improved interagency coordination of available financing.
- Use the state air emissions offset banking and trading program to benefit Smart Growth areas.
- Apply the air quality concept of "conformity" in local transportation planning to achieve Smart Growth.
- Foster multi-media permit coordination to facilitate appropriate development actions in Smart Growth areas.
- Enhance long-term partnerships with local government, Chesapeake Bay tributary teams, and regional organizations in support of Smart Growth.
- Keep the public and key stakeholders informed and involved in the process of enhancing Maryland Department of the Environment's Smart Growth approach to state environmental management.
- Develop a Maryland Department of the Environment Employee Smart Growth Awareness Program.
Across the country, legislatures are following Maryland's lead in controlling growth. Even the federal government is looking for Maryland to "serve as a national model for addressing issues of transportation and land use on a statewide basis" according to the Federal Transit Administrator (FTA), Gordon Linton (Maryland 2/26/97). The thrust of Maryland's Smart Growth Initiative is that "[they] do not want a 'no growth' plan nor even a 'slow growth' plan. [They] want economic development, but [they] want it where it makes sense..., where the infrastructure is already in place to support it" (Maryland 12/17/97).
4.2 Colorado
The State of Colorado completed its plan for Smart Growth in February 1995. Since then the plan has been updated to accommodate any concerns which may have arisen during the implementation and institution of the smart growth initiative. The Smart Growth Initiative for Colorado is composed of over seventy specific recommendations for action to achieve Smart Growth. The actions differ in many ways, but each has been created to help facilitate the Smart Growth process. Many of the actions ask for the implementation or creation of laws and policies that will alter future development in Colorado. Some of the actions require changes in specific laws to help facilitate the Smart Growth process. Other actions create panels or committees that will discuss issues arising form the Smart Growth Initiative and will search for specific solutions to these problems. The Colorado Initiative also uses several types of incentive programs to help make smart growth more appealing to developers.
Environmental and economic health are primary goals of Colorado's plan. Provisions in the policy make environmental protection a top priority. These provisions assure the protection of water, air, and land through the institution of task forces, incentive programs, and environmental management programs. Similar to the environment, the initiative created by the State of Colorado assures the future survival of the economy. The plan calls for the creation of departments which will follow the economic stability and development in the Smart Growth area, thereby assuring that any changes in the economic structure in the area will be positive and beneficial to the Smart Growth Initiative.
Multi-jurisdictional cooperation and coordination and broad public support are also factors addressed within the plan. Provisions in the State of Colorado's plan mandate cooperation between governments on various levels, members of the private sector, and the public. This is an important aspect to the plan because it requires each party involved to consult and discuss decisions with each other thereby assuring that any decisions made will be beneficial to the masses rather then to a few particular parties. The Smart Growth plan accepted by Colorado also contains provisions in which education of the importance of Smart Growth to the surrounding community is mandatory.
Thus, the State of Colorado's plan for Smart Growth is comprehensive, incorporating both private and public concerns and needs, and applies many types of planning tools to assure that future development in this area will be beneficial and exemplify the tenets of Smart Growth (Colorado 1998).
4.3 Oregon -- 25 Years of Planning
The State of Oregon initiated comprehensive land use planning in 1973, thus representing one of the first state's to address issues of growth on a statewide basis. In existence for over twenty-five years, Oregon's program has served as an example and model for other state programs. Its inclusion of urban growth boundaries and extensive efforts to protect farmland have allowed Oregon to illustrate successful examples of specific Smart Growth mechanisms.
4.3.1 Landmark Legislation -- Senate Bill 100
Oregon embarked on the road towards comprehensive planning with the adoption of Senate Bill 100 in 1973. This bill created mechanisms for the establishment of both state and local plans and created Oregon's Department of Land Conservation and Development to implement the program. The state program includes nineteen planning goals and requires that local plans be consistent with these statewide goals. These goals include:
- Citizen involvement in all phases of the planning process.
- Local comprehensive plans should guide land-use decisions, local planning should be coordinated between other jurisdictions and agencies, and local governments must provide suitable implementation ordinances for the plan.
- Agricultural lands should be inventoried, preserved, and maintained through exclusive farm use zoning.
- Forest lands should be inventoried and conserved.
- Open spaces, scenic and historic areas, and natural resources should be inventoried and addressed.
- Local plans must be consistent with state and federal regulations regarding air, water, and land resources.
- Local plans must have appropriate safeguards when planning for development in areas subject to natural disasters and hazards.
- Recreation needs must be projected and addressed.
- The economy should be diversified and improved; future land use needs should be projected.
- Local plans must accommodate needs for multiple housing types.
- Local plans must efficiently address public services.
- Safe, convenient, and economic transportation system must be provided.
- Land use and development should conserve all forms of energy.
- Cities must estimate future growth, establish urban growth boundaries, and separate urbanizable areas from rural land.
- The 300 mile Willamette Greenway must be implemented and maintained.
- Land use regulations should govern acceptable uses adjacent to estuarine resources.
- Coastal shorelands must be managed correctly.
- Only appropriate development should be allowed on beaches and dunes.
- Ocean resources should be conserved. (Oregon 1998)
4.3.2 Landmark Legal Decision -- Fasano v. Washington County
Also in 1973, Oregon's Supreme Court made a landmark decision regarding land use and zoning. This decision provided standards to guide local land use decisions and shifted the burden of proof to the person requesting a change in land use. It also requires that public need be shown for the requested land use change. This decision has had wide-reaching implications regarding comprehensive planning processes even beyond Oregon's borders.
4.3.3 Urban Growth Boundaries
The establishment and implementation of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) within Oregon have been largely successful. Development within the boundaries are mainly contiguous, dispensing with typical scattered suburban sprawl development. Rapidly growing cities and counties with UGBs developed much more concentrically than those localities without UGBs. Expansion of UGBs has been minimal, indicating that the original twenty-year surplus within the UGBs was accurately predicted and utilized. Portland Metro has determined to only add less than 20,000 acres to its UGB over the next forty-three years. This illustrates a very efficient use of developable land within the UGB (Benner 1998). The effectiveness of the UGBs may also be increased through future additions of complementary Smart Growth tools (Weitz 1998).
4.6 Florida
Florida's statewide planning program began in 1972 when several bills passed through the legislature regarding water and land use planning. These laws established the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Areas of Critical State Concern (ACSC) programs. In 1975, Florida passed its Comprehensive Planning Act, extending planning requirements to local governments (DeGrove 1984). This legislation was strengthened ten years later, and included state oversight and concurrency requirements. In addition, Regional Planning Councils have been established to address multi-jurisdictional planning issues.
Florida represents one of the first comprehensive planning programs, however, numerous efforts are constantly underway in order to optimize the established program. Such efforts include programs of the Department of Community Affairs and recommendations of the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida. A discussion of several of these more recent Smart Growth innovations follows.
4.6.1 Eastward Ho!
As the South Florida area continues to develop and evolve as a world economic and cultural powerhouse, careful planning must be done to assure that the cities continue to grow, a balance between a productive economy and a healthy environment will be maintained. The Eastward Ho! Development initiative calls for the revitalization of areas along the eastern seaboard of South Florida. Redeveloping these areas will stimulate growth, and provide the residents of South Florida with both economic and cultural opportunities. Simultaneously, the redevelopment of the areas will also discourage the westward expansion of South Florida into the Everglades by offering a viable alternative for interested parties to develop for both business and residential needs.
By the year 2025 South Florida's population is predicted to have increased by more than 2.5 million people. To accommodate this predicted influx South Florida must prepare now by redeveloping land and promoting growth along the urban corridor of the eastern seaboard. According to official Eastward Ho! documents, the program "is a public policy initiative that provides information, guidance and strategies for improving quality of life and managing growth in Southeast Florida into the 21st century" (SFRPC 1998, 10). However, economic analysis conducted during 1997 indicates that the Eastward Ho! program may suffer due to a lack of funding (York 1998; Matas 1998).
In addition, the report prepared by the FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems issued the several recommendations for improving the current Eastward Ho! plan, including:
- Development of citywide revitalization plans to address financial impediments.
- Neighborhood redevelopment plans must put people first, build a sense of community, and offer mixed-use development.
- Broad revitalization plan should build on existing plans and linkages.
- Development plans must address mixed income housing and private land assembly.
- Rewards must be greater to offset the risks and costs incurred through revitalization.
- Market demand and investment within the corridor must be generated.
- State and local regulatory reform must occur, particularly regarding the limitations of the Community Redevelopment Act and restrictive and time-consuming permitting processes.
- Further study into the specific requirements of revitalization plans, provision of mixed-income housing, and funding assistance must (York 1998).
4.6.2 Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida
The Governor of Florida established a Commission for a Sustainable South Florida in 1994. This Commission consists of a multi-jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary board that work towards balancing the needs of the economy and environment of South Florida. The Commission has generated broad policy documents that have helped guide ecosystem restoration efforts within South Florida, particularly the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study (Restudy). Bordered by rapidly expanding urban areas, the needs of Everglades ecosystem are being addressed through this Restudy by the Commission and many other parties. Efforts of the Commission have also addressed the needs of the urban system, searching for the best means to balance often conflicting needs within the region. Two of the major proposals relating to the urban environment are discussed below.
4.6.2.1 Sustainable Communities Demonstration Project
In 1997, Florida's Department of Community Affairs developed the Sustainable Communities Demonstration Project following a recommendation of the Governor's Commission. Selected localities include the cities of Boca Raton, Orlando, and Ocala, and Tampa/Hillsborough and Martin counties. These areas are intended to receive increased local power over land use decisions and increased chances of funding through appropriate federal grants (Mikita 1998). However, the realities of such power and funding are limited, and lands are quickly being lost in these areas due to rapid urbanization.
The program lays out several goals for the demonstration communities:
- Restore key ecosystems.
- Achieve a cleaner, healthier environment.
- Limit urban sprawl.
- Protect wildlife and natural areas.
- Advance efficient use of land and other resources.
- Create quality communities and jobs.
In addition, each community must establish an urban growth boundary and provide annual updates on the status of their local comprehensive plans and Future Land Use Maps. These case studies, and over twenty other communities, also participate in the Sustainable Communities Network in order to work together on common goals. This program, along with the Eastward Ho! initiative, must quickly address the rapid loss of open space within South Florida communities to development and help facilitate the timely implementation of Smart Growth tools.
4.6.2.2 Conceptual Plan for the Human System
During 1998, the Governor's Commission began developing a plan that would parallel and complement the existing conceptual plan for the natural system. Currently, this plan is under development and will address critical aspects of the human environment. The Governor's Commission is using this document to investigate and propose certain Smart Growth techniques that will help achieve a sustainable South Florida. Such a proposal should serve to further the past and current work of the Commission for the greater Everglades ecosystem that is impacted by adjacent rapidly urbanizing areas (Governor's Commission 1998).
5 Implementation of Smart Growth Concepts within Florida at the Local Level
In order for comprehensive planning and Smart Growth initiatives to be successful, there must be local mechanisms to complement and implement state-wide and regional goals. The following discussion includes a summary of existing programs within southeastern Florida, the traditional destination of many the visitors and new residents coming to the Sunshine State. However, it should be noted that severe population and development pressures are being experienced throughout the state, including the Tampa/St. Petersburg region, Naples, and Orlando. Smart Growth initiatives are needed in these localities and others in order to address the rapid loss of open and agricultural lands to development.
5.1 Miami-Dade County
Miami-Dade County has conducted comprehensive planning since the mid-seventies. This, along with several strong policies such as the Urban Development Boundary, has enabled Miami-Dade to retain a mix a land uses, including extensive agricultural and open lands. However, the County is under severe development pressure, and proposals to create sprawl development far outside the urban core continue. Currently, traffic congestion, over-crowded schools, urban decay, loss of agricultural lands, and impacts on environmental areas are major concerns. Following is a summary of existing tools that can help Miami-Dade achieve Smart Growth.
5.1.1 The Comprehensive Development Master Plan
The Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) for Dade County was first adopted in 1975. Since then the plan has continued to evolve and change to accommodate the needs of South Floridians, yet the overall goal of providing, "the best possible distribution of land and services to meet the physical, social, cultural and economic needs of the present and future populations," remains the same (Metro-Dade 1997). The CDMP is divided into nine objectives, each with its own policies to be used in the facilitation of achieving this overall goal.
The first objective of the Master Plan is to encourage the development of a diverse and centrally located community rather than encourage urban sprawl. Many of the policies surrounding this objective focus on the importance of creating a truly diverse community. Policies mandate that these communities should be redeveloped as both residential and economic growth areas. Specifically in residential areas, "Dade county shall seek to facilitate the planning of residential areas as neighborhoods which include recreational, educational and other public facilities, houses of worship, and safe and convenient circulation of automotive pedestrian and bicycle traffic" (Metro-Dade 1997). At the same time, the county plans for the development of, "Major centers of activity, industrial complexes, regional shopping centers, large scale office centers and other concentrations of significant employment," which to benefit South Florida residents will be, "at locations with good countywide, multi-modal accessibility" (Metro-Dade 1997). By emphasizing diversity and centrality in the redevelopment of these areas, Dade County can assure themselves that these newly redeveloped areas will be both residential and economic centers and will not result in sprawl development.
The second objective of the Master Plan mandates that decisions on future urban expansion and land use be "based upon the physical and financial feasibility of providing, by the year 2005, all urbanized areas with services at levels of service which meet or exceed the minimum standards adopted in the Capital Improvements Element" (Metro-Dade 1997). Many policies have been listed in the plan to assure that any future decisions are made with the CIE in mind. Specifically, policies mandate that "all development orders authorizing new, or significant expansion of existing, urban land uses shall be contingent upon the provision," mandated by the CIE (Metro-Dade 1997). Other policies mandate that expansion within the Urban Development Areas and the Urban Expansion Areas take priority over any other types of expansion, thereby limiting the possibilities of further urban sprawl.
Objective three of the Master Plan dictates that, "the location, design, and management practices of development and redevelopment in Dade County shall ensure the protection of natural resources and systems" (Metro-Dade 1997). Policies to help assure the protection of these natural resources do so by mandating that "development orders in Dade County shall be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies contained in the Conservation and Coastal Management Elements" of the Master Plan (Metro-Dade 1997). Specifically, environmental protection is assured for all area of Dade County that are of Critical State Concern, these areas being Biscayne Bay, the Big Cypress Area, the East Everglades as well as the barrier islands of Miami-Dade County.
Finally, Objective Nine of the CDMP assures that "energy efficient development shall be accomplished through metropolitan land use patterns, site planning, landscaping, building design, and development of multimodal transportation system" (Metro-Dade 1997). Such policies are consistent with "Green Building" design standards that aim to conserve natural resources.
5.1.2 The Urban Development Boundary
The Land Use Plan designates the major areas in which development activities are to occur within Miami-Dade County. The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) was established in order to contain the vast majority of urban land uses in the County. Outside of the UDB, only one unit per five acres may be built. Several areas are also been identified on the Land Use Map for future expansion of the UDB, called Urban Expansion Areas (UEA). The UDB has effectively protected certain open and agricultural developments from sprawl, however, it can be changed by the County Commission. Development proposals outside of the UDB are common, threatening the solidity of this important land use tool.
5.1.3 The Infill Strategy Task Force
In 1997, Miami-Dade County established a task force to investigate issues and opportunities regarding infill development. This team of residents, planners, and real estate professionals provided a final report in December of 1997 that delineated twelve separate recommendations. However, subsequent to the presentation of that report, the County has not engaged in significant efforts to implement any of the recommendations. The recommendations are summarized as follows:
- Miami-Dade County should delineate an Urban Infill Development Area (UIDA) in its CDMP.
- Economic Development Priority Areas should be designated within the UIDA that should be the focus of employment and housing efforts.
- The UDB should be held constant for the next ten years.
- A mix of well-designed housing should be provided within the UIDA.
- A consortium of lending institutions for residential and business loans at below market rates should be created.
- Improvements to mass transit service within the UIDA should be made.
- Educational opportunities in the UIDA should be improved.
- Multi-agency funding programs for UIDA infrastructure projects should be pursued.
- Development activities within the UIDA should receive increased flexibility and streamlining of the permitting process.
- Good urban design for higher density and mixed use developments should be encouraged.
- An inventory of vacant or underutilized sites should be created.
- An Infill Strategy Committee should be established to implement these recommendations (Metro-Dade Infill 1997, 8-21)
5.1.4 The Severable Use Rights Program
In 1981, the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners approved a Severable User Rights Program (SUR) in order to protect environmentally sensitive lands and promote increased development within the UDB. Under the SUR program, development rights within the East Everglades can be transferred to other areas more suitable for development. Landowners within the East Everglades participating in this program retain ownership of their property but transfer the right to develop the land to another parcel or person (Metro-Dade 1993). Since 1981, this program has been severely underutilized. In order to be effective, a revamping of the sending/receiving areas and a means to address the backlog of unused rights must be addressed.
5.2 Palm Beach County
Palm Beach County established most density levels in the County in 1972. In the mid 1980's, with the establishment of the Growth Management Act requiring the development of the comprehensive plans at the local level, Palm Beach County received approval for its first Comprehensive Plan. In 1995, upon completion of the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report, deficiencies in the comprehensive plan were addressed and in the following years, several amendments were made to the Comprehensive Plan to better address growth issues within the County.
5.2.1 The Managed Growth Tier System
As an outgrowth of the 1995 Evaluation and Appraisal Report, the County took on the challenge of developing a Managed Growth Tier System to control the direction of growth in the County. The problems that led to the need for such a system stemmed from the inefficient delivery of services and the development of the County being driven by those services. Water and sewer lines with additional road construction became the driving forces behind inefficient land use and urban sprawl. Rural neighborhoods had been encroached upon by sprawling suburbs and farmland was rapidly being converted to residential development. Poor, inefficient land use patterns included the Acreage area, dominated by 1 and 1/4 acre lots, on dirt roads with well systems. As this particular area exploded with growth the lack of commercial services created great pressure on nearby Royal Palm Beach. The false impression that some day soon urban levels of services would be provided to the area, led to the demand for those services at a great expense. School overcrowding, traffic gridlock, flooding from poor drainage, lack of libraries and parks, and slower response times in sheriff and emergency medical services all became visible. In 1995, it had become quite obvious that the County would not be able to meet the demands of rapidly growing areas, such as the Acreage, and better way to deliver services, thus controlling growth would have to be devised, within the context of the Managed Growth Tier System.
A fifty-member task force was chosen to address the concerns of the areas and tiers. Citizens and professions sat side by side in an effort to craft language addressing deficiencies and future pictures of Palm Beach County. Those fifty members were divided into three areas: a revitalization/redevelopment tier, an urban/suburban tier, and a rural/exurban tier. A committee discussed the delivery of services relative to those tiers; a summary follows.
5.2.1.1 Revitalization/Redevelopment Tier
The Revitalization/redevelopment tier encompasses coastal city areas. The area includes blighted areas that do not receive an adequate level of service, some areas not even having properly functioning water and sewer lines. The areas are predominated by minority communities and are in need of a resurgence of tax dollars to address service deficiencies. Mass transit service, which is in great need of upgrading, is inadequate and affordable housing needs predominate the list of problems in the tier. Tools such as traffic concurrency exception areas and creative financing tools such as tax increment financing were discussed in the development of language for goals and policies affecting the tier. The linkage between these areas and the western areas that were demanding new services, thus detracting from these revitalization areas, had finally come into the discussions of the County's growth.
5.2.1.2 Urban/Suburban Tier
The Urban/Suburban tier is the second tier the system. This tier is predominated by urban areas with adequate levels of services and much less of a deficiency in those services than the revitalization/redevelopment tier. This tier has with some enclaves that are more rural in nature, but is mainly characterized by adequate water and sewer lines, stormwater management, and other related services. Although some enclaves do exist without these services, not all require upgrades, some remain more rural in nature and do not demand increased services. The County revisited the existing level of service it was providing in those areas and established what that level of service would be in the future. It was a mechanism to give people fair as to what they could expect as far as roads, water, sewer, and drainage services in the area. The largest deficiencies in the area included school overcrowding (not addressed extensively in the system) and inappropriate land uses. For example, areas with too much or too little commercial needed to be addressed to correct those deficiencies, thus eliminating strip commercial land use, which no one favored. Although this area was coupled with the revitalization/redevelopment tier, solid language was crafted to address both sets of issues.
5.2.1.3 Rural/Exurban Tier
The Rural/Exurban tier addressed the western areas of the county. Although this tier was truly the driving force behind the whole Managed Growth Tier System, it had its own sets of concerns and issues completely separate from the other areas of the County. Stagnated many times by divergent points of view over the character of the areas, it was discovered that while certain areas wanted a more urban character, other areas certainly did not. Trying to devise a unified level of service for the area would not be accomplished and thus two subgroups of criteria developed. The rural areas crafted language that did not require increased levels of service in an effort to preserve the rural character of the area. The exurban areas crafted language which did increase certain levels of service, but other levels of service, such as roads, were left unchanged. Keeping dirt roads in the areas was very important to the people on that committee to keep the equine nature of the area safe for that type of use.
5.2.1.4 Sector Planning
Finally, the committee struggled with the future of 13,000 acres of farmland currently in citrus use. The landowners of those areas have desired to have their land master planned through this process and devising criteria to address those concerns proved too difficult a task for the committee. In late 1998, the Board of County Commissioners brought closure to the situation by adopting a newly devised Sector Planning process that had emanated from the Department of Community Affairs. The final product included an area of approximately 58,000 acres that would address the 13,000 acres of citrus farms as well as areas such as the Acreage predominated by residential land use with virtually no commercial use. It remains to be seen how these deficiencies will be addressed and what process will be used.
Staff of the County presented the Board of County Commissioners with a preliminary draft of the Managed Growth Tier System to receive further direction. The Board's concerns were related to the fact that they thought certain deficiencies in land use were not entirely addressed and the future of the Sector Planning areas. After that meeting it was decided that the Sector Planning initiative would proceed while the County staff needed to make further refinements to the Managed Growth Tier System which will be revisited in the spring of 1999.
5.2.2 The Agricultural Reserve
Stemming from a ten year problem of residential urban development encroaching a predominantly agricultural area in the southern part of Palm Beach County, the County Commission rapidly pursued options to address this issue in 1998. The Ag Reserve a 21,000 acre area of land adjacent to the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, received a large amount of attention as the Board of County Commissioners pursued three alternative development scenarios to address encroaching development. Predominated by agricultural use, the area does have development potential under its current zoning designations regarding Planned Urban Developments (PUD). A general land use pattern of 1 unit per 5 acres is attached to the land. However, if a landowner has 250 acres or greater, that person may develop the property at 1 unit per acre if clustered on 40% of the property, thereby preserving 60% of the land through a 60/40 PUD. If a landowner has 40 acres or greater, they may develop at 1 unit per acre on 20%, preserving 80% of the land through an 80/20 PUD. Two large parcel rezonings were granted in 1997 and 1998, thus creating the need to develop an overall master plan for the area before this ad hoc cluster development resulted in an overall checkerboard pattern, inappropriate for both urban and environmental needs.
A consultant was hired by the County to devise the three master plans including the following scenarios: a status quo alternative, an alternative using public funds from a bond to acquire critical lands, and a no bond alternative using increased density as an incentive to get better urban design. Three design and information gathering charrettes, as well as a public opinion survey were utilized to determine the public's desires in planning for the area. Farming interests, developers, environmental organizations and citizens had input into the process. NAS provided extensive comment and input into these design charrettes and the public opinion survey.
On January 7, 1999, the three development scenarios were presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Based on objectives developed by the public opinion survey, the status quo alternative met none of the project objectives adequately and resulted in a very expensive development scenario. The bond alternative and the no bond alternative received the most attention. The County Commission resolved to move forward with the bond alternative while eliminating a density bonus incentive. They felt they could not ask the public to pay for an incentive that did little to reduce the overall amount of units in the area and artificially inflated land values. The bond alternative will go to the voters on March 9th.
The total bond package included a $150 million for land acquisition, including $100 million for land acquisition in the Ag Reserve, as well as $50 million for acquisition of environmentally sensitive sites throughout the County that were targeted through a previously established land acquisition committee. Another bond question for $25 million in parks, recreation and cultural projects will also go to the voters. NAS has partnered with the Conservation Fund, 1,000 Friends of Florida, and The Nature Conservancy to advocate for the passage of the referendum. At the time of this writing, the results of this election are unknown.
5.2.3 Transfer of Development Rights
In the early 1990's the Palm Beach County Commission realized the benefits of a TDR program and established such a program as an result of a 1990 $100 million bond program to acquire environmental lands throughout the County. The development rights from those purchases were placed into a County-administered bank and sold to receive dollars for management functions on purchased environmentally sensitive properties. One transfer took place soon after the program began on the Capella tract, which was adjacent to the Loxahatchee Refuge. This transfer was entirely inappropriate as density was increased in the far western reaches of the County next to an environmental area. A task force was created to address the inadequacies of the original program and the program was subsequently revised in 1998.
The main issue the task force struggled with was the degree of use of the program. Although at one point close to 10,000 units existed in the TDR bank, there was no incentive for use of the bank because the County Commission was granting rezonings and land use amendments for free. To encourage use of the program, the County Commission resolved that the program should be mandatory. Unless an applicant could both demonstrate a justification for a land use amendment (based upon an error) and need for the land use amendment (for example, there is not enough commercial or industrial land use to service an area), the TDR program was the only alternative for appropriate land use amendments. Making the developer meet these two criteria, resulted in a higher standard to meet before land use amendments would be granted.
The TDR program costs were also addressed. The price of a TDR unit was grossly underestimated at approximately $6,000 a unit. That price was increased to between $8,000-$9,000 an acre. That price would more accurately reflect the average market price, although some critics felt the price of the units should have been higher.
With the changes in the TDR program, County staff now have the ammunition to more closely scrutinize a land use amendment looking for justification and need. A source for management dollars now exists to manage the County's environmentally sensitive lands and the County Commission has a Smart Growth tool developers can utilize when requesting increased densities.
5.3 Martin County
In compliance with the Florida Growth Management Act, Martin County adopted the Martin County Comprehensive Plan in 1982. Since its original adoption in the early 1980's the plan has been changed and revised many times in the hopes of satisfying the needs of the residents of Martin County. The present plan is composed of sixteen elements which,
"address intergovernmental coordination, future land use, traffic circulation, public transportation, ports and aviation, housing, recreation, coastal management, conservation and open space, sanitary sewer, potable water, solid and hazardous waste, drainage and natural groundwater aquifer recharge, capital improvement, economics, and arts and culture" (http://www.admin.co.martin.fl.us/GOVT/depts/gmd/sustain/article2.html).
The county's growth plan furthers its attempts to manage growth, protect resources and contain urban sprawl through the development of Urban Service Areas (USA). USA lines were added to the initial plan in 1990, and determine vacant land areas that are to remain unchanged to accommodate for the projected population growth this area will incur within the next forty years. The USAs are divided into two different types, Primary USAs and Secondary USAs. The Primary USAs provide services for residential and commercial areas of high density. The Secondary USAs provide services to less densely populated residential areas and also separate the urban areas of Martin County from the agricultural areas in the western region of the county.
The Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan also contains strict provisions that protect wetlands as well as areas of upland vegetation. The plan specifically requires preservation of all on-site wetlands, and offers only a few exemptions for single-family lots, and roadways. The policies surrounding the upland areas call for the preservation of specific upland vegetation.
Martin County is a leader among South Florida in the development of initiatives to preserve the natural environment, while still maintaining a productive economy. For this reason Martin County was chosen to participate in the state of Florida's' Sustainable Communities Demonstration Project. Their acceptance into this project means that Martin County no longer needs approval by the state for any amendment made to the plan that involve areas East of U.S. 1 and outside the coastal high hazard area, therefore making the journey towards achieving a sustainable Martin County by 2020 a feasible goal.
6 Conclusion
Smart Growth has been gaining slow acceptance over the last decade. However, as we approach the end of this century, Smart Growth initiatives must be quickly implemented in order to preserve our cultural and natural resources before they are lost to poorly designed and poorly timed development. Urban sprawl has been the most common type of development over the last several decades. As land becomes even more of a premium, we must work harder and more quickly to conserve and protect our remaining resources. In order to achieve Smart Growth in South Florida, we will need extensive cooperation among agencies and across jurisdictions, broad-based support for ecosystem restoration, and implementation of solutions for community concerns. Achievement of Smart Growth will only result if a variety of the tools and initiatives described in this report are identified, gain broad-based support, and are implemented in time.
7 Bibliography
Benner, Richard. 1998. Growth and the Northwest Landscape. Salem, OR: Department of Land Conservation and Development.
Bernstein, Scott, Sharon Feigon, and Stephen Perkins et al. 1998. Growth in South Florida: Making Rapid Change Sustainable. Chicago: Center for Neighborhood Technology.
Colorado's Smart Growth and Development Cabinet Council. 1998. Smart Growth and Development 1998 Work Plan. Denver: Colorado's Department of Local Affairs.
DeGrove, John M. 1984. Land Growth and Politics. Chicago: Planners Press.
Duerksen, Chris and Clarion Associates. 1996. Colorado Growth Management Toolbox. Internet: http://www.state.co.us/smartgrowth/whalltls.htm
Frece, John W. 1997. The Can Company: Maryland's Smart Growth Initiative at Work. Internet: http://www.op.state.md.us/smartgrowth/column10.html
Glendening, Parris N. 1997. A Bridge to Maryland's Future: Welfare Reform and Smart Growth Working Hand-in-Hand. Internet: http://www.gov.state.md.us/gov/messages/html/bridges.html
Glendening, Parris N. 1997. Conserving Neighborhoods: Marylands' Approach to Controlling Suburban Sprawl. Internet: http://www.gov.state.md.us/gov/messages/html/growth.html
Glendening, Parris N. 1997. A New Smart Growth Culture for Maryland. Internet: http://www.op.state.md.us/smartgrowth/speech2.html
Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida. 1999. Draft Report: Planning for 2050. Coral Gables, FL: Governor's Commission.
Maryland Governor's Press Office. 3/2/98. Governing Glendening Helps Initiate Major Project in Downtown Westminster. Internet: http://www.dhcd.state.md.us/3298.htm
Maryland Governor's Press Office. 1/11/97. Governor Urges Support to Plan to Control Runaway Sprawl. Internet: http://www.gov.state.md.us/gov/press/1997/jan/html/smartgro.html
Maryland Governor's Press Office. 2/7/97. Mayors Announce Broad Support for Smart Growth. Internet: http://www.gov.state.md.us/gov/press/1977/feb/html/sgmayors.html
Maryland Governor's Press Office. 12/17/97. Smart Growth Decision Expected to Spur Economic Development. Internet: http://www.op.state.md.us/smartgrowth/news/bpwcarol.html
Maryland Governor's Press Office. 2/26/97. Students, Community Leaders Support Smart Growth. Internet: http://www.gov.state.md.us/gov/press/1977/feb/html/smartsup.html
Maryland Office of Planning. 1997. Maryland's Smart Growth Initiatives. Internet: http://www.op.state.md.us/smartgrowth/initiatv.html
Matas, Alina. 1998. "Eastward Ho! Lacks Funding, Study Says." The Wall Street Journal.
Metro-Dade County Infill Strategy Task Force. 1997. Final Report. Miami, FL: Department of Planning, Development and Regulation.
Metro-Dade County. 1993. The Severable Use Rights Program. Miami, FL: Department of Planning, Development and Regulation.
Mikita, Kim. 1998. DCA's Sustainable Communities Demonstration Project. Coastal Currents 6, 2: 1-2.
Oregon's Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). 1998. Internet: http://www.lcd.state.or.us
Pierce, Neal R. 1997. 'Smart Growth' Cities Where Smart Money Is. Internet: http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/editorial/97/04/28/18254061.0-4.html
South Florida Regional Planning Council. 1998. Building on Success: A Report from Eastward Ho! Hollywood, FL: SFRPC.
ULI-the Urban Land Institute. 1998. ULI on the Future: Smart Growth. Washington, DC: ULI.
Weitz, Jerry and Terry Moore. 1998. Development Inside Urban Growth Boundaries: Oregon's Empirical Evidence of Contiguous Urban Form. Journal of the American Planning Association 64,4: 424-440.
York, Marie et al. 1998. Eastward Ho! Financial Impediments and Solutions to Redevelopment. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: FAU/FIU Joint Center.
|
contact: vnelson@audubon.org |
 Back to Everglades Library
|
|