January 2000

By James Lawlor

Florida: Speedup. Forget about a deliberate and careful review of the state's growth management act. The review process described in this space last month has been placed on the fast track by the administration of Gov. Jeb Bush, chapter executive director Marcia Elder reports.

In late November, at a meeting of regional planning council directors, state representative George Albright (R-Ocala) outlined a plan to reduce state influence over the comprehensive planning process. Albright, who chairs the finance and taxation committee, had already filed a placeholder bill, H.B. 139, that would strip the state department of community affairs of power to review proposed changes in local comprehensive plans. Gov. Bush has directed the department to help Albright with the final drafting of the measure, which is expected to be introduced later this month.

The new game plan rules out the deliberate review and consultation that should take place before a wholesale overhaul of the comprehensive planning process is contemplated, says Elder. Charles Pattison, executive director of 1000 Friends of Florida, agrees, warning of the unintended adverse impacts that could result from hasty changes.

Both the chapter and 1000 Friends have expressed concern about the speedup to the Bush administration.

Wisconsin: In the budget. They do things differently in Wisconsin. It is not uncommon for the biennial budget bill to contain the sort of substantive provisions that, in other states, would be the subject of freestanding bills. Thus, Act 9 of 1999, the state's budget for fiscal years 1999-2001, approved by Gov. Tommy Thompson in late October, contains a number of planning-related provisions.

Notable among them, says chapter legislative counsel Richard Lehmann, AICP, are definitions of "smart growth areas"; a new definition of the comprehensive plan; procedures for adopting a comprehensive plan; and Section 1606, which requires that all local government actions affecting land use be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The state's budget appropriates a total of $3.5 million over the two years to help local governments pay for planning activities. Of that sum, $1.5 million is earmarked for developing comprehensive plan elements. The rest is targeted to the preparation of transportation elements.

First in line for transportation planning grants, the bill states, are localities whose plans consider the interests of neighboring or overlapping jurisdictions, address comprehensive planning goals, identify smart growth areas, provide for implementation, will be completed within two and a half years, and provide opportunities for public participation in the planning process.

An informal task force that included chapter representatives developed the comprehensive plan definition that was a feature of the governor's original budget bill, Lehmann notes. But the smart growth provisions resulted from negotiations among such diverse interests as the state home builders chapter, 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, and various municipal associations.

Arizona: Growing Smarter report. The commission created by the 1998 Growing Smarter Act issued its final report in September. At this writing, however, it was not clear whether the report, now in the hands of an ad hoc legislative committee, will result in legislation this year. And, according to Corey Cox, AICP, the chapter's vice-president for legislative affairs, while the report contains much to be praised, it also has some troubling aspects that prevent the chapter from supporting it in its entirety.

The chapter was represented on most of the commission's eight subcommittees, Cox says, but concentrated its efforts on the subcommittee that reviewed city and county planning laws. That group recommended that a process be set up to foster joint development planning between municipalities and counties, that statutory language covering vested development rights be clarified, and that consistency be required between city and county plans. The final report includes only the first of these recommendations.

On the plus side, the report calls for establishing a conservation stewardship trust to preserve lands with high ecological, scenic, cultural or historic value. It encourages legislation to help buy development rights for agricultural and open land, and to encourage infill development. It also urges greater citizen participation in the planning process.

The report also includes several troubling recommendations, Cox says. One of those recommendations would require local governments to seek property owners' consent before limiting their land to open space or agricultural use. Another would waive charges and expedite takings claims.

It's anyone's guess at this point whether the legislature will accept any of these recommendations, or whether it will leave the whole issue up to the voters. The Sierra Club is now pushing a slow-growth voter initiative to be placed on the November 2000 ballot.