Land use management is a enshrined as a LOCAL issue in American political structure, but some afctors, like geographical logic and over-riding larger public interest, has brought about some larger-scale land use control structures. This chapter and our discussion moves quickly through regional (groups of locals), state, and federal interests and programs that affect land use.
Regionalism and partnerships
The mantra of comprehensive land use planning is that it must encompass more than local government boundaries, it must be regional. But authority is fragmented, and regional planning is more an ideal than a reality.
Platt (and I) take a realistic approach to this: we can’t count on strong regional land use controls, so we support more voluntary cooperation among local governments to solve regional problems.
There is also the emergence of NGOs that seek regional attention and cooperation. Platt gives a few examples but their role is mostly to offer ideas and plans.
Next, some regional integrated plan have emerged, but they are almost all ADVISORY to lcoal governments.
More substantive are regional service authorities or districts that provide certain servcies and infrastructure, like water and waste management, and these have large land use roles.
Regional transportation districts are probably the msot effective here in terms of land use.
State Programs:
Some states are more involved in land use than others; most have generally implicitly or explicitly delegated most or all land use control to local government. Thought even these states have some influence (e.g., thru state transportation policies). States also serve as the partner or local implimentation locus of federal programs (e.g., coastal zone management, floodplain management, etc,)
States can own land, and many have significant State Parks programs. The western states also have "State School trust lands" or just called state lands.
State also tax, set tax laws that affect local gov., and plan for an fund infrastructure like highways and water projects---all of which can affect land use patterns.
State Land Use Planning:
We’re interested in those states that have retained (or re-aquired) strong land use controls.
The "quiet revolution": more states taking back some of the land use authority devolved to local government.
Model for state programs:
Logic: the state should step in on otherwise local land use decisions when:
But a few states have been more aggressive, establishing ion the 1970s something close to state-wide zoning and permitting for development. The state programs differ:
Hawaii (strong statewide zoning)
Oregon (UGBs, forest and ag land protection; local gov sets the UGB and ask for it to be enlarged as needed)
Vermont (state permit system for developments over a certain size, with demanding performance standards on water quality, etc.; a second law then required state and inter-jurisdictional cooperation in land use plans)
Vermont and Oregon had a strong element of protecting natural resource lands from residential or commercial development.
A few other states did this in the 1990s (Washington) with more or less strong land use oversight , and both AZ and CO had statewide Growth management Acts on the 2000 ballot (by citizen initiative) and both failed.
Platt tends to support the idea (p. 348) that the move to impose state-wide land use control has fizzeled.
Still, states are involved in:
Areas of Particular Concern
New Jersey Pinelands: with federal support the state passed legislation governing all development in a designated area based on the many values of the Pinelands. Required affected governments to participate in a binding Comprehensive Plan. Essentially a zoning plan, with TDR to compensate for the outright down-zoning. Strong and apparently well accepted by public and land owners.
Platt mentions: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: because the Tahoe Basin sits astride NV and CA this took both federal and state legislation. Goal was to regulate development so as to maintain a certain water quality in the lake (defined by clarity), which was designated in the legislation as a natural feature of national and statewide importance. TRPA has power over all development permits in the basin, and designated as the federal transportation funds outlet, so it also took on traffic and air pollution. In the news last year with Supreme Court case about a development permit moratorium TRPA set in the 1980s---court up-held it for same reasons as in Livermore and Ramapo.
Special issue programs:
All states have some of these focused programs and laws even if they don’t have comprehensive land sue programs. Examples include:
Agricultural land protection (preferred tax rates; T and PDR; ag taxing districts; ag zoning)
Floodplain, wetlands, etc.
Waste management