By James Lawlor

Pennsylvania: Transit-Oriented Development. Legislative committee chair Richard G. Bickel, AICP, reports the chapter is pushing a bill it drafted to promote transit-oriented developments. It would authorize public transportation agencies to work in cooperation with counties, municipalities, Amtrak, and the private sector to designate and create transit revitalization investments districts (TRIDs). The bill, H.B. 2464, has 48 co-sponsors and is currently under consideration by the house transportation committee.

The bill proposes to encourage cooperative approaches to new development around rail transit stations and along public transportation corridors, and to increase ridership on public transit systems while generating revenues for expanded services and capital improvements. It also seeks to encourage multijurisdictional implementation of comprehensive plans, stimulate public-private partnerships, and establish mechanisms to capture the value added by joint development activities, to reinvest in transit systems and local communities.

Within a "value capture area," which is coextensive with the TRID boundaries, real estate tax revenues and any other designated tax revenue would be shared by the participating local jurisdictions and the participating public transportation agency for the purposes of completing and maintaining improvements laid out in the TRID development plan. The bill also gives transit agencies power to acquire and improve property within the TRID, consistent with existing authority to condemn and acquire land for public transit purposes.

The chapter plans to make a concerted effort to bring the bill to the house floor when the legislature returns from its summer recess. At its meeting on April 26, the committee also heard a report from a special task force organized to review the state's Municipalities Planning Code and suggest improvements. Some of the areas under consideration include mandating adoption of plans, impact fees, development moratoriums, and incorporation of smart growth principles. The committee and the task force will be meeting again this month, looking forward to presentation of a final report at the chapter's annual conference at the end of October. Committee chair Bickel, with the aid of two other committee members, will be drafting chapter position statements on planning and community development issues for review by the candidates for governor as soon as the primary elections are over.

Contact Richard G. Bickel, 215-238-2830, rbickel@dvrpc.org.

Ohio: TOD, Too. Although there is no formal state program to encourage transit-oriented development in Ohio, that has not stopped local jurisdictions from moving ahead on their own. In an article published in the current issue of the Ohio Planner's News, Karen Johnston of the Lorain County Community Development Department reported on the western Cleveland-area community's creation of a new multimodal transportation plan. TOD projects in the works include development of the area around the former New York Central depot in Elyria and Black River Landing near downtown Lorain. Johnston notes the potential for a commuter rail system that would connect the county's lake shore suburbs with downtown Cleveland.

In a companion piece, Vince Reddy, AICP, zoning administrator for the city of Cleveland Heights, an older suburb east of Cleveland, notes that development of the first ring of suburban communities was almost all transit-oriented, even though it wasn't called TOD then. He points out that while Cleveland and Dayton are the only Ohio cities with existing rail transit systems, all the larger cities and towns have functioning transit systems that could accommodate TOD.

Massachusetts: Environmental funding, livable communities to conference. Just before the July 4 holiday, the Massachusetts House passed its version (H. 4909) of legislation authorizing capital spending for sustainable development planning grants to communities as well as money for protection of open space and farmland, watersheds, and wildlife habitat.

The bill authorizes a total of $596.5 million in funding. In contrast, the senate bill, S. 2319, passed in April, authorizes $955.5 million in spending. In addition, the senate bill incorporates S. 1962, the Livable Communities Act, that would require regional planning commissions and municipalities receiving state planning assistance funds to establish sustainable development plans. There is no similar language in the house bill. Consequently, a conference committee will have to work out the differences.

The Livable Communities Act, sponsored by Sen. Marc Pacheco, defines sustainable development as development designed to bring about efficient, safe, healthy, and economically vital communities. Such communities, the bill says, should have sufficient affordable housing while simultaneously maintaining or improving the environment, natural resources and the functioning of natural ecosystems. It calls for regional plans to consider local sustainable development plans and directs the regional planning commission to encourage local governments to resolve inconsistencies between their plans.

Contact Lyn Billman-Golemme, AICP, 508-799-0500.

Florida: Pinecrest Lakes Stands. The state legislature ended its session without enacting legislation that would have placed procedural hurdles in the way of neighboring landowners seeking to challenge an approved development on the ground it did not conform to the local comprehensive plan (see Statehouse, April 2002, for details). On May 31, the Florida Supreme Court declined to review the appellate decision that prompted the legislative activity, Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel. Observers in Tallahassee, including the APA chapter and 1000 Friends of Florida, doubt the issue has gone away for good. They expect similar legislation to be introduced in next year's session.

Moreover, a bill funding the state's share of Everglades restoration costs contains a rider that greatly narrows the ability of citizens to sue to stop developments on environmental grounds. It requires persons filing an environmental challenge to demonstrate they would be personally impacted by the development. Organizations filing challenges must have at least 25 members who are residents of the affected area and have been incorporated for at least a year. Critics point out the latter provision makes it virtually impossible for ad hoc coalitions and homeowner associations, which are usually unincorporated, to oppose development projects on environmental grounds.

Want to take action?
Track legislation, e-mail Congress, find local media, and more online at APA's Legislative Action Center.