December 2003

The Statehouse

By James Lawlor

Florida: Referendum Proposal. The chapter has prepared a statement opposing a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would require a referendum before a local government could adopt a comprehensive plan or plan amendment. If the initiative garners the 489,000 signatures required to appear on the ballot, it would be voted on in the 2004 election. By mid-November, the backers of the proposal had collected almost 9,000 signatures, according to the Florida Department of State.

The proposal appears to be driven by citizen frustration, especially in the Fort Lauderdale area, with the pace of development, rather than the comprehensive planning process itself. But, because the courts have ruled that "ballot box zoning" is invalid, proponents of the amendment have opted to seek greater citizen involvement in the comprehensive planning and plan amendment processes. Some planners, commenting on the proposed amendment in the chapter's website discussion forum, noted the amendment would do nothing to get at the root causes of citizen dissatisfaction with the planning process.

In its position statement, the chapter noted it supports citizen access and public input into the comprehensive planning process, but argues the proposed amendment would have unintended consequences likely to make the situation worse rather than better. The amendment, the statement continues, is not an effective tool to improve citizen participation, but a reaction to a problem better resolved by different means. The chapter is committed to improving citizen involvement in the comprehensive planning process through local planning initiatives and legislative changes in the state's growth management network, the statement concludes.

In a related development, state Senate President James King announced formation of a nine-member select senate committee on constitutional amendment reform, charged with evaluating current procedures for amending the state constitution and proposing reform legislation.

Also, the chapter has posted on its website five white papers discussing the future of Florida's growth management system and presenting specific legislative proposals to improve it. The paper discussing the future of the growth management system argues that the system relies too much on a web of regulations at the state and local level rather than a comprehensive statewide vision. Other papers make the case for better training of local leaders; establishment of a land use board of appeals similar to that of Oregon; encouragement of sector planning rather than piecemeal planning on a project-by-project basis; and reform of the rural land stewardship areas program to make it more attractive to landowners.

California: Smart-Growth Arnold? If one takes at face value Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's agenda for California as spelled out in his campaign website, the new governor would seem to be dedicated to the principles of smart growth. He calls for development of an infill incentives package to help local government deal with the imbalance between jobs and housing and provide a mechanism to identify underutilized sites that could be redeveloped. The agenda also calls for mixed-use, compact development, and growth by greater use of infill development, to curb urban sprawl.

Other approaches endorsed in the Schwarzenegger agenda include accelerating cleanup of brownfield sites, improvements to mass transit, restoration of parks, and creation of a conservancy to protect the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The governor also calls for increased use of solar power, including incentives for including solar-power generating panels in construction, and incentives to greater use of "green" building methods.

Do these positions represent sincerely held beliefs or mere window dressing for the voters' benefit? The new governor has, after all, no track record to be examined. He would certainly not be the first governor promising to embrace smart growth, only to retreat in the face of entrenched opposition. In the short run, about all that Californians can do is wait and hope.

Wisconsin: Conspiracy Theories Abound. Twenty or 30 years ago in some parts of the country, persons advocating better planning ran the risk of being labeled socialists or worse, Communists. Nowadays, the pink tinge has been largely scrubbed from planners' image, but in one state, at least, efforts to push smart growth are being labeled a plot by the United Nations to control local land-use decisions. In the Wisconsin chapter's fall newsletter, Jason Valerius reports that a grassroots movement has sprung up in several counties aimed at pressuring local governments into withdrawing from the smart growth planning process.

Spearheaded by a group calling itself the Committee for Fairness in Law, the anti-smart growth movement reasons that because the smart growth movement advocates sustainable development and the U.N. promotes the same goals in its Division for Sustainable Development, the smart growth movement must be working in concert with internationalists to impose some sort of new world order on local governments. So far, the committee has had a measure of success in persuading towns to reject state smart growth planning grants and can probably take some credit for the drafting of legislation that would abolish the state's smart growth planning law, Valerius says. It is significant that 11 of the 17 co-sponsors of A.B. 435 represent areas of West-central and Northeast Wisconsin where anti-smart-growth sentiment has been strongest.

Chapter president Gary Peterson reported to members on November 20 that A.B. 435 had failed to make it out of committee, probably killing it for this legislative session. Legislation sponsored by Assembly Member Cheryl Albers to modify the smart growth law was reported out of the Committee on Property Rights and Land Management November 19. The chapter supported her original proposal but has concerns about a follow-up bill that, so far, has not been reported favorably.

Massachusetts: Affordable Housing Law Reform. The legislature's Joint Committee on Housing and Urban Development unveiled its proposal to reform and update the state's affordable housing law, chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws, on October 20. The existing law permits developers of low- and moderate-income housing to seek review of their plans under a comprehensive permit application process, in communities where less than 10 percent of the housing stock is deemed affordable. Any project built under the permit process must include housing that is affordable by households earning 80 percent or less of the median income for the area.

The overall objective of the committee's work was to address communities' concerns over the operation of the law and its impact on local land-use planning and regulation, while preserving the law's fundamental thrust. The resulting bill is a redraft of 21 bills introduced in the house and senate relating to chapter 40B.

Some of the more significant provisions include modifications to the method used to determine whether a community has met its 10 percent goal for affordable housing; limits on the number of comprehensive permit applications that a community must approve in any given year, and a limit on the maximum size of proposed developments, keyed to the size of the community; a requirement that chapter 40B developments be consistent with smart-growth principles; better notice to the community of proposed developments; and an "escape hatch" whereby communities can deny chapter 40B applications under some circumstances without triggering an appeal to the state's housing appeals committee.