Carolina Planning Vol. 20.1: Sustainable Development

Carolina

ci?7^

/r/Zc/J

Volume

20

Number

1

.-^kfe

^^

_^

#"

P-71

VK^

^'

At'

*^-

^i

;^V

•»^> **

""-•1. ''*.VJii

€-"•"--«?

Editors'

Note

Sustainable

development—

these are

two words

that planners are hearing

more

frequentlyaspeopletalkaboutthe future

of

how we

should plan

and

how we

shouldlive.

And

yet,

many

find itdifficulttodefine sustainable

development and even

harderto

identify

how

itcan

be

incorporated intotheir

everyday

livesorplanningpractices.

The

articles inthisissue

of Carolina Planning

seektooffer insightsinto

how

the

concept

of

sustainable

development

can be

transformed

into practice

and

how

itisbeing

adopted

by

communities and

government

agenciestorealizesustainable goals.

Our

firstarticle,

by David

J.

Brower.

servestointroducethe conceptofsustainable

development and

provide

some

background

about

how

ithas risentothe forefront

of

international discussion.

The

following articles then describe specific

programs and

initiativesthat

have been adopted

or are

under

consideration

around

thecountryto assist

intheeffort

of

planningfor sustainable

communities.

Given

theimportance

of

agricultureto

North

Carolina's

economy

and

history,itisfitting tobegin with

Nancy

Agnew's

articledescribingthe federal

government's

Sustainable Agriculture

Research

and Education

(SARE)

Program

and

how

SARE

is

encouraging

revisions to existing agricultural practices. Inanarticle

of

particularinteresttourban land

useplanners,J.

Gary

Lawrence,

Director

of

PlanningfortheCity

of

Seattle,details

how

that cit>' incorporated sustainability goals into their recent

comprehensive

planning

process. In thearea

of

economic

and community'

development

isa

Carolina

Planning

interviewwith

Nina

Morals, Joseph

McDomick,

and

Sarah

Bobrow,

representatives

from

the

Penn

School

forPreservation

on

St.Helena'sIsland,offthecoast

of South

Carolina.

Theireffortsarefocused

on

revivingsustainable

economic

practices

on

the

Sea

Islands

toensurethecontinued survivalofthe

unique

heritageofthelong-timeresidentsofthe

islands.

Ylang

Nguyen

discusses

some

ofthe initiativesbeingundertakenatthestatelevelto

incorporatesustainability ofalltypes,includingenvironmental

and

economic

sustainability,

into legislation

and

publicpolicy.

The

issue

of housing

isaddressed next

by

Allan

Rosen,

with an

examination

ofcohousing

asapossible

component

of

sustainable

communities.

In the final article,

Karen

Walz

focuses

on

how

plannerscan reach outtothe public,

community

leaders,

and

other local officials to achieve

consensus

about

what form

sustainabilityshould take withintheir

communities.

Thisissuealsocontains a

photograph

ofthefirst-prizepainting

by

Jason

Cashman

from

the

second

annual

Weiss

Competition on

Urban

Livability. Finally,

we

includeabstracts

from

some

recent

Masters

Projects

by

studentsinthe

Department

of City

and

Regional PlanningattheUniversity

ofNorth

Carolina-ChapelHillto

make

planners

aware

of

some

oftheresourcesavailable

from

thedepartment.

We

hope

thatthisissueprovides

some

"food

for thought" as well as useful information about

how

to practice sustainable

development

in

your

community.

Heidi

ToloMerkel

KirstenSpringer

Editors

Dan

Broun

Heidi

ToloMerkel

Patricia

McGuire

KirstenSpringer

Carolina Planning is published

biannu-allybystudentsintheDepartmentof City

and Regional Planning, University of

North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with the

assistance of funds from the John A. Parker Trust Fund, Department ofCity

and Regional Planning, and the North

Carolina chapter ofthe American Plan-ning Association and the Department of

CityandRegional PlanningAlumni

Asso-ciation. , ..

Subscriptions to Carolina Planning are available atan annual rate of $12.00, or

$20.00 for two years. Back issues are

available for$6.00 perissue.

Carolina Planning welcomes comments

andsuggestionsonthe articlespublished. Please address all correspondence to:

Carolina Planning, The University of

North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Campus

Box # 3140,

New

East Building,Chapel

Hill, North Carolina 27599-3140.

Cover: Design by MarkHenderson and

Karen Kristiansson. Cover image of

GMS-4

satellite image ofthe western

Pacific basin,February 26, 1995,

cour-tesy of National Aeronautics and Space

Administration archives.

PrintedbytheUniversityofNorth

Caro-lina Printing Department on recycled paper.

CarolinaPlanningwishestothankDavid

Brower, Patricia Coke, Carroll Cyphert,

Carolyn Jones, William Rohe, and the

Center forUrban and Regional Studies. Our specialthanksgo to Merritt

Clapp-Smith and Karen Kristiansson.

©

1995Department ofCityandRegional

Carolina Planning

A

Student-Run

Publication

of

the University

ofNorth

Carolina

Department of

City

and

Regional Planning

Volume

20

Number

1

Articles IntroductiontoSustainableDevelopment

SustainableAgriculture

and

the

SARE

Program

Towards

aSustainableSeattle:

Good

Planningand

Good

Politics

Sustaining TraditionalSeaIsland

Communities

State

Models

forSustainable

Development

Cohousing:

AModelforSustainableCommunities

Consensus

Buildingfor Sustainable

Communities

DavidJ.

Brewer

2

Nancy

C.

Agnew

5

J.Gary Lawrence 12

Nina Morals 18

Joseph

McDomick

Sarah

Bobrow

Ylang

Nguyen

23

AllanRosen

29

Karen

S.Walz

36

The

Weiss

Award

Non-titled Jason C.

Cashman

44

Departmental AbstractsofRecent MastersProjects

News

An

Introduction

to

Sustainable

Development

David

J.

Brower

Sustainable

development

is

development

that

meets

the

needs

of

presentgenerationswithout prejudicingthe ability

of

futuregenerationsto

meet

theirneeds.Thisdefinition,coined

by

the

World

Com-mission

on Environment and

Development

(often

re-ferredtoasthe

Brundtland

Commission)

hascaught

the attention

and

earnedthesupportof peoples

around

the

world

as perhaps

no

otherconcept has.

A

great

many

books and even

more

articles

have

been

writtenaboutthe

meaning

of

sustainable

devel-opment.

However,

severalelements ofthe definition

are especially important. First, sustainable

develop-ment

isaqualitativeconcept, not necessarily a

quan-titative one. It speaks primarily

of

what

kind

of

development,

as

opposed

to

how

much,

should be pursued. Italsorecognizesthatthere is

going

tobea

significantincreaseinglobalpopulationirrespectiveof

the population policies

adopted

and

that this

growth

must

be

accommodated.

Second, itrecognizesthatthe

economy

and

the

environment

arenotin conflictbut

areirrevocably interconnected.

A

sustainable

economy

depends on

asustainable

environment

whilea sustain-able

environment

isnotpossible withoutasustainable

economy.

Next,thisdefinition speaks in termsof needs, not

desires.It

does

not

promise

a

BMW

ineverypot,

and

yet it

does

not

demand

major

sacrifices. It does,

however, imply

a

change

in

values—

valuesthat

recog-DavidJ.

Brower

isaresearcliprofessorintheDepartment ofCity

and

Regional Planningat the Universityof North Carolina at ChapelHill. Professor

Brower

holds aB.A.

from

Universit}'_ofMichigan

and aJ.D from

Universityof

Michigan

Law

School His current research focuses on developingstrategies toencouragesustainable

develop-ment

and

also hazardmitigationpolicydevelopment.

nizeother peoples, othergenerations, other species,

and

the earth itself Lastly, it speaks

of

meeting

the

needs

of

present generations,

meaning

people

of

all

nations, races,sexes,

and

ages,inadditiontothose

of

futuregenerations.

Sustainable

development

is

what

we

planners

would

calla goal. Itisachallengetoachieve abetterquality

of

lifeforall

humans,

born

and

unborn,inthiscountry

and

in all countries. It is not like

comprehensive

planning,strategicplanning,

growth

management,

or

development

management

with

which

we

are

more

familiar

and

probably

more

comfortable.

These

arenot

goalsbut tools

and

techniquesusedtoachieveasetof

locallydefinedgoals.

They

can beusefulin

moving

a

jurisdictioninthedirectionofsustainabledevelopment,

but the

means

should not be

confused

with ends.

Sustainable

development

requires that

we

consider

theneeds ofall peoples,generations, species,

and

the

earth in addition to the health, safety,

and

general

welfare

of

the voters inthe jurisdiction in

which

we

happen

to be working.

However

daunting the

chal-lenge, it has

been

accepted

around

the

world

by

countries,regions, provinces,

and

cities,

by

financial

institutionsandcorporations,

and

by non-governmental

organizations.

A

solid global foundation for action

towards

sustainable

development

was

laid with the

United Nations

Conference on

the

Environment and

Development

(UNCED),

heldin 1

992

in

Riode

Janeiro,

and

thecreation in 1

993 of

the

United

Nations

Com-mission

on

Sustainable

Development.

In thiscountry,the

Bush

administrationdidnot take

UNCED

seriously butPresident Clinton has.

He

has

formed

thePresident's

Council

on

Sustainable

Devel-opment, which

is

made

up of

leaders

from

the public

VOLUME

20,

NUMBER

environmental

communities. Here

in

North

Carolina,

Governor

Hunt

has created the

Commission

for a

Competitive

North

Carolina,

which

earlyinits

delib-erationstookactive noticeofsustainabledevelopment.

A

number

of

cities in the United States, including

Seattle,

Washington,

Portland,

Oregon, and

Boulder,

Colorado have

incorporatedthenotionofsustainability

intotheirplanning

programs.

Momentum

seems

tobe

building.

At

UNCED,

commonly

called theEarth

Summit,

an

agreement

called

Agenda

21:

Program

of

Action

for

Sustainable

Development

was

negotiated

by

the

governments

at the conference.

The

introduction to

Agenda

21

calls it a

"comprehensive

blueprint for

actiontobe takenglobally—

from

now

intothe

twenty-first

century— by governments.

UnitedNations

organi-zations,

development

agencies,

non-governmental

or-ganizations,

and

independent-sector groups, inevery

areain

which

human

activityimpacts

on

the environ-ment.

"Underlying

theEarth

Summit

agreements

isthe

idea that

humanity

has reacheda turn ing point.

We

can

continue with presentpolicies

which

are

deepening

economicdivisionswithin

and between

countries,

which

increasepoverty,hunger,sickness,

and

illiteracy,

and

causethecontinuingdeteriorationofthe

ecosystem

on

which

life

on

Earth depends.

Or we

can

change

course, better

managing

and

protecting the

ecosystem

and

bringingabouta

more

prosperousfutureforusall.

Chapter

Seven of

Agenda

21,

"Promoting

Sustain-able

Human

Settlement

Development"

defines

sus-tainable

development

in terms

more

familiarto

plan-ners: the overall

human

settlement objective is to

improve

thesocial,

economic,

and

environmental

qual-ityof

human

settlements

and

the living

and working

environments

ofallpeople,inparticulartheurban

and

ruralpoor.

The

program

areasincluded inthechapter

are:

• Providing

adequate

shelter forall;

•

_Improving

human

_settlement

inanagement;

•

_Promoting

_{sustainable land-use}planning

and

man-agement;

•

Promoting

the integratedprovisionof environmental

infrastructure: water,sanitationdrainage

and

solid-waste

management;

•

Promoting

_sustainable

_energy

_and

transport

systems

in

human

settlements;

•

_Promoting

human

_{settlementplanning}

_and

manage-ment

in disaster-proneareas;

•

_Promoting

_sustainableconstructionindustry

activi-ties;

•

Promoting

human

resource

development and

capac-ity-buildingfor

human

settlement

development.

Agenda

21 suggestsa

number

of

mechanisms

that

can

and

shouldbeusedtoachievesustainableland-use planning

and

management.

One

suggestion isthatall

countries undertake a

comprehensive

inventory of

theirlandresources inordertoestablish aland

infor-mation

system.

Such

a

system

would

classify land

resources according to their

most

appropriate uses.

Forexample, environmentallyfragileor disaster-prone

areas

would

beidentified forspecial protection

mea-sures.

Italsourgesallcountriesto

develop

land-resource

management

plans to guide land-resource

develop-ment

and

utilization.

To

thatend,it

recommends

that

countriesshould

do

thefollowing:

(1) Establish nationallegislation toguidethe

imple-inentation of public policies for environmentally

sound

urban

development,

landutilization,housing,

and

the

improved

management

of

urban expansion;

(2) Create efficient

and

accessible land

markets

that

meet

community

development needs by

im-provingland registry

systems

and

streamlining

pro-cedures in land transactions;

(3)

Develop

fiscal incentives

and

land-usecontrol

measures,includingland-useplanningsolutionsfor

a

more

rational

and

environmentally

sound

use

of

limitedland resources;

(4)

Encourage

partnerships

among

the public,

private,

and

community

sectors in

managing

land

resourcesfor

human

settlements

development;

(5) Strengthen

community-based

land-resource

protection practices in existing urban

and

rural

settlements;

(6) Establishappropriate

forms of

landtenurethat

providesecurityof tenureforall land-users,

espe-ciallyindigenouspeople,

women,

localcommunities,

low-income

urbandwellers,

and

therural poor;

(7) Accelerateeffortsto

promote

accesstoland

by

theurban

and

ruralpoor, includingcredit

schemes

forthepurchase ofland

and

forbuilding, acquiring, or

improving

safeand healthyshelter

and

infrastruc-ture services;

CAROLINA

PLANNING

comprehensively

with potentially

competing

land requirements for agriculture, industry, transport,

urban development,

green spaces, preserves,

and

othervitalneeds;

(9)

Promote

understanding

among

policy

makers of

the adverse

consequences

of

unplanned

settle-ments

in environmentally vulnerable areas

and of

appropriatenational

and

local land-use

and

settle-ments

policiesrequiredforthispurpose.

From

thislist,severalconclusionsareobvious:

• _{This avery largeagenda;}

• _Plannerscan

and

should playavery importantrole;

and

•

_There

is an almost infinite variety

of

things that

planners cando.

But

where

to start? It

would

beniceto

have

aclean

slate,a large budget,

and

a perfectlegislative

frame-work.

None

of

usdo.but

we

do have

a lotthatcan be

done

here

and now.

The

articles that follow discuss

some

of

the creative ideas, projects,

and

programs

related to planning that are being formulated

and

Sustainable

Agriculture

and

the

SARE

Program

Nancy

C.

Agnew

General

concepts

of

sustainability

have been

gain-ingcurrencyinrecentyearsaspublicationssuch

as

Our

Common

Future

(1

987) and

eventssuchasthe 1

992

Earth

Summit

in

Rio

de Janeiro

push

sustainable

development

issuesintothe forefront

of

critical discus-sion

on

growth,

development, and

finite resources.

Agricultural practices arecriticalto

any

discussion

of

sustainabilityascurrentagriculturalpractices

world-wide

are considered environmentally

unsound.

In-creasing public

awareness of

problems

associated with conventionalagriculturalpractices

and

a

growing

interestinconcepts

of

sustainable

development have

converged

tobringthesubject

of

sustainable agricul-tureout

of

theperiphery

and

intothecenter

of

discus-sion

on

the future

of

agriculture inthe UnitedStates.

Until recently,conventionalagriculturalproduction

was

never questioned. Rather,its increasing

concen-trationintobiggerunits

and

the

subsequent

demise of

many

family

farms

and

rural

communities

has

been

acceptedas historical inevitability. EarlButz,

former

U.S. Secretary

of

Agriculture, will long be

remem-bered for his

infamous

edict,

"Get

big or get out,"

deliveredduringthe

heyday of farm expansion

inthe

1970s.

At

aboutthe

same

time,environmentalists

and

advocates of family

farms

began

to speak out about

theinadequaciesof conventionalagriculture.

Environ-mentalists

were

concerned

aboutsoilerosion,

ground-wateradulteration,

and

bio-geneticengineering.

Fam-Nancy

C.

Agnew

i.sa second year Mastersstudentin the

Department ofCity

and

Regional Planningatthe

Univer-sity of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, specializing in

economic development She also holds a

BA

from the

CollegeofWilliam

and

Mary.

Her

interestinsustainable

agriculturearose

from

her involvementinherfamily'sfarm, locatedin Stauton, Virginia.

ily

farm

advocates

were concerned

with

adequate

incomes and

the health of rural

communities and

businesses.Agriculturalscientists

were

notinglimitsto

productiondespiteincreasing

chemical

input.'

Con-sumers

joined in, voicing

concern

about

chemical

residues

on

theirfood

and

deterioratingwaterquality.

In response, the U.S.

Congress

renewed

its

mandate

tosupport thefamily

farm system of

agriculture but

added

a

new

focus—

topreserve family

farms

and

to

do

so in a

way

that

enhances environmental

quality

and

the natural resourcebase.

Thisshift is reflected in the U.S.

Congress's

1985

callfora

program

ofSustainable Agriculture

Research

and

Education

(SARE).

Sustainable agriculture

had

acquired

government

sanction.

However,

any

effort to

promote

sustainable agricultureshould not leave out

the concept

of

sustainable

communities.

This paper

discusses the

SARE

program,

assessesitscontribution

tothe

promotion

ofsustainable agriculture,

and

evalu-ates the

program's

success in fostering sustainable communities.

What

is

Sustainable

Agriculture?

American

farmers are touted as the best

food

producersintheworld.

They

provide

consumers

with inexpensive,high-qualityfoodin

seemingly

unlimited

quantities.Vastnatural resources,the technical

exper-tiseoftheland-grant

system

ofuniversities,

and

recep-tive

government

policies

combine

to

produce

this

bountiful harvest.

The

type

of

agricultureresponsible

for this levelof productionis

known

asconventional

agriculture. It ischaracterizedas large-scale,

capital-intensive,highly-mechanized,

and

focused

on

monoc-ultures

and

theextensiveuse

of

pesticides, herbicides,

and

fertilizers. It isalsocharacterized

by

an increase

CAROLINA

PLANNING

produced

on

15 percent

of

the farms.-

These

are not the family

farms

emblazoned

upon

the

American

imagination.

They

are

huge

corporate farms,

verti-cally-integrated

and

well-financed.

Sustainable agriculture suffers

from

a crisis of

definition.Itisreferredto

by

a variety

of

names—low

input, alternative, organic,regenerative—that

do

not

providea

completely

accurate picture.

"Low

input"

merely

referstolessuse

of

outsidematerials,usually

chemical

inputs."Alternative"cansimply

mean

some-thing other thantheordinary,suchas raisingostriches

in

Oklahoma

orkiwiin

South

Carolina,butitusually

referstoresource-conserving agriculture.

"Organic"

agricultureforbids

chemical

use,but

might

not

make

provisions for

water

conservation. "Regenerative"

means

a

system

thatisabletoreproducetheresources

itrequires."Sustainable"impliestheabilitytocontinue

indefinitely

and

isthe

name

that

seems

to

have

gath-ered

most

acceptance.All these labels displaya bias

towards

the

environment,

resource conservation,

pro-ductivity,

and

farm-leveleconomics.'

Consideration

of

quality-of-lifeissues

and

sustain-able rural

communities does

not usually enter the

definitionaldebate.

The

assumption

appearstobethat

sustainableagriculture leads tosustainable

communi-ties,or conversely,thatsustainable agricultureis

nec-essarilypracticedinsustainable

communities.

Neither

assumption

isagiven.

Family

farmers

and

rural

com-munitiesarenotguaranteedtheir vitality

by

the

adop-tion

of

sustainableagricultural practices.Sustainable

agricultural practices could be co-opted

by

conven-tional agriculturalists,ifthey

choose

toadoptthem,thus

continuingthedominationofagriculturalproduction

by

large-scale,corporate

farms

and

hasteningthedecline

of

rural

farming communities.

Ifthe

promotion of

quality-of-life issues

and

sustainable

communities

is

considered part

of

the sustainable agriculture

para-digm,

thenitshouldbe incorporatedintothe

defmition

of

sustainable agriculture.

Allen et al.

have

addressed this issue,

holdingthatsustainable agricultureconcepts

must

move

beyond

a preference for

envi-ronmental

issues

and

givegreater

consider-ation to social issues such as inter-

and

intra-generational equity

and

the

whole-systems

nature

of

agriculture.

They

offer

thisdefmition;

"A

sustainable agricultureis

one

that equitably balances concerns

of

environmental

soundness,

economic

vital-ity,

and

socialjustice

among

all sectorsof

society.""

Expanding

the definition

shows

that"issuessuchas

farm

worker

rights

and

inner-city

hunger

are as central to thegoals TableI.KeyElementsofTwoCompetingAgriculturalParadigms

ofagricultural sustainability assoilerosionand

ground-water contamination.

"'While

thisdefinitionisbroadin

concept

and

reminiscent

of

the

Brundtland

Commission'sdefmition of

sustainabledevelopment,"

it

tempers

theusual disproportionate importance given

to

environmental

interestswitha

concern

for

quality-of-lifeissues.

The

U.S.

Congress

usesa definition

from

theFood,

Agriculture,

Conservation

and Trade

(FACT)

Act of

1

990

thatdefinessustainable agriculture as follows:

"An

integrated

system of

plant

and animal

produc-tion practices

having

a site-specific application that

will,overthelong term,satisfy

human

food

and

fiber

needs;

enhance environmental

quality

and

the natural

resource base

upon

which

the agricultural

economy

depends;

make

the

most

efficientuse

ofnonrenewable

resources

and

on-farm/ranch resources

and

integrate,

where

appropriate, natural biologicalcycles

and

con-trols; sustainthe

economic

vitality

of

farm/ranch

op-erations;

and enhance

the qualit\'

of

life for farmers

and

ranchers,

and

for societ\'asa whole."'

This

comprehensive

definition guides the

SARE

program.

It is notable that the definition includes reference to quality-of-life issues for farmers

and

society as a whole.

For

the

layman,

sustainable agriculturecan be

de-scribed as low-input, resource-conserving,

environ-ment-enhancing,small-scale,

and

community-sustain-ing.

These

characteristicsareindirectcontrasttothe

characteristicsof conventionalagriculture stated

ear-lier.Furtherdistinctions

between

conventional

agricul-ture

and

sustainable agriculture

have been developed

by

Beus

and Dunlop.

Their distillation of the

key

elements ofthe

two

competing

agricultural

paradigms

areincludedin

Table

1}

These

distinctions

go

beyond

such

comparisons

as large-scale versus small-scale,

high-inputversus low-input,

and

resource-expending

CONVENTIONAL

ALTERNATIVE

AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURE

* _{Centralization} * _{Decentralization} *

_Dependence

*

_Independence

*

_Competition

*

_Community

*

_{Domination of Nature}

*

_Harmony

_with

Nature

* _{Specialization} * _Diversity

VOLUME

20,

NUMBER

1

versus resource-conserving.

Beus

and

Dunlop

identify

societalattributestiiatdelvedeeplyintoournational

psyche

and

which seem,

interestingly

enough,

to

rep-resent

two

distinctphases

of

ournational history.

The

key elements

of the alternative agriculture

paradigm

aptly describe the

yeoman

ideals

of

the

Jeffersonian

democracy

that

shaped

the nation,

whereas

the

key elements of

theconventional agricul-ture

paradigm

couldeasilydescribe

dominant

trendsin

business

and

politicsduringthepresentera.Thisisnot

to say that the practice

of

sustainable agriculture

entails settingthe clock

back 200

years, but it

does

highlightthe

importance

ofacquiringadifferentset

of

ideals,

one

thatconsidersnot

on

lythecurrent

genera-tion,but

more

importantly,futureones.

The

SARE

Program

The

U.S.

Department of

Agriculture

(USDA)

was

mandated

by

Congress

to

develop

asustainable

agri-culture

program

in 1985(then called

LISA

for

Low-InputSustainable Agriculture)butdidnot establish the

program

until 1988.

Reasons

for the delay in the

initiationofthe

program

areunclear.

The

USDA

has

consistently requested less funding for the

program

thanhas

been

appropriated.

Such

foot-dragging

from

an institutional Goliath likethe

USDA

might

be

ex-pected,especially

when

itinvolvesanissuecontraryto

its

major

emphasis, conventionalagriculture.Despite

this

slow

start, the

SARE

program

has gained

some

impressive ground.

A

competitive grants

program,

SARE

hasfunded i83projectswith appro.ximately

$39

million

(combined

federal

and

matching

public

and

private

money)

through 1991.

Nationally, the

SARE

program

is overseen

by

USDA's

Cooperative

State

Research

Service.

The

nationalofficedevelopsguidelinesanddistributesfunds

bute.xerciseslittleauthority.

The

program's

structure

isverydecentralized.

The

statesaredividedintofour

regions:

North

Eastern,Southern,

North

Central,

and

Western.

Each

region has an administrative council

comprised of

land grant researchers, farmers,

non-profitrepresentatives, representativesofagribusiness,

and

various

USDA

agencies.

The

council selects a

hostinstitution

and

establishes goals,priorities, criteria

and

proceduresfor project selection.

They

appoint a

regionalcoordinatorandtechnical

reviewerstoevalu-ate proposals. Finally, the council

makes

regional

decisions

on

project selection

and

funding.

The

program's

goalsare:(1)toinvolvefarmersdirectlyin

research design

and

implementation, (2) to

promote

partnership

between

all interested parties,

and

(3)to

transferpractical, reliable,

and

timelyinformationto

farmers

on

sustainable agriculture practices."

SARE

has defined fourgeneral projectcategories

as eligible forfunding.

These

are:

(1) Educational, demonstration, or information

projectsthatprovidetraining

on

sustainable

farm-ing practicesthrough conferences,

workshops, and

preparation

of

educational materials,

and

exhibit

sustainablefarmingpractices

and

systems

on

farms;

(2)

Experimental

component

research projects

that focus

on developing

or

improving

a specific

sustainablelow-input

method

or practice;

(3) Integrated-systems research that

examines

synergisticandconflicting relationships

among

vari-ous aspects

of farming

operations

and

functionally

integrates thefindingsof research

and

experience

intoa

whole-farm

context;

and

(4)

Economic

orsocial

impact assessment

projects

which

examine

the

economic

and/orsocialeffects

of adoptingsustainable

farming

practices

and

sys-tems.'"

Although

integrated-systems researchprojects are

tobe givenhighestpriority,

component

researchproj ects

initiated

by

researchersatland-grant agricultural

insti-tutionsare

most

frequently funded. This reality

dis-playstheland-grantinstitutions' bias for

component-based research. Land-grant researchersare

comfort-ableorganizing, conducting,and analyzing suchprojects.

They

are also better

rewarded

for it

by

their

institu-tions.Notably,socialimpact

assessment

projects

have

receivedlittleattention,receiving only4.5percentof

available funds."

The

SARE

program

officials are

aware

ofthissituation

and

many

of

theregional

groups

are

working

to correct this imbalance. Indeed, the

Western

region's"Call for Proposals" in

1992

was

restricted to projects that focused solely

on

whole-farm orranch systems.

Through

1992, theSouthern region

had funded 37

projects,

second

onlytothe

North

Central region's41

projects.

Some

examples of

projectfunding levels in

the Southern

Region

between 1988 and 1992

are:

(1) Utilization

of

Winter

Legume

Cover

Crops

for

PestandFertility

Management

inCotton($

193,280)

[LS9

1-40(44)];

(2)

EconomicallyViable

Production

of Vegetables

in the Southern

Region

using

Low-input and

Sus-tainableTechniques:

A

Data Base

($76,770)

[LS9

1

-32(185)];

(3)

Enhancing Farmer Adoption and

Refining

of

a

Low-input

Intercropping

Soybean-Wheat

System

CAROLINA

PLANNING

(4)

Planning

Funds

foraProposal

on Extending

the

Issue

of

Sustainable Agricultureto

Small

Farms

in

North

Carolina,Tennessee,

and

Virginia($15,000)

[LS88-5].'-A

major

project

was

recently startedintheSouthern regionthathasafocusrefreshinglyunrelatedto

com-ponent-based

research.

The

project willinvolve orga-nizinga

comprehensive

analysisofthestateof agricul-ture in the

South

in order to identify assets

and

constraints fortheadoption

of

sustainable agricultural

practices. This project

aims

to further define

what

sustainableagriculture

means

forthe

South

by

sam-pling the existingmultipleregionalperspectivesabout

thesubject.'^

North Carolinafarmerstandingin afieldof pepperplants. Association.

Assessment

of

SARE

In

September

1992,theGeneral

Accounting

Office

(GAO)

publisheda report

on

SARE,

its

management,

accomplishments,

and

opportunitiesfor

improvement.

The

GAO

report

concluded

that the

SARE

program

is

"successful in

promoting

sustainable agriculture, not

only throughits

many

projects, butthroughitsabiiit>'to

bring together diverse

groups

within the agricultural

community

to

communicate

and

work

together.Ithas

also

been

instrumentalin

encouraging

research

institu-tionsto

become more

involved withsustainable

agri-culture research."'"* In addition to

SARE,

the

USDA

sponsors other

programs

to

encourage

sustainable

agriculture;

however,

the responsibility forthese

pro-grams

is

fragmented

among

nine different

USDA

agencies.

Couple

this fragmentation with

USDA's

lack

of

a statedpolicyregardingsustainable agriculture

and

theresultisoftenduplicatedeffortsorconflicting

goals.'-

To

assistinthecoordination

of

activities,the

1990

FACT

Act

mandated

the formation

of

two

councils,theNational Sustainable Agriculture

Advi-sory

Council

(NSAAC)

and

theAgricultural Council

on

Environmental

Quality

(ACEQ)

to oversee

and

coordinatesustainable agriculture

programs

at

USDA.

As

of

July 1992, the

ACEQ

had

met

only todiscuss organizationalissues

and

theNS

AAC

had

yettomeet.

The

GAO

criticized thisfragmentationatthe federal

level,

commenting

that it leaves regional authorities

with little

guidance

as to

program monitoring and

projectresults

dis-semination.

The

GAO

cor-rectly maintains

that

programs

to

promote

sustain-able agriculture withinthe

USDA

are often at

odds

with other

USDA

programs.

These

programs

are

con-cerned

with

"short-term

eco-nomic

consider-ations

such

as

maximizing

pro-duction,

minimiz-ing

production

costs

and

con-sumer

prices,

and

maximizing

the

market

share

of

certainagriculturalcommodities". '"The

programs most

inconflictwiththegoalsofthe

SARE

program

are the

commodity

programs. Originated in the 1930s, the

commodity

programs were

basically

income

support

programs

designedtomaintain

farmer

income

when

prices slipped

below

parity.

They

were

alsodesigned

tomaintainfoodsecurity

and

manage

food production.

Although

the

commodity

programs have

grown

more

complex

with every revision

of

the

Farm

Bill, they survive to this day, benefiting only the largest

of

farmers

and

costingtaxpayersbillions

of

dollars.

"The

problem

with

commodity

programs

isthatthey

pro-mote

thekind ofagriculturalpractices that areindirect

oppositiontosustainable agriculture.

To

participatein

commodity

programs

afarmer

must

maintain abase

VOLUME

20,

NUMBER

1

acreageinthe

program

crop

and

notshiftproduction

of

thatcrop offthe base.'*This discouragesthe practice

of croprotation,

one of

the basic tenets

of

sustainable

agriculture,

and encourages

farmerstoincreaseuse

of

chemical

inputs to boostyield

on

theirbase acreage.

Not

all agriculture is

covered

by

commodity

pro-grams

inthe U.S.,only

major

cropslikewheat,corn,

soybeans,

and

cotton;

however,

it is the intensive

monoculture

production

of

crops such as these

and

others that leads to

environmental

degradation. If

sustainable agriculture is to

make

a difference in

agriculture production, the

USDA

needs

to address

thesecontradictorypolicieswithintheirdepartment.

The

G

AO

also

commented

on

the disparity

between

the

funding

Congress

appropriatesfor

SARE

and

the

amounts

requested

by

USDA.

Congress

has

consis-tentlyoffered

more

than

USDA

requests.

The

reasons

underlying

USDA's

decisiontonotfullyutilizefunds

that

Congress

appropriates are uncertain. It is

note-worthy

that

USDA

didnot requestfundsfor

SARE

for

the firstthreeyears

of

the

program.

Congress

appro-priated$3.9 millionin 1988,

and

$4.5million peryear

for

1989

and 1990

without a

funding

request

from

USDA.

In 1991,

USDA

finally requested only $4.5 million

of

a$6. 7millionappropriationfor that year. In

sum, Congress

appropriated $26.25 million for the

SARE

program from 1988

through 1992, while

USDA

requeststotalled$8.9million.

As

a result

of

their review, the

GAO

developed

three

recommendations

to increase the value

of

the

SARE

program:

(1)"Establish

adepartmental

policyforsustainable

agriculture

and

direct the under-

and

assistant-secretariestodevelop goalstoimplementthatpolicy.

Thispolicyshould considersustainable agriculture's

interrelationshipwithother departmental

programs

and

acknowledge

the trade-offs

(emphasis added)

that

may

benecessaryas agriculture

becomes

more

productive,competitive,

and

environmentallysound;

(2)

Ensure

the active participation

of

theNational SustainableAgriculture

Advisory

Council

and

the

Agricultural

Council

on Environmental

Qualityin

coordinating sustainable agriculture

programs,

as

required

by

the

FACT

Act;

and

(3)

Recommend

thatthe Secretary

of

Agriculture

direct

SARE

program

management

toprovide

guid-ance

toregionalofficesto

improve program

moni-toringand

wider

informationdissemination."'''

Another

area

of

concern,

unaddressed

inthe

GAO

report,

was

the small portion

of

funding

awarded

to

Impact Assessment

projects, only 4.5 percent since

the

program

'sinception.

These

projects,as

mentioned

before,

examine

the

economic

and/orsocialeffects

of

adoptingsustainable

farm

ing practices

and

systems.It

is likely that projects in this area

would

lead to an

understanding

of

how

sustainable agriculturecanlead

tosustainable

communities.

More

projectsinthisarea

would

also help

move

"quality-of-life" issuestothe

forefront

of

thediscussion

on

sustainableagriculture,

a concern

of

many

leaders in the field. Fortunately,

change

is occurring inthisarea.

A

nationalresearch

team

was

formed

recentlytostudy

how

wellthe

SARE

program

addressesquality-of-lifeissues.Thisproject

was

awarded $50,000

in

SARE

funding in 1992. Additionally, the

USDA's

Economic

Research

Ser-viceis

examining

thequestionof

what

might

happen

to the

economy

and

environment

if all farmers adopt

sustainable

methods.

SARE

has

funded

thisprojectat

$1.2millionforthree years.Ifthe

SARE

program

can

addressquality-of-lifeissuesina

meaningful

way,

then

the

program

willachievea betterbalance

between

its

focus

on

the

environment

and

itsdesire toconsidera

whole-farm,

whole-community

perspective.

Research

in

and

Promotion

of

Sustainable

Agriculture

Sustainableagricultural research, practice,

and

pro-motion

is

expanding

acrossthe

United

States.

One

of

the

more

prominent

institutionsinvolvedinresearchis the

Leopold

Center for Sustainable Agriculture at

Iowa

StateUniversity.

The

Center

funded

$2.3million

inresearch

from 1987

to1990.

Michigan

State

Univer-sityrecentlyappropriated $3.5 millionforthe

endow-ment

of

theCharles Stewart

Mott

Distinguished

Pro-fessorinSustainable Agriculture.

The

University

of

Californiaat

Davis

alsohas a successful sustainable

agriculture

program.

Many

non-profitorganizations

areinvolvedinthe

promotion of

sustainable agriculture

ranging

from

theCenterforRuralAffairsin

Nebraska

to the

Rodale

Institute in

Pennsylvania

to

Winrock

Internationalin Arkansas.

Here

in

North

Carolina, the

W.K.

Kellogg

Founda-tion recently

awarded

over

$900,000

to a statewide

partnershipoffarmers, agricultural organizations,

uni-versities,

and

communities

to

develop

sustainable

ag-riculture at four

model

sites across the state.

The

projectisa coalitionof seven groupsincluding the

Land

Loss

PreventionProject,Carolina

Farm

Stewardship

Association,

North

Carolina Coalition

of

Farm

and

RuralFamilies,Rural

Advancement

Foundation

Inter-national-USA, Rural Southern

Voice

forPeace,

North

Carolina State University

and

North

Carolina

A&T

StateUniversity.

The

coalition will

work

to

change

the

design-10

CAROLINA

PLANNING

PromotiagSustamableAgricuitare

In additiontofundingthe

SARE

program. Congress

couldfurtherpromotesustainable agriculture

by

chang-ing agriculturalpolicyto

more

directlyaffectthesurvival

prospectsforsmall-andmedium-sizefamilyfarmers.

Ken-nethRobinson,inhis

book

Form andFood

Policies

and

TheirConsequences(1989), has outlined

some

principle

policyalternatives, listedindecliningorderofpolitical

acceptance:

(1

)

"Offer

more

liberalcredit forsmall-scale

fmners

;

(2)

Fund

special research and extension programs

designedtofavor small-scale farms;

(3) Target price-support benefits to farms below a

certainsize;

(4)Prohibitownershipof farmlandby nonfamily

cor-porations;

(5) Eliminate provisions in the tax laws that favor

nonfarm

investmentinagricultureand encourage

ex-pansion

by

large-scalefarmers;

(6)

Impose

anupperlimiton farmsize,orat leastlimit

the area ofland eligibleforgovernment-subsidized

waterfor irrigation

;

(7) Authorize the government to purchase land for

resaleorlease toenteringfarmers orsmall-scale

opera-tors

who

needtoexpand;and

(8)Createlocallandpurchasereviewcommitteeswith the

power

toprohibitlandtransfers thatleadto

concen-trationofproduction

on

large-scale units."

The World

Resources Institute has also considered

how

the federalgovernment might promotea

more

sus-tainable agricultureandatthe

same

timepromotefamily

farms. Inthe

book Paying

the

Farm

Bill:

US.

Agrictd-turalPolicy

and

the TransitiontoSustainable

AgricuU

tufe (1991),a

team

ofresearchersanalyzedtiiechanges neededtoprotectU.S.agriculturalresourcesandihccsne

overthe long term.

They

investigated

two

casestudies

thatcontrastedthe results ofseveral differentfarming

strategies

m

Nebraska

and

Pennsylvania. Theiranalysis

led

them

toseveralpolicy conclusions:

(1

)

"Farm

support

mechanisms

create distortions that

encouragedependence on chemical inputs

and

dis-couragesustainable agricultural practices;

(2)

A

policy ofmultilateraldecoupling [of

income

supportprogramsand

commodity

production] could

remove

the distorting influence of

commodity

pro-grams;

(3)

An

agrichemical input taxcouldencourage lower

levelsofinputuse;

(4) Adaptationstobaselineagriculturalpolicy

which

allowflexibOity incrop production couldgofartowards encoiu-agingsustainable practices;

(5

)

When

completeaccountingofon-farm andoff-farm environmentalcostswithout thedistorting effectsof

baselineagricultural policies areevaluated,

sustain-ablefarming systemsareeconomicallycompetitive;

(6) Shiftingtowardssustainablefarming systems can

raiseagriculturalproductivity,reducethefiscalcosts

ofmaintainingfarmincomes,and lowerenvironmental

costs."

Policy changes such as these could greatly reduce

America'sexpensivefarmbillandassistthepromotionof

sustainable agriculture.

ing,

and implementing

sustainable agriculturalsystems

thatwillbenefitruralCarolinians. Inadditionto

encour-aging

new

farming

techniques, the project should

benefitselected

communities

by enhancing

economic

activity, increasing

environmental

stability,

and

pro-moting

community

development.

On

a different front, research has

shown

that the

communities of

small-scale agriculturists are

more

socially,culturally,

and

politicallydeveloped.Fiftyyears

ago,

Walter Goldschmidt

studiedthe effects

of

small-scale

and

large-scale agriculture

on

ruralcommunities.

His

1

944

study

ofArvin

and Dinuba,

two

towns

inthe

Central

Valley

of

California, provides the earliest

analysis

of

the

consequences of farm

size

on

the

quality-of-lifeforasurrounding

community.

His study

of socio-economic and

town

characteristics

found

a

marked

difference

between Arvin

(a

town

surrounded

by

large-scalefarms)

and

Dinuba

(a

town

surrounded

by

small-scale farms).

For every

characteristic

stud-ied,

Dinuba

was

healthierthan Arvin.

Arvin

and

Dinuba were

reexamined

in

1977

by

StevePeterson, a researcher with theCalifornia

De-partment

of

Housing

and

Community

Development.

He

found Dinuba,

still

surrounded

by

small-scale

agri-culture, to

have

a

more

prosperouscentral business

district

and

ahigher standard

of

livingthan Arvin,still

surrounded

by

large-scale agriculture.

Dinuba

had

more

schools,playgrounds, churches,civic

organiza-tions,businesses,andhighervoterparticipation.Fujimoto

(1977) continued

work

inthe

same

vein,studyingthe

relationship

between

quality-of-life

and

control

of

the

major

agricultural resources

of

land

and

water.

He

studiedthe

complexity of

services as

an

indextothe

VOLUME

20,

NUMBER

1

11

of

California. His results

confirmed Goldschmidt's

earlierfindings— small-scaleagriculture iscrucial to

the sustainability

and

success

of

rural

communities.

Conclusion

Environmental

and socio-economic problems

aris-ing

from

the practice

of

conventionalagriculture are

occurring acrossthe U.S.

The

SARE

program,

man-dated

by Congress

inresponseto

problems of

conven-tionalagricultural practices,haslegitimized the

need

to

research

and

adoptsustainable agricultural practices.

Despite fragmentationatthe federallevel

and

asmall budget,the

program

has

been

successfulat

promoting

sustainable agricultureresearchinthe land-grant

uni-versity

system

and

atthe grassrootslevelwith

on-farm

research.

The

program

reachesthe

farmer

who

wants

to learn

how

to practice a

more

sustainable

form

of

agriculture

and

is creating a dialogue

between

two

groups

who

do

not usually share the

same

table-environmentalists

and

agribusiness. Facilitationofthis

dialogueis

one of

the

most

important contributions

of

the

SARE

program.

A

significant aspect

of

thesustainableagriculture

discussionthat is frequentlyneglected isthe critical

importance

thatthepractice

of

small-scalesustainable agriculturecan

have

forthe sustainabi1ity

and

viability

of

rural

communities.

Farms

do

notexistina

vacuum.

They

demand

many

supportservices.

A

family

farm

system

of

sustainableagriculture requires the

infra-structure

of

ahealthy,

economically

vibrant

commu-nity. Likewise, a family

farm system

of

sustainable

agriculturecan help

keep

rural

communities

strong

and

vital.Itisan interdependentrelationship.This

impor-tant linkshouldnotbe

overlooked

infuturediscussions

of

sustainable agriculture,

cp

References

Allen,Patricia,DebraVanDusen,JackelynLundy,andSteplien

Gliessman. 1991. "Integrating Social, Environmental, and

EconomicIssuesinSustainableAgriculture.

"'/ImencanJow/--nalofAlternativeAgriculture.Volume6,

Number

I

.

Beus,CurtisE.,andRileyE.Dunlop.1990."Conventional versus

AlternativeAgriculture:TheParadigmaticRootsofthe

Dt-hsic."RuralSociology.Volume55,

Number

4:590-616.

Bird,George. "SustainableDevelopment", presentedatthe

Con-ferenceonReinventingU.S. Agriculture,ChicagoIL,

Decem-ber8-9, 1993.

Daly,HermanE.,and JohnB. Cobb,Jr. 1989. Forthe

Common

Good. Boston

MA:

Beacon Press.

Faeth, Paul, Robert Repetto,

Kim

Kroll, Qi Dai, and Glenn

Helmers. \99\.PayingtheFarmBill U.S.AgriculturalPolicy

andtheTransitionTowardsSustainableAgriculture.

Wash-ington,

DC:

WorldResourcesInstitute.

Jackson,Wes, WendellBerry,andBruceColman. 1984.Meeting

theElxpectationsoftheLand. EssaysinSustainable

Agricul-tureandStewardship. SanFrancisco:NorthPointPress.

Lockeretz,William. 1987."OpenQuestionsinSustainable

Agri-culture."American Journal ofAlternativeAgriculture.

Vol-ume3,

Number

4.

Robinson, KennethL. 1989.Farm and

Food

PoliciesandTheir

Consequences.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice Hall.

Southern Region 1993

SARE\ACE

ReporttoCongress.Baton

Rouge,LA.

United States General Accounting Office. 1992. "Sustainable

Agriculture:ProgramManagement, Accomplishments, and

Opportunities." GAO/RCED-92-233.

Vogeler, Ingolf 1981.TheMythoftheFamilyFarm:Agribusiness

Dominance ofU.S. Agriculture. Boulder, CO: Westview

Press.

WorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment.1987.Our

Common

Future.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Notes

'Faeth,etal.PayingtheFarmBill

^Bird,"SustainableDevelopment,"6.

^Lockeretz,"OpenQuestionsinSustainable Agriculture."

*_Allenetal.,"Integrating Social,Environmental,andEconomic

IssuesinSustainable Agriculture,"37.

'Ibid,38.

''

"Sustainabledevelopmentisdevelopmentthatmeetstheneeds

ofthepresentwithoutcomprisingtheabilityoffuture

genera-tions tomeettheir

own

needs."

'_{UnitedStatesGeneralAccountingOffice,"Sustainable}

Agricul-ture," 12.

"Beusand Dunlop,"Conventional versusAlternative."

'Ibid., 14. '"Ibid.,31.

"Ibid,32.

'^_{SouthernRegion 1993}

_SARE/

ACE

_{ReporttoCongress.}

"Theprojectwascalled"ParticipatoryAssessmentforStrategic

PlanninginSustainableAgricultureResearchandEducation"

[LS92-50]and hadfundmglevelsof$37,500in1992and$90,550

for1993.

'•*

UnitedStatesGeneralAccountingOffice, 40.

"Ibid., 23.

"Allen etal.35.

" "Accordingto theGeneralAccountingOffice,nearly a thirdof

thetotal[farmsubsidies]goestothebiggest

1%

of producers,"

fromTheEconomist,''K\ira\America,"November2,1991,23.

'"_{Inanefforttoremedytheproblemsassociatedwithcommodity}

programs,the1990FarmBillmade someprovisionsforfarmers

togrowdifferentcropsonasmallpartoftheirbasetopromote

diversification.

'*

Towards

a

Sustainable

Seattle:

Good

Planning

and

Good

Politics

J.

Gary Lawrence

The

City

of

Seattle is trying to

shape

a future

which

is

more

sustainable

on

a variety

of

mea-sures.

We

want

to sustainour

environmental

quality

for both health

and

soul.

We

want

to sustain our

economic

prosperity

and

maybe

even

obtain

more

clarity

about

the differences

between

standard of

livingandquality

of

life.

And,

we

want

tosustainour society— preserve

what

isbestabout us

and

maintain

civility.

Cityofficials

have

done

a

number

of

things

toward

thisend.

We

have

spentmillionsofdollars

on

water

and

airqualityimprovements.

We

have

investedheavilyin

education.Significantportionsofourtaxdollarsgointo

social

programs designed

to help people help

them-selves.

We

have

recycling

programs

thatare the

envy

of

the nation.

We

have

focused

on remedying

the

problems

we

create.

And

yet,

most

of these things

have been

done

without

community

agreement

about

what

ought

tobe Seattle's preferred future.

When

the

Planning

Department began doing

our required

Comprehensive

Planin 1990,

we

thought

we

could get to

agreement

about a preferred future

by

means

of

"normal

planning stuff"Sustainability has,

after all,

many

technical attributes. If

we

couldjust

describe the

problems

clearly

enough,

we

thought,

logic

would

prevail

and

people

would

be willing to

sacrificeself-interestforthepublicinterest.

However,

as

we

engaged

in this effort, it

became

clear that for

J.

Gary Lawrence

hasbeenDirector_oftheCityofSeattle

Planning

Department

since 1991.

He

is a native of

Bremerton, Washington.

Lawrence

holdsa Bachelors of

Arts degree

from

Central Washington University

and

a Masters ofPublic Adminstration

from

the University of

Georgia. Priortohis

work

inSeattle, he

was

chief

admin-istrativeofficerof

Redmond,

Washington.

Seattle,at least,sustainabilityisnot so

much

a

problem

of

knowledge

orskillorresourcesasitisa

problem of

wisdom

and

political will.

Therefore,

we

rethoughtthe

problem and

startedto

focus

on

values

and

aspirations,

hopes

and

fears,

and

all sorts of

messy

human

stuff, ratherthan the

more

logical

and

safertechnicalplanningactivities.

Through

a

major

public

involvement

effort,

we came

to

have

a

much

betterunderstanding

of

who

we

are in Seattle

and

what

might

make

us happy.

We

then

used

this

informationtodefineavision

of

what

Seattle'sfuture

couldbe.

The

Planning

Department brought forward

strategies

based

on

that vision that tried to resolve

some

of

our conflicting values.

The community

has

largelyacceptedthe vision.

The Washington

State

Growth

Management

Act

(GMA)

also alteredthe discretion

and

decision-mak-ing

powers of

local

governments

(including special

districts)in

Washington

State.

Under

GMA,

theCityis

required to adopt capital facility plans

which

are

consistentwiththe

Comprehensive

Plan.Further,

no

otherCityexpenditures can be inconsistentwiththe

City'sadoptedplan.Policies

adopted

by

theCityare

no

longeradvisory or statements

of

legislative intent;they

createlegalobligationsenforceablethroughthe courts.

Once

adopted,theplanscanonlybe

amended

once

per year

and

amendments

aresubject to the

same

internal

and

external consistencytests.

The

requirements

of

GMA

were

significant,but not

exclusive,inshapingtheCity

of

Seattle's

development

of

its

Comprehensive

Plan.Indeciding

upon

ascope

of

work

and

resource

commitment,

Seattle's

Mayor

and

City Council decided that the State's requirements, whiledifficult,

would

notprepare ustoaddressthefull

range

of

problems

we

now

face or

can

forecast as