26politicsofplanning.pdf

26 CarolinaPlanning

Articles

The

Politics

of

Planning

A

Growth

Management

System:

The

Key

Ingredients

For

Success

John

M.

DeGrove

Florida

and

other

states

developed

and

implemented

comprehensive growth

management

systems

over

the

past

twenty

years.

This

article

examines

these

programs

and

the

necessary

ingredients

for successful

implementation.

Tlieseingredients

should

be

helpful

in

developing

and

implementing

the

state

and

regional

growth

management

systems

that

are

destined

to

develop

in

the 1990s.

Responding

to

the

Growth

Management

Challenge:

The

First

Stage

A

risingtideof environmentalconcernsinthe1960sled tothe adoption of

new

programs

in landuse

and growth

management

bya

number

ofstates intheperiod

from

1970

to 1978.

These

new

laws

and

regulations reorderedroles

and responsibilities for planning

and

plan

implementa-tion-managing growth-at

the state, regional

and

local levels.

The

central

purpose

ofthese

programs

was

tobetter

balancetheneeds of

development

with the protection of

naturalsystemssuchas land,air,

and

water.

The

leading

state

programs

were

those

adopted

in

Hawaii

(1961/1978), California (coastal, 1972), Florida (1972/1975)

Oregon

(1973),

Vermont

(1970),

North

Carolina (coastal, 1974),

and

Colorado

(1974).

Followingpassage,effortsto

implement

those

programs

moved

forward with

uneven

results.

Some

thrived

on

adequatefinancialsupport

and

sustainedcitizen

participa-tion,

which

led tocontinued support bythe executive

and

legislative branches of government. Chief

among

these

states

was Oregon. Other

initiativessuffered

from

under-funding, gaps

and

inconsistenciesinthe statutory frame-work,

and

failuretosustain politicalsupportthroughthe

implementation stage.

Such

an

outcome

characterized

numerous

state efforts, but

was most

clearly evident in

Colorado,

where

the

program

became

a partisanpolitical issue

and was

drastically

weakened.

Florida:

The

First

Stage

Floridaisan

example

ofastatethat startedstronginthe

early 1970s, but failed to effectively

implement

a

growth

management

program.

The

massive population

growth

that

began

inthe1950shascontinuedrelentlesslyinto the 1990s.

The

1950statepopulation oflessthat3 million

ex-panded

toalmost5millionin 1960;6.8millionin1970;

al-JohnM.DeGrove

most

10 million in 1980;just

over 13millionin1990;

and

is

projected to

be

over 16million

in2000.

By

2020,thehigh-end estimateisforapopulation of almost23million.

By

the1960s

thislargely

unplanned

surge of

growth had produced

negative impacts,especially

on

thestate's

naturalsystems, thatcould not beignored.

The

development

and

strengtheningof environ-mental groups calling for

ac-tion

was

spurredbythe extensive destructionofwetlands,

beach

and

dune

systems;thecontinuedthreatofsaltwater

intrusion into the fresh water drinking supply;

and

the extensivesprawl patternsof

development

that needlessly

damaged

upland

and

wetlandalike.

The

rise ofthe environmental

movement

nationally-which began

inthe 1950s,

was

strengthenedinthe 1960s,

and peaked

inthe early 1970s,coincided withthegrowing

strengthoftheenvironmental

movement

inFlorida. Small groupsthatstoodoutside the centersof

power

inthe 1960s,

and

typicallyofferedstrident, rigid

and

inflexiblesolutions

JohnM.

DeGrove

isdirectoroftheFlorida AtlanticUniversity!

Florida International UniversityJoint Centerfor Environ-mental

and Urban

Problems,

and

aleadingfigureinthe field

ofgrowth

management.

For

thepastthirtyyearshisprimary

area ofresearch has been growth

management,

water,

and

landuseissuesinthe stateofFlorida. Inaddition,

DeGrove

isa consultant

on

planning

and

growth

management

tothe statesofVirginia,Maine, Vermont,

Rhode

Island,

Massachu-setts,

New

Jersey

and

Georgia.

He

was

instrumentalinthe

conception

and

passage ofthe1

985 Growth

Management

Act

'

'During

much

of

the

1

970s,

Florida

still

dwelled

in

a

kind

of

fools paradise'

in

which

it

believed

that

growth

automatically

paid

for

itself,

and

that

sooner

or

later

new

growth

would

cause

all

the

needed

infrastructure to

be

put

in

place

to

support

the

impacts

of

growth.

toenvironmental problems,

found

themselves

moving

into a

much

strongerpoliticalposition astheyorganized

more

efficiently

and

embraced

a

number

of environmentalcauses

that both

sharpened

their politicalskills

and broadened

theirsupportbase.

During

the1960sinFlorida, a

number

of

majorenvironmental

causes

emerged

totestthestrength

of the

new

environmental groups.

These

included the

efforttoprotectan adequate water supplyforEverglades NationalPark; theefforttoblock thebuildingofa

major

regionaljet portintheEverglades west of

Miami; and

the

effort to stop the digging ofa

cross-statebargecanalin

thenorthern part of the Florida

penin-sula.

Aseveredrought

in southeast

Flor-ida

and

the

Tampa

Bay

area

from

1970

to 1971 coincided

withthe electionof

Reuben

Askew

as

Governor

ofFlorida.

Some

months

afterhe tookoffice inJanuary 1971,withthe

droughtreachinghistoricproportions

and Lake Okeechobee

droppingtoanall-timelow,

Governor

Askew

tookaction that

became

the focusfora

major

stepforwardinFlorida's

growth

management

effort. In

August

1971

Governor

Askew

delivered akeynote addresstotheGovernor's

Con-ference

on Water

Management

in

South

Florida in

which

he challengedthenecessary

goodness

of growth. This

was

the first time in the history of Florida that a statewide electedofficial

had

done

so.

Askew

chargedtheconference

to

examine whether

there

was

a finite

number

ofpeople

who

couldbe

accommodated

inFlorida

and

southFlorida

inparticularwithoutsacrificingenvironmentalvalues that

were

bothcriticaltothestateintheir

own

right

and

neces-saryforthelong run

economic

healthofthestate.

In1972a task force

named

bythegovernor prepared

and

presented tothe governor

and

thelegislature four

major

piecesoflegislation thatconstituted Florida'sfirst

major

effort tobalancetheneeds ofthe

environment and

the

need

to

accommodate

growth

inaresponsible way.

The

laws

in-cludedtheEnvironmental

Land

and

Water

Management

Act

(Chapter 380),theWater Resources

Act

(Chapter373), the

State

Comprehensive

Planning

Act

(Chapter 23),

and

the

Land

Conservation

Act

(Chapter259). Thissetoflaws,

and

a

companion

law

mandating

local

governments

to adopt

plans

approved

bythe1975legislature(Chapter163),

were

far-reaching, progressive, even radical in

what

they

pro-posedforthe time.

Environmental

Land

and

Water

Management

Act

The

Environmental

Land

and

Water

Management

Act

was in

some

ways

thesharpest break with the past in its

approach

to

managing

land

and

waterresources.

The

Act

was

based

on

the

assumption

that

most

local

government

decisions

had

agreater-than-localimpact, thereforeit

was

necessary to devise a system to factor in the regionalor

statewideimpactsintothelocaldecisions.

The

mechanism

forachievingthis

purpose was

embodied

in

two

separate partsof

Chapter

380:

Areas

ofCriticalState

Concern

and

Developments

of Regional Impact. Critical

Areas

focused

on

environmental issuesbut includedarcheologically im-portantsites

and

certainothercategories.

Developments

ofRegionalImpact

(DRI) were

definedinthelawas

devel-opments

including

housing projects, officeparks,or in-dustrialparks, that

because of their size, character or

locationhad an im-pact

on

thecitizens

of

more

than

one

county.

Such

proj-ectsweresubjectto

certainregionaland, ultimately, statewidereviewtoassure thatlocal

government

decisionsaccountedforthe greater-than-localimpacts.

Water Resources

Act

The

Water Resources Act

of 1972

was

a bold

and

far-reachingefforttobetter

manage

Florida'swaterresources.

The

lawdivided thestateintofive

Water

Management

Dis-trictscoveringthe entirestate,

and

empowered

these dis-trictswithplanning,

management, and

regulatorypowers.

The

districts

were governed

by

nine-member

boards

named

bythegovernor,

and

their

major powers

includedgranting

consumptive

use

and

surfacewater

management

permits.

A

constitutional

amendment

adopted

in1976 gave eachof thesedistrictsthe

power

to levypropertytaxes,

and

thusto raise aconsiderable portion ofthe funds

needed

tocarry

out theirassignedresponsibilities.

The

State

Comprehensive

Planning

Act

and The

Land

Conservation

Act

The

State

Comprehensive

Planning

Act

requiredthata State

Comprehensive

Plan

be adopted

that presumably

would

have

framed

the decisionsregardingCriticalAreas,

Developments

ofRegional Impact,

and

othersuchgrowth

management

activitiesthat

were

putinplacein1972.

The

Land

ConservationAct of 1972 involved aconstitutional

amendment

allowing the state to issue

$200

million in

bonds

toacquire environmentallysensitivelands. In 1975

thelegislature

completed

thefirst setof

growth

manage-ment

legislation bypassing theLocal

Government

Com-prehensivePlanningAct.

The

law,

though

initiallyflawed,

became

an

integrated policy

framework

for

managing

28 CarolinaPlanning

A

Decade

of ImplementingEfforts: 1972-1982

While

there

were

importantsuccesses,

on

balance

Flor-ida's efforts to

manage

rapid population growth did not

accommodate

the infrastructureneeds

and

environmental impactsof

new

growth. It

was

a caseof "toolittle,toolate,"

and

a failure to appreciate

some

central realities of the

growth

management

process. First

and

foremost

among

these

was

the failure to recognize that substantial

new

funding

would

have to be provided to

make

the system work: fundsforboth planning

and

infrastructure.

During

much

ofthe 1970s, Floridastilldwelledinakind of"fools paradise" in

which

it believed that

growth

automatically

paidforitself,

and

that sooner orlater

new

growth

would

cause allthe

needed

infrastructure to be put in place to

supporttheimpacts of growth. It

was

notuntilthatnotion

was

putasidein the 1980s that Florida

began

to face its

growth

management

problems.

The

weaknesses ofFlorida'sfirstsetof growth

manage-ment

laws should not obscure the fact that

some

good

things

were

accomplished.

The

recordisclearthaturban

development

patterns thattook shape

under

the

DRI

proc-ess tended to

come

closer to the ideal of KSfc^jK^

good

design

and

ade-

gfv

quate infrastructure

than projects that did

not go through the process. Furthermore, suchprojects

were

sub-jected to substantial exactions(impactfees) thatcontributedtothe

abilitytoprovideneeded

infrastructure.

Never-theless, the fact that

more

than 90 percent

of Florida's

develop-ment

didnotgothrough

this process created a sense of inequity

and

unfairness.

The

DRI

systemfailedtoaccountforcumulative impactsthatoften

were

far

more

extensive

and

destructive.

The Water

Re-sources

Act

was

a progressivelawthat put Floridainthe forefront nationallyin

managing

itswaterresources.

The

Land

Conservation

Act

setthe stageforthe

development

of

the nation's

most

extensive public land acquisition

pro-gram.

Inthedecade

from

1972 to 1982,itis clear that imple-mentation weaknesses blocked attemptstosolve

complex

and

difficultproblems. Inthelate1960s

and

early1970s

en-vironmental

damage

was

soclear that asense ofcrisis

pre-vailed,

and

it

was

possibletopass extensive

new

laws.

But

afterthe laws

were on

thebooks,

many

people

who

had

sup-ported those laws forgot thecriticallesson thatonly

im-Canopyroads nearTallahassee

plementation-effective, well-funded

and

timely-puts

mean-ing intolegislation.

As

thedecade

wore

on, loopholes

and

incompleteness

were

revealed in the Local

Government

Comprehensive

Planning Act.

The

law required each city

and

countyin

Floridatoputaplaninplace,

and

that

was

accomplished by

thelate1970s. Unfortunately,therequirements ofthestate

law

were

process

and

notsubstance-oriented.

_The

plans

had

to have a certain

number

ofelements with certain

names, buttheseelementsdidnothaveto

meet

any quali-tativecriteria. Furthermore,

implementing mechanisms

didnot haveto

be

adopted,

and

many

local

governments

simply

went

throughthe

motions

ofadoptinga plan,

plac-ingit

on

theshelf,

and

neverreferring toitagain.

The

fail-ure ofthestate toprovide

promised

fundingtolocal

gov-ernmentsforplan preparation

undermined

thestate's credi-bilityin

mandating

local planning.

Moreover,

localplans

were

subject to review

and

comment,

notreview

and

ap-proval,atthe regional

and

state levels.

By

the

end

ofthe

decadeit

was

clear that theLocal

Government

Compre-hensive

Act was

not

working

effectivelyeven

where

plans

and

implementing

regulations

were

in place. Plans

were

changed

willy-nilly virtuallyeverytimea

citycouncilorcounty

commission

met. In

practice,zoning con-tinued driving the

plan ratherthanthe

planframingzoning, subdivision

regula-tions,

and

other im-plementing

mecha-nisms.

The

time

was

ripe for a thorough

reappraisal of the

system

as Florida entered the 1980s.

The

reappraisal

be-gan

in1978

and

continueduntiltheadoption of sweeping

new

growth

management

legislation in 1984

and

1985.

Growth Management: The

Second

Stage

Inthelate1970s

and

early1980s, a

new

tideofsupport

emerged

for statestotake

new

initiativesin

what had

come

to be called

growth management.

Some

states that

had

takenactioninthe1970sreturnedtothedrawingboardto

strengthen

programs

for the 1980s

and

beyond. Chief

among

thesestates

were

Floridain 1985

and

Vermont

in

1988.

New

states adopting

comprehensive

planning

and

growth

management

laws included

New

Jersey in 1986,

thestartofthedecade,Virginia,Maryland,

and

Washing-tonwereconsidering theadoptionof

new

legislation.

Other

states,such asCalifornia

and

Massachusetts

(Cape

Cod),

were

lookingator

had adopted

stateenablinglegislationto

supportaregional focus for

managing

growth.

The

forces driving these

new

initiatives

were

broader than those ofthe 1970s.

A

concern with quality of life

concepts focused

on

the failure to

match

transportation

and

landuseplanningtoassureadequatestreets,interstate systems,

and

other

modes

of transportation. In short,

frustrationwithtransportation gridlock fueled the drivefor

regional

and

state approaches to

manage

growth.

The

environment

was

stilla

major

concern,butit

was

partofa

broadercontext.

These

new

state

programs

can be distinguished

from

their1970scousinsby:

1.

A

much

strongerfocus

on

fundingboth software (plan-ning)

and hardware

(infrastructure).

2.

A

stronger concern forbalancingenvironmental pro-tectionwith

economic

development.

3.

More

emphasis

on

affordable housing, including

in-creasedstatefunding.

4.

A

strongconcern for

matching

the provisionof

infra-structurewiththeimpacts of development.

5.

A

generallystrongerfocus

on

mandated

implementa-tionstrategies.

6.

A

strongerfocus

on

protectingimportant rural lands,

including farm land,wetlands

and

other

environmen-tallysensitiveareas.

From

the

governance

perspective, the

new

state initia-tives

mandated

stronger roles at the state

and

regional

levels, but still reserved the bulk of the planning

and

implementation responsibilities at thelocal level. Local

authority

and

fundingtypically

were

strengthenedbythese

new

laws

and

regulations.

The

assignment of

new

roles

and

responsibilities at the regionallevel

marked

a reversalof

thedeclineinthe

importance

ofregional agenciesbrought

on

bythesharp reductioninfederalfundingthat

began

in

thelate 1970s

and

continuedintothe 1980s.

Finally,these

new

state initiativesshould not be confused withrigid

growth

control, no-growth, or slow

growth

ef-fortsthathave occurredin

some

places

around

the nation, especially in California.

Most

ofthe state

and

regional

effortsaccept therealityof

growth

where

itisoccurring,

and

often

encourage

it

where

itisnot. Theirfocusisto

manage

futuregrowthwiselyby providingthe infrastructure neces-saryto

accommodate

theimpacts of

development

asthose impacts occur: the concurrency or pay-as-you-grow

doc-trine.

Florida:

Growth

Managment

in

the

1980s

Florida

was

thefirststatetoadopta

new

growth

manage-ment

systeminthe 1980s, replacingits 1970seffortwitha

substantially

more

powerfulstate, regional,local

and

pri-vate sector partnership. Florida's

new

laws,

adopted

over

the1984-1986periodwith themajoractionin1985,brought

thelegislature fullyintotheprocessforthefirsttime.

The

abilitytoachieve

major

legislativeaction to establish the

new

systemrepresented,inturn,apowerfulcitizen

frustra-tionwiththeperceivedfailureofalllevelsof

government

to

manage

growth

effectively.

Mounting

infrastructure

back-logs,especiallyintransportation (but evidentinotherareas

suchasstormwater

management

and

solidwaste), attested that

growth

didnotpayforitself

under

the existingsystem ofhit-or-miss

growth

management.

The

harshrealityofthe

deficitfinancingofgrowth,withitsattendant erosion ofthe qualityoflifeforallFloridians,could

no

longerbeignored. Citizen frustration

and

anger

communicated

itselfto the

state'spoliticalleaders,

and

strongeractions tostrengthen

thestate'scapacityto

manage

growth

followed.

The

Process

The new

system

was

putinplace largelythrough

two

laws

approved

bythelegislature in1985: the State

Comprehen-sivePlanning

Act

(Chapter 187, F.S.)

and

the

Omnibus

Growth

Management

Act

(Chapter163,F.S.).

The

system

had two major components:

a process ofintegrated

and

mandatory

planning

and

plan

implementation

atthestate,

regional

and

local levels;

and

a series ofsubstantive

re-quirementsinvolvingpolicies

and

standardsthatwent beyond

process

and spoke

to the qualityofthe plans

and

imple-mentationstrategies.

ConsistencyDoctrine

The

processofplanning

and

plan

implementation

atall

threelevelsofgovernment-state,regional,

and

local-was

linkedbythe consistency doctrine thatsharply distinguished thesystem

from

earlier efforts.

The

State

Comprehensive

Plan

mandated

bythe1985 law

was

arelativelyshortsetof goals

and

policiesthatdefinedthe

framework

forthe entire system. Stateagencies

were

requiredto

produce

Agency

Functional Plans that

were

consistentwith the goals

and

policiesofthe State Plan,withconsistencydetermined by

theExecutiveOfficeoftheGovernor.

The

stateplanning lawspecified thatthese

documents

shoulddrive the

budg-etaryrequestsaswell as the

implementation

strategiesof

thestateagencies.

Florida'seleven regionalplanningcouncils

were

given

two

yearsafterthe1985laws

were adopted

toprepare

and

adopt by rule

comprehensive

regional policy plans that

were

consistentwiththe goals

and

policiesofthe StatePlan

(asdetermined bytheExecutiveOffice oftheGovernor).

These

plans

were

seenas the translationofthe goals

and

policiesofthe StatePlantothe regionallevel,allowingfor sensitivity to the substantial regional differences in the

state.

frame-30 Carolina Planning

Florida's

Growth

Management

System

STATE

COMPREHENSIVE

PLAN

COMPREHENSIVE

REGIONAL

POLICY

PLANS

STATE

AGENCY

FUNCTIONAL

PLANS

LOCAL

GOVERNMENT

COMPREHENSIVE

PLANS

LOCAL

GOVERNMENT

LAND

DEVELOPMENT

REGULATIONS

work

was anchored

bytherequirementinthe1985

Growth

Management

Act

thatalllocal

governments

prepare

com-prehensiveplans that are consistentwiththe goals

and

poli-ciesofbothstate

and

regionalplans. Thisconsistency

was

tobe determined bythe

Department

of

Community

Affairs

(DCA),

the stateland planningagency.

One

yearaftera

localplan issubmittedto

DCA,

local

governments must

havein place

implementing

strategies inthe

form

ofland

development

regulations that are consistentwiththelocal

government's plan. Horizontal consistencyat the local levelisaddressedthrougharequirementthatlocalplansbe compatible with each other as determined through the

intergovernmental coordination element ofthelocalplans

and

by otherspecialrequirements. Local

governments

are givenstandinginanadministrativehearingtochallenge the planofaneighboringcityorcountyifthey believe theywill

be

damaged

bythatneighboring government'splan.Before

achallengecan be

mounted,

local

governments must

par-ticipate in a conflictresolutionprocedure

managed

bythe relevant regionalplanningcouncil.

CoastalControls

The

substance ofthe

new

legislationcan be

summarized

in three

major

parts. First, the

Omnibus

Act

contained

various provisions attempting to reverse the practice of

careless

and

reckless

development

alongFlorida'scoastin

/

highhazardareas,barrierislands,and otherareassusceptable tohurricanes

and

other

storm

conditions.

These

specificrequirements tookthe

form

of

a thirty-year erosion line (borrowed

from

North

Carolina's Coastal

Area

Management

Act) whichstipulated that

intense

urban

development

could not

take place

on

the coastifthe erosion rate

showed

that such land

would

be

under

waterin thirtyyears;a

strength-ening ofthe coastal controlline

which

regulates the

way

in

which

construc-tioncantake placeinhighhazardzones along the coast;

and

a substantial

strengtheningofthe coastal

manage-ment

elementoflocalgovernment

com-prehensiveplans,

which

requires

far-reachingchangesinthe

way

local

gov-ernments

manage

development

along

their coasts.

Compact

Urban Development

The

secondfocusofthe

new

growth

management

system

was

on

incentives

and

disincentives to encourage

com-pact

urban

development, discourage

unplanned urban

sprawl,

and

bring a betterseparationofrural

and urban

landuses. Little atten-tion

was

given to

compactness

inthe early stagesof

devel-oping local plans for submission to the

Department

of

Community

Affairsfor statereview.

More

recently,

DCA

Secretary

Tom

Pelham,

with strong backing

from

the

Gov-ernor, has

drawn

on

the goals

and

policiesofthe StatePlan

and

thelanguage of

Rule

9-J-5toplacestrongemphasis

on

anti-urbansprawl

measures

inreviewinglocalplans. Plans arebeingrejectedfor failureto establish

urban

service

ar-eas or to otherwisedevelop policies to limit sprawl

and

assure

more

compact urban development

patterns.

The

recent Final

Report

of the Governor's

Task

Force

on

Urban

Growth

Patterns(1989)callsfor

amendments

tothe

growth

management

systemtoputinplace

much

stronger

policies for

managing

urbansprawl.

The

1989legislative

session gave considerable support to such

amendments,

butfailedtoenactthem. Inthe

meantime,

DCA

Secretary

Pelham

isdiscouragingsprawlthroughlocal planreviews.

This

development

illustratesthe potentialofthestateplan

tobea creative

and

living

document,

withitsgoals

and

poli-ciesevolvingovertimeto

meet

theneeds ofthestate.

The

Concurrency Requirement

Concurrency,the third substantive thrustofthegrowth

management

system putinplacein 1985,isalsothe

most

must abandon

its traditional habit of growing without

putting the necessary infrastructureinplace.

For

decades

Florida hasfollowed a practiceof"sellingFlorida

on

the

cheap,"offailingtopayas

you

grow, ofpracticingthefine artofdeficitfinancingof growth.

Such an approach

makes

a

mockery

of the constitutional provision that budgets

must

be balanced eachyear.

The new

law,withits

concur-rency requirement, states that after

new

local plans

and

land

development

regulations are in place

and

levels of

serviceagreedon,itshallbe unlawfulforanylocal

govern-ment

to issuea singlebuildingpermit

where

itcannotbe

shown

thatthe infrastructurewill

be

inplace tosupportthe

impact of that

development

at the time those impacts

occur.

The

use ofimpactfees

and

otherinnovativefunding

mechanisms

areencouraged, butthelawisneutral regard-ingthesource ofthefundsto providethe required infra-structure.

The

lawisabsolutely clear

on

the fact thatthe

funds to put the infrastructure inplace

must

come

from

somewhere,

withthe final

burden

falling

on

thelocal

gov-ernmentissuing

the permit.

"The

role

_of

the

governor

is

especially

important

in

achieving

and

implementing

a

comprehensive planning

and

growth

management

system.

The

concur-rency

require-ment

is the product of a

rising

frustra-tioninFlorida,

and

inotherpartsofthe nation,withtheslow degradation ofthe qualityoflifebecause ofthefailuretoput

infrastruc-tureinplaceconcurrent withtheimpacts of

new

develop-ment.

While

the focusis

on

transportation (the frustration

ofcitizenswithtraffic

jams

and

semi-gridlock

on

interstates

iswell

documented),

the

same

principlecan

and

isbeing

applied topark

and

recreationfacilities,solidwaste,storm water

management

systems,

and

othersuch

components

of

thebroad

spectrum

ofinfrastructureneeds.

The

rationale

forsuchapowerfulrequirementissimple.

By

not

paying-as-we-grow,

we

are

doomed

toa long-run declineinour

general qualityoflife,inthecharacter

and

qualityof

ouren-vironmental systems,

and

in our

economic

health. In

Floridathereis a powerful

and

broad-based

spectrum

of support forfinding thefunding to

make

the concurrency

component

ofthe

growth

management

systemareality.

An

Analysis of

the

Key

Ingredients of

Success

in

Any

Growth

Management

System

The

keyingredientsforsuccessindesigning, passing,

and

implementing

a

growth

management

system include,ata

minimum,

the following:

1. Sustainedbipartisanpoliticalsupport.

2. Stronggubernatorial leadership.

3. Sustainedcitizensupport.

4. Sustainedfiscalsupport.

5.

The

capacity to establish

and

sustain a

new

intergovern-mentalpartnership.

6.

New

governance arrangements, especially at the

re-gional

and

locallevels.

7.

The

capacity to establish

and

sustain a

new

public-privatepartnership.

8.

An

effectivemonitoring

and enforcement

effort.

Bipartisan

Political

Support

One

extended assessment of sevenstate

programs

inland

planning

and

regulationdevelopedinthe1970sfoundonly

one

case, inColorado,

where

bipartisansupport failedto

developforastate-initiatedprogram. Early

Colorado

ini-tiativesin1970

and

later in 1974

became

weaker

over time

asstrong

Republican

oppositionto a

Democratic

gover-nor,expressed throughfirmcontrolofboth houses ofthe

legislature inthedecadefollowing 1974, resultedinasteady

reduction in

the scope, au-thority,

and

funding ofthe

original initia-tives. In

con-trast,

other

"first

wave"

statessuchas

Vermont, North

Carolina,

Oregon,

Hawaii,

and

Florida all

showed

strong

and

sustained bipartisan

support ofthe

major

state

measures

from

theiradoptionin

the early1970suntilnow.

The

experienceof second

wave

states in the 1980s has

been

similar. In

Maine

a partisan failureto adopta

new

growth

management

systemin 1988

was

narrowly avoided

when

the

Republican

governor

and Democratic

legislature

agreed

on

the "right"balance

between

authority

and

re-sponsibilitybystate,regional

and

local

governments

in de-signing

and implementing

the

new

system.

The same

bipar-tisan support

was

evidenced in

New

Jersey (1986),

Ver-mont

(1988),

and

Rhode

Island (1988),

where

a division

be-tween

the governor

and

the legislature over the exact

"shape" ofthesystem

was

finallyresolved

and

astronglaw

passed. In

Georgia

thegovernor

and

both houses ofthe leg-islature,includingRepublican

members,

supportedastrong

new

planning

and growth

management

lawin1989.

The

roleofthegovernorisespeciallyimportantin

achiev-ingand implementingacomprehensive planning and growth

management

system. Floridahas

been

blessedbyaseriesof governors

who

havestronglysupportedtheevolutionofa

growth

management

system capable of

managing

Florida's

astronomical

growth

since

World

War

II.

Governors

Reu-ben

Askew

(1971-1979),

Bob

Graham

(1979-1987),

and

Bob

Martinez (1987 todate) have all

been

supportive of

Florida's

growth

management

effort.

The

opposite case

Gov-32 CarolinaPlanning

"In

one

analysis

of

the

actions

_of

seven

states,

and

in

a

survey

_of

a

substantial

number

of

others,

there

was

only

one

instance

_of

a

clear

commitment

to

and

support

of

effective

monitoring

and

enforcement

of

a

state

program

of

land

planning

and

regulation:

North

Carolina

's

coastal

planning

and

management

program.

"

ernor

George

Deukmejian,

who

stronglyopposes

re-gionalor statewide

programs, has left California flounder-ing in its effort to

manage

growth ef-fectively.

Success-fulgrowth

manage-ment

effortsarenot impossible withoutthesupport ofthe governor, but they are unlikely.

Companion

legislative

supportisalsonecessary,asthe painfulexperience of Colo-rado demonstrates.

Sustained

Citizen

Support

Sustained citizen support is a key ingredient both in

protecting the laws

from

legislativerepeal or

weakening

and

for providingthe constituent supportfor strong im-plementation. Perhaps

Oregon

is the

most

striking

ex-ample

ofaninnovativestate

program

thathas

been

repeat-edly tested for citizensupport.

That

law,passedin1973,

was

subjectedtoacitizen-initiatedpetition

on

three occa-sions

from

1976to 1982.

On

each occasionastrong

cam-paign

was

mounted

torepealthelegislation; however,

citi-zen groups

mounted

equallystrong

and

ultimately

success-ful

campaigns

tosupportthelaw.

More

thanonce, the

co-chairsof acitizen

group

to

oppose

repealofthelegislation

were

thepresidentofthestate'sleading high-tech

company

and

the

head

ofitslargest

development

firm. Thus,

sus-tained

and

broad-based citizen support in

Oregon

has resultedinasteadystrengthening ofthelaw

and

hascreated aclimatefor effectivefiscalsupport.

Florida'sexperienceillustratesthepoint. Startingwitha

relatively

narrow

base of support

from

interest groups

(environmental

and

othercitizengroups suchasthe

League

of

Women

Voters),

added

support has

come

from

local

governments,the

development community,

thecorporate

sector

and

othersuchinterests.

No

major

(oreven minor)

group

inthestatestandsinoppositiontothe

implementa-tionofthesystemasthestateentersthenineties.

Opinion

pollsconsistently

show

broad-basedcitizensupportforfull

implementation ofFlorida's

growth

management

system.

Sustained

Fiscal

Support

Sustainedfiscal supportisnecessaryif

major

state

pro-grams

in land planning

and

regulation are to

be

imple-mented

effectively. Florida standsas a clear

example

of bothfailure

and

successin thisregard.

A

decade ofwoefully inadequate fiscal support followed Florida'sadoption of

the

Environmental

Land

and

Water

Management

Act

of

1972.

As

aresult,thelaw

had

much

less effectthanifit

had

been

adequately supported.

The

stateplanningagency,for

instance,

grew

to22positionsin1974.

Adecade

later,it

had

only21positionsto

carryoutverybroad

responsibilities in state

programs

of land planning

and

regulation.

Incon-trast,boththe

Cali-fornia coastal

pro-gram

and

the

Ore-gon

land use

pro-gram

enjoyedsubstantialfiscalsupport,largely inthe

form

ofpass-through fundstosupportlocal

government

efforts to

conform

withthe

new

stateland planning

and

regulatory

laws.

The same

has

been

truein

North

Carolinawithregard toits Coastal

Area

Management

Act; thestate picked

up

more

ofthefiscal

burden

asfederalfundingdeclined.Fiscal

supportisanecessary ingredientfora successfulprogram,

and

ithas

been

absentin

some

major

stateinnovationsof the lastfifteenyears

and

presentinothers.

Floridahas learned

some

lessonsinregard tofunding,

butthe issuestill

looms

asthe greatest challengein assur-ingthe successofits

growth

management

effort.

Funding

remains theonly

major

unsolved

problem

thatthreatens the successofthesystem overtime.

The

Zwick Committee

documented

the

need

for

more

revenuesatboththestate

and

local levelsto

move

from

thedeficitfinancingofgrowth

tothefull

implementation

oftheconcurrency requirement ofthelaw.

Other

analyseshave

shown

the

same

results.

So

far,onlythe fundsforplanninghave

remained

reasonably

on

schedule,withabout

$30

millionappropriatedtohelp

local

and

regionalagenciespreparethe plans

mandated

by

the system.

The

annualshortfallforinfrastructurealone ranges

from

$1.5to$2billion.

The

legislature

and

the

gov-ernor havestruggledwiththe issueateach sessionofthe

legislaturesince 1987. Itwillbe addressed againinthe1990

legislativesession.

Floridaisa national leaderin

growth

management,

butit

cannot sustain that leadership role unless the state pro-vides

major

new

sources of revenue bothforitself

and

for localgovernments.

At

a

minimum,

substantialincreasesin

the gasolinetax,local abilityto levy

an

optionalsalestax

withoutareferendum,

new

methods

ofcharging

automo-bilelicensefees,

new

ways

oftaxingrevenues

from

tourists,

reconsiderationofthesales tax

on

services,

and

ultimately,

aconsideration

and implementation

ofapersonal

income

tax will

be

necessaryifFlorida isto

be

competitiveinthe

twenty-first century as a high-quality, high-growth state

withahealthy

environment

and sound economy.

The

Capacity

to

Establish

and

Sustain

A

New

Intergovernmental Partnership

When

states enter the arena of planning

and

growth

management,

includingtheinvolvementinlanduse

"But

after

the

laws

were

on

the books,

many

people

who

had

supported

those

laws

forgot the

critical

lesson

that

only

implementation—

effective,

well

funded

and

timely—

puts

meaning

into

legislation.

bound

to beapartof

theexperience.

Home

rule is an early issue

raised

when new

state

and

regional rolesare discussed. This has beentrue ineverystate

where

new

legislationhas

been

initiated.

The

challengeisto

convincethe keycounty

and

cityactors that

new

state

and

regionalrolespresentawin-winsituationforboththestate

and

localgovernments.

The

argument

tosupportthat posi-tionare persuasive. Local

governments

typicallyreceive ad-ditional state funds to help support the

mandated

local plans.

New

systems typically require that local plans be compatible with eachother, thus protecting a given local

government fromthe irresponsible actionsofitsneighbor(s).

Of

even

more

significance to

some

localgovernments,the

new

systemsoften require thatstateagencyactionsinlocal

areasbeconsistentwiththestate

approved

localplan.

The

approach

beingtakenby

many

local

governments

isthatto "give alittletogetalot"isa

good

exchange. Infact,

home

rulehasnot

been

a

major

problem

in theimplementation

stageof

growth

management

systems.

But

itisoften a

major

issue tobe

overcome

ingettingthe

new

systeminplace.

For

the

most

part,Florida'scities

and

counties are

work-ingcooperativelywith

DCA

togettheirplans

and

land

de-velopment

regulationsin place

and approved

bythestate.

DCA

has

adopted

abalanced

approach

inexamining local plans.

For

example,thestatehas

approached

the

enforce-ment

oftheconcurrencyrequirement by applyingthe "rule

ofreason": flexibilitytothe

maximum

extent possibleshort

of

compromising

the concept in any important way.

As

plansflowin,

some

aremeetingthetest,

and

some

arebeing returnedforfurther

work

atthelocallevel. In severalcases

local

governments

have challengedthestate'srejection of

plans

on

thebasisoftheconcurrency requirement or other

reasons. Inthe greatmajorityofcases,theissueshave

been

settledthrough

compliance

agreement.

The

reviewprocess

iswelladvanced, with

more

thanhalfofFlorida's

480

cities

and

counties having submitted theirplans to thestate for

review.

The

process is

moving

forward ina surprisingly positiveway.

The

most

dramatic

example

ofputting asiderigid

inter-pretationofthe

home

rule issuein favorofa

new

partner-ship

between

state

and

local

governments

occurred in the

stateof Georgia,

where

both cities

and

counties strongly

supported the

new

growth

management

system

from

the

start,

and

have continuedthatsupportasimplementation of

thelaw

moves

forward.

The

Capacity

to

Sustain

A

New

Public-Private

Partnership

The

old adversarial roles in

which

developers

were

the blackhats,environmental

and

citizengroupsthewhitehats,

withlocalgovernments caughtinthe crossfire,

is

no

longer standard

practice. In

many

states,

including Florida, the privatesector strongly

supports the full im-plementation, including funding, of the growth

manage-ment

system.InGeorgia,thegovernor's

Growth

Strategies

Commission

members

comprised

a

broad

crosssectionof

the leaders of the states

major

groups concerned with

growth

management.

When

the

proposed

legislation

was

beforethe

Georgia

House

and

Senate,it

was

strongly

sup-ported by every

one

ofthesegroups. Included

were

the StateAssociationof

Homebuilders,

the

Georgia

Conser-vancy,

and

the county

and

municipal state associations.

Buildingpublic-private partnerships pays offbothin the

adoption

and implementation

stagesfora

growth

manage-ment

system.

Effective

Monitoring

and

Enforcement Systems

Inadequate monitoring

and enforcement

systems have

been

thelargest

weak

spotindeveloping

and implementing

state efforts inlandplanning

and

regulation. In

one

analy-sisofthe actionsof sevenstates,

and

inasurveyofa

substan-tial

number

ofothers,there

was

only

one

instanceofaclear

commitment

to

and

support ofeffective monitoring

and

enforcement

ofastate

program

oflandplanning

and

regu-lation:

North

Carolina's coastalplanning

and

management

program.

North

Carolinadevisedanintegratedpermitting

system

and

a

comprehensive

monitoring

and

enforcement systemthatare theenvy of otherstates

working

in thisarea.

The

system apparently has

remained

largely inplace

de-spiteagovernor

who

does not supporttheprogram.

The

importance of monitoring

and enforcement

has

been

reem-phasizedby the federal Office of Coastal

Zone

Manage-ment

initscritiquesofstatecoastal planning

and

manage-ment

programs. In reviewing state coastal efforts, the federalgovernment's evaluation focuses primarily

on

at-temptingtostrengthenthestate

programs

inthe

monitor-ing

and enforcement

area.

In

Vermont,

the

low

leveloffiscalsupportingeneral,and

theinadequate monitoring

and enforcement

inparticular, leftthe

implementation

ofthe

wide

range ofconditions

at-tachedto

Act 250

permitslargely tovoluntarycompliance

from

the privatesector. In Florida, flagrant violationby

local

governments and

private sector participants with

regardto state

programs

of planning

and

regulation repeat-edly

was

either unnoticed or not acted

upon

during the

decadefollowing theadoption ofFlorida'sland

and

growth

management

legislation in 1972.

Vermont's

adoptionof

Act

200in1988 includedsubstantialfundingforplanning

34 CarolinaPlanning

"The

political

climate

of

the future

seems

destined

to

be

one

in

which competing

interests

in

many

states

abandon

the

adversarial

politics

_of

the

past

and

look

to

consensus

politics

for

the nineties

and

into

the twenty

-first

century.

"

oftherealestate transfertax.

As

notedabove, Floridais

stillstrugglingwiththe challengeoffundingits

comprehen-sivegrowth

management

strategy,withthe

major problem

beingthe governor'srefusaltosupportany

new

source of

revenue.

Monitoring and enforcementareconcernsthatare

gradu-ally

coming

intotheir

own

ingrowth

management

efforts.

For

instance,1000 Friends of

Oregon

hasusedthe

admin-istrative

and

judicialprocess to forcecompliance withthe statewide goals

and

policies. Inspiteofits

many

successes

and

continued strongcitizensupport,

Oregon

has

major

problemsinregard

to localgovernment compliance,

espe-ciallywithcounties.

Repeated

studies

have revealed that

more

than half of

the land

develop-ment

regulation

ac-tions in certain

countieshaveviolated thecounty-adoptedstategoals

and

policies.

The

problem

has

become

soacutethatproposals have

been

made

to

remove

implementation

powers from

thecountylevelentirely

and

place

them

inan independent

unit of government.

The

growth

management

systems adoptedinthe1980s haveput

much

more

emphasis

on

im-plementationstrategiesthatpromisetostrengthen

moni-toring

and

enforcement efforts. Nevertheless, the imple-mentation

problem

remains.

The

Politics

of

the

Future

in

Planning

and Growth

Management

Changing

roles

and

responsibilities

among

state,

re-gional

and

local

governments

canbe

and

typicallyare

an

intenselypoliticalprocess.

A

keytosuccessinestablishing

new

planning

and growth

management

systems isa clear

understanding ofthe

growth

problems.

One

ofthe

most

ef-fectiveways of accomplishingthistaskistheestablishment ofa

commission

ortaskforce,appointed bythegovernor, withthechargetodefine

growth

problems.

A

group,such

asGeorgia's

Growth

Strategies

Commission,

is

more

effec-tiveif its

membership

reflectsthebroad range ofinterests

concerned withthe problems. Georgia's

commission

in-cluded development, environmental, local government,

legislative

and

agricultural interests that at first glance

seemed

unlikely toagree

on

anything.

At

the

end

of

an

eighteen-monthperiod, the

commission

gave

unanimous

supporttoastrong

growth

management

system with

major

planning

and

plan

implementation

responsibilities atthe

state

and

regional level. Also,

major

new

responsibilities

were

placed

on

localgovernments.

While

Georgia'ssuccessincoalitionbuildingis

remark-able,it isby

no

means

unique. Instate after state inthe 1980s,a similarprocesshas

gone

forward, resultingin

new

growth

management

systems in

New

Jersey, Maine, Ver-mont,

and

Rhode

Island. Also,

Washington,

Maryland,

Virginia,

and

Massachusetts are undertaking important

efforts ateither thestate orregional level. California is

awakening

from

a

long

dormant

period

inaddressinggrowth problems,

and

is

be-ginning

to

look

closely at regional

andstateframeworks

forbetter

managing

itsgrowth.

The

po-liticalclimateofthe future

seems

destinedto

be

one

in

which competing

inter-estsin

many

states

abandon

the adversarialpoliticsofthe past

and

looktoconsensuspoliticsforthe nineties

and

into thetwenty-firstcentury.

New

coalitionsofdevelopers, en-vironmentalists,

and

local governments, typically put in

motion

byfarsightedgovernors

and

legislative leaders, will

givesupporttotheadoption of

new

comprehensive

plan-ning

and growth

management

systems,

and

providethe es-sentialcontinuedpoliticalsupport socriticaltosuccessin

any such endeavor.

References

DeGrove, JohnM. "TheQuiet Revolution BloomsAgain:

New

State RolesinPlanningandGrowth Management."

A

summary

assess-mentwith a special sectiononFlorida,9/25/89-Draft (Subjectto Re-vision)

DeGrove, JohnM. "Consistent,Concurrent,Compact:Florida'sSearch

for aRationalGrowthManagementSystem,"ThePolitical

Chron-icle,Journalof the FloridaPoliticalScienceAssociation. SaintLeo, FL:SaintLeoCollegePress,1989-Vol.1,No.2,pp. 32-38.

DeGrove, JohnM. "GrowthManagementand Governance," Understand-ingGrowthManagement:CriticalIssuesandResearchAgenda.

Wash-ington,D.C.: ULI-theUrban LandInstitute,1989, pp. 22-42.

DeGrove, JohnM. "ThePayAsYou GrowChallenge: Financial Manage-mentinaGrowthEnvironment," Financing Growth:

Who

Benefits?

WhoPays?

And

How

Much? Chicago, IL: GovernmentFinance Research Centerof theGovernmentFinanceOfficersAssociation.