State Interagency Land Use Council Report

Introduction

My name is Bill Schaefer. I am an attorney and planner with Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE) and direct CBE's Land Use and Transportation Program. CBE is a regional environmental non-profit research and advocacy organization with over 8,000 members and thousands more supporters in Wisconsin.

CBE has been actively working on land use and transportation issues for the past eight years. CBE serves on advisory committees of both the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) and the Dane County Regional Planning Commission (DCRPC). Most recently, CBE has undertaken a number of educational and technical assistance projects designed to illustrate and promote alternatives to current sprawl development patterns. (See attached materials and articles.)

In addressing any issue, the first step is identifying the problem. What is it about the way development is generally happening now that is a concern? The focus of both the Strategic Growth Task Force Report and the Interagency Land Use Council (ILUC) Report is primarily on process. There are references to the problem. For example, the current bias towards fringe development and the increasingly higher cost of public services are mentioned. However, the problem with current growth patterns is not clearly outlined.

The Problem: Urban Sprawl

Most people agree that the problem is "urban sprawl." But what does that mean? There is no single commonly accepted definition. The term actually has several components. Most people focus on the locational one with sprawl being characterized as scattered, leapfrog development. In this case, people are usually referring to unsewered low-density residential development. However, sprawl also encompasses non-residential development (e.g., commercial "strip" or "ribbon" development along arterial roadways), site design (e.g., entirely auto-oriented), and the relationship between different types of land uses (e.g., failure to mix land uses).

Using this complete definition, sprawl has the following characteristics: (1) scattered, isolated development; (2) low density; (3) segregated land uses; (4) auto-oriented design; and (5) a lack of public/civic places and open space.

Sprawl development has resulted in the following problems:

Loss of open space, farmland, and rural landscape because development is so land consumptive;

Increasing cost of public services (e.g., police and fire protection, schools) and infrastructure (e.g., sewer, water, roads);

Poor accessibility to jobs, shopping, recreation, and community services because land uses are completely segregated and communities are not integrated with a healthy mix of homes, shops, work places, schools, parks, and civic institutions;

Traffic congestion, pollution, and increasing road costs due to auto-dominated transportation system; and

Disinvestment and abandonment of older communities, resulting in unnecessary duplication of infrastructure investment.

Numerous studies have been done around the country demonstrating the very significant cost savings that can be achieved with better planned, compact development. For example, New Jersey commissioned a major study examining the costs associated with two different 20-year development scenarios--one representing current trends continued and the other representing the state land use plan. The study found that the state plan scenario would provide infrastructure cost savings of 24% for roads, 7.6% for water and sewer, and 3.3% for schools. Other studies have found even higher cost savings.

Not only is sprawl development more costly, but evidence strongly suggests that suburban sprawl is subsidized with city and inner suburban residents sometimes picking up the tab. The largest state subsidy comes from road building on the urban fringe. Local governments subsidize infrastructure costs for fringe development. In addition, the pricing of public and private utilities, which is generally done on an average cost basis, understates the costs of providing services to outer suburban and exurban residents. Aside from the direct subsidies, there are many indirect costs (externalities) of sprawl borne by others, including environmental pollution, traffic congestion, and loss of access to open space.

The many costs of sprawl are only now beginning to be recognized and acknowledged. In California where the problems with sprawl are most evident, a coalition of organizations, including the Bank of America, recently released a report outlining the many hidden costs of sprawl and proposing strategies to promote new more sustainable patterns of growth. The report states:

Continued sprawl may seem inexpensive for a new homebuyer or a growing business on the suburban fringe, but the ultimate cost--to those homebuyers, to the government, and to society at large--is potentially crippling. Allowing sprawl may be politically expedient in the short run, but in the long run it will make California economically uncompetitive and create social, environmental and political problems we may not be able to solve.

In these tight fiscal times, we could take a lesson from a British statesman who told his colleagues during the toughest times of World War II, "Gentlemen, we are out of money. Therefore, we shall have to think."

Being anti-sprawl does not mean being anti-growth. We simply need better planning and development models to replace the random, unrestrained market forces that have turned our landscape into what one author has described as "The Geography of Nowhere."

Transforming Sprawl Into Livable Communities

What are the alternatives to sprawl? How should our communities grow? The answer is more compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development. How do we achieve this? A set of planning and implementation principles developed by a group of nationally recognized planners and designers for the California-based Local Government Commission offer a good start. (See attached copy of the principles.) The land use planning goals outlined on page 2 of the ILUC Report are also generally good, though not as detailed or comprehensive.

CBE has recently undertaken a number of different educational initiatives promoting the concept of "livable communities." We use the term to refer to communities that: (a) contain a healthy mix of homes, shops, workplaces, civic institutions, and parks; and (b) are designed to provide people with convenient access to daily needs without having to drive. Key design principles include the following:

Use pedestrian-friendly design: Streets, buildings, and public spaces should be designed to human scale to make walking, bicycling, and transit convenient and attractive. Mix land uses: Locate homes within easy walking distance of schools, workplaces, recreation, small shops, and other neighborhood services. Create community and neighborhood centers. Create mixed-use workplaces where people can walk to do errands and eat during lunchtime.

Provide high quality public spaces: These include parks, squares, and greens that serve the entire community. Streets and paths should also be designed to be beautiful places (e.g., through use of street trees, landscaped planting strips and boulevards).

Provide a variety of housing choices: Allow a mixture of apartments, townhouses, multiplexes, and single-family residences on different sized lots to meet the housing needs of all residents.

Protect natural resources: Respect the natural terrain, drainage, landscape, and vegetation. Preserve important resources in open space and parks. Promote community character: Preserve historic landmarks and buildings and respect historic architecture.

While many people now recognize that sprawl is neither economically nor environmentally sustainable, it is also true not everyone is going to choose to live in compact, mixed-use neighborhoods. People should have choices, and the option to live at lower densities should be maintained. However, the costs of such a lifestyle should be more equitably distributed and more accurately reflected in higher housing, utility, etc. costs.

Why the State Should Develop a Comprehensive Land Use Policy and Planning Framework

People ask why the state should get involved in land use planning and policy issues. This is the wrong question. The state already is involved in land use planning issues in many ways--from the policies and programs of state agencies to state policies related to financing roads, schools, and other public services. We have a de facto land use policy rather than a consciously chosen one.

People also say that communities across the state are too diverse for the state to adopt one set of goals to guide local planning. This is nonsense. There are differences in terms of the needs and capabilities of communities, specific environmental or economic development issues they face, etc. However, there are certain core principles that should provide the foundation for all local planning. The land use planning goals outlined in the ILUC report are a good starting point for discussion.

The following are some specific reasons why the state needs to adopt a comprehensive set of land use policies and provide a better framework for state, regional, and local governments to carry out such policies:

1. Local governments acting along cannot produce an effective solution, because the issues, problems and consequences of land use decisions transcend political boundaries. Regional strategies are often necessary. For example, efforts to control sprawl in a limited area often just shift the problem from one community to another.

2. State agencies often work at cross purposes with each other and with local governments. A framework is needed to coordinate state, regional, and local government planning and programs.

3. The state has an interest in ensuring that growth occurs in a way that will help maintain Wisconsin's quality of life and economic competitiveness in the future.

4. The state contributes billions of dollars each year to help fund local government infrastructure investments and public services. The state also invests in infrastructure itself. The state has a responsibility to ensure that this money is being spent wisely through local planning that promotes efficient growth.

5. The state has an interest in ensuring that important natural, cultural, and historic resources of statewide significance are protected.

What The State Should Do To Promote Better Planning and Quality Development

1. The Legislature should adopt a set of comprehensive land use goals to guide state agency and local government planning. Detailed, yet flexible guidelines to interpret the goals should also be established.

2. As proposed in the ILUC Report, state agencies should be required to plan and administer regulatory and grant programs in conformity with state goals.

3. As proposed, create a permanent Interagency Land Use Council to coordinate state agency planning and actions, including state investments in public facilities, to ensure an integrated spending strategy for all agencies that supports state land use goals.

Example: State agencies should select sites for their facilities--like new office buildings--in urban centers served by public transit.

4. Develop and use effective "carrots" and "sticks" to encourage local governments to plan for and regulate development consistent with state goals.

One of the primary tools is funding. The state should tie allocation of many types of state grants and payments to local governments to achievement of land use goals rather than uniformly distributing them by formula.

Example: Transportation funding should favor communities that plan land uses and concentrate employment centers to support transit and other alternatives to single-occupant vehicle driving.

5. Target state economic assistance to growth centers and areas that are stagnant or in decline, such as inner city and rural areas.

We support the efforts to promote redevelopment of "brownfield" sites. However, efforts should go beyond "brownfields" to address promotion of infill/redevelopment and compact, mixed-use development in general. "Brownfields" are a symptom of a larger problem--public polices that promote sprawl.

6. Require all local governments--not just counties--to prepare comprehensive plans consistent with state goals and require land use ordinances and development approvals to be consistent with the plans.

The necessary elements and other requirements should be spelled out. Requirements should reflect the needs of different sized communities and areas in the state.

Related to the problem of sprawl is the unpredictability of local government decision-making due to the lack of planning and vague standards which increase delay and litigation. Because no areas are reliably protected, developers face fights everywhere. Proactive local planning can increase the certainty in the land use decision-making process, reducing costly delays.

We support the concept of joint planning boards. We have concerns about the proposals to eliminate extraterritorial zoning and provide all towns with the same planning and zoning rights as cities and villages. We fear that this will simply exacerbate the current problems of fragmented decision-making. The only way this might work is if the state sets up a growth strategy framework requiring all local governments to plan in accordance with detailed planning goals and an effective process for resolving interjurisdictional disputes.

7. Develop an independent arbitration process to guarantee swift and impartial settlement of disputes between local jurisdictions or between state agencies and local governments. Citizens should be able to request arbitration on the consistency of a state, regional, or local plan with each other and state goals.

8. Provide sufficient financial and technical assistance to regional planning agencies (e.g., for analyses of regional open space networks) and local governments to ensure they have adequate resources to develop and implement high-quality plans. Technical assistance materials should include model inventories, assessments, plans, programs, ordinances, and design manuals. They should address issues such as: redevelopment; mixed use zoning; walkability; higher density housing design; and "main street" as opposed to shopping mall design.

9. Revise the development impact fee law to ensure that communities are able to charge new development for its own impacts. (The broad community should fund the cost of improving--over time--existing facilities that are inadequate to meet present needs.)

10. Identify and protect lands and resources of statewide significance.

We support continuation of the Stewardship Program.

11. Research and identify the most cost effective programs and policies for protecting prime agricultural land.

12. The Governor should prepare a biannual report to the Legislature on progress towards achieving the state's land use goals. All state agencies, RPCs, and local governments should prepare reports with information to go into the state report.

13. Local government ethics laws should be strengthened.

Respectfully Submitted,

Bill Schaefer Citizens for a Better Environment 222 S. Hamilton Street, Suite 4 Madison, WI 53703 PH (608) 251-2804 FAX (608) 255-4053