development by design: land use planning and … by design: land use planning and regulation in...

Development by Design:Land Use Planning and Regulation

in Rural CommunitiesThomas Rowley

January 2001Contractor Paper 01-01

About the Author

Tom Rowley is a freelance writer and research consultant under contract to TVA Rural Studies.

Contractor papers are distributed by TVA Rural Studies as part of its effort to improve the informationavailable to rural decision makers. Each contractor paper reflects the research and opinions of the

authors. Research papers are published without going through a formal review process and TVA RuralStudies neither endorses nor disavows any opinions in these papers.

All staff and contractor papers are working papers and can be found on the TVA Rural Studies websitehttp://www.rural.org/publications/reports.html.

Development by Design: Land Use Planning and Regulation in Rural Communities

TVA Rural Studies Program / Contractor Paper 01-01 Thomas Rowley, January 20011

Development by Design: Land Use Planning and Regulationin Rural Communities

Last November voters around the countrypassed more than 150 ballot initiatives topreserve open space and/or reshapedevelopment. On top of that, twelve states haveenacted growth management laws, still otherstates are considering them, and Vice-PresidentGore made “Smart Growth” a theme of hispresidential campaign. What’s all the excitementabout? In a word: sprawl.

Loosely defined, sprawl is the chopped-up,spread-out, segregated, low-density, auto-dependent development that can be found onthe edge of virtually every city in the nation,creeping outward, suburb after strip mall, EdgeCity after Wal-Mart, and into thehinterlands—to mixed reviews.

• To some, sprawl is simply the result of a freemarket in which developers supply whathomebuyers and businesses demand

• To others, it’s the negative consequences ofa tangle of policies, technologies, andmisguided beliefs.

• For inner city residents and activists, sprawlrepresents the emptying of downtown,giving the doughnut to the suburbs andleaving them with the hole.

• To suburbanites, it’s a ticket out of crime,congestion, and bad schools and intoconvenience, quality living, and a bigbackyard.

• To many that make a living off ofdevelopment—realtors, builders, and thelike—sprawl is development, it’s business,and it’s a right.

• To others of a more environmental bent, it’sthe antithesis of development, it’s cancer,and it’s not about rights, but ratherresponsibilities.

The primary interest here, however, is howsprawl (and the land use planning processes thateither promote or control it) plays in ruralAmerica. And, naturally enough, there is noconsensus there either. On the one hand, many

rural residents see sprawl as a threat to their wayof life—their open space, farms, and close-knitcommunity. They see farmland gobbled up forhouses and ranchettes. They see downtownshrivel and die, when the big-box store opensout on the highway. And they see a place thatmeant so much to them, become a place that’sno different from any other—a generic townwithout identity.

On the other hand, some rural folks don’tsee it as sprawl at all. In fact, they don’t seegrowth of any kind in their neck of the woods.Instead, they see unemployment, poverty, out-migration, and the other trappings of acommunity that’s shrinking rather thanexpanding. To them, sprawl looks like economicdevelopment—a much-needed shot in the arm,bringing jobs, customers, and tax dollars—ifonly they could get it. And while they mightagree that “something’s being lost,” for them thegains far exceed the loss. “You can’t eat a senseof place, after all.”

Different Needs, Different Solutions, ACommon Set of Tools

Were it simply a philosophicaldifference—whether and how a communitygrows—it likely would have little heat. Folkscould agree to disagree. But in fact, the debate isanything but philosophical. We’re talking land.We’re talking rights. And we’re talking money.

Therefore, the debate about how acommunity will (or even if it will) grow anddevelop should take place in all ruralcommunities—those facing rapid growth andthose only dreaming of growth. Land useplanning and regulation play a huge role,whether trying to control growth or promote it.Because, e-commerce notwithstanding,everything happens some place.

Local governments face a variety ofchallenges in guarding and promoting thehealth, safety, and welfare of their citizens. Todeal with those challenges, they have numeroustools, including those that control land use.Several come readily to mind—planning,zoning, permitting, condemning—whileothers—taxation, infrastructure provision,exactions, design review—may not. The pointhere is not to present an exhaustive discussion of



the ways local communities can control land use.The point is to provide a brief overview of therationale, costs, and benefits of doing so in ruralcommunities.

RationaleWhether a community faces growth or

decline, the rationale for land use planning andregulation is the same: it “enables people toinfluence changes in the appearance, economy,and social life of their community.”1 Thecircumstances will, of course, vary and thereforeso will the decisions about land use. But therationale does not.

Many, of course, disagree with thatrationale. They see land use planning andregulation as interference in the market andinfringement on their rights. And they do notlike it. According to a poll by Time magazineand CNN, 69 percent of the people polledbelieved that “the ability of individuals to dowhat they want with land that they own” is moreimportant than “the ability of government toregulate development for the common good.”Only 25 percent believed the opposite.2

Obviously, land use planning and regulationfaces an uphill battle.

In fact, the regulation of land use doesconstrain market interactions and individualproperty rights. There’s no question about it. Toargue that it is therefore unnecessary andunconstitutional, if not downright evil, is,however, a gross exaggeration andmisunderstanding of land use planning andregulation, the market, and property rights.

First, land use planning and regulation—aspracticed today in most of the UnitedStates—and as advocated here—is a process inwhich the public participates and makescollective decisions for the common good. It isnot the blueprinting of a community oreconomy in secret by a governmental entity.This is not the Soviet Union, and planningcommissions are not tiny Politburos.

Second, with all due respect to AdamSmith, the uncoordinated decisions and actionsof individuals in pursuit solely of their personalgood does not always lead to the common good.If it did, there would be no pollution, trafficjams, or other negative consequences—thingsthat economists call externalities—which thepublic must bear because of private actions.

Finally, government does have the right toregulate land use. Professor Lori Garkovich ofthe University of Kentucky explains.

In our society, property rights may bethought of as a bundle of sticks, eachrepresenting a different type of right toland. For example, one stick is the rightto sell, others the right to lease, to granta mortgage, to subdivide, to grant aneasement, or to pass on to an heir. Stillother sticks may represent thelandowner’s interest in the air, water,mineral, or development rights…

However, there are four rights toproperty that have always been reservedto the public (government), these are theright to tax land, the right to take landfor public use with just compensation,the right to regulate or control the use ofland, and the right of escheat (to takeland in the event of the owner’s deathwithout any heirs).

An unbroken string of Supreme Courtdecisions have upheld these public rightsin private property.

…Thus, while private property rightshave been and remain the cornerstone ofour democratic society, they have neverbeen absolute. From the beginning,there has been a recognition that thepublic has an important interest in howprivate land is used.3

CostsThere are, of course, costs associated with

planning and the regulation of land use. Firstand foremost is the cost incurred by landownerswho may have their ability to do with their landas they see fit, reduced. Second, there are costsassociated with the process itself—salaries ofplanning officials (if, in fact, they are paid) aswell as various other administrative costs.Finally, there are costs that may result fromdifferent planning decisions. For example, someregulations may limit the options thatresidents—home buyers, developers, businessowners, etc.—have about where to live, whatkind of house to buy, where to locate a business,etc. Other regulations may increase density andresult in costs such as increased congestion.



Alternatively, regulations might decrease densitybut reduce the amount of unspoiled lands. Stillother regulations can result in higher (or lower)priced housing. Finally, some decisions mightresult in the need to expand roads or water andsewer lines. Whatever the case, there are costsassociated with land use planning andregulation.

BenefitsCost Savings

There are, however, costs for not planning.Some of those costs are easily quantified, such asthose for extending roads and water lines. Someare not, such as those associated with pollution,loss of open space, and loss of communityidentity. Not surprisingly then, one of thebiggest benefits to land-use planning andregulation is cost savings. Through planning andregulation, development can be steered tominimize the need for, and consumption of,land, infrastructure, and public services. In sodoing, it can also reduce the cost ofunderutilizing or abandoning existinginfrastructure. And the savings can beenormous.

Burchell and Shad summarized the findingsof various studies on sprawl versus “compactdevelopment” or “smart growth”—developmentthat is concentrated in suitable areas, protectssensitive areas, directs growth to existingpopulation centers, and conserves resources.They found that compared with sprawl, smartgrowth

• consumes only 40 percent as much landoverall; 60 percent as much agricultural land,and 17 percent as much fragile land;

• costs only 75 percent as much for roads, 95percent as much for schools, and 85 percentas much for utilities;

• costs 2 to 3 percent less per year formunicipal and school operating costs.4

Such savings may come as a shock to manywho believe that development pays for itself. Infact, for every dollar generated in tax revenue,residential development requires $1.05-$1.36back in infrastructure and services. Commercialand industrial development requires only $.18-$.44, and agriculture requires only $.21-$.48.5

Of course, other economic considerationsmust be taken into account—both pro and con.On the one hand, development can do more foran economy than simply generate tax revenue. Itcan bring jobs and income into a region. On theother hand, the savings realized from smartgrowth can reduce costs to businesses andresidents in the area and thereby enable a regionto retain or establish competitiveness. Savingscan also be plowed back into the community in avariety of beneficial ways.

Burchell and Listokin describe what canhappen when a community does not realize thissavings, that is, when a community allowsgrowth to occur unplanned, in sprawl fashion.

The dual costs of (1) providing newinfrastructure for those moving outward,and (2) maintaining the oldinfrastructure for the population andeconomic entities that are left behind,cause taxes and development costs torise throughout the metropolitan area,thus causing a regional rise in the costseither to do business or reside in thearea. As a result of wage and productcost increases to allow responses to thesecost increases, companies and regionsbecome less competitive. The reality ofdoing little to channel the outward flowand land appetite of the real estatemarket brings upon economic triagewherein a finite amount of money isallocated to prepare and access newareas while old areas are left to die.These are the middle-stage signs of aregion that is becoming noncompetitiveand whose end state is a major loss ofeconomic tenants.6

Economic Well-beingThat quote from Burchell and Listokin

points to the economic benefits to be gainedfrom planned development—economic benefitsthat go beyond cost savings. Good planning andland use regulation—that is, planning andregulation that conserves land and minimizesinfrastructure expenditures—can help a region’scompetitiveness. By adding anothercriterion—protecting and preserving the ruralsmall-town character—it can help even more.

Survey after survey shows that a largepercentage of Americans would prefer to live ina small town. And as we have seen in the past



decade, more and more of them are acting uponthat preference. “The major demographic newsfor rural and small-town America in the 1990shas been the rebound of population growth,”reports the U.S. Department of Agriculture.7

From 1990 to 1997, nearly three-fourths of allnonmetro counties added people, with most ofthose counties getting some or all of theirincrease from people moving in—“a far cry fromthe conventional pattern of the past,” saysUSDA. Indeed, rural areas throughout thenation as a whole grew by 6.6 percent during theseven-year period. Not bad, considering metroareas grew only a bit faster, 7.6 percent.

Obviously, not every rural place has grownthat much or even at all. The fastest growingcommunities tend to be those with one or moreof the following characteristics: adjacent to ametropolitan area, attractive to retirees,recreational amenities, large amounts of federalland. Why? People like to live in small townsbut have access to big city amenities—shopping,cultural activities, and the like. They also preferto live where the scenery is beautiful, the climateis mild, and there are a lot of opportunities foroutdoor activities.

So, what has any of this to do withplanning? Plenty. People are moving from thecity to the country, because they like what thecountry has to offer. Without careful planningand regulations to guide the development thataccompanies those city refugees, however, thecountry can very quickly begin to look like thesuburbs those folks left. When that happens, theattraction of the place—for newcomers and old-timers alike—can be lost, killing the goose thatlaid the golden egg.

Planning in the Bluegrass. The KentuckyBluegrass is just such a growing place—or, moreaccurately, set of places—that is trying to keepthe goose alive. The rolling hills surroundingLexington are famous for their beauty and thethoroughbred horse farms that dot them. Throwin a mild climate, the urban amenities ofLexington and Louisville (universities, hospitals,hotels, convention centers, etc.), and a strongregional economy—based, in part, on theautomotive manufacturing industry that hastaken up residence there—and you’ve got all thenecessary ingredients for growth in the region’srural areas. On top of all that, Lexington and itssurrounding county, Fayette, instituted an urbangrowth boundary in the 1950s. By restricting

development of land lying outside of the growthboundary, Lexington-Fayette County havehelped push development into nearby counties.This “leapfrogging” effect puts even morepressure on neighboring rural areas.

Consequently, leaders in the region havebeen quite active on the issue. The LexingtonHerald-Leader ran a wide-ranging series ofarticles on the topic in the summer of 2000, andBluegrass Tomorrow—a regional planningorganization—retained a team of consultants tohelp them think about the issue and come upwith possible solutions. Such region-widethinking notwithstanding, most of the actiontakes place at the county and city levels,sometimes jointly, sometimes not.

South of Louisville, Nelson County facesdevelopment pressure—development that could,if allowed, harm the county’s scenic, historic,and cultural amenities that comprise a largeportion of its economy. In response to thatpressure, and through foresight on the part ofthe community, Nelson County recentlyadopted an Economic Development Plan that,among other things, incorporates land useplanning. Specifically, one of the plan’s six goalsis to coordinate economic growth with theprovision of infrastructure. Inclusion of this goalcomes from the recognition of several factors:

• “[T]hat geographically dispersedsettlement patterns lead to highercommunity services delivery costs forlocal governments, while more compactsettlement patterns have lower servicescosts.”

• “The relationship between taxesgenerated by residential development inthe rural portions of the county and thecost of delivering public services(specifically school transportation,public water, public sanitation, policeand emergency medical services) tothese residences needs to be evaluated bylocal government to insure that futuregrowth does not place an unduefinancial burden on local government.”

• Changing travel patterns of workers “haveimplications for the local transportationsystem, not the least of which is thetremendous increase in traffic and



congestion reported by local residents.”Therefore, “Effective economicdevelopment planning will require carefulcoordination with local and statetransportation officials to insure adequatetransportation facilities…”8

To accomplish the goal, Nelson Countyproposes five strategies:

• Evaluate capacity of current infrastructure.

• Identify needed infrastructure improvementsto support economic growth.

• Identify transportation needs for economicgrowth, and implement the countytransportation plan.

• Develop recommendations for capitalimprovements to support future growth.

• Identify appropriate areas for futureeconomic growth.9

A second goal with explicit land useconnections is to “enhance the quality of life as amechanism for supporting economic growth.”Strategies in pursuit of this goal include:

• Identifying lands needed for economicgrowth and mechanisms for providing thoselands.

• Developing recommendations to ensure astock of housing that supports economicdevelopment.10

Not resting on their laurels, Bardstown andNelson County are also now considering designguidelines that would help ensure that futuredevelopment fits into the existing context.Helping the city and county are the RuralHeritage Program at the National Trust forHistoric Preservation, the University ofKentucky’s School of Landscape Architecture,and the Kentucky Heritage Council. And whileJohn Downs, director of the joint planningcommission allows that the effort may meet withsome resistance, he cites evidence that shows thebenefits−namely, that good design sells.

Summing it up, John Ware, president ofthe Nelson County Economic Development

Agency, says that Bardstown (Nelson County’smajor town) is “the type of community that wegrew up in or wish we grew up in” and thatplanning is part of an “ongoing effort to keepour downtown maybe the way everybody wouldlike their downtown to be.”

Economic RehabilitationBut what about rural communities that are

not attracting population, those left out of theso-called “rural rebound?” According to USDA,“The Great Plains…continues to have largeareas of [population] loss, as do many parts ofthe Corn Belt, the Mississippi Delta, and theSouthern Coal Fields.”11 In addition, many ofthe traditional rural industries—farming,mining, logging, and the like—and the areasthat depend heavily on them—continue to slide.Not surprisingly then, rural poverty remains aproblem, with nearly a quarter of nonmetrocounties registering persistently high rates ofpoverty—20 percent or more in each of the lastfour censuses. The question is, “What, ifanything, can land use planning do for ruralareas in decline?”

Though perhaps less obvious, the answeragain seems to be “plenty.” If the ruralcomparative advantage is shifting from cheapland and labor and the extractive value of naturalresources toward natural and cultural amenities,then communities that care for and developthose amenities stand to gaineconomically—even communities on the ropes.University of Montana Economics ProfessorThomas Power puts it this way:

...people care where they live and, giventhe choice, gravitate toward moredesirable residential areas. Economicactivity tends to follow them. Thus itcannot be said that environmentalquality is only an aesthetic concern to bepursued if a community feels prosperousenough to afford it. Environmentalquality has become a central element oflocal economic bases and a centraldeterminant of local economic vitality.

He goes on to say that:

…Commitment to place is important tolocal economic development, and thusthe qualities that instill commitmenthave economic importance in addition



to whatever social, biological, or culturalimportance they have. One quality thathas always instilled a sense of place is adesirable natural landscape. Another isan attractive social environment. Effortsto protect the landscape and enhancethe social environment have to belooked at as integral to any economicdevelopment strategy. They are not justsocial or aesthetic concerns. As localcitizens organize themselves to promotecontinued economic vitality in theircommunity, the qualities that make it anattractive place to live, work, and dobusiness should be of central concern.12

Obviously, one of the primary wayscommunities “protect the landscape and enhancethe social environment” is through land useplanning and regulation.

Planner Edward McMahon also sees anexus between a community’s image and itseconomic well-being. He then goes further byurging communities to resist the temptation totake any type of “development” they can get.

…a community’s image is important toits economic well-being. The best placesto live, work, and visit are those placesthat are willing to uphold theirstandards in the face of pressure to allowlowest common denominatordevelopment. The bottom line for mostbusinesses is securing access toprofitable trade areas. They evaluatelocations based on their economicpotential. If they are required to addresslocal design, landscaping, or signagerequirements, they will usually do so.They might prefer a gaudy 100-foot tallsign, but they will settle for the 20-foottall sign everybody else has.13

When it comes to quantifying theeconomic benefits of planning (as opposed tocost savings), Power documents extensively thebenefits that accrue to local economies thatrecognize, preserve, and capture the value ofhigh quality natural and socialenvironments—efforts that by definition entailland use planning and control. Among thosebenefits are the dollars spent by newcomers, the“multiplier effect” of those dollars turning overin the local economy, the jobs that are

consequently created (at least one for eachworking-aged newcomer, Power says),expansion of local markets as they respond tothe additional activity, and even an increase ingovernmental dollars from programs that aregeared to population size. In summary, ifdemand for quality of life—social, cultural,natural, and other amenities—outstrips supply(and it does), the price for that quality oflife—the development value of it—will go up. 14

In some states, there may be additionaleconomic benefits to planning. For example,legislators in Kentucky are considering a stateplanning law that would provide incentives forlocal areas to plan—extra credit for communitydevelopment block grants, capital projects,transportation projects, Economic DevelopmentCabinet initiatives, and the like. To get thoseincentives, localities will need to formulatecomprehensive plans that, among other things,designate areas that will remain open fordevelopment and areas that will be preserved. Inthose latter areas, dubbed “Limited ServiceAreas,” municipal services will not be extended,provided, or upgraded by any government. Theeffect will be to create growth boundaries akin toLexington-Fayette County’s Urban ServiceBoundary.

Planning in Appalachia. The story ofHarlan County, deep in the Appalachian Hills,is a stereotypical rural hard luck story—one ofisolation, dependence on extractive industry, andeconomic downturn. The unemployment ratesits at more than three times the state averageafter mechanization and other changes in thecoal industry reduced jobs by half. Poverty, lackof modern infrastructure and facilities, and fewdevelopment alternatives are part of the samestory. But there is hope; Harlan County is notwithout assets or alternatives.

In the spring of 1999, a group of localofficials, business owners, and citizens met todiscuss ways of promoting economicdevelopment in the county. Figuring thatrecruitment for the area’s industrial parks wasbetter left to the state, the group settled onpromoting recreational tourism to takeadvantage of the region’s scenic beauty,proximity to historic tourist attracts inneighboring counties, and relatively easy accessfor large numbers of people. The only problem:70-80 percent of land in the county is privatelyowned by coal and timber companies who



intend one day to harvest it. Consequently, theland is not for sale and, in some cases,unavailable even for use because of liabilityconcerns.

While the county has no planning orzoning, the group did hit on a land use solution:easements. The group is currently seeking waysfor the county to obtain easements on the landthat will allow for the development of trails andother recreational facilities while absolving thelandowners of liability. If that can be achieved,the group believes that more tourists can belured to the county for hiking, horseback riding,canoeing, and other activities that will helpHarlan’s ailing economy. And once thathappens, the next logical step will be thedevelopment of support services—hotels,restaurants, and the like. Rob Miller, CountyExtension Agent in Harlan, says that ultimatelyplanning and zoning may be necessary toaccommodate and guide the development that ishoped for. Instituting it will, however, “becontentious.”

Planning in Indiana. Pike County in thesouthwest corner of Indiana has the only coal-dependent economy in the state. And thoughper capita income is not that low, the countysuffers from a wage disparity between coal andpower plant jobs and low-paying service jobs, astagnant economy, and population loss. LikeHarlan County, however, there is a bright spotand land use planning plays a role.

Hoping to build its economic future bysupplying and serving the Toyota plant innearby Princeton, Pike County recentlycompleted a comprehensive land use plan, andzoning ordinances are expected to follow. Theplan—part of a systematic effort to properly planfor community and economicdevelopment—addresses the fact that newbusiness prospects want local land use planningand zoning to protect investments they mightmake. According to Karen Dearlove, ExecutiveDirector of the Indiana 15 Regional PlanningCommission, that is a big issue for areas with nozoning or land-use regulations in place. Indeed,the lack of local land use planning and zoninghas hampered the local economic developmentcorporation’s efforts to promote Pike County asa location for business development.

Which Way From Here?In spite of the benefits, many communities

have not planned adequately, if indeed at all, forfuture land use. Take Kentucky for example.While Kentucky has a state planning law on thebooks, critics say it is largely ineffective, with nosanctions requiring planning and no incentivespromoting it. As a result, 27 of Kentucky’s 120counties have no planning either at the countyor city level. Planning in the other 93 countiesvaries—in some, planning efforts are donejointly between the county and cities within thecounty, in others, cities plan independently.

In addition, the forces against change arestrong. Burchell and Shad elaborate.

First, current development continues to bepopular because of the short-term benefits thataccrue to households and businesses as opposedto the long-term costs that accrue to society.

Second, current development is closelyaligned with traditional American landconversion that has been characterized as a‘prairie’ philosophy. According to thisphilosophy, land is available in unlimited supplyto be converted to developed uses, and it is theresponsibility of both political jurisdictions andprofessionals in the development arena to ensurethat land is ready for development, regardless ofcost (Delafons, 1962).15

A third factor that operates in favor ofcontinuing current development trends is thatthe costs of this type of development have notbeen made explicit to the public. Sprawl is a‘build now, pay later’ land-use pattern, asopposed to the ‘pay as you grow’ land-usepattern of compact growth. (Michigan Societyof Planning Officials 1995).16 That is, thephysical and social costs of current developmenthave been and will be borne by current andfuture populations. As a result, to the individualthey appear small.17

Further explanation of the first point isfound in Burchell and Listokin.

The reason that this process goes on isthat traditional development, in theshort run, is not all that bad for theregion. Traditional development is anefficient distribution of economicactivities in both a macro and microsense (Muller 1981).18 Firms and peopleare distributed to localities thatminimize individual out-of-pocketcosts. Shopping and journey to work



trips have the greatest amount offreedom and the shortest times,reflecting this allocation of development(Muller 1986).19

Traditional development also has acleansing and regenerative effect. Itprovides a new market-drivenalternative when existing economicentities become dated ordifficult/inconvenient to access. Further,traditional development is a bellwetherfor change. It senses the cutting edge ofthe desires of consumers and casts thatsense in new development product atpreferred locations. Moving outwardfrom a dated or inconvenient core is theeasiest individual solution and whatconsumers seek in most marketplaces.The larger societal costs or impacts ofthese development patterns are notconsidered when the firm’s orindividual’s choices are made to pursuethem.20

Only time will tell whether these forces,combined with the philosophical opposition toplanning that is prevalent in the United Statesand perhaps more so in rural areas, will holdsway over the mounting pressure to promoteplanning and smart growth. In all likelihood,however, rural places—especially remote and/orlagging ones—will be among the last to adoptland use planning despite its many benefits.

Footnotes1. T. Daniels, J. Keller, and M. Lapping, TheSmalltown Planning Handbook , (Washington,DC: American Planning Association, 1988) p.3.

2. Time, (March 22, 1999) p. 48.

3. Lori Garkovich, Frequently Asked QuestionsAbout Land Use Planning and Zoning (Universityof Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service, July1999).

4. David Burchell and Naveed Shad, “ANational Perspective on Land Use PolicyAlternatives and Consequences,” paperpresented at National Farm Foundation’sNational Public Policy Education Conference(Portland, Oregon: September, 1998).5. American Farmland Trust.

6. Robert Burchell and David Listokin, TheEconomic Effects of Trend Versus Vision Growth inthe Lexington Metropolitan Area (Lexington,Bluegrass Tomorrow) 1995.

7. Economic Research Service, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture. Rural Conditions and Trends.(Washington, DC) Vol. 9, No. 2.8. Lori Garkovich, Nelson County EconomicDevelopment Plan (Nelson County, Kentucky:September 1999).

9. Ibid

10. Ibid

11. Rural Conditions and Trends.

12. Thomas M. Power, Lost Landscapes andFailed Economies: The Search for a Value of Place.(Washington, DC: Island Press, 1996) p. 237-238.

13. Edward T. McMahon on Planners Webwww.plannersweb.com

14. Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies.

15. Delafons, John. 1962. Land Use Controls inthe United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard-MIT Joint Center for Urban Studies. Cited inBurchell and Shad.

16. Michigan Society of Planning Officials.1995. Patterns on the Land: Our Choices−OurFuture. Rochester, Michigan: Michigan Societyof Planning Officials. Cited in Burchell andShad.

17. Burchell and Shad, p. 11

18. Muller, Peter. 1981. Contemporary SuburbanAmerica. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Cited in Burchell and Listokin.

19. Muller, Peter. 1986. “Transportation andurban form: Stages in the spatial evolution of theAmerican metropolis.” In Susan Hanson (ed.),Geography of Urban Transportation. New York:Guilford Press. Cited in Burchell and Listokin.

20. Burchell and Listokin. p. 44.

development by design: land use planning and … by design: land use planning and regulation in...

Documents