Planning

Bob Botsch

Copyright 2012

Ambivalence in culture wrt planning and why planning by government is

controversial

• Planning pits community well-being and values against individual property rights

• When government enforces plans, resentment taps general distrust of government, part of our national and southern culture

• E.g., building codes

Why local government lost power after the American Revolution

• Direct grants of power to local government from the King were dissolved by revolution

• States took over as new “king” (“Dillon’s rule”—the state is legal king over local governments

• More emphasis on individual rights, including property rights, than on local government powers

Three movements circa 1900 to improve quality of life in cities

• Public Health: clean water, sewers, and ventilation to fight disease

• City Beautiful: parks, open spaces, zoos to enhance quality of life

• Municipal Improvement Movement: a cheaper way of enhancing quality of life—regulations and zoning rather than buying land (Aiken Co Land Trust)

• All three still exist in various forms

Five Characteristics of Planning

1. Continuous process2. Feedback -- so that plans are constantly

updated3. Future oriented with realistic goals

(hopefully)4. Set sequence of steps to organize

decision making5. Relies on consensus to help achieve

goals

Five factors that affect the legal framework of planning

1. Federalism—affected by both state/nat law

2. Separation of powers—all branches affect

3. Fragmentation—different kinds of local governments including “private govts”

4. Constitutional restrictions—e.g. “takings” clause in 5th amendment

5. Public control over private property—”police powers” over health, safety, nuisances

Why planning is political and roles planner/actors play in process

• When government makes policy that affects private property and businesses, groups will try to influence that policy—politics!

• Alternative roles/styles of planners1. Neutral technicians—lay out facts, seek balance

2. Advocates—take position, seek facts to support

3. Brokers—bring sides together, art of possible

4. Entrepreneurs—creative ways to reach goals

5. Mobilizers—seek out groups for support

6. Change agents—most radical, have agenda

How federal government promoted planning in states in 1960s

• Through grants, e.g. Urban Renewal, highway beautification, Community Development, War on Poverty programs

• These grants encouraged planning aimed at a wide range of social ills

Contemporary issues that encourage planning

• Congestion and sprawl

• Environmental concerns, like energy usage and preserving green space to combat global warming

• Energy independence as a national goal

Focus of most state level planning in SC during 1900s

• For about 75-80 years, restrict development so that dominant industries (textiles that need cheap labor) not challenged

• Since then, promote economic development, the new “king” in the state

Local comprehensive planning in mid 1900s and today

• More widespread today, all local governments involved

• Much greater public participation mandated by guidelines in federal grants

• Covers a wider range of elements today, including social and economic aspects of community life as well as buildings

Five phases of the planning process

1. Research—collect/analyze info about community

2. Clarification of community goals—surveys and meetings

3. Plan formulation and review4. Implementation5. Review and revision as put in place an

evaluated—provides feedback for 5 year reviews

Three Basic Components of all Comprehensive Plans

• Inventory of existing conditions—where we are wrt; population, economy, culture, housing, land use, natural resources, and community facilities

• Statement of needs and goals—major issues that need action, based on surveys, citizen public meetings

• Implementation strategies and timeframes

Alternative tools to implement comprehensive plans

• Zoning

• Land development regulations (PUD’s)

• Historic/architectural controls (Historic Aiken)

• Environmental regulations

• Official map—what government wants in the future along with locations of roads, parks, open space

History of public involvement in planning

• Began with 1909 plan in Chicago pushed by elite citizens wanting expenditures to create parks, etc

• During LBJ years, grants required maximum feasible citizen participation

• 1970s local activist groups began to pressure officials to consider impacts

• Today have citizen advisory groups, surveys, informational meetings—officials know plans will not work w/o citizen support

Birth and Changing Roles of COG’s (10 in SC—LSCOG here)

• Regional problems cross over existing city and county lines—need regional approach

• COG’s born out of federal grants in 1960s that required they be created

• Did regional planning associated with grants• Today act as forum, some planning, provide

services/assistance to local govts, collect and share data, administer state/fed grants, and promote economic development for area

Growth Management and its associated conflicts

• Managing growth so as to preserve open space and walkability and environment, balancing growth with quality of life factors and preserving communities while providing affordable housing and limiting congestion, making sure infrastructure exists before development is allowed

• Causes limits on property use—inevitable conflict, e.g. the “Town and Country” plan in Richland County

“Sustainability’ in modern planning

• Many meanings relating to the well-being of community

• American Planning Association characteristics– Minimum impact on natural resources– Equity across generations– Satisfying basic human needs– Living within natural capacity of environment

Smart Growth and its objectives

Can be seen as: The environmental movement meets growth planning

– Minimal reliance on cars, more walkways & bikeways

– Mixed use of land—housing near recreation, schools, and basic services

– Increasing housing density with shared greenspace

– Smaller building “footprints”– Reuse of older buildings and factories– Maximize open space and wetlands

Impact fees and South Carolina

• Up-front tax paid on new development to pay cost of infrastructure, including even schools—idea is that growth should pay for itself, not be paid for by older residents

• Reality is that local governments lose money on almost all housing developments

• 1999 law that allows impact fees are so restrictive that they are rarely used—measure of power of real estate/development/construction interests

“New Urbanism” and how reflected in some SC cities

• Beaufort SC claims to have created the model others have followed

• Mixed use areas with small footprints where people can walk (sidewalks) to get all services

• Downtown Aiken is attempting this if you look at how it has developed

“Property Rights Movement”

• Counter movement to smartgrowth and land use planning

• Idea captured in Lucas v. SC Coastal Council—successful claim based on “takings clause” in 5th Amendment because it took away ALL value

• Goal is to minimize government regulation of property usage by owners, including even zoning that may reduce market value of land

• The debate over the proper balance will go on