There have been a few posts made criticizing the role of State Planning Agencies in land use planning and their effectiveness in implementing Smart Growth Statewide. The underlying axiom in the profession describes local governments being on ground zero and consequenly having a better idea of implementation of a community vision as depicted in the comprehensive plan. Based on the headlines and articles that are continuing to inundate the mainstream describing the lack of workforce housing, I would argue that local governments give ground to the 'market' and spend too much time focusing on compliance with development ordinance guidelines rather than ensuring the housing needs of all the residents are met.
In Florida, the State Planning Agency is delegated by Chp 163 Pt.II of the F.S. to ensure local municipalities provide housing for residents of all socio-economic categories. Now local governments are starting to demonstrate dissonance with the Department when a land use amendment proposal for a 'market' development is denied based on inadequate demonstration of affordable housing land use amenmdents in addition to the typical 2 du/ac request. Should more States begin to develop a planning model that incorportates a 'Top down approach' whether than bottom up or out? and if so, should SPA be given more statutory enforcement power if local governments fail to comply? This design appears to provide more options for planners at the local level who carry diffidence towards municipalities that aren't doing enough for the workforce community.