A Wisconsin Perspective
Bear with me through the statutory references, but Wisconsin adopted "Smart Growth" legislation a few years back. It was developed without aid from professional planners (At least none that take credit now!), and was not debated, but tacked on as a rider to the state's biennial budget. We're now stuck with HORRIBLE smart growth laws that actually PROMOTE SPRAWL. So don't blame the local planner and local elected official, we had no say in the process.
Here's the *draft* position statement being proposed by our local municipal executives:
D R A F T
Feb. 17, 2003
THE IMPACT OF "SMART GROWTH" LEGISLATION ON THE PHYSICAL AND FISCAL CHARACTER OF CITIES, VILLAGES AND TOWNS IN WAUKESHA COUNTY AND THE STATE
Introduction
By passage of sections 1606 and 1606m of 1999 Assembly Bill 133 and its approval by Governor Thompson, the State Legislature created what amounts to far reaching and potentially very costly changes in Wisconsin planning enabling legislation. The result of the legislatures and governor's actions in this regard became Section 66.1001, Comprehensive Planning, of Wisconsin statutes as well as modifications to the original Wisconsin planning law (Sec. 62.23). The major modifications to Sec. 62.23, which, incidentally, has long been recognized by planning professionals throughout the country as one of the best state planning laws in the land, was accomplished without widespread knowledge of and input from the very people/entities that bear the brunt of the impact of the modification, ie; the municipal, county and regional planners throughout the state and their bosses. If someone wants to avoid debate on proposed legislation, the traditional course of action is to attach it to the state biennial budget bill. In 1999, that was Assembly Bill 133.
The question could be asked, and would have been if an opportunity had been given; what purpose or value to local government throughout the state does the new law, Sec. 66.1001, serve? Perhaps more importantly, what does this new legislation accomplish that could not be accomplished at less cost under Sec. 62.23 of Wis. statutes, with, perhaps, slight modification?
Specific Concerns
Purportedly, one of the primary reasons the 'smart growth' legislation was drafted was to thwart 'urban sprawl'. It will accomplish just the opposite. The new law ensures that urban sprawl will still occur and will even be more easily accomplished because Sec. 66.1001 requires that all land must be zoned for its future, planned use. That is not the way to manage land use development and virtually ties the hands of a municipality in trying to do so. Zoning land for uses that are not planned to be in place for five, ten or 20 years encourages "leap-frogging" of current development to gain cheaper land or more advantageous (for the developer) circumstances and causes utilities to be extended into non-urban areas. That's urban sprawl!
If the smart growth legislation was drafted to mandate that every municipality create a 'comprehensive plan', the new legislation was not needed because that was already mandated under Sec. 62.23 (and still is) but never enforced by the state.
If the smart growth legislation was drafted to ease the process by which land developers must develop land, that has been accomplished at the possible expense of good community growth/development management. (See above).
If the smart growth legislation was drafted to place municipalities in the business of actually providing housing, it accomplishes that by mandate.
If smart growth legislation was designed to interject local government into heretofore private enterprises such as health care and child care, it will accomplish that by mandate.
If the smart growth legislation was drafted to create work for planning consultants, it will do that. Each of the 1,850 units of local government plus the 72 counties in Wisconsin are mandated by this legislation to create a 'comprehensive plan' by January 1, 2010 or have no legal basis for any local land use related action such as: zoning/rezoning, land division, zoning appeals, redevelopment, street and highway expansion, park development, and, possibly utility extension/expansion. There are probably not enough qualified urban/rural planners in Wisconsin to accomplish the preparation of a truly comprehensive plan for each of the units of government by the statutory deadline. The average cost per county for the municipalities to produce comprehensive plans that will meet the requirements of Sec. 66.1001 has been estimated to be $500,000. That converts to at least a $37 million expenditure statewide. One local, primarily rural, town in Waukesha County is already spending over $100,000 to create such a plan for the town. Some counties have budgeted $1 million.
Why Should Section 66.1001 Be A Concern To Municipalities?
'Planning', as referred to in both Sec. 62.23 and Sec. 66.1001 of Wis. Statutes, means the preparation of a plan or plans for a governmental unit or geographic area such as; a city, village, town, county, multi-county/multi-community region, watershed, basin or utility service area. It can also mean the preparation of a plan or plans for individual elements/uses within such geographic/governmental areas, such as; park/recreation areas/uses, commercial or industrial areas/uses, 'downtowns', residential areas, institutional uses, and so on. The reference to 'plans' also implies that such plans will be made for, at least, a long-range period of time (20+ years) as mandated by the legislation. The reference to 'a master plan' (Sec. 62.23) or 'comprehensive plan' (Sec. 66.1001) means the preparation of a governmental/geographic area plan encompassing all elements of physical development (Sec. 62.23) or a specific list of such elements (Sec. 66.1001).
Importantly, it should be noted that planning as referred to is, first and foremost, a process by which a plan is first conceived, is outlined, discussed by those preparing the plan, authorized, prepared in whole, in phases, stages or elements, is discussed in a public forum, revised, reviewed, adopted, and ultimately implemented. Moreover, the plan prepared as a part of the planning process is really only the beginning. The full implementation of the plan, over a period of many years, is the end product. Because of the complex nature of a comprehensive or master plan and the traditional staff and funding limitations of government entities, the "process" of preparing and implementing such a plan is never ending --- assuming the state, regional, county, and local units and agencies of government involved are serious about plan implementation. During the process the plan may be changed. Section 62.23, as originally created by the legislature in the early 1950s, very wisely allows and, indeed, presumes that a master (comprehensive) plan will be prepared or constructed in major elements or phases in a rational sequence over time and each element or phase adopted and implementation begun as it is completed. New Sec. 66.1001, on the other hand, requires that all of the nine (9) specific complex elements of the mandated comprehensive plan must be adopted by the municipalities governing body before any planning related actions can be accomplished by the municipality or county involved after December 31, 2009. If all elements aren't so encompassed and adopted to the satisfaction of the WIS-Department of Administration (DOA), that municipality will, presumably, have to shutdown its land use planning/development/implementation (zoning/platting) operations. The legislation (Sec. 66.1001) is not clear as to what happens when the mandate is not met. Again, presumably, the municipality that does not complete the mandate by December 31, 2009 will no longer be able to zone/rezone land or approve certified survey maps and preliminary/final plats or extend utilities or issue permits for the construction of buildings and land development.
The Bottom Line
The mandates and structure of the new "smart growth" legislation (Sec. 66.1001) creates undue hardship on every local, county and regional unit of government in the state in regard to both long-range and day-to-day planning/operations as well as the funding of these activities. More importantly, strict adherence to Sec. 66.1001 will effectively place municipal officials in the state in a minority position as relates to growth management, land development, rezoning of land, land division, extension of utilities and, importantly, change in tax base/rate. Instead of having control over the growth and development of their community, local government officials will only be able to react to the wishes of private landowners and prospective landowners who may not have the best interest of the entire community at heart. The resulting development and the accommodation of its infrastructure could be a financial burden to the community.
The Municipal Executives of Waukesha County request that Sec. 66.1001 be repealed and the wording deleted from Sec. 62.23 in 1999 be reinstated; or, in the alternative, an ad hoc committee comprised of representative municipal, county and regional planners from throughout the state be formed by the governor to convene for no more than a one year period to draft legislation to replace or modify current Sec. 66.1001.