|
land use planning. Jacobs (1992) sees land use planning
<br />as a modernist conception challenged by postmodern
<br />phenomena, including a populist citizen movement, a
<br />redefinition of private property rights, and growing
<br />computer literary. Again, these factors affect land use
<br />planning without rendering it obsolete.
<br />2. In growth- managing states, regulations for local com-
<br />prehensive plans typically specify the content of the
<br />land use elements. For example, Florida's 9J -5 rules re-
<br />quire maps of existing and proposed land use in all local
<br />plans prepared in that state. Not only, are local plans
<br />mandatory in Florida, but also they must include realis-
<br />tic capital improvement programs, be adopted by the
<br />governing body, and be revised every five years. There
<br />is evidence that stare planning mandates improve the
<br />quality of local plans (Berke and French, 1994).
<br />3. The land use plan typically is one element of a compre-
<br />hensive or general plan, which also includes other ele-
<br />ments, such as transportation, community facilities,
<br />and economic development. We acknowledge that these:,
<br />are related to land use decisions, but here we limit our
<br />attention to land use.,
<br />4. In the late 1940s more than SO percent of all planning
<br />directors in dries with populations over 25,000 were
<br />still appointed by planning commissions. The commis -,
<br />sion was the client for .the plan, and therefore the plan
<br />was not seen as something tied closely to implemenra-
<br />tion. By 1971 only. 18 percent of planning directors were
<br />appointed by such commissions, most being appointed
<br />instead by chief executives, and working directly in the
<br />executive branch (sometimes working for the planning
<br />commission as a second boss) (reported in Brooks,
<br />1988). It was only natural that planning became more
<br />closely linked to decision making, and the role of plans
<br />was increasingly seen as more closely linked to decisions
<br />and implementation.
<br />S. Through the end of 1964, the 701 program had allo-
<br />cated $79 million in grants for planning in 4,462 locali-
<br />ties (cited in Black 1968). By its peak, 1971 through
<br />1975, the program was allocating approximately $100
<br />million a year. At its rescindment in 1981, the program
<br />had appropriated over $1 billion to comprehensive plan-
<br />ning (Feiss 1985, 182).
<br />6. Kent's book was later summarized by Alan Black, who
<br />worked originally with Kent, in a chapter on the "The
<br />Comprehensive Plan" in the 1968 edition of Principles
<br />and Practice of Urban Planning (the planner's "big green
<br />bible "), which summarizes the state of the art of plan-
<br />ning practice in the 1960s (Black 1968). In testimony to
<br />the staying power of Kent's concept of the plan, the
<br />book was republished in 1991, virtually unchanged.
<br />7. Chapin's ideas, like those of Kent, had staying power.
<br />However, to keep pace with advances in methodology,
<br />his book appeared in a third edition in 1979 and in a
<br />fourth edition in 1995 (Chapin and Kaiser 1979; Kaiser,
<br />Godschalk, and Chapin 1995).
<br />8. A late 1970s survey, "The State of the Art in Local Plan-
<br />ning," looked at 27 communities nominated by con -
<br />suliing firms and HUD staff as having 'especially
<br />�s
<br />TWEN71ETH CENTURY LAND USE PLANNING
<br />interesting or effective master plans" (Fishman 1978,
<br />appendix to chapter 5). Examples of our prototypes in-
<br />cluded Philadelphia (land use design), Boulder and Pe-
<br />taluma (growth management. plan), Cleveland and
<br />Dallas (policies plan). The report looked at a number
<br />of distinguishing plan features, including whether they
<br />were top down or bottom up, the physical versus social
<br />nature of their goals, the inclusion of maps, the pro -
<br />cesses for plan preparation and revision, implements
<br />don strategies, and citizen participation approaches.
<br />9. Social issues, such as segregation, unemployment,
<br />crime, and community disintegration, are primarily ad-
<br />dressed through the housing and economic develop -
<br />ment elements of comprehensive plans, although there
<br />are linkages to land use through neighborhood plans,
<br />community facility programs, and public investment
<br />strategies.
<br />10. In this respect, the Howard County Plan also has some
<br />similarities to the prototype land classification plan.
<br />11. For an account of the politics behind the plan (the plan
<br />was adopted but the county executive and planning di-
<br />rector lost their positions) and an assessment of the les-
<br />sons of the planning process, see Avin and Mennitto
<br />(1992):
<br />12. Classification plans usually include more than just the
<br />two basic types of districts— development and nondevel
<br />opment. For example, the urban area might be divided
<br />into a "developed" area, consisting of the built -up cen-
<br />tral city and older suburbs, and a "transition" area,
<br />which is undeveloped or only partially developed at the
<br />time of the plan. The transition area might be divided
<br />into districts to be developed earlier (e.g, first 10 years)
<br />and districts to be developed later (e.g., years 10 -20). A
<br />"rural" area might be divided into agricultural districts
<br />with a policy of long -range commitment to agricultural
<br />and forest uses, and less critical rural districts that
<br />could become urban transition in the future. "Environ-
<br />mentally critical" area might be divided into areas with
<br />specific critical environmental processes, _e.g, wetlands
<br />being designated as separate from water supply water-
<br />sheds, with each having its 'own policies and develop -
<br />ment standards.
<br />13. Adapted. from plans for Breckenridge, Colorado, 1977,
<br />1987, Gresham, Oregon, 1980; Sam�bel, Florida, 1981;
<br />' and Hardin County, Kentucky, 1985; see also Fagin
<br />1959, 1965; American Law Institute 1976.
<br />14. The idea of plan as course of action originated in the
<br />1960s as planning theory incorporated notions from
<br />policy analysis and business administration into the ra.-
<br />donal planning model, broadening the design concept
<br />of a plan. These new concepts stressed means as much
<br />as ends, and shifted the role of government from facili-
<br />tating private development to proactive guidance of
<br />growth.
<br />15, codification of the action requirements of land use
<br />Plans can be found in the regulations implementing the
<br />Florida and Oregon growth management gets. Florida
<br />requires the provision of infrastructure "concurrently"
<br />with future. development (DeGrove 1992,16 -7). Oregon
<br />APA JOURNAL- SUMMER 1995 1383
<br />
|