Not Losing the Ground beneath Our Feet - State of Oregon

listsmart.osl.state.or.us

Not Losing the Ground beneath Our Feet - State of Oregon

Not Losing the Ground beneath

Our Feet

Growth Management in the United States and

its Transferability to Germany

Report in the context of the

McCloy Fellowship in Environmental Affairs 2010

Dr. Andrea Jonas


Not Losing the Ground beneath Our Feet

Growth Management in the United States and its Transferability to Germany

This report summarizes the results of around 30 interviews conducted during a

three-week-long research trip to the United States in November/December 2010.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the American Council on Germany for granting me the fellowship

that enabled me to conduct this research. In particular, I would like to thank

Robin Cammarota for her great help during the preparations for the trip.

I would also like to thank Prof. Dr. Claus-Christian Wiegandt for his great

support.

This research would not have been possible without the outstanding help

provided by all of my interview partners. I would very much like to thank them

for the interesting interviews, for generous invitations to lunch and dinner, for

taking me on road-trips through their towns, for all books, maps, plans and

documents and for giving me an impression of planning in the United States.

Contact: andreajonas@gmx.de

Bonn, Germany, 2011

2


1. Introduction

“A Land of Concrete” (“Ein Land aus

Beton”) is the term that the German

newspaper ‘Die Zeit’ has used to describe

the current process of land consumption

and urban sprawl in Germany (GROHE

2002). An area equivalent to about 100

soccer fields is used every day for housing

or commercial purposes or to build streets.

While the population is stagnating, the

consumption of farm and forest land for

settlement and transportation is still

increasing (Figure 1).

Reducing the consumption of land and

encouraging sustainable land

management is a central objective behind

Germany's Sustainable Development

Strategy (DIE BUNDESREGIERUNG 2008,

p.143). This will be implemented using a

dual strategy combining qualitative and

quantitative targets and involving the

protection of open space by developing

the inner cities (qualitative target) and the

reduction of urban sprawl. The German

Federal Government has set the goal of

reducing land consumption for new

settlement and transport-related areas

from the current rate of 115 hectares

per day to 30 hectares (= 74 acres) per

day by 2020 (quantitative target). The role

Figure 1

of planning is central for this target

(WWW.REFINA-INFO.DE).

In the United States, sprawling

development patterns have become one of

the leading land-use concerns (FREILICH in

DANIELS 2001, p. 271). Between 1982 und

2002, the US population increased by

24.2% and the amount of developed land

grew by 46.3% (INGRAM ET AL. 2009, p.3).

This led to economic, social and

environmental problems. In order to solve

these problems, some states developed

programs for settlement policies. Growth

management programs aim to protect

environmentally sensitive areas, reduce

sprawl and improve the quality of spatial

development (KELLY 1993). At least 14

states have adopted growth management

programs (CARRUTHERS 2002b, p.391).

The long tradition of growth management

in the United States and the problems in

achieving Germany’s 30-hectare target

with the existing land use tools mean that

a look at the different approaches used in

the US is worthwhile.

3


This report focuses on the questions as to

which different tools and techniques of

regulation for growth management are

used in the US, how effective these tools

are and what Germany can learn from the

United States.

Growth management programs in the

United States vary from state to state.

Based on a case study approach, three

states with different regulatory systems,

different traditions and different settlement

structures were chosen: Oregon, Florida

and New Jersey. The report begins by

introducing different tools and techniques

for land use planning. The effectiveness of

growth management is, however, not only

a result of a single tool or technique but of

a combination of different tools and many

other factors. The planning systems of

each of the three case studies are

therefore described separately in the next

part of the report. The paper ends with a

transfer of the American approach to the

German situation.

2. Growth Management and Smart

Growth in the United States

The concept of growth management was

born in the late 1960s. An upcoming

interest in environmental protection was

the reason for many early growth

management programs. In its beginnings,

it seemed that growth “management” was

synonymous with growth “control”. The

regulation systems were primarily

developed in order to slow down or even

to stop settlement development (PORTER

2007, p.4).

Growth management can be described as

“a wide range of land use planning

techniques that determine the amount,

type, and rate of development in a given

community and attempt to steer such

development where most appropriate

based on infrastructure, development

constraints, environmental factors, and the

like” (SOULE 2006, p.461).

PORTER (2007, p.6) defines several key

aspects of growth management:

Growth management is a dynamic

process. It is more than a plan and

more than an action program: It is a

continuous proactive process of

evaluating current trends and

management results and updating both

objectives and methods.

Growth management provides a means

of anticipating and accommodating

development needs.

Growth management programs provide

a forum and process for determining an

appropriate balance between

competing development goals.

Growth management encourages

communities to reach beyond their selfserving

interests in future development

in order to reflect needs and goals

throughout the region (PORTER 2007,

p.6).

Nowadays, the term of “smart growth” is

often used. This is a more “inclusive term

for programs that address regional, state,

and federal roles, pay greater heed to

environmental concerns, and focus on

location and design of infrastructure as

well as private development” (WICKERS-

HAM 2006, p.56). The concept is similar to

that of growth management but uses more

positive-sounding terminology (STARNES &

RUBINO 2008, p.350).

Smart Growth Principles

Compact Building Design

Create Range of Housing Opportunities

and Choices

Create Walkable Neighborhoods

Encourage Community and

Stakeholder Collaboration

Foster Distinctive, Attractive

Communities with a Strong Sense of

Place

Make Development Decisions

Predictable, Fair and Cost Effective

Mix Land Uses

Preserve Open Space, Farmland,

Natural Beauty and Critical

Environmental Areas

Provide a Variety of Transportation

Choices

Strengthen and Direct Development

Towards Existing Communities

(www.smartgrowth.org)


Figure 2: The Urban Growth Boundary for the Portland Metropolitan Area

Source: www.metro-region.org

3. Growth Management Principles

Techniques and regulation systems for

growth management vary from state to

state. Studies have identified 57 varieties

of tools and techniques (GLEESON ET AL. IN

PORTER 2007, p.7). This report focuses on

the principles that are used in the three

case studies: containment, concurrency,

incentives, centers / planning areas,

environmental and open space

conservation, consistency and evaluation.

3.1 Urban Containment

Urban containment aims to preserve

public goods, minimize fiscal burdens and

reduce adverse interactions between land

uses whilst maximizing positive

interactions, improving the equitable

distribution of the benefits of growth and

enhancing quality of life. These goals

should be achieved by “choreographing

public infrastructure investment, land use

and development regulation and deploying

incentives and disincentives to influence

the rate, timing, intensity, mix, and location

of growth” (NELSON 2004, p.237). Urban

containment regulates the development of

land outside a defined urban area whilst

encouraging infill development and

redevelopment inside the urban area

(NELSON 2004, p.237).

One containment tool is an urban growth

boundary (UGB). UGBs are mapped lines

that separate areas in which development

should take place and areas in which

growth will be prohibited or discouraged.

Urban growth boundaries were first used

in Portland, Oregon (HALL & TEWDWR-

JONES 2011, p.245). Nowadays, the

statewide growth management program

requires all cities in Oregon to define

urban growth boundaries. This is unique in

the United States (Interview OR).

The benefits of an urban growth boundary

are multifaceted: The tool prevents the

extension of urban facilities into rural

5


areas and helps to prevent sprawl. It can

also stimulate urban restructuring due to

land shortage and ensures more compact

development. Urban growth boundaries

help to develop and redevelop land and

buildings in the urban core and to use the

existing infrastructure more efficiently.

Instead of building a new infrastructure,

money can be spent to make the existing

infrastructure more effective. Other

positive aspects of this tool are the

predictability of where urbanization will

occur in advance and being able to direct

private investments (MECK 2002).

Nevertheless, there is a lot of criticism

about urban growth boundaries. A

controversial discussion exists with regard

to UGBs (or growth management

programs in general) and housing prices

(i.e. CARRUTHERS 2002a, DOWNS 2002,

2000b, O´TOOLE 2007, WICKERSHAM

2006). By limiting the supply of

developable land, a UGB can increase the

demand for property, and as the demand

for property increases, so do property

values. Most of my interview partners in

Oregon did not agree with these critiques.

Housing prices in the metropolitan area of

Portland are no different from those in

other metropolitan areas. In comparison to

other states (e.g. California), housing in

Oregon is seen as more affordable.

ANTHONY DOWNS’ analysis indicates that

Portland had the fastest-rising house

prices between 1990 and 1994, although

its housing was by no means the most

expensive in the nation or even in the

west. In the period between 1994 and

2000, Portland was not even in the top 10

of 86 metropolitan areas (DOWNS 2002,

p.12).

There are indeed more factors that

influence housing prices than just the

UGB. CARRUTHERS wrote that ”while land

may be more expansive in Oregon due to

the increased densities created by growth

management, the effect is balanced out by

creating an abundance of housing supply

with high-density zoning” (2002a, p.1976).

Nevertheless, many interview partners in

Oregon consider the process of UGB

expansion to be too expensive, especially

for smaller towns. From the perspective of

some interview partners, the UGB is

successful in stopping development

outside the UGB but it has problems in

regulating development inside the

boundary. “You can stop a development

you don’t want to have, but you can’t

support a development you want to have.

We can stop single-family housing, but we

can’t make multi-family housing happen.”

(Interview OR)

All in all, most interviewees in Oregon

confirmed the effectiveness of the UGB in

the Oregon growth management program.

Would it also be a suitable tool for Florida

and New Jersey?

UGBs are not mandatory in Florida, but

Florida’s model allows and strongly

encourages their use. Interview partners in

Florida and New Jersey said that UGBs

are a very good tool for Oregon. The

natural boundaries (sea and mountains)

are helpful for the Oregon model, but not

easily transferable to Florida and New

Jersey. “The idea of taking a line around a

development is hard when the

development across the line looks exactly

the same as inside the line”, argued a

planner in Florida. It would be nice to have

this tool in Florida, but an implementation

for all towns is not seen as realistic at the

moment. Are cities in Florida with a UGB

more successful than cities without one?

These cities have some success, but

interview partners were unable to state

whether they are able to manage growth

more effectively.

From a New Jersey perspective it is now

too late to implement a mandatory UGB in

their planning model because New Jersey

has sprawled to nearly all of its corners. “It

is a lot easier to do it in places like Oregon

because they are relatively new; they build

into new places. In New Jersey the state is

developed. We have a lot more history. It

is a lot harder to change things that are in

place than create something new.”

A second approach of containment, which

is, for example, adopted in New Jersey

and Florida, is the urban service boundary

(USB), also known as urban services area

(USA). The state will not finance

infrastructure extensions outside these

boundaries (HALL & TEWDWR-JONES 2011,

p.246). Florida’s USAs are not as

restricted as Oregon’s UGB because

development outside these boundaries is

still possible if infrastructure capacity

exists or will be provided in the near future

6


(CHAPIN 2007, p.8). Florida's growth

management enables local governments

to adopt containment strategies, although

few have done so (NELSON 2004, p.238).

One city that adopted a USA is Florida’s

Capital: Tallahassee. The city’s

Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1990

and regulations like a USA were

implemented in 1992. Empirical studies

(HALL 2005) indicate a distinct change in

density at the urban services boundary.

The average lot size inside the USA is

0.55 acres, while outside of the USA it is

2.61 acres. One goal of Tallahassee’s

Comprehensive Plan aimed to direct

growth inwards and encourage urban fill

and it has been successful in doing so.

The average dwelling unit per acre rose

from 1.6 in 1992 to 2.5 in 2002 inside the

USA. Outside the USA, the average size

of dwelling units was constant at 0.36

dwelling units per acre (HALL 2005, p.1).

The analysis made by PAMELA HALL shows

that the Comprehensive Plan has enabled

the location and density of residential

development to be regulated without

lowering the quantity of new houses and

the creation of residential lots (HALL 2005,

p.2).

3.2 Concurrency

The aim of concurrency is to provide

adequate infrastructure and public

services as development comes on line. It

is crucial for redirecting, rather than

prohibiting, development. This tool is a key

component in several state programs,

especially in Florida. “This provision

requires that a local government cannot

approve a private development project

unless there will be adequate

infrastructure capacity at the time of

project completion” (BOLLENS 1992,

p.460). Development should go to areas

where there are roads, water and sewer.

Areas without these services should be

protected (BOLLENS 1992, p.460).

Florida’s concurrency provision requires

local governments to ensure that the

proposed development will not erode

minimum standards for the levels of

service provided by infrastructure facilities.

Concurrency is central for the planning

system in Florida (CHAPIN 2007, p.9).

Experts labeled the principle as

theoretically good, but it failed in Florida.

The good thing about concurrency is that it

is based on infrastructure needs. The

decision makers have to think in terms of

the impact, “they have to look ahead”.

Nevertheless, the development in Florida

took place where the most land was

available, namely in the suburbs and not in

the urban areas. The concurrency forced

growth to exurban areas and contributed

to urban sprawl (CARRUTHERS 2002a,

p.1975). The process is described as

being too complicated and too

comprehensive (Interview FL).

In New Jersey, the State Planning Act

requires that the State Plan “promote

development and redevelopment in a

manner consistent with sound planning

and where infrastructure can be provided

at private expense or with reasonable

expenditures of public funds” (NJ OFFICE

OF STATE PLANNING 1997, p.iv).

3.3 Incentives (Sticks and Carrots)

Incentives are used to stimulate

developments in preferred areas, for

example for compact development,

infrastructure or mixed-use developments

or to stop unwanted developments.

Carrots can be given by a region, state or

national authority. Most states offer grants

or technical assistance to municipalities for

the preparation of their plans

(WICKERSHAM 2006, p.47). In Oregon, the

state and federal governments spent $12

million on planning grants for local

governments between 1997-2007 (INGRAM

ET AL. 2009, p.193).

Sanctions (sticks) are a form of stopping

unwanted developments and are used, for

example, in Florida (CHAPIN 2007, p.17).

The state can withhold funding if local

plans do not follow the State Plan. This

approach has been described as a

successful tool because it causes most

local governments to change their plans

(Interview FL).

7


Figure 3: The Policy Map of the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan

Source: http://nj.gov/dca/divisions/osg/images/stateplanmapjpeg.jpg

8


3.4 Centers and Planning Areas

One way to guide growth is the

identification of centers and planning

areas. The aim of this tool is to direct

development to locations served by

existing or planned facilities and away

from environmental resources. This tool is

a key target of the State Development and

Redevelopment Plan in New Jersey (MECK

& ZELINKA, 2007, p.11). The State Plan

and plan map define five center

categories:

Urban Centers are the largest

designated centers. They have the

most diverse mix of industry,

commerce, services, residences and

cultural facilities.

Regional Centers are characterized by

a compact mix of residential,

commercial, and public use facilities.

They serve a large surrounding area

and are developed at an intensity that

makes public transportation feasible.

Towns are centers of commerce or

government with diverse residential

neighborhoods.

Villages are primarily residential

locations that offer limited public

facilities, consumer services and

community activities.

Hamlets are small-scale residential

settlements.

The plan map also shows three different

planning areas. Areas for Growth are

Metropolitan Areas, Suburban Planning

Areas and Designated Centers in all

planning areas. Areas for Limited Growth

are Fringe Planning Areas, Rural Planning

Areas and Environmentally Sensitive

Planning Areas. In these areas, planning

should promote a balance of conservation

and limited growth. Areas for Conservation

are Fringe Planning Areas, Rural Planning

Areas and Environmentally Sensitive

Areas (MECK & ZELINKA, 2007, p.11-12).

Planning Areas are large masses of land,

whereas centers are “central places” within

these planning areas (NJ OFFICE OF STATE

PLANNING 1997, p.45). Similar to an UGB,

planning areas are served by urban

infrastructure. “The boundaries of those

areas constitute a boundary to urban

growth on a larger scale (NJ OFFICE OF

STATE PLANNING 1997, p.45). Services in

the Fringe, Rural or Environmentally

Sensitive Areas are limited.

New Brunswick, New Jersey:

Build out? Build up! Growth

Management in a Designated Center

New Brunswick, a transit city with a

population of about 50,000, is a

designated center in the New Jersey State

Development and Redevelopment Plan.

The city’s population density of 9,287

people per square mile is much higher

than the New Jersey average of 1,134 (US

Census 2009). New Brunswick is located

in the Northeast Corridor, one of the

busiest railway lines in the nation, which

connects New York and Philadelphia.

New Brunswick, New Jersey

In the 1970s, downtown New Brunswick

was becoming a desolate, obsolete and

sometimes dangerous place, “but the rail

commuters offered a glimmer of hope”

(CAHILL 2011, p.10). The urban renewal

strategy beyond this development was to

remove industrial buildings and homes

and replace them with parking lots or highrise

public housing. A new downtown

strategy was needed and this was created

with the aim of establishing new jobs, new

homes, mixed-use buildings, a higher

density, bike lanes and a better connection

between the railway station and the city.

The census data show the success of this

strategy: After 30 years of stagnant

population growth the city is now one of

9


the fastest growing urban centers in New

Jersey (CAHILL 2011, p.11).

Even if some experts would say that the

city has reached its “maximum build out”

the chosen growth management strategy

is pro-growth. A pro-growth strategy does

not necessarily mean land consumption on

green fields. “We are almost taking

existing buildings that are there, knocking

them down and putting in something that

is more intensively developed. If there is

something being built now, it doesn’t mean

you can’t build something bigger there

tomorrow.” (Interview NJ) Living in

downtown is also popular and is

encouraged by the city, for example with a

25-story mixed-use building.

3.5 Environmental and Open Space

Conservation

All three case studies incorporate some

form of environmental and open space

conservation in their growth management

programs. One method to protect valuable

natural land is acquisition. 50% of the land

in Oregon is Federal Land, in Florida 10%

and in New Jersey 3% (INGRAM ET AL.

2009, p.25).

A major goal of Oregon’s growth

management program is the preservation

of farmland. Nearly all identified farmland

(approximately 26% of all land) is zoned

for exclusive farm use (INGRAM ET AL.

2009, p.191; NELSON 1992, p.472).

Most interview partners mentioned that

they are doing well with their protection of

open space. Experts in Florida and New

Jersey said that they can do better, but

that the system is working reasonably. It is

seen as more successful than in a lot of

other states of the US.

A further model of conservation of open

space and farmland is the transfer of

development rights (TDR). This marketbased

instrument aims to protect open

space, especially farmland, prevent urban

sprawl and promote downtown growth or

historic preservation. The tool reflects the

strong role of property rights in the United

States. If a parcel of land is designated as

farmland, the value of the land is much

lower than the value of a parcel of land in

a growth area. The TDR programs allow

farmland owners to transfer the right of

development of land and permit them to

recoup some of the lost value by selling

TDRs to developers. Development is

shifted from farmland (or other

environmentally sensitive areas) to

designated growth areas (AFT 2001). A

TDR program requires the designation of a

‘sending area’ from which development

rights are created and sold and a

‘receiving area’ where development rights

can be used to build in a higher-density

area (PEDDLE 1997, p.9; SÜESS &

GMÜNDER 2005, p.60). Buying these rights

allows the new owner to build at a higher

density than ordinarily permitted by the

zoning. All rights are transferred to the

buyer. When the credits are sold, land

cannot be developed anymore. Most

transactions are between private land

owners and developers. The

establishment of a bank that buys the

rights with public funds and sells the rights

to private landowners can be helpful.

Prices for land rise and fall based on how

desirable development is in the region.

Natural resources are preserved with

private funds and not with public funds (NJ

FUTURE 2010, p.5)

Two types of TDR exist: an intra-municipal

and a regional program. In the intramunicipal

program, local governments

identify both sending and receiving areas

within their town boundaries. The regional

model is used for small inter-municipal

programs involving two or more towns (NJ

FUTURE 2010, p.12).

The AFT listed 17 states and 53 local

governments with a TDR program. In 18

local governments, the program is

established but not used and only 15

programs have protected more than 100

acres of farmland (AFT 2001).

In New Jersey, the TDR program was

introduced in the 1980s and exists on

three local levels and one regional level.

Only one TDR system is fully functioning

and one is in progress, shaving been

implemented in 1973 and started in the

last few years (Interview NJ). The

Pinelands Development Credit Program

preserved more than 49,000 acres and is

therefore the most successful example of

TDR in the nation (STATE TDR BANK

BOARD 2007, p.5).

10


Some interview partners have said that

TDR is the best thing that has ever

happened. They described it as a

successful land use tool that preserves a

lot of land. It is, however considered to be

a very expensive and complicated

principle. “All of these new tools have

costs and benefits. To make them work

better, they must be complicated.

Complicated sometimes means fair. Then

it takes twice as long and costs twice as

much money and then people don’t want

to do it because it is so hard. […] It is very

hard to get people to make the decision to

spend $1 million or $10 million to make the

program run.” (Interview NJ) A TDR can

work if the guidelines are clear and it stops

growth without stripping rights from

landowners. It preserves the rights of

landowners and protects land and is an

important tool for simultaneously achieving

both land preservation and economic

growth (NJ FUTURE 2010, p.5).

Despite all these benefits, it is important to

remember that “TDR is not smart growth

itself” (PLAN SMART NJ 2010, p.4). Studies

show that areas with a TDR program have

success in protecting land in sending

areas. “Outright purchase with public

funds, significant down-zoning and other

regulations have saved much more

farmland and environmentally sensitive

areas” (PLAN SMART NJ 2010, p.4). The

problems of TDR systems concern a lack

of incentives, coordination and assistance

by state agencies to adopt a TDR program

due to the complex process involving

detailed planning, fiscal impacts of

accelerated growth and the difficulty of

finding receiving districts for regional TDR

programs (NJ FUTURE 2010, PLAN SMART

NJ 2010).

“At their best, TDR programs are effective

open space measures. At their worst, they

are expensive, do not necessarily

preserve the local farming economy, and

can turn farmland regions into exclusive

enclaves of affluent estate holders, while

destroying productive framing” (NELSON

1992, p.471).

A TDR program is a market-based

concept. In such an economic

development, the tool does not regulate

land use but it does stop growth because

builders cannot afford to buy the credits

(Interview NJ).

3.6 Consistency

To make sure that the goals and ideas of

the state growth management programs

are considered by the local governments,

state or regional agencies review local

plans. Three types of consistency exist:

the vertical consistency between different

governmental levels (i.e. environment,

transportation and economic levels), the

horizontal consistency between the

planning levels (local, regional and state)

and an internal consistency between the

local comprehensive plan and the land

development regulations (INGRAM ET AL.

2009, p.155; WICKERSHAM 2006, p.46-48).

The Oregon planning system has two

different review approaches on the

horizontal level (between the state and the

locals): a periodic review and a postacknowledgement

review. The periodic

review should figure out how successful

plans and regulations have been

implemented state goals. Local

governments are required to evaluate

plans in order to identify weaknesses and

to develop a work program to make

improvements (INGRAM ET AL., 2009,

p.193). Only five of the 19 statewide goals

must be reviewed periodically: housing,

economic development, transportation,

public facilities and services, and

urbanization (OREGON DEPARTMENT OF

LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

2007, p. 6). The second review, postacknowledgement

plan amendments, is

initiated by the local government with

regard to property owners who want to

make a change in land use. The state

reviews these changes in terms of their

consistency with the goals. The state

receives around 4,000 postacknowledgement

reviews each year

(INGRAM ET AL. 2009, p.193).

Consistency is one of the three key

elements of Florida’s planning system.

Consistency is necessary between the

three planning levels (state, region and

local), between the different government

levels and between the local plans and the

land development regulations (RUBINO &

STARNES 2008, p.327-328; INGRAM ET AL.

2009, p.155).

11


The state reviews all local plan

amendments in terms of their consistency

with the state plan but because of the

volume of plan amendments (up to 12,000

per year), the influence is limited (INGRAM

ET AL. 2009, p.158). About 90% of the local

plan amendments are approved with

minimal modifications (Interview FL).

The Opportunity to Right Wrongdoings –

An Example from Florida

A decision by the Florida Supreme Court

shows that planning can be extremely

powerful. A developer wanted to increase

the density of his building project to 136

rental units in 19 two-story buildings

instead of 29 single-family houses.

Despite the fact that citizens of the

adjacent neighborhood objected to the

change in the intensity of land use, the

developer obtained approval for his

building project from the County

Commission. The decision was, however,

overruled by the Appellate Court and the

State Supreme Court. The developer had

continued construction during this process

and therefore had to remove the existing

buildings. This example shows “that there

is opportunity to right wrongdoings under

the law”, even if it only rarely happens

(RUBINO & STARNES 2008, p.407-408).

Consistency is mandatory in Oregon and

in Florida. In New Jersey it is voluntary.

Each municipality and county is

encouraged to submit their plan to the

state. The counties review the local

comprehensive plans and the state

reviews the county plans. This plan

endorsement “means the process

undertaken by regional agencies, counties

and municipalities to have local plans

endorsed by the State Planning

Commission” (NJ SDRP 2001, p.330).

Alongside the state, the municipalities also

have the opportunity to reflect on the State

Plan. “During the ‘cross-acceptance’

process, local and country governments

review the State Plan and the State Plan

map, and compare them to their

comprehensive plans” (NJ OFFICE OF

STATE PLANNING 1997, p.46). With this

principle, the state enables county and

local governments to be involved in the

planning process and to reduce conflicts

between the different planning levels.

While there is no penalty for inconsistency,

municipalities with a plan that is consistent

with the State Plan may be given the

greater legal standing (NJ OFFICE OF

STATE PLANNING 1997, p.45). Only those

municipalities receive the top level of

funding priority (MECK & ZELINKA, 2007,

p.42).

The local planners that I talked to did not

focus much attention on the crossacceptance

process. It is too complicated

and is very time consuming. Furthermore,

it is so expensive that not all municipalities

can participate in the planning process.

This means that the municipalities that

have the money become involved and get

the proper planning and subsidies from the

state.

34% of the municipalities received plan

endorsement or center designation

between 1993 and 1999 (NJ SDRP,

p.275). It is the state target to ensure that

100% of local plans are consistent with the

State Plan (NJ SDRP, p.13).

3.7 Evaluation

A periodic evaluation and monitoring of

planning tools and techniques can help to

improve the planning process and to

identify strengths and weakness.

New Jersey’s State Planning Act requires

a monitoring and evaluation program as a

component of the state planning process.

The State Development and

Redevelopment Plan define five areas that

have to be evaluated and list variables that

will be continually monitored (p.12-13):

1. Economic

Key indicator: new development,

population and employment located in

the Metropolitan and Suburban

Planning Areas or within Centers in the

Fringe, Rural and Environmentally

Sensitive Planning Areas

Examples of additional indicators:

income, unemployment, the conversion

of farmland for development and the

percentage of brownfield site

redevelopment

12


2. Environmental

Key indicator: the amount of land

permanently dedicated to open space

and farmland preservation

Examples of additional indicators:

greenhouse gas emission, the

conversion of land per person and

economic output per unit of energy

consumed

3. Infrastructure

Key indicator: meet present and

prospective needs for public

infrastructure systems

Examples of additional indicators: the

percentage of all trips to work made by

carpool, public transportation, bicycle,

walking or working at home, vehicle

miles traveled per capita and the

increase in transit ridership

4. Community life

Key indicator: progress in

socioeconomic revitalization for the 68

municipalities eligible for Urban

Coordinating Council assistance

Examples of additional indicators:

annual production of affordable housing

units and the percentage of New Jersey

households paying more than 30

percent of their pre-tax household

income towards housing

5. Intergovernmental Coordination

Key indicator: the degree to which local

plans and state agency plans are

consistent with the State Plan

Examples of additional indicators:

municipalities participating in

comprehensive multi-jurisdiction

regional planning process consistent

with the State Plan, the percentage of

land in New Jersey covered by adopted

watershed management plans and the

number of neighborhood empowerment

plans approved by the Urban

Coordinating Council

Although the State Development and

Redevelopment Plan lists all of these

indicators, there have been no “formal,

full-scale, after-the-fact evaluation” of the

State Plan (INGRAM ET AL. 2009, p.183).

In Oregon, the effort of an evaluation was

undertaken in 2005. Known as the “Big

Look”, the legislature established a

10-member Task Force to conduct a

comprehensive review of the state

planning system. The major issues were:

The effectiveness of Oregon’s land use

planning program in meeting the

current and future needs of Oregonians

in all parts of the state;

The respective roles and

responsibilities of state and local

governments in land use planning; and

Land use issues specific to areas inside

and outside urban growth boundaries.

(OREGON TASK FORCE ON LAND USE

PLANNING 2009, p.i)

When asked about the success of the Big

Look many experts mentioned that the

process was not successful and did not

bring any results.

Under the Florida law, an evaluation of

local comprehensive plans is required. “At

least once every seven years following the

adaption of a plan, a local government

must submit to the state a report that

evaluates and appraises the success or

failure of its comprehensive plan” (RUBINO

& STARNES 2008, p.286-287).

Furthermore, a biannual revision of the

plan amendment process is required

(INGRAM ET AL. 2009, p.58).

Despite the fact that this seven-year

update is required, I was informed that it is

not carried out by all municipalities. Some

of the towns even complete their first

review after 20 years, when they should

actually be submitting their 3rd review.

Nevertheless, the evaluation process was

described as a very valuable process.

Some cities rewrite their plans completely

after the evaluation; others simplified their

plans (Interview FL).

An evaluation of the State Plan is not

required and has not been carried out up

to this point. One planner stated that it

would, however, be helpful.

13


4. Oregon

“There are two things people hate: They

hate density, and they hate sprawl.

Coming to terms with how you

accommodate growth, or slow growth,

while still maintaining the quality of your

community life is a real challenge here."

(John Kitzhaber, Governor of Oregon, 2000) 1

The Oregon statewide planning program is

known as one of the most comprehensive

and successful growth management

programs in the United States

(CARRUTHERS 2002a, p.1976).

Furthermore, the Oregon program is one

of the oldest programs in the nation and

has been used by other states as a model

for the development of their own growth

management programs (CHAPIN 2007,

INGRAM ET AL. 2009, p.189, SOULE 2006,

p.46). It was established in 1973 and

consists of 19 statewide goals.

Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals

1. Citizen Involvement

2. Land Use Planning

3. Agricultural Lands

4. Forest Lands

5. Natural Resources, Scenic and

Historic Areas and Open Spaces

6. Air, Water and Land Resources

Quality

7. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters

and Hazards

8. Recreational Needs

9. Economic Development

10. Housing

11. Public Facilities and Services

12. Transportation

13. Energy Conservation

14. Urbanization

15. Willamette River Greenway

16. Estuarine Resources

17. Costal Shorelands

18. Beaches and Dunes

19. Ocean Resources

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF LAND

CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT (2001)

Are any of these goals more important

than others? Although the program does

not intend to make any goal more

important than others, interview partners

identified competition between these

goals. Most experts mentioned goal 14

(Urbanization) as being more significant.

The appraisal of standings of the other

goals was very different, with references

being made to goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12.

Some interview partners considered goal 9

(Economic Development) to not be strong

enough and goal 6 (Air, Water and Land

Resources Quality) to be a minor goal, not

because it is unimportant, but because it is

a topic of other state agencies. The

Oregon model does not have a state plan

map; local governments do the planning

and the state reviews the local plans in

terms of their consistency with the

statewide goals (INGRAM ET AL. 2009,

p.189). Each city and county must have a

comprehensive plan.

It is not only local plans that are required

to conform with the state land use

planning goals; state agencies and special

districts (including sewer, water irrigation,

mass transit and port districts) must also

adhere to these goals (INGRAM ET AL.

2009, p.190).

Portland, Oregon

The two core principles of the Oregon

planning system are the zoning for farm

and forest land and the urban growth

boundary (UGB), which work hand in hand

(Interview OR). Each city or metropolitan

area has an UGB that separates urban

land from rural land. As mentioned above

(chapter 3.1), the main critique about this

land use tool is the assumption that house

prices go up when a UGB is implemented.

14


Nevertheless, even if the Oregon growth

management required every city to have

an UGB, it also requires all cities to

provide a variety of housing locations,

types and densities (goal 10). Multi-family

housing is therefore present in every city

and is mostly more affordable than single

family houses.

Regional planning takes place in the

Metropolitan Area of Portland, which is

known as one of the most successful

example of regional planning in the United

States (PORTER 2007, p. 216). The Metro

Council is directly elected by the region’s

voters as a regional government. This is

unique in the United States. Metro is

responsible for comprehensive planning in

the region and for the Metro UGB,

transportation, conservation, the

convention center of Portland, the zoo and

transportation. A lot of tasks are dealt with

by one single entity. More than 1.5 million

residents live in the region, which consists

of 25 towns (www.metro-region.org).

The Oregon model is described by several

interview partners as being successful in

protecting open space (farm and forest

land) but less successful in protecting

scenic views and wildlife habitats or

creating compact development.

Other experts mentioned that the Oregon

model focuses too much attention on the

UGB (“there are many other tools”) and

that it does not pay enough attention to

developments inside the UGB. The

Oregon model concentrates more on the

preservation of land and less on the

economy and housing (Interview OR).

Oregon

So what makes the Oregon land use

model successful?

The growth management program was

enacted at a very unique point in history,

when leaderships and citizens were

concerned about urban sprawl and the

loss of open space. Development patterns

in California were seen as an example that

many Oregonians did not want to have.

The role of Governor McCall, who

established the state system for managing

growth, the influence of environmental and

advocacy groups like 1000 Friends of

Oregon or the Oregon Home Builders

Association, is another important factor in

the successful implementation of the

Oregon land use model (Interview OR).

Portland, Oregon

“Social culture” is the term used by most of

my interview partners when they described

the reason why Oregon is different from

other states. The citizens have a deep

connection with the land and they value

the land.

The strong role of the state and the topdown

regulatory system are also

considered to be important factors:

“Without a statewide planning system

Oregon would look completely different!”

(Interview OR).

The Oregon model is restrictive, but is it

too restrictive? Some would say “yes” but

there are no suggestions as to which

regulations can be cancelled. Some

interviewees consider the model to be too

complicated and too time-consuming.

So what should be changed in the system

and what can be improved? One

improvement would be better funding of

planning: “We need to buy regional

planning with dollars”. The planning is

15


often too complicated for smaller towns

because they cannot finance the required

studies or the transportation planning.

More attention should also be paid to

existing settlement structures: “What do

we make with the already built

environment and how do we make

investments that preserve the heritage of

these communities?” (Interview OR)

One interview partner would like to see

more power on the local level. Interview

partners mentioned a regular update of

local comprehensive plans as another

improvement. Some plans were

implemented in the 1980s and have not

been updated until now.

5. Florida

“Florida is in terrible shape right now –

it’s almost impossible to believe how

much more terrible it would have been if

we hadn’t had a growth management

act.” (Interview FL)

Florida’s State Comprehensive Plan was

adopted in 1985 and includes long-range

policy guidance for the social, economic

and physical growth of the state. The

system is based on an integrated concept

of state, regional and local planning

initiatives. All local governments must

have a comprehensive plan. As in Oregon,

Florida does not have a land use map, but

unlike Oregon it does not have one core

planning principle.

Another similarity that Florida shares with

Oregon is that its growth management

program developed from concerns about

sprawl and negative environmental

impacts such as the deteriorating

conditions in the Everglades (CHAPIN

2007, p.6). The role of Governors is also

essential in Florida. Without the efforts of

political leaders, it is unlikely that the

Growth Management Act would have been

passed (CHAPIN 2007, p.13).

Florida has developed many rigorous

planning processes and its model is

described as “the most aggressive and farreaching

growth management approach

this nation has yet seen” (CHAPIN,

CONNERLY & HIGGINS 2007, p.2). It

borrows a lot from the Oregon model

(CHAPIN 2007, p.6) but “takes it to the next

level” (Interview FL). “Based upon the

three Cs of consistency, concurrency and

compact urban form, Florida’s smart

growth program centers upon a detailed,

far-reaching comprehensive planning

process, one that originally called for

important roles for state, regional, and

local agencies” (INGRAM ET AL. 2009,

p.154). It is described as a “nearly perfect

vision” (INGRAM ET AL. 2009, p.154)

because every local government must

plan and must show where the

development takes place. The state offers

different tools for land use like urban

growth boundaries or urban services

areas. The three planning levels (state,

region and local) are considered to be very

positive (Interview FL). Local

comprehensive plans “are to be ‘living

documents’ with annual changes via the

amendment process and a scheduled

major update through the evaluation and

appraisal report processes” (INGRAM ET AL.

2009, p.154).

Florida’s growth management program is

sometimes called a “command and

control” principle, but it can be better

described as a “state-mandated but locally

implemented system” (INGRAM ET AL. 2009,

p.155). Its emphasis is less upon a spatial

determination of development outcomes

and more upon establishing infrastructure

and urban services to support the state’s

massive growth (CHAPIN 2007, p.9).

Tallahassee, Florida

Positive results of the program are cleaner

water, better infrastructure, more compact

development and investment in land

conservation (Interview FL). Florida is,

however, not doing well in promoting high

density, mixed-use and multi-model

16


traveling. It is in particular failing where

transportation concurrency policy is

concerned (Interview FL). Florida’s

overcrowded urban roadways and its weak

public transportation system mean that

urban development takes place at

greenfield sites (INGRAM ET AL. 2009,

p.159). Other factors for the failure of the

system are seen in the growth pressure

and in the ups and downs of the planning

status (Interview FL).

Florida has implemented a new model of

growth management that hasn’t been tried

anywhere else. “You don’t know where the

mistakes are – the mistakes begin to show

themselves in the process. […] We were

better implementing a few pieces – trying

them – learning – adding to them.”

As a result, some changes were made and

exceptions were implemented. These

exceptions are seen as a problem by

some experts. One interview partner

described Florida’s planning system as a

very good idea, but noted that the problem

lies in its implementation.

Another problem of the Floridian planning

system involves an enormous

development potential of undeveloped

land in the local comprehensive plans.

When the state program was adopted, the

local zoning at the time was integrated into

the state plan via a bottom-up-approach.

“Almost every comprehensive plan in

Florida was frontloaded with more

development potential than the population

growth and the prospect of new big

developments that could be seen in a

planning horizon of 10 to 20 years. […]

What is the meaning of a land use

planning process when there is that much

development potential?”

Tallahassee, Florida

So what can be improved in Florida’s

planning system? More vision is

considered to be one potential

improvement, but it is not clear which

vision is concerned and whose vision this

is (Interview FL). Despite the fact that

Florida is one of the few states in the US

to have a statewide regional planning

level, this level is very weak. Most

interview partners want more power on the

regional level.

As in Oregon, Floridian experts are in

support of providing more money to local

governments for their low income houses,

for infill development or for green space.

But this would mean raising taxes.

Another improvement could be the

provision of better planning education,

both for citizens and elected officials

(Interview FL).

6. New Jersey

“New Jersey, far more densely populated

than any other state - more crowded

than Japan or India, for that matter - is

on course for another distinction: it will

be the first state, land-use experts say,

to exhaust its supply of land available for

development.”

(The New York Times 2003)²

The first State Planning Act in New Jersey

was adopted in 1986. Whereas concerns

about sprawl and negative environmental

impacts were the main reason behind

Oregon and Florida’s Growth Management

Programs, the topic of affordable housing

was central for New Jersey. The New

Jersey Supreme Court decided as early as

1975 that all municipalities must require a

fair share of affordable housing within their

larger region (Mount Laurel). The State

Planning Act was an attempt to integrate

the topic of affordable housing and issues

of land use, transportation, economic

development and environmental protection

(GALE 1992, p.433). Furthermore, a

continued decline of older central cities

and enormous growth in areas like the

Route 1 corridor led to the political

necessity of a State Plan (GALE 1992,

p.434).

The Act defined a statewide planning

process and gave local and county

17


governments the opportunity to participate

in the planning process (crossacceptance)

(NJ OFFICE OF STATE

PLANNING 1997, p.44).

A preparation of a local master plan is not

mandatory in New Jersey, but if

municipalities want to enact a zoning

ordinance, they must adopt the land use

element and a housing element of a

master plan (MECK & ZELINKA 2007, p.2).

New Jersey’s municipalities can establish

planning boards, which are able to prepare

and adopt a master plan and a zoning

board of adjustments to deal with appeals

and interpretations (INGRAM ET AL. 2009,

p.181).

Local governments are strongly

encouraged to develop a local

comprehensive plan that is consistent with

the eight state planning goals (Interview

NJ). These goals should be achieved by

promoting compact patterns of

development adequately served by

infrastructure (NJ SDRP 2001, p.24).

State Planning Goals

1. Revitalize the State’s Cities and

Towns

2. Conserve the State’s Natural

Resources and Systems

3. Promote Beneficial Economic Growth,

Development and Renewal for All

Residents of New Jersey

4. Protect the Environment, Prevent and

Clean Up Pollution

5. Provide Adequate Public Facilities and

Services at a Reasonable Cost

6. Provide Adequate Housing at

Reasonable Cost

7. Preserve and Enhance Areas with

Historic, Cultural, Scenic, Open Space

and Recreational Value

8. Ensure Sound and Integrated

Planning and Implementation

Statewide

(NJ SDRP 2001, p.25-96)

The State Development and

Redevelopment Plan were described by

interview partners as a “vision”, a

“blueprint” or a “guidance”. Its focus is on

building more compact developments,

urban revitalization and the preservation of

rural and environmentally sensitive land

(Interview NJ). There is no main land use

tool like in Oregon, but two key elements

of the state plan are centers and planning

areas (chapter 3.4). Another important

aspect is cross-acceptance (chapter 3.6).

Regional Planning takes place in three

regions: the New Jersey Meadowlands,

the Highlands and the Pinelands. The

regional commissions have regulatory

power that completely or partially

preempts local government control (MECK

& ZELINKA 2007, p.15). These regional

planning authorities are successful in

curbing sprawl (Interview NJ).

Furthermore, strengths of the New Jersey

planning system are seen in the TDR

program and the cross-acceptance

(Interview NJ). Some interviewees

mentioned that New Jersey is doing well in

providing affordable housing.

The voluntary approach of the New Jersey

State Plan means that it is not considered

to be strong (Interview NJ). More power is

present on the local level, with the ‘home

rule’ approach giving power to the 566

municipalities. “Every municipality can do

anything that it wants to do with regard to

land use, with regard to anything as long

as it is not forbidden in the state

constitution laws.” (Interview NJ).

Princeton, New Jersey

So what are possible improvements for the

New Jersey Planning System? Some

interview partners see a need for a vision

or a target. There is no direction being

given from the state at present.

Furthermore, a regional perspective would

be helpful. “Most locals are only looking at

their little piece of pie.” “There is a gap

18


etween the state and the locals. You step

down immediately from the state level to

566 little entities.” (Interview NJ)

The protection of open space is very

fragmented. It is not easy to say how

much land is zoned for open space

because the zoning varies from town to

town. There is no state standard and a

leadership of the state is missing

(Interview NJ).

7. Transferability of the Growth

Management Approaches in the US

to Germany

The three case studies have shown that it

is difficult to even transfer land use tools

from one state to another state. Are US

land use tools and mechanisms

transferable to Germany? My interview

partners were of different opinions and

responses ranged from “Do you really

think you can learn something from us?” to

“If we can’t get it [a TDR program] done

here, we should see it in Germany”.

In comparison to the United States,

planning in Germany is mandatory on a

state, regional and local level. The land

use regulation tools used also vary from

region to region. The dimensions of urban

sprawl are certainly bigger in the United

States than in Western Europe, but, as

shown in the first section of this report,

growth management and the reduction of

land consumption also form a topical issue

in Germany.

The US tools cannot be transferred to the

German situation on a 1:1 basis, but there

are more similarities than one may think:

Land Use Tools

In some ways, German land use tools

work in a similar manner to the US

approach. The zoning for the protection of

natural resources or farm und forest land

works in a similar way to Germany’s

provision or priority areas for landscape or

natural resource preservation. In addition,

Germany’s central-place concept, which

can be found in nearly all regional plans,

has a similar function to New Jersey’s

centers and planning areas. These are just

two examples of similarities between the

tools used in the two nations.

Organizational Matters

One of the most successful land use

planning models in the United States is the

Metro Portland model, in which the Metro

Council is directly elected as a regional

government. The most successful regional

planning in Germany also takes place in

regions, with a directly elected regional

government (Hanover and Stuttgart

regions). A directly elected regional body

offers a stronger position for regional

planning and combines several functions

in one entity (e.g. planning, transportation

and the conservation of natural

resources).

More Success in Protecting Open Space

than in Promoting Compact Development

Growth management tools and techniques

vary between Germany and the United

States but both approaches are more

successful in protecting open space than

promoting compact development or high

density.

Tax Regulations

In order to understand urban sprawl, it is

essential to take a look at municipal tax

policy (SOULE 2006, p.6). US

municipalities rely more on property tax

assessments and less on income tax

(NELSON & SANCHEZ 2005, p.46), which is

more important in Germany. Commercial

and industrial growth offers a benefit to

towns in the US, because they consume

fewer services than their taxes provide.

Residential growth – in contrast – is

problematic because it consumes more

services than the tax revenue offsets. This

process of “fiscal zoning” is another

influencing factor of growth management

(SOULE 2006, p.6-7).

German municipalities also make money

as a result of property taxes, but income

tax is also a very important aspect. An

increased population predominantly

means more money for the towns. In the

process of a declining population in

particular, communities compete against

each other for new inhabitants. A declining

population means that less people are

using public services like kindergartens,

schools, libraries, hospitals or mass

transit. If the amount of users is too small,

public services must be closed. If public

19


services are closed, the town is not

attractive to new residents.

The tax systems of the US and Germany

are different, but in both nations

municipalities have a financial interest in

using more land.

Political Support / The Status of Planning

“Wulff lays into spatial planners” was the

headline published by the German

“Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung”

newspaper in 2005. One of the reasons

behind the criticism made by the then

Minister-President of the German Federal

State of Lower Saxony, who is now the

President of the Federal Republic of

Germany, was that “the spatial planners at

the Ministry of Agriculture have repeatedly

failed to meet demands made by the

Cabinet to critically examine their activities

and identify savings opportunities to the

satisfaction of the State Chancellery of

Lower Saxony”.

The Minister-President of the German

Federal State of Bavaria, Horst Seehofer,

also actively advocated the abolition of the

State Plan (Landesentwicklungplan) and

the Regional Plans (Regionalpläne). He

declared this to be one of his political

objectives and a way of contributing

towards cutting red tape³.

The status of statewide planning in New

Jersey is ebbing right now, too. The State

Plan was updated but not implemented.

The current goal is not the management of

growth, but the support of economic

growth in times of an economic recession

(Interview NJ).

The current discussion in Florida is similar:

In February 2001, the Governor of Florida

Rick Scott accused the growth

management act of ”killing jobs all over the

state” 4 .

Interview partners in the United States and

Germany mentioned the meaning of

political support and the role of political

leaderships as extremely important factors

for the success of planning (see also

DUANY, PLATER-ZYBERK & SPECK 2010,

p.233).

Evaluation

The issue of the evaluation of planning is

related to the status of planning. To have a

regular look at techniques and tools used,

at their strengths and at their failures is a

central factor for the status of planning.

Where this issue is concerned, the

American planning model is a step ahead

of Germany. All three case studies have a

model of evaluation, but at different levels

(state or local level).

A regular evaluation of regional plans is

only mandatory in one of Germany’s

Federal States (Hessen), while an

evaluation of state or local plans is not

required anywhere.

If planners are unable to show why it is

important to have planning and why

taxpayers have to spend large amounts of

money on it, concerns about the existence

of the concept of statewide or regional

planning will continue (PRIEBS 2006,

p.103).

The Influence of Surrounding Conditions

Some interview partners consider high gas

prices to be more successful in promoting

high density and compact development

than all planning tools. The influence of

external framework conditions (e.g. federal

subsidies, population interests, population

growth, economic development or gas

prices) is a powerful aspect for planning.

“No matter how precise or fine or

comprehensive you make the regulation,

there is always one circumstance you

never anticipate; you can’t anticipate it or

someone figure out how to get around it

and then you have to create more

regulations and there is always

unattended size or consequences to it”

(Interview NJ). This statement made by a

planner in New Jersey shows that there a

lot more aspects than just tools and

techniques that need to be considered

when it comes to the question of the

effectiveness of planning.

The Review Process / Consistency

In Germany, the main focus is placed on

the (state or regional) plan itself, even

though it is well known that reviews (by the

state or by the regional authority) are the

most important regulation tool beside the

plan (HOSSE & SCHÜBEL 1998, p.19).

Germany’s regional planners consider

their power to be primarily located in the

review approach (WIECHMANN 2008,

p.123). The review process is mandatory

in all regions. Analysis shows (EINIG,

JONAS & ZASPEL 2011) that regional

20


planning can stop unwanted developments

with this process, similar to the case in the

aforementioned Floridian example.

Market-based Instruments

Currently, a lot of German researchers are

focusing their attention on America’s

market-based instruments (TDR

programs). So far, such a concept has not

yet been implemented in Germany,

although relevant ideas have been in

place since as early as the mid-1990s

(e.g. BIZER 1996, 1997). While the

American TDR approach is based on trade

between land owners and developers, the

German concept of tradable area

certificates concerns trade between

municipalities. The discussion on marketbased

tools, which has been an issue for

several years, particularly became more

significant as a result of the introduction of

the 30-hectare target of the German

Federal Government.

The German approach prefers to provide

all municipalities with a set amount of

certificates for a specific period (e.g. the

validity period of a Regional Plan, namely

around 10-15 years). Towns that want to

develop areas extending past this

allocation of certificates can acquire area

certificates from other municipalities. The

value of the certificates is based on the

demand but the principle according to

which the allocations should be distributed

is unclear. On the one hand, there are

suggestions that would prefer to keep the

distribution simple and only take the

population number and area size of the

municipalities into consideration (HENGER

& SCHRÖDER-SCHLAACK 2008) while on the

other hand, approaches want the

distribution of certificates to at least take

basic principles of state and regional

planning (e.g. the central place concept)

into account (OSTERTAG ET AL. 2010,

p.148).

Where the discussion on tradable area

certificates is concerned, it must be noted

that these only control the extent to which

areas can be claimed, but not the location.

The tool should therefore only be

considered to be an addition to existing

regional planning tools.

Given the different property rights, a direct

transfer of the American TDR programs

seems rather unrealistic. Nevertheless, the

experiences from the United States show

that the introduction of such a new tool

requires a great deal of staying power but

can be an effective measure to take.

Incentives

In Germany, the lack of financial

instruments is cited as an obstacle

preventing the success of regional

planning time and time again (FÜRST 2003,

p. 11; PRIEBS 1998, p. 210). Unlike some

American processes, non-local planning

(regional or state planning) in Germany is

unable to provide financial incentives for

certain developments (e.g. brownfield or

infill development) and sanctions cannot

be used to retain funds. There is also no

financial support available to municipalities

for the creation of plans.

The implementation of incentives as it is

done in the United States would be a

possible improvement for Germany.

8. Future Prospects

“Urban America is a land in transition and

at the start of a new millennium no one,

not even experts, is sure where it is going”

(HALL & TEWDWR-JONES 2011, p.247).

Over the past few decades, a lot of central

cities in the United States and in Germany

have witnessed decreases in their

population and number of jobs, while

suburban areas have been growing.

Nowadays, the signs of a reversal and a

trend for living in compact areas are seen

both in Germany and in the United States.

Current developments such as climate

change, rising gas prices or a decline in

population growth in Germany can

probably help to reduce land consumption

and create more compact development

and help to not lose the ground beneath

our feet.

Notes

1) http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/24/

nyregion/new-jersey-is-running-out-of-open-

land-it-can-build-on.html

2) http://cartt.4j.lane.edu/ttr/willamette/

kitzhaber.html

3) http://amann-ofterschwang.de/index.php?

articleid=28&action=show_news&id=

766&cat=1

4) http://www.kdvr.com/os-future-of-dca-

20110121,0,5785046.story?page=1

21


References

ANTHONY, J. (2004): Do State Growth

Management Regulations Reduce Sprawl?

Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 39, No. 3, p. 376-

397.

AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST (AFT) (2001): Fact

Sheet – Transfer of Development Rights.

(http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/3700

1/TDR_04-2008.pdf)

BIZER, K. (1996): Handelbare Flächenausweisungsrechte

zur Lenkung der

gemeindlichen Ausweisung von Siedlungs-

und Verkehrsflächen, in: Köhn, J. and M. J.

Welfens (eds): Neue Ansätze in der

Umweltökonomik, Ökologie und Wirtschaftsforschung,

Band 22, Marburg, 367-383.

BIZER, K. (1997): Marktanaloge Instrumente im

Natur- und Landschaftsschutz: eine

ökonomische Analyse des deutschen

Naturschutzrechts, Angewandte Umweltforschung,

Berlin.

BOLLENS, S. A. (1992): State Growth

Management. Intergovernmental Frameworks

and Policy Objectives. In: APA

Journal, Autumn 1992, p.454-466.

CAHILL, J.M. (2011): New Brunswick. How We

Are Growing and Thriving. New Jersey

Municipalities. Magazine of the New Jersey

State League of Municipalities.

Vol.88, No.1 January 2011, p.10-13.

(http://www.cityofnewbrunswick.org/09site/inc

ldes/NJLoMArticle.pdf)

CARRUTHERS, J.I. (2002a): The Impacts of

State Growth Management Programs: A

Comparative Analysis. Urban Studies, Vol.

39, No. 11, p.1959-1982.

CARRUTHERS, J.I. (2002b): Evaluation the

Effectiveness of Regulatory Growth

Management Programs. An analytic

Framework. Journal of Planning Education

and Research 21, p.391-405.

CHAPIN, T. (2007): From Growth Controls, to

Comprehensive Planning, to Smart Growth.

The Evolution of State Efforts to Manage

Growth. Conference paper 02.

(http://www.rff.org/rff/Events/upload/30208_1.

pdf)

CHAPIN, T.; CONNERLY, C. AND H. HIGGENS

(eds.) (2007): Growth Management in

Florida: Planning for Paradise. London.

DANIELS, T. (2001): Smart Growth: A New

American Approach to Regional Planning.

Planning Pratice and Research, Vol. 16, Nos

3/4, p.271-279.

DIE BUNDESREGIERUNG (2008): Fortschrittsbericht

2008 zur nationalen

Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie. Für ein nachhaltiges

Deutschland. Berlin.

DOWNS, A. (2002): Have Housing Prices Risen

Faster in Portland Than Elsewhere? Housing

Policy Debate. Vol. 13, Issue 1, p.7-31.

DUANY, A., PLATER-ZYBERK, E. AND J. SPECK

(2010): Suburban Nation. The rise of Sprawl

and the Decline of the American Dream. 10 th

Anniversary Edition. New York.

FÜRST, D. (2003): Einleitung: Steuerung durch

Regionalplanung. In: Fürst, D.; Löb, S.;

Rudolph, A. and K. Zimmermann (2003):

Steuerung durch Regionalplanung. Schriften

zur Rechtspolitologie, Band 15, Baden-

Baden, p. 11-15.

EINIG, K.; JONAS, A. AND B. ZASPEL (2011):

Evaluation von Regionalplänen. In: Bizer, K.;

Einig, K.; Köck, W. and S. Siedentop (Hrsg.):

Raumordnungsinstrumente zur Flächenverbrauchsreduktion,

Kapitel 3, Baden-Baden

(coming soon).

GALE, D.E. (1992): Eight State-Sponsored

Growth Management Programs. A

Comparative Analysis. In: APA Journal,

Autumn 1992, p.425-439.

GROHE, M. (2002): Ein Land aus Beton.

(http://www.zeit.de/2002/46/200246_flaechen

verbrauc.xml)

HALL, P. (2005): Residential lot vacancy,

availability and dwelling unit potential.

(http://www.curg.org/news/LeonResVacancy

2003.pdf)

HALL, P. AND M. TEWDWR-JONES (2011): Urban

and Regional Planning. 5th Edition. London,

New York.

HENGER, R. AND C. SCHRÖTER-SCHLAACK

(2008): Designoptionen für den Handel mit

Flächenausweisungsrechten in Deutschland.

Land use Economics and Planning –

Discussion Paper Series, Göttingen.

HOSSE, O. U. S. SCHÜBEL (1998): REK als

Beitrag zur kooperativen Regionalentwicklung

in Thüringen. In: Danielzyk, D.;

Lilienbecker-Hecht, U. and A. Priebs (eds.):

Regionale Entwicklungskonzepte – Beitrag

zur kooperativen Regionalentwicklung in

Ostdeutschland? Material zur Angewandten

Geographie, Band 36, Bonn, p.19-37.

INGRAM, G. K.; CARBONELL, A.; HONG,Y. AND A.

FLINT (2009): Smart Growth Policies: An

Evaluation of Programs and Outcomes.

Cambridge.

22


MECK, S. AND J. ZELINKA (2007): Planning and

Zoning in New Jersey. A Manual for Planning

and Zoning Board Members. New Brunswick,

New Jersey.

MECK, S. (2002): Growing Smart. Legislative

Guidebook. Model Statutes for Planning and

the Management of Change, p.6-54.

NELSON, A. C. AND T. W. SANCHEZ (2005): The

Effectiveness of Urban Containment

Regimes in Reducing Exurban Sprawl. In:

Disp 160, p.42-47.

NELSON, A. C. (2004): Urban Containment

American Style: A Preliminary Assessment.

In: Richardson, H.W. and C.-H.C. Bae (eds.):

Urban Sprawl in Western Europe and the

United States. Urban Planning and

environment, p.237-254.

NELSON, A. C. (1992): Preserving Prime

Farmland in the Face of Urbanization.

Lessons from Oregon. In: APA Journal,

Autumn 1992, p.467-488.

NEW JERSEY FUTURE (2010): Realizing the

Promise: Transfer of Development Rights in

New Jersey. A Report of the New Jersey

TDR Statewide Policy Task Force.

NEW JERSEY STATE PLAN COMMISSION (2001):

The New Jersey State Development and

Redevelopment Plan. Adopted March 1,

2001.

OREGON TASK FORCE ON LAND USE PLANNING

(2009): The Big Look. Final Report to the

2009 Oregon Legislature. (http://webserver.

lcd.state.or.us/BigLook/pg=26448.htm)

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION

AND DEVELOPMENT (2007): The Complete

Planner’s Guide to Periodic Review.

(http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/publication

s/periodic_review_guide_100107.pdf?ga=t)

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION

AND DEVELOPMENT (2001): Oregon Statewide

Planning Program.

OSTERTAG, K.; SCHLEICH, J.; EHRHART, K.-M.;

GOEBES, L.; MÜLLER, J.; SEIFERT, S. AND C.

KÜPFER (2010): Neue Instrumente für

weniger Flächenverbrauch. Der Handel mit

Flächenausweisungszertifikaten im Experiment.

Karlsruhe.

O´Toole, R. (2007): The Planning Tax. The

Case against Regional Growth-Management

Planning. Policy Analysis, No. 606.

PEDDLE, M.T. (1997): Farmland Protection

Policy: The Effects of Growth Management

Policies on Agricultural Land Values. Center

for Agriculture in the Environment.

(http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/2976

8/wp97-7.pdf)

PLAN SMART NJ (2010): How much Growth?

Where? To do What? Finding and Planning

Receiving Areas for the Highlands Transfer

of Development Rights Program.

PORTER, D.R. (2007): Profiles in Growth

Management. Urban Land Institute.

Washington D.C.

PRIEBS, A. (2006): Planung neu denken! In:

Selle, K. (eds.): Praxis der Stadt- und

Regionalentwicklung. Analyse. Erfahrungen.

Folgerungen. Planung neu denken, Band 2,

p.101-106.

PRIEBS, A. (1998): Instrumente der Planung

und Umsetzung. In: Akademie für

Raumforschung und Landesplanung (Hrsg.):

Methoden und Instrumente räumlicher

Planung. Hannover, p. 205-221.

RUBINO, R. G. AND E. M. STARNES (2008):

Lessons Learned? The History of Planning in

Florida. Tallahassee.

STATE TDR BANK BOARD (2007): N.J. State

Transfer of Development Rights Bank Board.

(http://www.nj.gov/agriculture/sadc/tdr/tdrARp

df.pdf)

SÜESS, A. AND M. GEMÜNDER (2005): Weniger

Zersiedlung durch handelbare Flächennutzungszertifikate?

DISP 160, p.58-66.

WIECHMANN, T. (1998): Vom Plan zum

Diskurs? Anforderungsprofil, Aufgabenspektrum

und Organisationen regionaler

Planung in Deutschland. Nomos

Universitätsschriften, Politik, Band 89,

Baden-Baden.

Weblinks

www.census.gov

www.metro-region.org

www.refina-info.de

www.smartgrowth.org

23

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines