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
![We've Got the Power! [Compatibility Mode]](https://img.yumpu.com/17827550/1/190x146/weve-got-the-power-compatibility-mode.jpg?quality=85)
Change language