Overview of Growth Management
Tools and Programs
from Across the U.S.
Patricia E. Norris
Michigan State University
NPPEC, September 23, 2003
Context:
Andy assigned to me, and I accepted,
an impossible task.
“Overview of Growth Management Tools and Programs
from Across the U.S.”
Growth Management Tools and Programs
 Sprawl
 Growth management
 Federal programs and growth
 Institutional change and incentives
more than a marginal change
 Ongoing policy debates
 Our challenge
Sprawl
 “I’ll know it when I see it.”
 the process in which the spread of development
across the landscape far outpaces population
growth (Ewing, Pendall and Chen 2002)
 Landscape has
a population widely dispersed, low density
rigidly separated home, shops and workplaces
road network with huge blocks and poor access
lack of well-defined, thriving downtowns or town
centers
Growth Management
 the deliberate and integrated use of planning,
regulatory and fiscal authority of state and local
governments to influence the pattern of growth
and accommodate development that achieves
broad public goals (Nelson et al. 2002)
 Contrast with growth controls, which limit or
ration development
Federal programs and growth
 National attempts at land use planning failed
1968 – 1975
 Federal influences on land use are generally
indirect, but can be powerful
 The 800 lb. gorillas
transportation
housing
Recent changes in federal law
 ISTEA, TEA-21 and SAFETEA
1991 – states can apply federal highway funds to
mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects
1998 – piloted a program of research and grants to
investigate transportation and community and
system preservation
2003 (proposed) – transportation-related land use
planning and growth management by regions and
states can receive federal grants
Proposed: Transportation, Community
and System Preservation Program
 States , local governments and metropolitan
planning organizations eligible for grants to:
improve the efficiency of the transportation system
reduce environmental impacts of transportation
reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure
investments
ensure efficient access to jobs, services and shops
examine private sector development patterns and
investments that support these goals
Location Efficient Mortgages
(Institute for Location Efficiency and Fannie Mae)
 pilot program in Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco
Bay area, and Los Angeles County
 Location efficient neighborhoods
residents can walk to stores, schools, recreation and
public transportation
transportation costs are lower
 Reduced transportation costs figured into
mortgage qualification
Smart Growth
(Smart Growth America)
 enhances and assures neighborhood livability
 does not depend upon automobile for transport
 focuses on needs of existing communities first
 enables all residents to be beneficiaries of
prosperity
 costs less to support so lower taxes
 protects open space
Downtown Revitalization
Situation: large stock of residential and commercial
buildings in need of rehabilitation
 Problem: state building codes and construction
standards designed to address new construction
 Solution: New Jersey wrote a new Rehabilitation
Subcode

buildings judged on meeting the requirements to provide a
safe building
basis for a national model code (HUD)
Focused Growth and Development
 Situation: Sprawl
 Problem: Costs of services, community, loss of
downtowns
 Solution: Maryland’s Smart Growth agenda
limits expenditures of state funds for schools, roads,
sewer and water development to “Priority Funding Areas”
targets state buildings, economic development funds,
housing loans and industrial development financing to
PFAs
Focused Growth and Development
Situation: School buildings in older neighborhoods need
repair or are too small so communities build big new
schools on large sites in remote areas
 Problem: states use percentage-based rules to allocate
funds for school construction, e.g. “60 percent rule”
 Solution: Pennsylvania and Maryland no longer use
percentage based rules; Maryland provides incentives
to maintain and renovate existing schools

Open Space Protection
Situation: Large areas of open space are being
developed or fragmented by development
 Problem: Agriculture, ecosystems, critical habitat are
sacrificed
 Solution: New Jersey amended constitution to provide
up to $200 M per year to open space protection

purchase in fee simple and add to public land
purchase development rights
purchase in fee simple, restrict deed, and re-sell
Open Space Protection
Situation: PDR programs are expensive and regulations
are politically challenging
 Problem: Rural zoning ordinances
 Solution: Cluster development, including conservation
design, appeases landowners’ property rights concerns
and addresses open space concerns

public and private interests have developed resource
manuals and guidebooks to assist local planning
commissioners in modifying zoning ordinances
On-going policy debates
 Dillon’s rule or home rule?
 Regional cooperation
 Open space protection – permanent or
temporary?
Our challenge:
Funds allocated for downtown revitalization are not
available for open space preservation
 Challenge for growth management programs is finding
the right balance across tools and programs
 Key to finding that balance is public understanding of
alternative approaches, their costs, their benefits, and
the trade-offs that may be necessary
 Public policy education is necessary to assure public
understanding
