SMART GROWTH AMERICA PROPOSAL
Introduction
Smart Growth America is pleased to submit a grant request for continued funding for coordinated
state smart growth campaigns. With generous funding from Surdna and other sources, in the first
phase of this project, SGA
1) completed extensive research on state and policy ripeness,
2) chose a set of smart growth policies (securing long-term funding for transit and transitoriented development) and a set of states (WA, CA, OR, MN, NJ, PA, OH and GA) where
we will support campaigns for those policies, and
3) began to plan and operationalize the campaigns.
Now that we have established a basic infrastructure for our state transit campaigns and begun to
launch them, the next phase of this work will focus on the research, policy development, coalition
building, campaign planning, and initial campaign implementation that will produce winning
campaigns. To do this, we are requesting $200,000 over one year, beginning February 2010
and ending January 2011.
Background
Smart Growth America promotes a better way to grow. We define smart growth by its outcomes.
Smart growth is growth that helps to achieve six goals:
1. Neighborhood livability; 2. Better access, less traffic; 3. Thriving cities, suburbs and towns;
4. Prosperity shared across the community; 5. Lower costs, lower taxes; and 6. Keeping open
space open.
All of goals, and the policies that SGA promotes to achieve them, are fundamentally about land
use choices. Good land use choices cannot guarantee community health, but poor choices almost
certainly prevent it.
In order to more rapidly advance this agenda, and scale up policies that were ripe, SGA decided
to move away from a “one-off” model of working with our state partners, and toward a model of
multi-state, coordinated campaigns. In February of 2009, Surdna provided a generous one year
grant to put in place the state and national infrastructure to launch a set of coordinated state smart
growth policy campaigns, spearheaded by state groups, and supported by a national
infrastructure.
At the same time we began that grant, we began a multi-state campaign to guide the
transportation money going to states from the federal “stimulus”. That campaign taught us (or
reinforced) crucial lessons that have shaped how we have designed the transit campaign:
1. Even states that are thought progressive on transportation and land use policy have very
serious trouble funding transit and TOD, even with a windfall like the stimulus. All of the
states we worked in have very serious transit needs, and none of them used the flexible
money in the stimulus to make progress on those needs. Transit received 2.8% of the
flexible funds, and that was after shifts produced by our partners.
1
2. State partners have widely varying capacities to shape the transportation spending that in
turn shapes land uses and communities. To improve their capacity, we provided partners
both transportation technical assistance (how to work with transportation agencies), and
campaign assistance (how to organize and use media to advance your agenda). Partners
were effusive about the difference our assistance made to their ability to produce change.
Taken together, it is clear that going forward:
1. If transit is to receive the money it needs to succeed as a foundation for communitybuilding, then that money must come largely from the states.
2. In order for our state groups to help produce that money, and produce a smooth process
like that which keeps a steady stream of roads designed and funded even in a recession, our
groups need significant technical support in both transportation policy and campaigning.
While running the stimulus campaign, we were doing the extensive research, outreach, and
campaign planning necessary to launch our pro-active multi-state campaign. Based on that work,
we selected a policy focus and eight states (WA, CA, OR, MN, NJ, PA, OH, and GA) in which to
launch campaigns.
Campaign policy focus:
1. Secure long-term sources of funding for transit systems
All of Smart Growth America’s priorities require public transportation that works. All of
the Surdna Foundation’s priorities require transit that works. Sustainable environments
require less pollution and less pavement. Thriving cultures require access and connection
for everyone, not just people with a car. Strong local economies likewise require access and
connection for everyone, in addition to a transportation system that keeps more money in
local pockets. And it is not a stretch to say that most of America’s social, economic, and
environmental priorities require transit that works. We cannot solve congestion, achieve
climate goals, or take care of our families with our current transportation system.
There is enormous good news around transit: more Americans say that they want to live in
compact development near transit—in other words, TOD; increasing numbers of
Americans are choosing public transportation over driving; and developers are responding
to that demand. For example, following the opening of the light rail line “the TOD housing
boom in Minneapolis has exceeded all expectations” (CTOD).
The bad news is that even as fluctuating gas prices and the recession have helped propel
transit ridership to record levels, states under fiscal pressure have cut service and increased
fares. Reduced transit access has cut vulnerable populations off from jobs and health care,
threatened to choke off the boom in ridership, and perhaps most worrisome, threatened the
basis for organizing growth around transit. Most smart growth, and all transit-oriented
development, requires stable transit as physical focal point and as economic driver. The
boom in TOD around the country has happened only around actual transit, and the more
permanent and high-quality the transit, the better the TOD. In other words, with the
exception of some kinds of rural communities (and even these increasingly need transit of
some kind), communities cannot get smart growth without real transit.
2
Thus, securing reliable, long-term sources of funding to support the provision of transit
services is more necessary than ever. It is also more politically ripe than ever. During the
months of research and planning we did to choose our issue focus, transit funding was the
issue that resonated most strongly with our partners. It wasn’t the only issue that resonated
strongly, but it was the only one that resonated strongly with everyone as both necessary
and potentially ripe. State partners’ discussions with legislators during the stimulus
campaign revealed a real interest in finding transit better sources of transit funding.
Our state campaigns will work to establish these funding sources.
One of the challenges we face in launching this campaign is helping our state partners
choose the right transit funding mechanism for which to campaign. Part of the current
crisis in transit funding has its roots in choosing funding mechanisms that fall with the
economy: sales taxes, automobile license fees, etc. Some have started to talk about a need
for counter-cyclical transit funds, but that’s not right either; transit also needs increasing
funds when demand grows during a boom. So we are looking for transit funding
mechanisms that are at a minimum constant, and at best grow steadily. We want to avoid
mechanisms that fluctuate by the month, like sales taxes and other kinds of taxes, and
pursue mechanisms that support multi-year planning. We will be framing transit revenues
in terms of their role ensuring regional vitality. From there, we will be able to advocate for
transit receiving multi-year commitments of regional revenues. These might come in the
form of bond measures, or statewide legislative commitments.
We will also work with our state partners to examine more localized mechanisms such as
value capture. Reconnecting America and CTOD have done path-breaking work on this
that opens the possibility of substantially decreasing the need for more general kinds of
support (“Value Capture and Tax-Increment Financing Options for Streetcar
Construction”).
2. Use new funding to produce more mixed use, mixed income transit-oriented
development. Transit systems work most effectively with transit-oriented destinations, and
vice versa. More transit is useless without TOD. Transit from nowhere to nowhere is not
success, nor is transit that contributes to sprawl by enabling people to drive from an exurb
to a park-and-ride garage on the edge of town. SGA’s goal in supporting transit transit is
ultimately changing land use, and we will ensure that the new funding does that.
Any transit funding measure spells out how the funds shall be spent. We have a solid basis
for getting TOD funding included in broader transit funding. Both desire and need for
affordable, accessible communities are at record levels, thanks to traffic, consumer
preferences, and gas prices (desire), and state climate action plans and policies to reduce
vehicle miles traveled (need).
Substantial knowledge exists on how to produce more TOD, and the models have become
far more sophisticated than simply subsidizing it. In many places, the demand for TOD is
so high that it quickly becomes high-end housing. Nonetheless, there remains in most
places a role and need for public money in TOD to ensure either that it gets built (say, site
assembly), or advances total community goals (say, ensuring affordability). We will include
in our transit funding campaigns incentives for TOD-supportive policies and pursue
passage of TOD-supportive state and/or MPO-level policies as part of transit campaigns.
Policies that we might try to attach to funding include: allowing transit funding to be used
for TOD (as done in Maryland), additional public dollars for units near transit (as done in
3
San Francisco); and dedicating dollars to preserving existing affordable housing in transit
corridors, following the needs identified by Reconnecting America and CTOD
(“Preserving Affordability and Access in Livable Communities: Subsidized Housing
Opportunities Near Transit and the 50+ Population”).
As with our selection of transit as the policy focus, our partners and stakeholders also agree that
TOD funding, and ensuring that transit funding goes to TOD-supportive places, need to be part of
the campaign. Our state partners agree that:

They can’t get smart growth without transit.

Having a funding component is critical to gathering political will around land use changes. In
many states there is no political point in pursuing a straight TOD agenda; even in states
where partners are working on a straight LU/TOD agenda, they agreed that a transit
campaign would be enormously helpful.
As a result of our research, and the conversations that have produced this broad agreement, we
and our partners have confidence that winning transit campaigns is both necessary and doable.
We have eight states with good opportunities for winning those campaigns: 1) a political culture
or situation that is potentially receptive, 2) on-the-ground advocacy capacity that can be
developed into a winner, and 3) geographic and political diversity.
Now that we have selected policies and states, reached agreement with our state organizations to
work together, agreed to provide states with funding for the initial campaign start-up, and begun
campaign planning in individual states, we are requesting additional funding from the Surdna
Foundation for support to:
 Complete a specific campaign plan for each state campaign,
 Continue putting in place the necessary national and state campaign infrastructure,
including SGA staffing, direct financial support to state organizations, and contracts with
consultants,
 Conduct policy development, targeted research, and develop outreach materials.
This funding will support work from February 2010 through January 2011.
Project Description
SGA’s multi-state coordinated campaign has three phases:
1. Select states and
policies
2008 > July 2009
Complete
2. Develop campaign plans
3. Implement full
and launch campaigns
campaigns
Choose campaigns
to implement
August 2009 –
2010 - 2011
March 2010
Underway
Phase I is complete, as reported in the progress report SGA just submitted to Surdna, and Phase II
is underway. In this application we are requesting additional funds to support the completion of
phase II—complete campaign plans, deep and aggressive campaign take-off, and initial campaign
implementation.
4
In Phase II we are, for each state:
1. Developing in-depth assessments of the political playing field.
2. Developing the policy platform for the campaigns.
3. Developing a more detailed campaign plan for each state that details how the campaign
will navigate (1) to pass (2).
4. Developing the coalitions.
5. Launching the campaign.
6. Implementing the early portions of the campaigns.
Toward the end of Phase II, we will
7. Assess likelihood of success for each campaign, and for those that seem likely go and raise
the money for full state campaigns.
Several of these steps will overlap and/or be iterative. For example, the assessment of the field,
and the coalition, will change depending on the policy platform, and vice versa.
We do not expect that all the states selected for this initiative pass Step 6. The Phase II funding
we raise is seed capital for the campaigns, and support for national infrastructure. Before
beginning Phase III, we will determine which campaign efforts can thrive, and then dedicate
support for those successful states.
The diagram above shows “Choose campaigns to implement” as occurring over time. Our
experience with the state stimulus campaign suggests that some state coalitions will reach a takeoff point quickly, and others, more slowly. Rather than plan to gather all campaigns plans on a
single day, evaluate them, and start Phase III on a given day, we will have a rolling process. This
will both allow us to respond nimbly to opportunities, and sets up an incentive to states to
accelerate their planning.
Beginning roughly in March 2010 (earlier or later depending on how quickly state campaigns
reach ripeness), we will begin implementing the early phases of the state campaigns. After several
months of implementation, we will assess the viability of a state’s campaign effort.
To continue to receive active support from SGA, a state campaign must have completed a
campaign plan, including a specific transit revenue amount and mechanism (sales tax, etc.), route
to passage (ballot win on x ballot, legislative success in y session, etc.), created the campaign
organizational structure, written a formal plan how to win, and established MOUs with key
coalition members outlining the terms of their participation in the campaign. All of these will
have been based on an extensive assessment of the political playing field.
In addition to these minimum thresholds, SGA will make our active support dependent upon
looking at additional factors including:

Assessment of political feasibility;

Breadth, strength, and opinions of the state coalition;

Sources of potential funding and funding commitments;

Quality and feasibility of the campaign plan;

Successes and difficulties in Phase II;
5

Organizational commitment to the campaign;

Assessment of any campaign co-benefits (tremendous press, grassroots growth, influence
on federal advocacy).
Based on these findings, SGA will then work with the states that are to receive active support to
fully build out and implement their campaigns. This will include providing further access to
experts and tailored campaign materials and research, as well as assistance with additional
fundraising for the state campaign.
In November of 2010, gubernatorial and state legislative elections will occur; in JanuaryFebruary of 2011, legislative sessions will begin in most states. Our state campaigns will likely
focus around preparing for those two opportunities to secure transit funding through ballot
initiatives or legislation. But, the final decision as to mechanism and window of political
opportunity will be made in the campaign planning process.
Outcomes: What do you hope to achieve with this grant?
SGA’s overall goal is smart growth: changing the built environment to produce vibrant
communities, access to opportunity, and better environmental outcomes. To get there, we need to
move away from an auto-oriented transportation and land-use system. That, in turn, requires
robust alternatives to that system, at the heart of which will be transit-oriented development,
Finally, we need that TOD to be to be supported by robust transit. We hope to achieve outcomes
that move us toward that robust transit, and that robust TOD.
Short-term outcomes
Specifically
 A subset of states that are ready to move into full campaign implementation.
 At least 50% of these Campaigns will have a strong component that supports TOD.
 All of these campaigns are engaging businesses to support TOD for economic reasons
 All of these campaigns are emphasizing TOD and transit as connecting people and
opportunity
 New insights into the campaign planning and management process that strengthen our
state-level work going forward.
Generally
 Continued change in the way that the smart growth community organizes itself to pursue
state-level opportunities: away from the current ad-hoc approach to a systematic,
coordinated, and strategic one.
 More state smart growth campaigns where those campaigns are chosen based on
knowledge of what’s been successful elsewhere, and the opportunity to achieve economies
of scale by pursuing similar campaigns in multiple states.
 Capacity in state organizations to launch and build subsequent state smart growth
campaigns.
 Greater communication and learning between state campaigns to transfer successful
strategies, tactics and products between state campaigns.
6
Long-term outcomes
 Passage of proactive transit funding and transit-oriented develop policies through
legislative, ballot measure and/or administrative means in up to 8 states by the end of 2012.
 A model for successful proactive smart growth policy work that can be scaled nationwide.
 Greater capacity at the state level, stronger coalitions, and more effective focus on state
policy change.
 In sum: a stronger, more effective smart growth movement.
Activities: What will you do to make that happen?
To achieve these goals, we will:
 Partner with current national experts in transit and TOD: RA/CTOD, APTA, etc.
 SGA will carve out the state piece
 Review internal and external transit and TOD research and resources and provide state
specific research, outreach, and policy materials.
o
What are the pros and cons of different transit revenue policies?
o
What should we learn from recent winning and losing transit campaigns?
A similar set of questions needs to be answered, in campaign-supportive form, for the
TOD policies that will receive some of the revenue.
Much of this material exists, but it is clear that too many of our state groups are not
familiar with it, nor is it in a shape that is campaign-usable.
 Hire campaign staff in each state, begin substantive campaign work based on campaign
plans.
 Determine, in coordination with funders, which state campaigns should continue to move
forward.
Indicators: How will you know if you’re succeeding?
Indicators of success include:
 State partners report significantly increased effectiveness in pursuing their state agendas
and a high level of added value resulting from access to a central infrastructure to support
their campaigns.
 Heightened stature for state partners and creation of effective coalitions at the state level.
 Significant transfer of lessons, ideas, and practices between state organizations.
 Passage of smart growth policies in target states.
 Increased joint planning and execution of future state level smart growth campaigns.
 Significant coordination of state and national strategy and execution.
7